Questions for council candidates to answer before we vote

[inquisitive]

One question that tops my list is:
Are you willing to go all out to achieve a living wage policy, within your term of office, for all who live and work within the district municipality?
In this way poverty can be eliminated in our home town.
What are your priorities for effective and innovative local government?

[jon peter christoff]

Council does NOT have the authority to mandate a living wage for the entire community. It can only mandate living wages to be paid for contracts put out for open bidding for municipal work. And that applies only to the minimum wage positions. As I have written a number of times in the past with letters to the editor, CETA has mandated sub-national governments to open up public bidding for municipal contracts to all Canadians, and foreign nationals.

This I was and still am against, because it prevent local governments from using local tax dollars to stimulate local economies by targeting expenditures to only local firms. I think Harper sold us out on this, the Europeans pushed very hard to get it and he wanted a deal before the 2015 elections

To be fair it is important to remember that all local companies do not have the expertise necessary to do all the work needed. But even without CETA, council always had the responsibility to only approached knowledgeable companies for specific work no matter where they come from.

The other factor is living wages threaten to raise the cost and I know some existing council members would be sensitive to the backlash from voters at the increased costs of projects.

If elected I intend to raise the issue of living wages when the opportunity arises, but I know before hand it can not be applied to all contracts.

[inquisitive]

[quote="jon peter christoff"]Council does NOT have the authority to mandate a living wage for the entire community. It can only mandate living wages to be paid for contracts put out for open bidding for municipal work.
I cannot dispute that statement, but appreciate the depth of your message and encourage you in your attempt to pursue the endeavour should you be successful in you bid for election. I raised the topic several years ago with council, only to be met with a host of reasons "why not".
Before going off this topic, though, might I quote the US Supreme Court of the US in it's humanitarian statement made as far back as 1937: [b][i]Denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well-being, but casts a direct burden for their support in the community. What these workers lose in wages the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met.... The community is not bound to provide what is in effect a subsidy for unconscionable employers.[/i][/b]
I look forward to hearing via this thread what is important to my fellow constituents.

[Jx3]

I guess I am not young enough to know everything.

[jon peter christoff]

Debate can only make progress if you stick to facts. DWK can NOT mandate living wages for the entire community.
What "if-ing" is a fools game.

[Jx3]

Nice cloud cover today. Think it might rain.

[Anonymous123]

I don't read any condescending tones in JPCs comment.

[nikonfan]

It is not councils business to mandate what I as an employer pay my employees. The City would be much more productive in creating a positive business climate that would entice business to want to come to the West Kelowna area to open new good paying business. Unfortuantlely it seems the council in West Kelowna seem to think putting hurdles such as red tape, DEC charges, this and that tax will somehow get them the vote of the low information voters. They need to come up with a taxation scheme that is equal to the WFN land or West Kelowna will remain the ghost town it has become. This council needs to be replaced with a new council full of forward thinking people who are not concerned with their election 4 years down the road or getting their face in every weekly newspaper planting trees, cutting ribbons or whatever photo op Findlater can get his mug onto. It is all so transparent!

[guxcon]

Given the fact that DWK has very limited Industrial lands available, that the long term planning for the area is to encourage re development and to attract manufacturing and Hi Tech businesses, and that the Mision and Vision of DWK is,
Mission
To make informed decisions that meet
community needs to protect, enhance and
celebrate our West Kelowna home.
Vision
The District of West Kelowna is an innovative
local government that will make informed
decisions to benefit the community by
welcoming input and giving consideration to
fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship,
healthy living and economic enhancement.

My Questions for the incumbents seeking re-election are; Why did you push thru a Bylaw that has basically allowed marijuana grow operations that are not licensed under the new Federal regulations, and with little or no restrictions to prevent negative impact on the surrounding business open up shop in the Industrial zoned lands without any necessity to upgrade, re develope or even maintain their properties?

If you are not going to make decisions based on your Vision and Mission and the strategic priorities, then why spend the energy and time in defining any at all?

[guxcon]

On the Cities website I read;

"We have always envisioned the Bartley Road property as a future site for our public works operations,” says Mayor Findlater. “It is a large, industrially-zoned piece of property, centrally-located in our community in Boucherie Centre. It is also very near to our current Engineering & Operations building at 2570 Bartley Road.”"

yet...

the OCP identifies the parcel as future Institutional, I do believe you had a part in approving the OCP. Are you not aware of the decisions you and council have made?

Do we really need more city trucks and yards?

Would it not be more in line with the economic strategic plan to develope the parcel into a business park? Income (sales or rentals plus tax) vs expense.......

[inquisitive]

On the Cities website I read;

"We have always envisioned the Bartley Road property as a future site for our public works operations,” says Mayor Findlater. “It is a large, industrially-zoned piece of property, centrally-located in our community in Boucherie Centre. It is also very near to our current Engineering & Operations building at 2570 Bartley Road.”"
"Guxcon" - You have a better memory than Mayor Findlater. Good points to ponder as we approach election day.

This is typical double-speak, isn't it? Inadvertently the Mayor also admits that the site chosen for the edifice to be called "Findlater Building" is not centrally located in our community.
If the above public works operation is relocated to Bartley then what happens to the several other properties here and there being currently used for public works, Eng'g. & Ops.?
Reads like needless expansionism, doesn't it?

Would it not be more in line with the economic strategic plan to develope the parcel into a business park? Income (sales or rentals plus tax) vs expense.......

Better still, let's leave it unused (zero cash-flow) for a while until some infill has occurred and brought in tax revenues from those other under-utilized properties sitting vacant for lack of custom.
Observation, not really on topic but - Used car lots and RV lots are proliferating around town - now those operators have a business plan far superior to the landlords sitting on vacant retail properties for years on end.

[jon peter christoff]

There were many suggestion during the pre-incorporation Governance Study, (which Doug chaired) that this could be the site for the future city hall. A centrally located site for the civic hall that would also be substantively cheaper then the Elliott road location and more inclusive in nature for the entire Westside.

[inquisitive]

There were many suggestion during the pre-incorporation Governance Study, (which Doug chaired) that this could be the site for the future city hall. A centrally located site for the civic hall that would also be substantively cheaper then the Elliott road location and more inclusive in nature for the entire Westside.

Again, better memories prevail, thank goodness. One could posit that Mayor Findlater finds expediency takes over whenever he has to choose to support this or that - which he has shown to be the case from time to time - but only after the bell-wether has walked by.
When the "otherpeoplesmoneyism" bug has bitten, in the case of (a) ignoring the central location factor and (b) ignoring the price differential between the two locations, we whose tax-money is being spent, have to find a way to stop the runaway train - the city hall edifice to hisoner. How can "our" voices collectively achieve that second look?
Is his only opponent capable of achieving this objective?

[jon peter christoff]

The vote promised for the new civic center (if I understand Doug's method) will be structured in such a way as to present the question on whether to borrow new moneys for a completed proposed Elliott road project. No discussion about whether it is the right proposal.

The only way to halt this and get a new look at alternatives would be to 1) swamp city hall with letters that may or may not be listened to or 2) vote in new council members that can vote against it.

The only opponent (so far) to the mayor's chair unfortunately does not have the depth nor I believe the inclination to halt the process that is being pushed forward by council members who mistakenly want to force-feed the center of our community to be Westbank, rather then admit we are in flux and the face of Westside will change in a short time when the new underpass, the new hospital and more commercial on the First Nations land at the bridge end is complete. Even Boucherie Center's industrial area is changing fast.

The couplet change is not happening even with discussion of a second crossing. The second crossing is best as a by-pass along Bear Creek Main, our road structure can not handle the increase in traffic. The $50-$100 million price tag to alter the couplet from Gorman Mill down through to Westbank will not happen The province sees the couplet change as a cosmetic. Particularly when they are going to spend on a second crossing. Even if the province realizes a windfall from the LNG development. Will that wind-fall ($$) happen? I believe will it will come, but not as big as hoped for and it will take longer then thought.

It is interesting that the public meetings never showed where those who attended live. I would make the taking of names and addresses mandatory to verify that we get a well rounded consultation from the entire community when ever we have a public consultation. -Meaning, suspicious minds can suspect that those with the agenda have seized the opportunity to hijack the public planning process (by showing up in force) to put their stamp upon it.

[guxcon]

So regarding the issues of future civic facilities the hard questions that need to be answered are;

Do we really need a new City Hall in the traditional sense, as well as an expanded City works yard or do we need a central facility to house all Civic services.
and
Are you as a candidate willing to identify the true needs of our community and deliver them in a cost effective and efficient manner.

We are forced to be efficient and lean in our operations in order to survive. We should expect nothing less from those we elect to serve us. This is the age of global economy and transient populations. Not all of us live or work here year round, we do more and more transactions "online", it's time to stop living in the past and look to the future.