Kelowna’s unemployment rate soars — city policy to blame

It was reported that Kelowna’s unemployment rate shot up in May to 11.5% being one of the highest among major Canadian cities and well above both the provincial and national rates of 7.6% and 8.4%, respectively. At 11.5% it is now above the pre-boom peak of 9.1% of 1991.

Mayor Sharon Shepherd attributes this leap in the number of unemployed to a sharp slowdown in building activity and the fact that about one in four jobs locally is related to the construction industry. So much for Economic Development Commission Chairman Robert Fine’s claim that the local economy has been successfully diversified. The truth is that it has become dangerously dependent on the construction sector in recent years as a result of Kelowna city council not putting controls on the pace of development and allowing the free market to determine our rate of growth. And whenever controls are foregone in favour of a laissez faire policy, rather than there being a moderate expansion, one can expect boom to be followed by bust.

However, the fallout from all this will not just be a personal problem for those who have lost their jobs but will be felt by the entire community. Sociologists universally agree that a rise in unemployment results in a higher crime rate and an increase in alcoholism, family breakdown, mental illness and suicide. And although a relatively small number have reaped most of the benefits of Kelowna’s boom, we will all be paying for the bust. As we watch the statistics that track social disorganization tick upwards in the weeks and months ahead, we should all remember those short-sighted men and women who have sat on city council for the past decade and have encouraged this to happen. If they have gotten any of the credit for the good times, they should receive their fair share of the blame for the bad.

Graeme James — Kelowna’s saviour of agricultural land

When Kelowna City Councillor Graeme James ran as a candidate last fall on the issue of protecting agricultural land in the city, I thought he was creating a false issue as there are adequate protections in place to preserve agricultural land, specifically the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). How surprised I was then to learn that at a recent city council meeting at his first opportunity to rule on whether to continue to protect some viable agricultural land in the case of the Stober property on Dilworth Mountain that Councillor James voted to recommend to the Agricultural Land Commission that this property be removed from the ALR. So instead of carrying out his election promise, James here favoured developing some of the agricultural land that he campaigned to protect.

But then I never took his election grandstanding concerning protecting agricultural land seriously, knowing James to be another anything-goes-development type in which he neatly fills the empty shoes of Carol Gran and joins like-minded councillors Andre Blanleil and Brian Given on council. It can be seriously questioned whether James who essentially bought his seat on city council having spent over $16,500 in his election bid, which was more than five times the average amount spent by councillor candidates, would have won otherwise. But now that he has gotten his foot in the door, he will likely enjoy a long career on council as Kelowna voters being a timid lot by nature don’t like to throw out incumbents no matter how bad their performance might be. It seems that the electorate prefers the devil that they know on council rather than take a chance on change, the only problem being that as a result they usually end up with a lot of devils.

The great swindle of the downtown CD Zone and density bonusing

I am providing a link to a recent article in the British newspaper The Evening Standard about London, but the article could just as easily be about Kelowna and how a certain developer pulled the wool over the eyes of an inept city council and convinced them to approve the downtown CD Zone.  Do people really want to re-elect these weak-kneed politicians who are readily and willingly conned by one developer after another? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23582125-details/The+great+planning+swindle/article.do

Did Given and Blanleil originally vote in favour of appealing the court decision upholding the Simpson Covenant?

 

As Kelowna City Council has yet to pass a resolution to make public the vote held in August to appeal the decision of the BC Supreme Court to uphold the legality of the Simpson Covenant, it is fair game to make educated guesses on which councillors voted in favour of appealing that decision.

 

One piece of useful information in making such educated guesses is the responses to the questions asked of all the candidates by the Okanagan Mission Residents Association. When asked “Do you support the appeal of the Simpson/Sawmill Covenant decision by Madame Justice Catherine Bruce?” most candidates answered in a clear manner which would indicate that they either favoured the appeal or they didn’t. Here are the responses by Councillors Andre Blanleil and Brian Given:

 

Blanleil – “I think we need a public process to clarify land uses available to the City for the land in question. I think that land should be protected for Municipal purposes.”

 

Given – “I released a public statement calling for a resolution to this issue, and it will be coming to council on the public agenda Oct 27^th.”

 

Notice, neither candidate gave a direct response to the question but rather an answer that was already looking ahead to council’s decision on October 27 to abandon the appeal and to initiate a public consultation process. I think that it is also very telling that Given and Blanleil were the mover and seconder, respectively, of the motion at that council meeting that effectively abandoned the appeal. Was that their mea culpa?

City council’s decision to drop the Simpson Covenant appeal does not exonerate them

 

On September 27 Kelowna City Council voted to drop its planned appeal of the BC Supreme Court ruling upholding the Simpson Covenant and thereby reversed the decision that council made in August. In addition to voting to drop the appeal, Council decided to initiate a public consultation process and ask the public to help clarify the municipal purposes for which the former Simpson land could be used. There would also be a public referendum on the outcome of that process in 2011.

 

While most residents applaud council’s action on Monday, it is fair to ask some questions about what has just transpired. The first question is why was this done? Is this a genuine new-found respect on the part of some on council for historic agreements involving the City or, coming as it does less than three weeks before the civic election, an insincere and thinly veiled attempt by some councillors to avoid defeat at the polls? And were it not for the proximity of the election, would this have happened at all?

 

A second question is, if going to the public to clarify the allowable uses on the former Simpson land was an option all along, why wasn’t this option chosen in August instead of council’s decision at that time to pursue a court appeal? The third and most important question is, has anything really changed with our city council so that they are once again deserving of our trust? I think the answer to the last question is “no,” as I don’t think that there has been any fundamental transformation in the style or thinking of some councillors who are running for re-election regarding matters such as transparency of decision making and public involvement. They are still the same people, and I don’t believe that what happened this week is anything but an opportunistic attempt, as Sharron Simpson put it, “to protect their political assets.”

 

This council will continue to make decisions in-camera even though they have the choice not to. This council will continue to avoid involving the public directly in decision making. And this council will continue to be guided by political expedience rather than principle. Nothing has changed. This council is not deserving of our trust. And in order to allow the public to be able to separate the sheep from the goats, council should pass a resolution to make public how individual members of council voted in August on the original motion to appeal the court ruling on the Simpson Covenant. The public has the right to know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kelowna City Council circumvents democracy yet again

I am appalled at the audacity of Kelowna City Council which by sending the matter of the downtown Comprehensive Development Zone to a public hearing on October 20 has signaled that it intends to make this monumental decision by itself during the short remainder of its term in office. Never mind that this council reflects the views of the electorate of three years ago and never mind that a council that reflects the current views of residents will be chosen in less than six weeks, the present city council thinks by virtue of its superior intellect and vision that it has the right to make this decision in the waning hours of its term.

 

Also never mind that our neighbouring communities of the Westside and Lake Country will be voting on referendums there, our all-seeing and all-knowing city council won’t be soiling itself by going to Kelowna residents for their opinion on the CD Zone in a referendum here. Our city council had decided some time ago that Kelownians don’t get to vote directly on matters of consequence like the Mission Aquatic Centre or the downtown CD Zone. Democracy is just a nuisance to these politicians who prefer to get it over with once every three years in order to get themselves elected, after which time they wash their hands of it and conveniently forget that the source of their power is the people. Then, during their term in office, they behave like total autocrats.

 

I am glad that Councillors Clark, Day, Gran and Letnick are not seeking re-election, but I am thinking that the remaining incumbents running for re-election are due for some serious humbling. Perhaps if Kelowna voters elected a new and all different city council, it would send a message to this bunch that, like the downtown CD Zone, they should not try to build their castles on unstable soil.

 

John Zeger for Kelowna City Council

REAL CHANGE for a Sustainable Kelowna

http://www.savekelowna.com

 

 

 

letter to Kelowna City Council on the downtown CD Zone (21)

Below is an e-mail that I sent to Kelowna’s mayor and city council regarding their initial consideration of the downtown Comprehensive Development Zone on October 6, 2008:

Dear Mayor Shepherd and Members of Council:

 

I have read the Planning Department’s report on the proposed downtown Comprehensive Development Zone and am sharing my concerns with you which lead me to conclude that not only is the CD Zone wrong for our city’s downtown but also that city council needs more information before sending this matter to a public hearing. I have itemized these concerns below:

 

Regarding the public consultation that has taken place, the Planning Department’s report fails to mention that the public survey the City conducted showed that nearly 50% of respondents didn’t want building heights taller than 14 storeys. Despite this finding, city staff went on to help design this plan in which most of the buildings are greater than 20 storeys. It is quite obvious that although the public was consulted here, its views were totally ignored!

The report mentions that the City has undertaken numerous initiatives to revitalize the downtown including “Gospel Mission relocation.” The Gospel Mission was never relocated!

       
The report mentions that “Sustainable development … will be the key element of the proposed CD zone.” I wish to comment that highrise buildings are not sustainable as they use more energy than any other type of housing on a per unit basis, a finding that is recognized by CMHC.

Regarding heritage, the submission by the Heritage Commission recognizes that important heritage structures will have to be gutted as a result of this development and that having only heritage building facades remaining is the lowest level of heritage conservation.

On the important subject of the relationship of the CD Zone to the Downtown Plan, the report cautions against adopting the CD Zone prior to revising the Downtown Plan saying “The proposed project and its relationship to other areas of Downtown will need to be addressed through a future revision of the Downtown Plan. … As the proposed CD zone would allow building heights in excess of the maximum allowable heights in the C7 zone, the expectation by the private sector could be that such heights are acceptable with the remainder of the Downtown. It is therefore possible that the proposed CD zone could have implications for the urban form of the Downtown outside the CD zone boundaries. The impacts of this have not yet been fully assessed or considered. The approval of the development in advance of considering the impacts on the rest of Downtown … could limit the options available for consideration at a later date.” Therefore, the City should revise the Downtown Plan prior to considering the CD zone.

The Kelowna Fire Department commented on the CD Zone proposal that “not enough information [was] provided” regarding fire safety within the CD zone area.

Fortis BC raised the subject of the need for a geotechnical study on soil conditions in the downtown prior to the development permit stage. This study should be done in advance of approving the rezoning!

The Works and Utilities Department noted that because downtown sewage lines are presently near capacity and that the increased density as a result of developing the CD zone will increase peak sewage flows beyond allowable levels, the City will have to spend $3,500,000 to upgrade the sewage system as it relates to the proposed CD zone.

For the above reasons, I do not think that City Council is justified in sending this matter to public hearing at this time.

 

Yours,

 John Zeger

 

 

JOHN ZEGER FOR KELOWNA CITY COUNCILLOR

WWW.SAVEKELOWNA.COM

Kelowna city council directionless on affordable housing

The decision at the September 15 Kelowna city council meeting to approve a strata conversion of a 30 unit rental property at 1777 Water Street is yet another example of the thoughtless and confused policies of our city council on the important issue of affordable housing. Most observers of the scene agree that there is an acute shortage of rental units here. In fact, this past spring city council decided that their priority would be to create affordable rental units rather than affordable ownership units. Why then did city council unanimously agree to remove 30 rental units from the market in return for the owner offering to create 2 affordable strata units along with 28 market ownership units in the project?

 

This decision is indicative of the muddled thinking of our city council when it comes to the dealing with the crisis of affordable housing here. At a time when the rental vacancy rate in Kelowna is near zero, there should be a moratorium on strata conversions. But don’t tell our city council as it is apparent that when it comes to the subject of affordable housing, they don’t know what they are doing from one week to the next. 

Letnick should choose which office he’s seeking: more

It seems that U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama does not have a monopoly on audacity as there is much of it to be found in Kelowna city councillor Norm Letnick, who has for all intents and purposes announced that he is running for two different offices — that of Kelowna city councillor and  provincial MLA. In regards to the latter, at one time Letnick was just interested in Sindi Hawkins’ seat, but he now says that either her seat or that of Al Horning would be just fine, and that he will bide his time until one ailing MLA or other decides not to run again – a pretty good prospect. In the meanwhile, he has announced that he will seek re-election as Kelowna city councillor. So what happens if Letnick gets re-elected to city council and an opportunity comes up to run for MLA next spring? It is apparent that the ambitious Letnick would resign from his council seat to run for MLA and that there would then be a need to have a city by-election at a cost to taxpayers of about $60,000.

 

Now I acknowledge that Letnick is an intelligent man who regularly contributes to the discussions at council meetings. However, I do not think that his record has been so exceptional that Kelowna voters should be satisfied to have him on council for only another six months after his current term expires and then have to pay the tab for a by-election when he decides to turn his back on the city to move up the political ranks. I think that Letnick should make up his mind right now to seek either re-election to council or to run for election as MLA next spring, but not both. And if Letnick refuses to choose, the voters of Kelowna should choose for him by not re-electing him to city council as I think there is enough talent in this city to adequately fill his shoes, and not allow him to play games with the electorate.

 

Dissent on city council is healthy

In breaking with the majority on city council over the Simpson Covenant court appeal, Mayor Sharon Shepherd has provoked a reaction from some members of council. One such member is Councillor Brian Given who in a recent public statement urged a resolution to this matter so that everyone can return to solve the city’s many problems which, in his words, “will require council, staff and our citizens to be focused and free of dissention.”  This is not the first time that Given has expressed his displeasure with dissent on city council having in the 2005 civic election urged voters to fill the vacant seats on council at that time with candidates who would contribute to it working as a “team,” which presumably means councillors agreeing with him on everything and sharing all of his goals for Kelowna.

 

In fact, it is the notion that city council should operate on a consensus basis, being for the most part free of controversy and dissent, which to me is one of the greatest problems with our present city council. Dissent is healthy for democracy and there is precious little of it there. Dissent causes people to reflect on their views and to take other views into consideration. When all views are heard, then hopefully the best ideas will be chosen and acted upon. But when all nine members of city council basically think alike to begin with, the intellectual atmosphere on council becomes sterile and creative thinking is discouraged. The result is the same trite and tired solutions to problems, a pattern that have been characteristic of our city council for a long time now.

 

Instead of dissent being viewed as something undesirable, it should be encouraged and embraced. This city needs new ideas and new solutions as the old ones haven’t served us very well. And instead of most major council decisions being made unanimously as a result of the absence of different thinkers there, it would be sufficient that they be made in the time tested and democratic manner – majority rule.