Sunday, February 27, 2011
Readers write - Prisoners put Kent over the limit
Mayor Lorne Fisher puts blame squarely at the feet of former solicitor general John Les
By Paul J. Henderson, The Times June 8, 2010
District of Kent residents received a tax hike this year in part thanks to their incarcerated neighbours.
A recount of the 2006 census found 470 extra residents--although no new dwellings--and this put Kent over the critical 5,000-population threshold at which policing costs shift.
But those "residents" are in the two federal prisons, Kent and Mountain, so they don't add a lot to the community, according to Mayor Lorne Fisher.
In B.C., communities under 5,000 pay for 15 per cent of policing costs while those over 5,000 pay 70 per cent.
The original census counted 4,738 in Kent but the revised count put that number at 5,208. In every other B.C. community where there was a recount, there was an amended number of private dwellings, but not in Kent. Statistics Canada did not respond to calls to explain the changes before going to press.
Kent's director of finance Glen Savard said the district was told that the reason the numbers jumped over 5,000 was the inclusion of the prison population.
And while Statistics Canada is the federal body that conducts the census, Fisher blames the provincial Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General for the downloading of policing costs in this way.
"This goes back to when John Les was still solicitor general," Fisher told the Times. "He recommended there should be a revised count and all of a sudden the revised count showed up to 5,200 or something. I've always blamed John for doing this to us."
Les says blaming him is "nonsense."
"It's important to know that the census is a federal function and it has always been federal policy to include inmate numbers in the population of the communities where the facilities are located," he told the Times via e-mail. "That the population of Kent is now well over 5,000 cannot be a surprise to anyone, least of all the mayor. . . . With any prudence at all they would have seen this day coming. The rate of contribution to policing at that population level has been in place for many years.
"Any suggestion that I somehow revised the census numbers is nonsense."
Fisher said they did know it was only a matter of time before the population went over 5,000, but "the way it seemed to happen got our hackles up."
The district fought the change for the last three years, but seems to have lost the battle and the mayor is resigned to the new costs. A one-time $300,000 grant will defer some of the costs, according to Savard, but last week residents will have begun receiving property tax bills with a six per cent increase, half of which is for local infrastructure costs and half of which is to pay for the $615,000 policing bill. Before the population adjustment policing costs were $165,000.
Fisher said he is not against the prisons being located in Kent per se as they pay a substantial grant in-lieu of taxes, but most employees aren't local and commute from outside of the community.
© Copyright (c) Chilliwack Times
Read more: Chilliwack
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Greater Vernon Water Utility - North Kal Lake Assessment Open House - Reminder!
MEDIA RELEASE – February 17, 2011
The Public Open House encourages the public to comment on the draft report. The recommendations to create a protection zone will be of interest to those in the District of Coldstream since the area is within its municipal boundaries. Just as important are comments from the City of Vernon residents and businesses plus Electoral Areas “B” and “C” as they may receive their drinking water from this source. Input received from the Public Open House will be reviewed by the consultant and included in the Final Report as long as it is consistent with existing science and drinking water protection objectives.
The Public Open House will be held February 24, 2011 at the Regional District Board Room, 9848 Aberdeen Road from 5:00pm – 8:00 pm with presentations at 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. For a link to the full report, please go to www.rdno.ca
Renee Clark
Water Quality Manager
250.550.3700
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Important meeting! PLEASE NOTE THAT THE WETLAND DEVELOPMENT MEETING IS TONIGHT – NOT TOMORROW NIGHT AS PREVIOUSLY STATED.
Hello SPrKLers!
The Alan Brooks Nature Centre will be holding a:
public consultation meeting at
7 pm. tonight, Wednesday February 23rd at
the Vernon Recreation Centre to
discuss their plans to construct a wetland on the vacant property near Walmart.
ABNC has received a Federal EcoAction Grant to undertake this exciting project. As SPrKL is applying for a grant to restore the Kalavista Lagoon, we hope that you and your friends/neighbours/committee members will attend, in order to gather information that can be used to help guide SPrKL’s proposed project. Please forward this email to others who might be interested.
Owing to commitments to several other important community meetings on Thursday evening, many of SPrKL’s executive members won’t be able to attend.
We are hoping that some of you will be able to go and report back.
As I will be out of town for the next 2 weeks, please email info@spkl.ca with any information you have to share.
Thank you in advance,
Louise Christie
**************************************************************************
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
“A Remand Centre is Always Maximum Security…”- The Mayor of Burnaby
I would urge you to support the Stop the Prison Effort in Lumby by attending an information session and rally at the Lumby Community Hall Wednesday, February 23rd at 7 pm. Together we will stop the outrageous plan to locate a provincial remand centre in Lumby that will serve the entire Okanagan and Kootenay’s.
I invite you to read some interesting comments from the Mayor of Burnaby contained in this email.
For years, Leah Cleevely's home has been under siege by people released from the Surrey Pre-Trial Services Centre. Cleevley is unsure what will happen to her neighborhood now that Surrey has been awarded an expanded centre where construction is due to begin this spring. Elevating her anxiety is the fact she runs a daycare out of her home.
Every week, she has inmates who have been released coming to her door wanting to borrow matches or use the phone, and bikes and other items have been stolen from her yard. Living within shouting distance from the existing pretrial centre, Cleevely often hears inmate’s cat-calling women who walk by.
But in Surrey the jail is still located as part of a large public service complex that includes a courthouse and the facilities inmate population dwarfs the community population. The vision in Lumby is very different where the proposed inmate population could easily swell to between 700 and 1400 and could nearly double the village’s population.
However, there are still supporters for the remand centre proposal, and they believe it to be a safe option for the village. Mayor Kevin Acton continues to insist a correctional facility should be considered as a way of bolstering Lumby’s economy.
“I’ve talked to six mayors where there are facilities and they all said positive things,” he told the Morning Star on February 3rd.
“If one mayor raised concerns, I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night.”
Well, I contacted one Mayor that has a number of different kinds of correctional facilities in his community and he provided me with enough information that should cause Mayor Acton sleepless nights all the way to referendum day.
Comments from Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan to Don Elzer
I'd like to clear up some misconceptions about remand centres. I am a former corrections officer, parole officer and criminal lawyer, so I have considerable knowledge about the justice system. In my experience, a remand centre is always maximum security. People are remanded because they are awaiting disposition by the courts. As a result, people who are awaiting trial for murder, robbery, sexual assault and other serious offences can be held in remand, along with people who have failed to appear for court, failed to make bail or are awaiting transfer to other jurisdictions. This makes remand a more difficult facility to run because people have such varied offences and there is a constant movement of prisoners.Mayor Kevin Acton and his supporters are in the process of changing Lumby from a diversified economy back to a one industry town – a prison town. The influence on the community will be overwhelming; the mere thought of potentially doubling the village population with prison inmates boggles a rational mind – to place it in perspective, if this were happening in Vernon it would be comparable to building nine federal penitentiaries each housing 3500 inmates.
In addition, as prisoners make bail or are released, they are usually released either from court or directly from the remand facility. It is reasonable to be concerned about the release of inmates into a small community and it is also reasonable to be concerned about the people who will be visiting the facility and awaiting the release of their friends or relatives.
Once the land is zoned for institutional use, it is likely to continue as such for future functions. It is most likely that it will always be a correctional facility of some kind, because the province invariably stretches the use of a prison well beyond its expected longevity and well beyond its expected capacity. In Burnaby, by the time we persuaded them to close Oakalla, frequent and seemingly easy escapes during the last years of the prison's life were a major issue in this community - at the end the facility was so derelict that inmates could have cut their way out with their plastic spoons. Lumby needs to know the legacy they may be leaving for future generations of Lumby residents.
This government wants everything to be built and operated by the private sector under the guise of 3P agreements. If you trust that the private sector will place the public interest above their profits on the project, then you should be fine. I must confess that having our prisons run by Joe's Prison and Catering Services out of Arkansas makes me a little nervous. After all, escapes can have very serious consequences.
I think all politicians can persuade themselves that public reaction will subside and the bitterness will blow over. In order to be taken seriously, citizens need to convince them that their memory will last much longer. We need prison facilities in our urban centres, but not at the cost of local communities and neighbourhoods. It makes sense to have remand facilities attached to court houses to minimize prisoner movement and other long term facilities in outlying areas, away from population densities. Of course, sensible solutions do not reflect political priorities.
Mayor Derek Corrigan
Mayor of the City of Burnaby
Vernon would never accept such a proposal and if it would have happened in the past, Predator Ridge, Sparkling Hills Resort and many other attractions would have never located there.
Lumby deserves a better future than a jail, on April 30th vote “No” to the Remand Centre Proposal and send a powerful message to government that we are a proud and independent community.
Don Elzer
donelzer@uniserve.com
Readers write --Prison issues!
On Wednesday evening, at 7PM, the Concerned Citizens of Lumby & Area will hold a meeting to clarify the concerns associated with the proposed Lumby correctional facility.
We have been doing extensive research on the environmental, social and economic impacts that large prisons have on small rural communities over the last few months. We hope Wednesday will provide us with an opportunity to inform all interested parties on the proposed Okanagan correctional facility.
Where: Whitevalley Community Centre (near the Lumby library).
When: Wednesday February 23rd, 7 PM.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Water rates for 2011
The main reason for this high cost is the very high flat rate component of the rates. About half the income for the utility is recovered from flat fees. This is in direct conflict with the user pay principle and with the principle of controlling consumption. The ultimate of flat fees is all revenues collected from flat fees. Everyone pays the same regardless of consumption. Obviously, under this situation we could not control consumption. The smaller the flat fee the better we can influence consumption especially with the new system of rising bock rates.
Another disagreement I had with the proposal was the fact that the user component of the commercial rates remained the same did not follow the increase imposed on residential customers. Why?
Commercial customers can transfer their increases to their customers. Their water has the same production costs as do ours. They should also be encouraged to conserve. One of the arguments was that increasing commercial rates could cost jobs. Let me provide a small example of the fallacy of this argument.
Producing one cubic meter of beer requires five cubic meters of water. Five cubic meters at an eight cent increase to $1.00 per cubic meter would increase the cost of a cubic meter of beer by 40 cents. Now, a bottle of beer contains about 0.350 liters of beer, thus a cubic meter of beer would fill 2857 bottles. That would increase the price of a case of beer by about 0.0016 cents, an imperceptible increase. That is a ridiculous argument. Anyway, for better or worse, I voted against the proposal. It did not matter, the proposal will be law as of April 1, 2011.
For a comprehensive review of how consumers of various consumption will be affected by the changes visit water rates for 2011.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Greater Vernon Water Utility - North Kal Lake Assessment Open House
MEDIA RELEASE – February 17, 2011
The Public Open House encourages the public to comment on the draft report. The recommendations to create a protection zone will be of interest to those in the District of Coldstream since the area is within its municipal boundaries. Just as important are comments from the City of Vernon residents and businesses plus Electoral Areas “B” and “C” as they may receive their drinking water from this source. Input received from the Public Open House will be reviewed by the consultant and included in the Final Report as long as it is consistent with existing science and drinking water protection objectives.
The Public Open House will be held February 24, 2011 at the Regional District Board Room, 9848 Aberdeen Road from 5:00pm – 8:00 pm with presentations at 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. For a link to the full report, please go to www.rdno.ca
Renee Clark
Water Quality Manager
250.550.3700
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Thank you from Leo!
Thanks so much to the Coldstream Ratepayers Association for the pot luck dinner, kind words and the plaque on my retirement from the Fire Department. It has truly been my pleasure and I would like to thank everyone in the Community for the incredible support shown to the fire department members over the years. Also, a very special thanks to Maria and Greg for having put together a wonderful video presentation on my behalf, (even though I was naked in one of the pics). That meant a great deal to my family and I.
Thanks again,
Leo Lecavalier
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Another point of view on water rates.
"To me heavy consumers of water were subsidizing low water users in amounts that were too high even given the goal of promoting consumption. This particularly extends to high use commercial customers." (Manager of Greater Vernon Water Utility).
The above quotation is the opinion of the Manager of the water utility. This opinion is very difficult to rationalize.
Treated water delivered to customers via a pipe line system is a commodity the production cost of which determines its unit value. The construction cost of the system, the infrastructure cost, was and still is, the investment allowing the product to be produced and marketed.
Viewing the issue from this perspective it is quite obvious that the product cost should be distributed among the customers on a consumption basis. For instance, when one goes to the private water distribution centre to get their water in a 5 US gallon bottle they pay for the number of bottles they purchase. There is no question of who subsidizes the system to what extent. You pay for what you get. The same principle should be applied to water rates.
There is no question that there is a convenience in not having to go the market to buy water, thus, a reasonable access fee is warranted, like $25.00 per quarter. In addition, the cost of infrastructure financing (about $3 million) should also be included in the base fee until the question of taxation is settled.
Finance managers would love to have a secure income to cover expenses. They would love nothing better than having a flat fee to cover the cost of running and maintaining the water system, including the financing costs. However, we have another objective which is to encourage water conservation. The larger the flat fee component of the water rate the less ability we have to influence water conservation. We must have a reasonable balance between flat fee (or base fee) and user fee (or consumption fee). The latest fee proposal by the utility manager is not a reasonable balance.
The new accelerating block rate helps in controlling consumption, however, the large flat component largely eliminates this benefit to low consumers. The unit cost of their water is huge in comparison to high consumers (in the range of $5 per m3 for low users compared to $1.50 per m3 or less for heavy users). This is where improvements must be made.
Hopefully, the next meeting of GVAC will provide a more palatable water rate system.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Readers write --No to "Acton Prison"!
Priscilla Judd has left a new comment on your post "
300 people came out to the Lumby Council Meeting tonight. Paul Fisher spoke for all concerned citizens of Lumby and area.
No Prison for Lumby!
Stopping Lumby Mayor and Council will take everyone to stand up. To get the facts and how to help check out these websites:
Coldstream Ratepayers News! All Coldstream residents are ratepayers!
The opinions expressed by "Coldstreamer" are strictly his own and do not represent the opinions of Coldstream Council!
Because I value your thoughtful opinions, I encourage you to add a comment to this discussion. Don't be offended if I edit your comments for clarity or to keep out questionable matters, however, and I may even delete off-topic comments.
Gyula Kiss
coldstreamer@shaw.ca;
About Me
- Coldstreamer
- I have been a resident of Coldstream since 1976. I have had 15 years of experience on Council, 3 years as Mayor. As a current Councillor I am working to achieve fair water and sewer rates and to ensure that taxpayers get fair treatment. The current direction regarding water supply is unsustainable and I am doing all I can to get the most cost effective water supply possible.