Not quite done with political opinions

I thought that since the election was over, and the votes were counted, that I was done spouting political drivel and opinions, but I have one more thought. Next week, after the inaugural council meeting, I'll probably have another as well. Hee-hee.

Anyhow, today's thought was prompted by the front page article in the Alaska Highway News, which quoted parts of Mayor Eglinski's and Councillor Simpson's farewell speeches.

Poor Karen Simpson, I think she really wanted to continue on Council, apparently she was in tears following the election, and was again during her speech. Not that I blame her, she did a good job and obviously enjoyed the role she was playing in the community, for the community during her 9 years on council.

Jim Eglinski's speech was quite amusing, in my opinion. "You have elected a dubious new mayor." The AHN quoted him as saying. "I say to the citizens and council of Fort St. John: be vigilant with your new leader." - Sounds like a variation on caveat emptor. He apparently doesn't think that Bruce Lantz is going to be a good leader.

Leadership does require certain qualities, which not everyone possesses. I don't think I have them, one of the reasons why you will never see me running for any kind of political office. I think that to be a good leader, you have to be able to roll with the punches (yeah, I know, a cliche, but please bear with me), and not take offense at the dung that gets heaped on your head. Leaders get blamed for everything that goes wrong - take the Enerplex for example. Some people have called it the Eglinski-plex and said that it was Mayor Eglinski's pet project and that he's to blame for that has gone wrong, or been perceived as wrong, with it. Yet he is just one of 7 members of council. All the council members collectively, democratically, made the decisions surrounding that particular project. And indeed, all projects.

Yet Eglinski didn't appear to take offense, when he was so accused. Will Bruce Lantz, be as even-tempered and patient with his accusers when his time comes, as it no doubt will? Or will he try to shift the blame to others, instead of accepting the fact that not everyone agrees with all decisions a government makes? That, I think, is the nature of politics - you can't please everyone all the time.

However, pleasing people or not, you still need to be a good representative of the community you lead. You need to be able to keep a calm demeanor in the face of accusations from the public, when faced with disagreement from both voters and fellow council members. Taking offense is not an option. Keeping one's smart-ass comments to oneself is also a good idea. That would be an extremely tough one for me! But some people are under the misguided notion that they are funny, and that everyone wants to hear these comments. Again, not an appropriate trait for a leader.

Still, we will see what happens. As always, I will hope for the best. It would be a shame if Mayor Eglinski's caution to the people and council of Fort St. John proves to be necessary. Especially in light of the fact that hardly anyone cared enough about the future of our city to vote.

Where the hell were the voters?

Man, this municipal election totally stunk. Seriously - 28% voter turn-out in Fort St. John - yet Hudson's Hope had 70% turn-out, and Dawson Creek, which has 5,000 less people than FSJ had a 40% turn-out? What is going on? Okay, it was snowy and the roads were icy . . . but they were in Dawson and the Hope too.

This annoys me. Obviously. Whatever the results of the election, it was all part of the democratic process, but how can you have a properly democratic process/election, when nobody shows up to vote? I hope they realize, that if they didn't vote, they have absolutely NO right to complain about what goes on in city council.

Of course, the people who will complain the loudest, no doubt will be the ones who didn't vote. I mean, isn't that always the way?

As for the actual results, I supposed I'm mostly pleased with how it turned out. Most of the people I voted for got elected. It's kind of funny though, three of the councillors elected got more votes than either of the mayoral candidates. What does that tell you? Not necessarily that people think that either Jim Eglinski, or mayor-elect Bruce Lantz will do a bad job . . . but rather that more people have more faith in some of the councillor choices, than our choices for mayor.

I tend to think so too.

I'm not saying that I thought Jim did a bad job as mayor. He didn't do as badly as some people would have you believe. Besides, he was only one of 7 people on city council. He only had one vote. He just happened to be the guy who everyone blames. Such is the life of a mayor. And Bruce Lantz is, politically, an unproven entity. You know who I thought would make the best mayor, out of all the people who ran for Fort St. John City Council? Bruce Christensen. After reading the interview with him in the paper and listening to him on the radio, it's clear (to me anyhow) that he would make a good mayor. And he was one of those who got more votes than the mayoral candidates. He got approximately 300 more votes than Bruce Lantz, who is our next mayor. Of course, Larry Evans got even more votes, but I think he does a great job right where he is. As a city councillor.

So we'll see how the city fares over the next three years. I can, and will, complain whenever council does something I don't like - as is my right, since I voted. But I tell you right now, we'd better get a new fire hall, and soon. That is one piece of capital spending that is absolutely necessary. Oh yeah, they'd better hurry up the people who own the Fort Hotel - that thing is an eyesore and needs to be demolished asap. A controlled burn, or a few sticks of dynamite could've fixed that months ago.

Thanks for reading, as always.

The stupidest thing I've ever seen ...

Seriously. This has to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen . . . election-wise, anyhow. Some dumbass has been putting flyers on people's vehicles telling them not to vote for the incumbent councillors or mayor. And saying they should vote for new people, specifically Bruce Lantz, instead.

Retarded. To see what I'm talking about, follow this link: http://www.energeticcity.ca/news/11/12/08/fsj-municipal-candidates-warned-after-public-complaint-about-leaflets

I don't believe that the person responsible is one of the incumbents out to discredit Bruce Lantz, nor do I think Lantz himself would be so stupid. Obviously, it's someone with no clue or too much time on their hands, who thinks it's funny to mess with the electoral process. Or both.

However, this performance is not going to affect my choices. I already voted yesterday. Not going down there on Saturday with all three kiddos and masses of other people voting. Too much of a hassle. But neither am I going to forgo my right to vote.

So check out the link . . . and don't forget to vote on Saturday, if you haven't already! Thanks for reading.

Analysis Part III - The Mayoral Candidates

It’s been almost a week since the All Candidates Forum, and my impressions haven’t changed upon reflection. I didn’t listen to the broadcast again – haven’t had time, we’ve had a few sick people in the house, myself included – but after hearing the two mayoral candidates on Issues & Answers this morning, I’m sure my first impressions were correct.

At the forum, Jim Eglinski came armed with facts, figures and statistics. Admittedly, being the incumbent Mayor, he has ready access to these, but if I can get the City’s financial statements off the internet, the same facts and figures should be available to everyone. Bruce Lantz, the challenger, did not have any figures or stats at his finger tips.

When asked, Eglinski was able to tell the public how much residential taxpayers would have to pay annually for the Enerplex – about $40 I believe the tax increase would be. Businesses, of course would be more and he had general figures on that. Basically, the larger the business, the bigger the bill. He said the new Fire Hall must go ahead, for the safety of the community and to keep everyone’s insurance rates lower. If we do not have adequate fire protection, the insurance companies will charge people higher rates for their fire insurance. Who wants that?

Conversely, Lantz simply said if he become mayor, he will advocate a freeze on ALL capital spending for 6 months in order to assess it. He was also not in favour of a new Fire Hall, stating that it was not a critical situation … how would he feel if it was his house that caught on fire? I’d say it’s critical – as a voter, I believe fire protection is extremely important and always a critical issue.

Lantz also advocated a 0% tax increase. Okay, as a tax-payer, that sounds good to me too. However, because Premier Gordon Campbell has ordered a freeze on building assessments throughout the Province (in light of the world financial crisis), our assessments won’t be going up, and therefore our taxes won’t either. At least that’s my understanding. If there’s someone reading this who is more informed on this matter, please feel free to comment. I admit I don’t quite get how the City’s mill rate and the building assessments work together to come up with the taxes we have to pay.

Lantz also discussed the downtown revitalization project. He called for turning the empty office spaces above downtown businesses into apartments, stating that the building owners can’t rent that office space out for $300 a month, so it would be better to turn it into housing. Which would also address some of the City’s housing shortage.

However, I heard this suggestion from Councillor Larry Evans over a month before Bruce Lantz mentioned it at the Forum. It’s not a new idea.

Back to the taxes. When the City was faced with many angry business people, following the announcement that business taxes would increase by 42%, they worked with the businesses (in three separate meetings, I believe) to find an alternate solution. The taxes did increase, quite a bit, but not the 42% originally proposed.

Now, Lantz said on the radio this morning (Issues & Answers on energeticcity.ca) that the remaining 20% would be added onto the 2009 taxes. Eglinski, who as Mayor, was presumably present at all 3 of these meetings, said that was news to him.

So, is someone making up these figures, or someone else asleep during these meetings? I think this information is probably available to anyone who asks . . . and I certainly don’t recall reading anything in the newspapers (either the Alaska Highway News or the Northeast News) about this. Therefore, it is news to me too.

But you be the judge. Listen to the interviews on www.energeticcity.ca on the Issues & Answers page, and the Municipal Election page and make your decisions. Don’t just take my word for it.

Please, however, get out and vote on Saturday, November 15 . . . that’s 5 days from now. You don’t have to vote for all 6 councillor positions, and you need only to vote for one mayoral candidate. I didn’t vote for 6 people last time – there were some I didn’t think deserved to get elected. No doubt it will be the same this time.

Thanks again for reading – and don’t forget to VOTE!!

Analysis Part II - After the Candidates Forum

My first impressions, following last night’s forum (without listening to the broadcast again on energeticcity.ca), was that some candidates are definitely more memorable than others, and not necessarily in a good way.

Looking back, it seemed that Don Irwin, Bruce Christensen, Josh Wilson and Warren Mears didn’t have a lot to say. Perhaps this is because they are not as outspoken as some of the others? By and large, the incumbent councillors (Larry Evans, Karen Simpson, Lori Ackerman, Dan Davies, Don Irwin, and Bruce Christensen), feel that council has done a good job in the past three years, and they would like to continue working for the community in their current capacities. All agree that services in the City need to be improved, including police, fire department, as well as infrastructure and handicapped accessibility.

Some of the new candidates, were extremely outspoken in their opinions of what they feel the current council has done wrong. The addition of one or two of these voices will certainly shake things up during council meetings, but I wonder if that’s really good. It’s been said, that Don Irwin is the lone voice of dissent in council meetings – not having attended any, I cannot say whether this is true, but certainly at the forum last night, he was quiet and most notably calm in expressing his opinions.

Not so, for Theresa Mucci-Rodgers, who quite clearly, has some issues with the City and present council. Just from listening to the broadcast last night, not going over it again yet today, her main issue is land. And what the City should do with it. And where the City should get it, in order to build the new fire hall. While I agree with some of what she said, namely that we shouldn’t spend $3 million for a chunk of land, the rest of her speeches struck me as nothing more than angry tirades.

Larry Evans, also had a bit to say on the construction of a new fire hall – as he was a fire-fighter in this city for years, and later, fire chief, I tend to put a lot of stock in his opinion on this matter. He says we need a new fire hall. Okay. But where? No one has mentioned the piece of land directly behind the current fire hall, which the city must own. The fire dept stores some of its stuff there, and has practiced putting out vehicle fires there in years past. What is wrong with using this piece of land to build a new fire hall, and possibily incorporating the current fire hall, by upgrading it in the same manner as the (much older) City Hall? Nobody either asked this question, or addressed the possibility. It seems to be a given, that a new, large, piece of virgin land in the City is required. Bollocks.

Larry also seems to be a big proponent of issues important to Seniors. Makes sense to me, we’re all going to be old one day. He wants to turn the old hospital (when the new one is built) into a centre for Seniors, some place where they can see their doctors, get care and take the pressure off the regular hospital. Currently, a number of Seniors spend months in the hospital, waiting for spaces in area Care Homes, after it becomes clear that they can no longer remain in their own homes, for whatever reasons. I think Larry is onto something there.

As far as the rest of the new candidates go, Trevor Bolin has jumped on the “I was born and raised here and I love FSJ” bandwagon, created by Dan Davies and Larry Evans. Certainly, I’m not disputing that fact, but we’re not going to vote for a guy just because he was born here. He seems to be a committed partisan of businesses, big and small, which is understandable, given his day-job as a real estate agent. He didn’t rant and rave, but then again, he didn’t really seem to take a stand on any major issues. Except he was in favour of lower taxes. Everyone, the world over, is in favour of lower taxes. I've never met, or heard of anyone who wants to pay MORE taxes . . . have you?

Connie Wowchuck, from some anonymous town in Saskatchewan – I don’t recall her saying where she was from originally (perhaps the kids were fighting and I missed it?) – didn’t take a stand on any issues at the forum either. My impression was that she talked about what she did in Sask., how hard she worked and how good she was. Who cares? What is it about FSJ that makes her want to run for council, and where does she stand on the issues the voters are concerned about?

Now we come to the mayoral candidates. Which I think I’ll put in a different post, since they had the most questions directed to them.

Here we go - Political Analysis Part I

First off, sorry for the long hiatus - I was reading the City's financial statements from 2004-2007, which are all available on line at fortstjohn.ca/, also preparations for Halloween got in the way.

It was a bit of hard slog, financial statements always are. But what I learned was this: Despite what many people in the community have said about the current council spending money hand over fist, I found that's not exactly correct. Spending has increased over the past few years, yes, but most of it makes perfect sense and its fairly easy to see where all the money has gone. And this is coming from someone who is not at all good at number-crunching. Thankfully, my spouse studied accounting at university and was able to clarify some points for me!

Note that I said "most" of the spending. The big change in the city's financial status came following the referendum on borrowing to build the Enerplex. That's when the City's spending jumped by $9 million. Prior to this, the City was essentially debt-free - an admirable goal Mayor Steve Thorlakson and council had been working towards for several years.

The referendum question was:

Are you in favour of the City of Fort St. John borrowing up to $15,000,000.00 to construct the Enerplex?

Now, here's my problem with this. It passed, which is technically fair and democratic. Yes, we need more ice. BUT of the 13,045 registered voters at the time of the referendum, only 1,669 voted. That's a mere 12.79% - hardly a good turn out. It seemed, then and now, like they were trying to put a rush on it. But it's well-known that there is a shortage of ice in the city. So another skating surface of some description is required.

Maybe you don't think so, and that's fine. Back in 1972, when the original Rec Centre was built, people thought that was unnecessary and a waste of money too. No doubt, there will always be people who are against spending money. That's fine too. Obviously, I'm unhappy with the fact that the referendum passed with only a 13% turnout. The other thing is, one of our great claims to fame, as a city, was that we had one of the few outdoor Olympic sized speed skating ovals in the Province. And we've sent several speed skaters to the Olympics, who have trained on this ice. Plus, it was great for recreational skating too. Now, our outdoor oval is a construction site (although it does reappear in winter at the Bert Bowes track), and there are limited opportunities for recreational outdoor skating. Doubtless, we're going to have to pay through the nose to skate indoors at the Enerplex.

So, that's my rant and analysis for the day. Not very analytical, I know, but still. Tonight is the all-candidates forum at the Northern Grand Hotel (aka Pioneer Inn). So that should be interesting. I'm interested to hear the candidates views. Most of those who have websites haven't updated them recently, so more information would be welcome at this point in the campaign.

Be informed, and get out to the forum!! I'm going to try to make it!! Thanks for reading.