Meanwhile - Cariboo RD Area B resident Bruce Johnston fires back at Ms. Glassford and tells her that her "old" ideas are stopping the North Cariboo sub-region from moving forward. Read that below
Mary Glassford is understandably disappointed at our rejection of the baby she laboured so hard over. She asks where were the people making the NO arguments five years ago? Sorry Mary, I remember the same arguments: that the multi-centre is too much risk for a town where the beetle has killed our economic base. Maybe the arguments seemed more real this time with the Canfor shutdown. Maybe they seemed more real seeing neighbours sell homes for less than what they owed on their mortgages. Maybe it might have been different if key NO organizers had had husbands that could find jobs in town instead of in Fort Mac or the oilfields. Maybe it might have been different if Quesnel did not celebrate the fact that there are no jobs here in its self-promotion. “Work Anywhere. Live In Quesnel.” shouts out that this is a dying town.In fact - Cariboo RD Area B Director Heloise Dixon-Warren opened the door to having Electoral Area B withdraw from the North Cariboo Recreation and Parks Function back on Nov 19th when she said:
Mary also decries the rumblings in Area B about leaving the Sub-Regional Recreation taxation area. The real question is, why there are not similar rumblings in Areas A, C and I as well? Look at the vote Mary. Nearly two-thirds of CRD voters said NO versus just over half in the city. You could have looked at the vote five years ago as well. CRD voters rejected the multi-centre then too. Those facts say to me that CRD voters do not think they are getting fair value for their tax dollars. They say that CRD voters see the city as a glutton. They say that major changes will have to occur before CRD voters will rah-rah the next taxation proposal. If ever. Mary asks why I am trying to destroy something that has served us very well for the last 30+ years. I assert that it has not served well; if it had, the vote would have been very different.
CRD residents are not getting fair value. CRD householders pay 54% of the residential recreation tax; city householders pay 46%. Yet over 95% of the recreation budget is spent within the city. Nothing gets spent in Areas A and I and the pittance allowed in Areas B and C is only sufficient to make the spending a waste of tax dollars. Every facility in the city is managed by well paid professionals but rural facilities (including Alex Fraser Park) are forced to struggle on volunteer managers with no staff support.
Yes, CRD residents are different. We are older (median age 47 versus 41) and tend not to want to drive 20 km at night (old eyes.) We are a lot more horse oriented and a lot less child oriented. Our kids couldn’t find jobs here so they are in Calgary or Kelowna or Vancouver. Our grandkids do not need swimming lessons because we only see them for a couple weeks per year. They don’t play hockey here because they are not here and their parents cannot afford it anyway. The Joint Planning Commission needs to recognize that assumptions of the ‘70s and ‘80s about recreation needs are no longer valid. The JPC needs to start addressing what we can do instead of what we wish we could do.
As a final thought, where were the politicos to represent NO in the Referendum? At the September 3 meeting of the Joint Planning Commission, the mayor and all city councilors present and all CRD directors except Heloise Dixon-Warner of area 'B' rah-rahed the multicentre plan. November 9 the voters said they were clueless about what citizens want. The vote showed that, in particular, CRD Directors Armstrong, Massier and Glassford were so far out of touch that they may as well have been on the moon. The Mayor and Councilors cannot say the city vote was narrow because in 2008 the same division was a decisive mandate. If the bunch of them were so clueless on a major tax issue, how could they be in touch on smaller issues? Vote them all out next year.
And Mary, this is not new news. Your tenure as CRD director and as councilor helped set up the dysfunctional situation that exists. Please step aside now, bow out. Your old ideas are keeping us from moving forward. Please let reality trump fantasy.
I live in area B. I will foster the leaving rumbles if only to give caution to the JPC. Deliver or lose us.
Recreation has its own function and all funds collected through taxation for recreation stays within Kersley to support their facilities. They even have a fulltime manager. Their budget is approved directly by the CRD board. When "sub-regional rec." (now NCRP) formed back in the 80's, I'm told Kersley opted to stay autonomous (independent / self-governing). Many residents in Kersley have commented to me that, for them, this was a good thing. The 3 rural / CRD based recreation facilities in the north are part of the larger NCRP function. The budgets they submit are 1st reviewed by NC Jt. Planning (Northern CRD Directors & City of Quesnel councillors) and then the recommendations of NCJPC are forwarded onto the CRD for ratification. It's a 2 tiered process. There are some rumblings within Bouchie Lake of assessing the opportunities to withdraw from NCRP and becoming a "Kersley". This is possible under Sec. 813 of the Local Government Act but it's likely not a simple task. The reality is that the centrally located jointly owned (CRD / City of Quesnel) facilities (Twin Arenas, Arts & Rec. Centre) still need to be funded and managed. I am more than willing to assist the community to assess the existing process, determine pros and cons, and look at options.
You can view Section 813 of the Local Government Act as it relates to the above here
In short - you can not have an participating area pull out from an existing Service (Function) until a Function Review has taken place first as per Section 813.08 of the Local Government Act. The first step is a Service Review which all participants in that Function participate in. If after a period of time, one participant is dissatisfied with the Review, then they may take it to the next step, a Service Withdrawal which has its' own series of steps as per Section 813.09 of the Local Government Act
Both Service Review/Withdrawal requires first that a letter be written to all participants & Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (Hon. Coralee Oakes) in a Function(s) that they intend to impose a Review or Withdrawal.
In short, both a formal Service Review/Withdrawal is a very seldom used tool as it tends to divide people very quickly and leaves a bad taste in people's mouths for a long time (remember the case of Service Reviews on Library System in North Cariboo and North Cariboo Recreation from 2002-2006)
~SF
2 comments:
It is short sighted and counterproductive to assume more than a small portion of the current budget would be spent out in the "Areas". The reality is that the vast majority is used to fund the major recreation centres (Arts, pool, arena) and the by-laws were set up exactly for this purpose, not to provide extensive recreation services in the areas. Building these large facilities anywhere except in a central location, to ensure maximum accessibility, is ridiculous to suggest.
Should the areas want more services than originally envisioned they should then be prepared to pay more for them.
This growing outcry of people only wanting things for themselves and not being willing to pay for things for the "greater good" is a dangerous path. As small groups of people we will never be able to afford what most have come to expect as minimum services. This can only be achieved by pooling our resources.
Just because you do not use certain services any longer, or never did, does not mean that they do not benefit the greater community and as a member of society it is reasonable to expect you pay your fair share for this ocntribution to our social and physical well-being.
As a senior I expect you do, or will, use the medical system far more than I do in the next 10 years and I am OK with subsidizing your use as it is for the greater good. In return I epxect you will also contribute to things my generation values, or requires.
This pitting of us against them is destructive and pointless.
As a Quesnel citizen that has recently moved back to the City it disheartens me to see how 'personal' our politics have become.
There are serious issues that need to be addressed, however they can not be if we continue to focus our attention on people and not issues. I would like to see the issues become the focus and solutions sought out as opposed to 'blaming' and 'accusations'.
When I read the slogan "Work out of town, live in Quesnel". I see it as a recruitment to new citizens not for current citizens. I have been in contact with several of my friends that live in the Okanagan (their spouses work, or are considering working in the oil fields) - I keep educating them on the economic, and lifestyle, benefits of living in Quesnel vs the Okanagan. I believe this slogan is doing just THAT - encouraging people already employed or considering employment in Alberta or the oil fields, to move their families here. I would hate to see this slogan be 'tainted' by the way in which is is being used in this article(blog).
When the focus becomes personal we lose site of the issues and all that's left is the desire to be 'right' or to 'win' at all costs - this will NOT bring solutions this will draw a line in the sand and make people choose 'sides'.
Post a Comment