"If they build residential, they are going to profit hugely by that. Why should the city have to pay for that work?"
Coun. Bob Fearnley, Sept. 12, 2011
CITY of North Vancouver Coun. Bob Fearnley was speaking to council's consideration of Concert Properties' reincarnation of its Harbourside development proposal that, as Benjamin Alldritt described in the News on Sept. 14, has been underway since June 2009.
Discussion of the terms of reference for the task force council had approved in July raised two serious issues for anyone who favours an unbiased process:
Alldritt's story highlighted the first issue - conflict of interest - in a quote from Coun. Rod Clark who said, " . . . I certainly wouldn't support approaching the developer for the money to support a staff person to conduct this (task force) work."
The second issue - task force bias - was revealed by Fearnley's blithe confidence that conflict of interest would not be a problem because, "Staff will influence what direction that task force takes. . . ."
The online Business Dictionary definition of a task force reads: "(A) temporary group of people formed . . . to solve a problem that requires a multi-disciplinary approach."
So what is the point of anyone paying $60,000, or any amount, for a Harbourside task force if staff is going to "influence" the committee to take the direction the city wanted all along?
Is that how things work?
Does that explain an earlier vote which saw some city councillors approve a $1million contribution to Port Metro Vancouver's design work for realignment of the Low Level Road - a donation PMV will repay only if council approves the project?
Perceptions notwithstanding, and likely to Harbourside's chagrin, Coun. Guy Heywood succeeded in his motion to defer further discussion until Jan. 2012 when a new council will inherit the hot potato.
Next up on Sept. 12, District of North Vancouver Mayor Richard Walton broke a 3-3 tie to approve going forward with yet another garbage-related tax - an initiative scheduled for city and West Vancouver council discussion on Sept. 19.
As is increasingly the case, the idea came from Metro. It followed the urging of Encorp Pacific - the Campbell government's de facto monopoly recycler - and a letter from Delta's Mayor Lois Jackson, chairwoman of the Metro Vancouver Board, to B.C. environment minister Terry Lake.
Euphemistically described by Allen Lynch, manager of the North Shore Recycling Program, as a "depositrefund" recycling diversion initiative, Metro wants a levy to be imposed on all milk and milk-substitute containers to encourage an "increase in the diversion rate in keeping with the Metro Vancouver Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan."
The charge would be reimbursed upon return of the containers to a recycling depot.
Claiming the initiative would have no financial impacts, Lynch's background report to council claims, "There would be little or no impact on social policy."
No financial or social policy impacts? Not for him, perhaps.
But as Kerry Blackadar reported in this paper Sept. 16, Coun. Roger Bassam begged to differ.
"What this equates to is creating a massive inconvenience for the consumer, which then turns into a tax."
Never mind, just so long as Encorp is happy.
Taxpayers, however, may be ready to petition councils for a redesignation of what used to be garages, carports and sheds to tax-exempt "personal environmental recycling collection stations" - PERCS for short.
What happened to Walton's Swedish-style vision of a single, multi-item recycling station? Didn't taxpayers fund that trip?
Instead of that attractive idea, hundreds of vehicles drive all over the district dropping off empties at Changes, bottle depots and the transfer station.
Rollout of the 360-litre Schaefer carts began around 1990, ostensibly to semiautomate collection and ease wear and tear on workers' backs.
The next decree was that carts could only be filled to within eight inches of the lid; then half-full and then to the current two-bags only.
Along the way, the bluebox/blue-bag/yellow-bag system was introduced and, in 2006, sale of the 360-litre carts was discontinued.
Voluntary recycling increased. Opposition from property-owners was minimal, despite the fact that wastecollection charges rose in lockstep with decreased service.
This time, however, milking the taxpayer takes on a new meaning.
The need to balance municipal budgets we understand; but people get antsy when they see 80 per cent of those budgets spent on salaries and benefits while quality of service declines.
The nickel and diming has to stop - especially for those who live below the poverty line, for that hidden population of British Columbians known to us only as "the working poor," and for seniors.
Talking of seniors, I can end on a positive note should West Vancouver council look favourably on a Kiwanis proposal to replace its current five-building, ancient seniors' complex with a two-building, five-storey Garden Village.
Assuming Kiwanis can address height concerns, and the fire department is OK with five-storey wood-frame construction, the Village would not only be attractive and functional, it would add a much-needed 86 units to the available housing stock for low-income seniors.
