Thursday, September 21, 2006
Just what does binding mean here?
It there some secretly enacted bylaw in Abbotsford making it illegal to ask Councillors or City Staff probing, hard or difficult questions? As part of this hidden bylaw are staff and politicians exempt from answering, except when and where they feel like it? These questions popped into my mind upon reading “Beck stays mum on Big 3 details…”. Since I am posing questions just what does binding mean as used here?
A few weeks ago Mr. Beck was quoted in your publication as saying that the referendum was only about timing, not about if the proposed projects would get built. Now it is said to be binding. So which is it? Is the referendum a pointless waste of taxpayer dollars because these projects will be built no matter how loud the public’s NO is? Or is it binding and does binding mean that when people sensibly vote NO council will turn from this “Big 3” and address the many pressing small facility needs?
If the strike has caused problems in adequate planning and preparation exactly why are we rushing to hold the referendum in November? Oh wait; this is typical behaviour of council and staff, rushing in without thinking. Don’t think it is typical behaviour that has caused massive cost overruns, resulted in construction of facilities lacking needed aspects such as adequate seating for spectators and being a little short of what they should be because of such peccadilloes such as running out of room for the ice surface and having to cut it short of Olympic size? Just ask anyone who is familiar with the true tale of the building of the rink at ARC, at least those with nothing to hide about oversights.
This giving the bums rush to taxpayers seems likely to prevent thoughtful consideration of the plans and the City’s true needs as to facilities we need to build. Why the rush? Are there details and costs that will be kept hidden by forcing a rushed decision? Would taking a look at setting priorities based on what the City really needs get in the way of councillor and staff pet projects?
If we are to be rushed to judgement can we add the requirement for council and staff to act with careful planning and consideration, due consultation with the users of the facilities and prudent management?
Once these ill-considered, unneeded projects representing a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars are defeated with a loud, resounding NO we can get on with choosing and planning badly needed capital projects. Assuming that staff and council can recognize that NO means NO, that binding is binding and that the taxpayers who foot the bills have a right to set priorities for their City’s facility development and needs.
A few weeks ago Mr. Beck was quoted in your publication as saying that the referendum was only about timing, not about if the proposed projects would get built. Now it is said to be binding. So which is it? Is the referendum a pointless waste of taxpayer dollars because these projects will be built no matter how loud the public’s NO is? Or is it binding and does binding mean that when people sensibly vote NO council will turn from this “Big 3” and address the many pressing small facility needs?
If the strike has caused problems in adequate planning and preparation exactly why are we rushing to hold the referendum in November? Oh wait; this is typical behaviour of council and staff, rushing in without thinking. Don’t think it is typical behaviour that has caused massive cost overruns, resulted in construction of facilities lacking needed aspects such as adequate seating for spectators and being a little short of what they should be because of such peccadilloes such as running out of room for the ice surface and having to cut it short of Olympic size? Just ask anyone who is familiar with the true tale of the building of the rink at ARC, at least those with nothing to hide about oversights.
This giving the bums rush to taxpayers seems likely to prevent thoughtful consideration of the plans and the City’s true needs as to facilities we need to build. Why the rush? Are there details and costs that will be kept hidden by forcing a rushed decision? Would taking a look at setting priorities based on what the City really needs get in the way of councillor and staff pet projects?
If we are to be rushed to judgement can we add the requirement for council and staff to act with careful planning and consideration, due consultation with the users of the facilities and prudent management?
Once these ill-considered, unneeded projects representing a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars are defeated with a loud, resounding NO we can get on with choosing and planning badly needed capital projects. Assuming that staff and council can recognize that NO means NO, that binding is binding and that the taxpayers who foot the bills have a right to set priorities for their City’s facility development and needs.
# posted by James W Breckenridge : 4:32 PM
