|
|
by Fred Kirby
July 6, 2005
I ask here
if Mayor Sutton knows there is a buyer for the former post office. If the
mayor does know, I ask the mayor did he know before the announcement of
the sale or after the announcement. Citizens of Kincardine have a right to
this information.
Not having
heard any objections from the Queen Street business folks to this possible
sale of a key element of their area, I assume most do not care. I have
witnessed what happens to a small town’s main street when those most
affected fail to make their voices heard. The core dies, the big box
stores appear on the periphery, and people, after it is too late, wonder
what happened to their attractive, interesting community.
Further to
Kincardine’s town centre, our Deputy Mayor, Sandy Donald, still has not
told us what his plans for an Arts Centre are. Sandy’s objections to the
heritage designation to the former town hall might suggest he would like
to see that building vulnerable to destruction extending Victoria Park or,
perhaps building a new structure on the site. Then again, he could push to
have an Arts Centre built on the Thompson site though there are far better
uses for that site.
During
the last municipal election, Sandy spoke of the need for open and
inclusive government. He made much of government being accessible. He
further talked about needing people who are able to make the tough and
difficult decisions. Now half way through his mandate he should tell us
his plans for a Centre for the Arts. Though late, that would be a start in
open communication.
And,
speaking of making hard decisions, why is council still dithering about
the pipeline to Tiverton? Councilor Couture appears the only one who
realizes what the future holds for the municipality if the pipeline is not
built now. She speaks out of concern for the whole municipality and is
capable of hard decisions. Others might learn from her. One could only
hope.
I look
forward to hear the mayor and deputy mayor respond in the spirit of
openness Then civil discourse can begin.
by Fred Kirby
July 13, 2005
The July 6th council meeting
saw a sorry display of two self-serving councillors, a deputy mayor who
preferred to “move on” (euphemism for ‘duck the issue’) and a mayor who is
incapable of giving the necessary leadership. The issue, of course, was
Tiverton’s water.
Engineer Burns had presented his report and was answering questions. The
sole purpose of councillors Roppel and Ribey, with their questions, was to
find some reason, no matter how shallow, for keeping the wells. They
struggled to find the question which would bring them Tiverton’s Holy
Grail. I was reminded of life-serving prisoners desperate to invoke the
faint hope clause on their sentences.
The last act of this farce saw the Environmental Assessment brought out,
but with a twist that heighten the ludicrous quality present throughout.
In earlier productions of My Water Is Better Than Your Water (a classic
theatre of the absurd) there were only two possible outcomes: the wells
were feasible for long term use and development or the pipeline was deemed
necessary. Now council rewrote the plot by writing out those possibilities
and inserting, “appropriate recommendations.” Will our mayor please tells
us what other appropriate measures could there be. He just is looking for
more wiggle room.
The mayor and his squirming deputy know that since the pipeline was first
broached, there has only been one realistic choice and that is a pipeline.
Since then, it has all been burning money, including the water reserve,
and shoveling smoke.
As for Howard Ribey and Randy Roppel, we witness a sordid display of
pandering, parochial behaviour. Helping a constituent with difficulty
involving the municipality is part of a councillor’s responsibility, but
undermining the over-all goals of the municipality is irresponsible, if
not being negligent of their duties.
There can be no community as long as the parts fight among themselves. For
community to work we must recognize that the whole is greater than the
parts. That is what Ribey and Roppel refuse to acknowledge. They do so to
the detriment of the municipality.
by Fred Kirby
July 20, 2005
The findings of policy
development groups and plaintive cries of citizens continue to fall on
deaf ears among Kincardine’s council. Democracy to work in the 21st
century requires a new mindset that triggers the appropriate response. It
is a pity we do not see that in our mayor, deputy mayor and some
councillors.
Kincardine Council is going ahead with the Reunion Beach project. Remember
the project? It was to have a road through to Albert Street, a kiddies’
playground and picnic area.
If memory serves me, there were three public meetings in 2003 at which the
majority of the public voiced objections to the plans. The project was
shelved, not scrapped but simply put off.
It came up again in 2004 and discussed at council. Again there was
overwhelming public opinion, including an on-line survey, against
council’s plans for Reunion Beach. Matters were put off until 2005 with
council now making it a fait accompli.
I welcome reviewing any activity in order to see if it would benefit from
changes. In a public enterprise an open and fair process is necessary to
garner optimum ideas. The mayor and deputy mayor demonstrate they have no
concept of such a process. Citizens ought to expect more of our council
leaders.
We have a children’s playground which the municipality just refurbished.
Upgrading and enlarging this area, making it more amenable to families
would be more than acceptable to many. It is a lovely shady area at the
north beach away from traffic and already easily accessible. Why take away
from this pleasant setting?
At a time when thoughtful people throughout the world are working to
reduce pollution and waste of natural resources, why does council believe
the only way to make Reunion Beach more accessible is to encourage motor
vehicle traffic? We should be discouraging traffic, not increasing it.
There are alternatives which could be considered if council were not so
enamored with exhaust fumes.
Council again has wasted serious money on a consultant’s report when the
answers can be found among its citizens if it would cast a bigger net.
by Fred Kirby
July 27, 2005
This and next week’s column is
about our public utility, BMTS, but first mea culpa. In Municipal Musings,
July 13, I mistakenly said council passed the motion changing the wording
of the Environmental Assessment from wells and pipeline to “appropriate
recommendations”. In a recent conversation, I learned council defeated the
motion and the wording stays as is with the assessment to recommend
whether the pipeline or wells would be the most feasible. My apology goes
to those on council who merit it.
The following thumbnail sketch of the BMTS is taken largely from the
“Report to the Kincardine Council on the ‘Governance of Bruce Municipal
Telephone System (BMTS) December 1999.”
Begun in 1911, BMTS was a subscriber-owned municipal telephone system.
Under the then-existing Telephone Act of Ontario, the former Bruce
Township became the municipality responding to a petition of local
residents wanting telephone service. As such, the assets of BMTS were
vested in Bruce Township in trust for the benefit of the subscribers.
Until 1989, BMTS was governed by commissioners elected by the subscribers.
In 1984, the commissioners tried to sell BMTS. The Supreme Court of
Ontario halted the proposed sale until it could be determined who were the
rightful subscribers in order to get approval of the sale. According to
the Court’s criteria, all the subscribers could not be located. Therefore
in 1989 the Court appointed Bruce Township as trustee and manger of BMTS.
In 1991, the Council of Bruce Township approved the transfer of BMTS from
Bruce Township as trustee to Bruce Township as municipality. BMTS became a
public utility as opposed to a public utility commission.
Upon amalgamation, the new Municipality of Kincardine assumed ownership of
BMTS. As before, profits were shared with participating municipalities
according to a distribution formula. I understand the agreement between
BMTS (Kincardine) and the other participating municipalities to expire
between now and the next municipal elections and will need to be reviewed.
Next week we will look at governance by the Kincardine Council,
remembering that BMTS is a Kincardine taxpayers’ public utility.
|
