QUESTION: Referendum Process Costs. Who Pays
Results test 3
As I close this question, responses have been received from 31 of the 36 Candidates running for Council on November 15. Responses have not been received from Mayor Ruttan, Councillors Brennan and Greves, and Mssrs. Czac and Thompson. ( I was unable to find an email address for Mr. Al Thompson which could explain his absence.)
The results were as follows:
For option 1 (City Pays) ……………………. 0
For option 2 (Proponent Pays ……………27
For option 3 (AAP) ……………………………0
No numeric choice ……………………………4
I made no attempt to interpret the meaning of the reasons for not giving a clear answer, but if you read these 4 responses you may be able to discern where the respondents stand on the issue. Those who did not provide a numeric response were: Routledge, Henderson, McKay and Korpan.
The table above shows the results of the responses to the above question which have been received as of 8 pm,Oct. 28, 2014. Any straggling responses will be posted as they arrive.
I wish to especially thank Bill McKay and Brian Anderson for their understanding as they were at the cutting edge of convincing me that it would be better to ask a uniform question to all candidates than to debate with individuals. It was my fault and not theirs.
I also note that many respondents pushed the “Reply to All” button when sending their reply to me, thus sending it to all their competitors. Although I believe this to be a good outcome, it was unexpected. I hope it did not contribute to the uniformity of responses.
Some followup comments have come in from some Candidates even before the publication of this record. I suggest that they add these comments to this post themselves to clarify their position.
I hope that this format can work to provide a common means of understanding where candidates stand on issues. It will stand as a record even after the election.
Thanks to all the candidates for their efforts and particular thanks to those who have thus far participated on this blog.
Wendy Pratt has provided the following response”
“Of the three choices I would pick #2”
Fred Brooks has provided the following response:
“# 2 only, and public should have 24/7 unencumbered access, and hotel 100% responsible for all development costs, maintenance and upkeep.”
My campaign recently committed to a plan B proposal. If the development fails to start construction in the next three years I will try and convince Council, whether I have been elected or not, to acquire the land and expand Georgia Park.
Mike Horn Critical thinking on Council
Hi Ron Thanks for your effort. I receive 2 copies of your posts lately, could you remove the duplicate transmission. Thanks, keep up the work I appreciate it. Henk
Gary Korpan has articulated the best option of all; “Let the new Council decide after due consideration whether this (parkland lease proposal) even merits proceeding.”
Do you mean to say that the matter should be left up to the new Council? Which matter? There must be a referendum process regardless of which Council makes the decision about whether the proposal merits proceeding.? I am unclear about what Mr. Korpan is saying.
Excuse the delay in responding. I had hoped to find a Staff Report signed off by the City Manager with recommendations to Council respecting the Hilton Hotel proposal.
Perhaps someone can provide a link?
I would expect to find in this report an analysis of public policy which has been adopted by Council following public hearings and or referendums, documents such as the Official Community Plan, The Strategic Plan, The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Maffeo Sutton Park Improvement Plan and so forth which have bearing on the issue of park use. The only statement of interest is found in the latter plan where it is stated that;
“The following park improvement goals were developed during the 2004 referendum and are still guiding park improvement plans today: Increase public open space along the waterfront.”
Surely the public needs to be consulted via public hearing if any of these various plans need to be amended in order to allow private interests to build in public space.
Surely building structured parking in a park cannot be considered increasing public open space. In fact I should think that doing so would be subject to civil action.
So given this background going to Referendum or the Alternate Approval Process does seem out of step with reality. Allowing one project means allowing all kinds of projects to build on parkland, that seems to be crux of the matter and I doubt that citizens would support such amendments to Public Policy. I think the issue is quite simple, if a project won’t fit on a property then another property has to be found, because parkland is not available for such uses.
Karen Hovestad has provided the following response:
“Good Day Ron, I would vote for #2
And just out of interest, I have been looking at how other Cities manage certain things. If we look closely at how Hurricane Hazel has grown and managed Mississauga, she cites developer’s responsibility for all costs associated with development. Certainly NO tax holidays…let us acknowledge the value of what we have in Nanaimo and maintain the expectation that we have a truly desirable place and should not have to “lure” investment.