Matt Todd's Pursuit of Idyll Minds

The fear of losing customers is so blinding for some business interests in White Rock that they seem to have lost focus on reality.

I completely understand the instinct to protect our ability to earn a living, and to defend someone else’s livelihood. What I don’t understand is how it has created fear to the point that rational thought is lost.

Over 85% of people in this area do not smoke. Statistically valid polls have concluded that this vast majority of people would visit restaurants and bars as often or more often if they were completely smoke-free. Only 4% said they would go less often. This is supported by the well-documented experience of cities all across North America. There is no evidence of negative impact from smoke-free regulations. In fact, the studies show that many places experienced an increase in business as the number of people who ate out more often outweighed the number who ate out less often.

It seems strange to me that local business advocates would cling so tightly to the status quo. Given such an overwhelming body of market research that says smoke-free bylaws are beneficial to business, neutral at worst, why are we hearing such a counter-productive stance from local restaurants?

Tobacco use is bad for our economy, locally, regionally, provincially, nationally. Is our society so addicted to short-term cash that we can’t see the long-term costs of health care and productivity losses? And in the case of our local businesses, are they so blinded by the sales generated from a small minority of smokers that they can’t see the potential of increased sales from the huge majority of non-smokers, many of whom avoid places with tobacco smoke?

When are we going to snap out of our denial of the fact that tobacco smoke is highly toxic? Despite science placing tobacco smoke beside asbestos and benzene as being poisonous even at barely detectable levels, we seem to cling to the illogical argument that tobacco is a legal product so therefore everyone should tolerate it.

I realize that a business doesn’t want to offend any potential customer so they don’t want to make their smoking customers feel unwelcome. But what they seem to be missing is that a larger number of people are offended by tobacco smoke, and that smoke makes them feel unwelcome.

Going smoke-free will be good for our economy. While I empathize with the passionate fears of those concerned about their livelihoods, all the local facts and the experience of other cities say that there is no reason to be afraid of smoke-free bylaws. In fact, the evidence suggests that economic boosters should embrace clean-air legislation.

What is “economic development”?

Wikipedia says “economic development is a sustainable increase in living standards that implies increased per capita income, better education and health as well as environmental protection.”

In White Rock’s experience, many if not most projects touted as being in the interests of economic development have actually been cultural, social, or environmental initiatives. So, I wonder why so much time, attention and resources over the past year has been devoted to creating an “economic development strategy”? Admittedly I am not an economist, but it seems to me that this is a very inefficient delivery method.

Isn’t much of economic dogma about seeking greater efficiencies? Wouldn’t those resources be more efficiently invested if applied directly to cultural, social and environmental policy development and projects?

Why are the heritage inventory, communications strategy, and tree protection bylaw taking a back seat to 2010 day-dreaming and economic development strategizing? These are things that we know are key to our community’s identity and economic success. And we’ve seen those same policies be very successful in supporting the economies of cities all around BC. So it seems ironic to me that what is now standing in the way of those initiatives is the diversion of resources into developing an economic development strategy. Yet, over the past year, the resources dedicated to talking about how the city needs an economic development strategy could have been used to actually implement initiatives we already know would be good for our local economy. It appears to be terribly inefficient wasting all that time and money on talking about the things that should have been done instead of doing the things we know should be done.

I hear from conservative capitalists that all that warm fuzzy stuff gets in the way of making cold hard cash – and that’s what’s most important. And yet, economic development strategy in White Rock usually ends up talking about beautification projects (cultural), housing development (social), and parks improvements (environmental).

I’m tired of the opinion that funds invested in cultural infrastructure, social services, or the environment is lost money. The things we most pride ourselves on in this community as being important to our economic well-being is our artsy atmosphere (culture), hospital (social), and waterfront park (environment). I say our best economic development strategy would be to not let all the talk about branding, increasing development, and the Olympics stop us from celebrating our culture, building stronger neighbourhoods, and improving our environment. Isn’t that the purpose of economic development anyway?

Besides, branding is a cultural exercise and expression, development is for social advancement and improvement, and hosting the Olympics is about showing off our cultural heritage and environmental stewardship.

In this respect, I agree with many economists, it looks like the best thing the City could do for the economy in White Rock right now is to stay out of the way. Instead, invest all that time, energy, and money in cultural infrastructure, social services, and environmental improvements.

I have been asked by people in the past, “how do you sleep at night?” They are implying that I should feel guilty for not agreeing with them or forcing a decision against their will.

My answer is that I often don’t sleep well. The decisions I make often keep me up at night. But it’s not guilt. It’s worry and second-guessing about the decisions I’ve made. And the horrible feeling of having people angry or disappointed in me.

I’m always open to the reality that I don’t know everything and there will always be someone smarter with a better idea. So no matter what my judgment, no matter how much research or thinking I’ve done, I could be wrong – someone could present something I hadn’t considered before that changes everything. I have to keep an open mind, even if I’m confident I’ve made a good decision.

I care about people. That’s why I do what I do. I’m a councillor because I want to help make life better for my neighbours. And I’m human – I want other people to like me. So it’s stressful when I’ve let down or angered someone. It’s a gut wrenching feeling. It doesn’t matter whether I agree with them or not, or think they shouldn’t be upset, just knowing that someone doesn’t like me feels terrible.

I would sleep better at night if I absolved myself by following the direction of the people in the audience or a staff report. Then I could just dismiss any criticism by explaining that I was just following someone else’s advice – I was just doing what I was told to do. If that advice turned out to be faulty, it’s their fault, not mine. If the result of my decisions weren’t my responsibility, I could make decisions based solely on making people like me.

But I can’t do that. I believe the short-term results of my decisions need to be balanced against the long-term outcomes. And I think that means taking responsibility for my decisions which, to me, means making up my own mind and trusting my judgment – I need to truly believe that it is the right decision.

If I didn’t take responsibility for my decisions, I wouldn’t have to worry about making the right decision. If I could let someone else make the decision for me, I wouldn’t have to take responsibility for my decisions. But I don’t believe in pass-the-buck decision-making, so sometimes worrying about making the right decision, and taking responsibility for that decision, makes it hard to sleep at night.

I felt paralyzed by indecision at last night’s council meeting. I found myself in an impossible place between two types of democracy – direct or representative. The neighbourhood was unanimously opposed. I asked them to explain their fears, and they did so very well. But in my review of the application and the communications from the neighbours, I wasn’t opposed. I wasn’t necessarily in favour either – I could easily argue both sides. So how do I make a decision when there’s a group of people who think something will be bad for them, but I am confident that it won’t be?

If it were simply a question the applicant making money, that would have tipped my scale in opposition – all else being neutral, I would rather please the neighbours than allow someone to bend the rules to make some money – but in talking with some of the neighbours and walking the street, it seemed the subdivision might actually be better for them than the status quo. The house across the street would retain a view of the ocean and the rhythm of the houses would be more consistent with two houses than one.

I came to this conclusion because I’ve been learning about urban planning and design and seeing the impacts of applications I’ve had to vote on for four years now. I’ve learned a lot.

That’s why I’m elected – so that others in the community don’t have to do all that reading and testing of assumptions and ideas. I do that on their behalf. The challenge with that is sometimes the people I’m elected to represent won’t understand the decisions I make. Does that make the decisions wrong?

In direct democracy we trust the wisdom of the collective of whomever chooses to vote and allow them live with the results of their choosing. In representative democracy we trust a group of representatives to study the information and perspectives and objectively render a judgment, then replace them if we are not pleased with the results of their decisions.

So, faced with a group unanimously opposed to a project in their neighbourhood, do I vote against the proposal even though I don’t believe their fears would materialize? Or do I vote for the proposal because my conclusion is that it would benefit more people than the alternative? For the first, I would make a lot of people happy and they would probably vote for me in the next election. For the second, I would actually be implementing the vision expressed to me by the neighbours… but they wouldn’t see it that way and would probably not vote for me in the next election.

In the end, I chose the second… but only after I spoke to the first. And so I ended up with the worst of both options. Everybody walked out disappointed with me, and the project was defeated anyway. But worse still, my last minute change of mind created a confusion that is probably worse than anything else. Voters hate surprises. They also hate overt indecision.

I voted for the choice I believed, based on my experience, would be best for the neighbourhood. I chose to trust my judgment. Unfortunately my attack of conscience last night benefited no one and likely cost me several dozen supporters.

Just because an approach is “common sense” does that make it right?

“Common sense” ranks high on my list of most hated words. It’s up there with “the public”. Like my reaction to disrespect, they trip triggers that turn off my ears and put me on defensive, even if I agree with what’s being said.

It takes deliberate effort for me to stay focused on listening to someone’s concerns rather than building arguments that disprove the common-ness or sensibility of their assumptions. I think I’m getting better, but I know I have to keep working on it.

To say that something is common sense is to dismiss ideas or perspectives that might disagree with your conclusion. It can be used to intimidate, as if to say that if a minority disagrees with the majority, the minority is obviously wrong. It also ignores the possibility that new things can be learned. The assumption is that there is nothing more that could be said, discovered or understood that would change the perceived majority’s view.

Implying that someone whose ideas do not conform with the majority must therefore be wrong, serves to humiliate them into accepting something different. Maybe their idea isn’t correct, but the simple fact that the majority doesn’t see things the same way isn’t what makes them incorrect. What if one person sees something before anyone else? What if they got a new idea that no one had considered before?

I look for quality of ideas, not quantity of believers. So-called common sense has severe limitations. Much of what I’ve been told is common sense over the years, on thinking it through, I find is either not common or not sensible.

My discomfort with “the public” is rooted in the same observations. It is too often used to make broad sweeping judgments about society or our community. Just speaking those words creates an us-versus-them confrontation. Of course, sometimes it’s completely within context to refer to a large population as a single entity, but that seems rare in my experience.

Just as with “common sense”, “the public” is too often used by those attempting to pressure someone into accepting their way of seeing something by intimidating or humiliating them rather than trusting the strengths of the ideas offered.

Property taxation is how we all pitch in to help pay for services that everyone who visits here, lives here and works here, uses and benefits from. Each property contributes towards the costs of running the city, providing those services.

It is important to make principled decisions. It helps to stay rational and not simply react emotionally to an issue without fully thinking it through and looking out for any possible unintended consequences. It also ensures decisions are consistent and everyone gets treated fairly. I believe the City should follow these principles whenever considering a grant or tax exemption.

1. Must be a registered charity
Being a registered charity is a high standard and requires a much greater degree of accountability than an unregistered group or registered non-profit society. That certification from senior levels of government is an important safeguard for White Rock taxpayers subsidizing community service organizations.

2. Must provide free services to White Rock residents
White Rock residents must receive a direct benefit. The services offered must be provided to residents of White Rock free of charge. There should be no subsidy of any business regardless of whether the profits benefit a charity or not. That would not be fair to others in the community, especially competing businesses.

3. Must own the property
The benefit of the tax subsidy must be to the benefit of the charity only. Lease or rental from a third party landowner must not be subsidized and market rates must not become distorted by property tax subsidies.

4. Property be used as the location for delivery of services
The intention is to support the delivery of services, not to subsidize businesses. Real estate investment is a business. If the land is not being used to deliver services, then it is a business investment. In the interest of fairness, no business should receive government subsidies.

My thoughts after viewing the Arthur Erickson show at the Vancouver Art Gallery…

Our pioneer mentality that we must conquer nature is suicidal. It is creating an environment that is alien, dirty, and dangerous.

Must our cities be a subversion of nature, a denial of the local geography, environment, ecosystem?

This Arthur Erickson speech from 1972 sounds like it could have been made last year and been just as relevant.

Our self-destructive path begins with the way we plan our transportation systems and public spaces.

On a separate, but arguably related issue, Erickson says, “there has never been a device which embodied greater antipathy to the idea of community than the North American grid…”

Some people tell me that White Rock is too small to be viable, too small to be efficient, and should or will inevitably have to rejoin Surrey. I used to be resigned to this as being a real possibility. And I thought, really what’s the difference in a resident’s day-to-day life? They will still call this area White Rock, just like Cloverdale, Ocean Park and Crescent Beach all have their own established unique identities. But now I see how being small gives an advantage to something that cannot be measured in dollars and cents: democracy.

In White Rock, the city is small enough that you have a good chance of bumping into an elected official on the street or in the grocery store. If you have a problem with a city service, you don’t have to leave your community to solve it. You can actually talk with the people making decisions. The staff and elected representatives have a relatively high degree of awareness of your neighbourhood. There aren’t multiple layers of receptionists and assistants between you and the city manager, city planner, or a city councillor. The city is small enough that you can expect personal attention. It’s reasonable to expect to be heard. That creates a stage for good citizen participation in governance and public decision-making.

But what about the money?

Though I haven’t studied it, my belief, after watching how White Rock works from the inside, is that there actually would not be a significant net decrease in staff if White Rock were to amalgamate with Surrey. The only way that would happen is if there were a reduction in service, which of course could happen without amalgamation. The work being done by White Rock staff is work that would have to be completed regardless of the jurisdiction’s size. Unless there are staff in Surrey sitting around needing more to do, I don’t see how White Rock’s staff wouldn’t still be required.

While there would be some advantages and improvements in service due to amalgamation, such as garbage and recycling picked up on the same day every week, there are disadvantages and reductions in service (such as the police per person ratio) that would probably make you want to go back to paying the extra 10-15% on your taxes to be a smaller city. This series of observations and assumptions seems validated by second-hand information that the big-city mergers in the east didn’t actually result in any net savings. Money that was saved in one area had to be increased in others.

If amalgamation simply results in decision-making further removed from residents in their neighbourhoods and diluted elected representation, I don’t see it being worth losing that kind of democratic ideal in hopes of a small monetary savings.

As can be seen in how Surrey is developing, obviously the expectation of better coordinated planning is not a certainty within a larger city. I suggest Surrey is too large. Surrey should 4 cities: Whalley, Cloverdale, White Rock, and Newton. Newton should amalgamate with a separated portion of North Delta. Cloverdale should amalgamate with Langley City and a portion of Langley Township. And White Rock and South Surrey should be a city unto itself. To provide for those efficiencies in operations that might be lost, and to ensure better coordination of services and planning, I see a stronger role for the regional government. This would be an expansion of current practice. Cities already team up to buy some products in bulk, negotiate labour contracts, provide delivery of public transportation, drinking water, sanitary sewer and air quality services.

I believe one of White Rock’s greatest disadvantages is that it doesn’t have the capacity to hire experts to help find new solutions in urban and social planning. Surrey is beginning to invest in that type of expertise, but the region as a whole relies heavily on the City of Vancouver to provide that type of leadership. Their taxpayers pay for the research and pilot projects, then the smaller cities learn from them. But this really should be a function of the regional government. That would shift the cost of that research, and the benefit, more equitably throughout the region.

I believe the model of local government described above would facilitate both greater access for citizens to decision-making and decision makers, and improve local service with better coordination regionally.

So, instead of asking, “is White Rock too small?”, maybe the question should be “is Surrey too big?”

Everyone knows that greed is the root of all evil. It’s used to explain why a developer would destroy a neighbourhood – they swoop in, make tons of money, then disappear leaving a mess behind – all for the sake of that intoxicating, corrupting profit.

The dictionary defines “greed” as an intense and selfish desire. Many times I’ve heard that greed makes people blind to the obvious and do things that don’t make sense in the long run. I agree. I believe it’s well demonstrated by hypocrisy and greed often arriving as a pair. It’s amazing how people’s perceptions of greed can be projections of their own intense and selfish desires.

If translated into the language of 9 year old, disagreements between neighbours and a prospective developer would often sound like a lot of name-calling and, “I know you are but what am I”. But really, doesn’t it take one to know one?

My advice? Don’t talk about the developer. Talk about the development. Don’t talk about what you don’t want. Talk about the qualities of what you do want. And please don’t fling the “greedy” label. Name-calling never helps.

Why is it that I see the same people angrily lecturing me to respect their right to express themselves then get outraged when I express my own perspectives. Am I not also entitled to a personal opinion, or did I abdicate that right by being elected? Public debate should be about sharing ideas and stories, not name-calling and personal insults. It’s a sad commentary on our society that we cannot have a public dialogue without some people being abusive and rude. Please, let’s have a debate of ideas without judging the people in the debate.