Sure has been quiet at city hall!!

[southy]

*removed*

[fluffy]

He/she has a point though. Penticton has no shortage of CAVE* people.

The particular corner of town under discussion here is, and has been for some time now, home to a number of licensed liquor outlets and high-traffic businesses (like the former PenMar). Mr. Pohl's efforts to place operating restrictions on a business completely in keeping with the "flavour" of the neighbourhood comes across as more than a little self-serving and narrow in focus. I mean, why live downtown if your don't like living downtown?

*CAVE - Citizens Against Virtually Everything

[twobits]

I agree with Councillor Sentes's comments. Sometimes these whiners who will take any opportunity to complain even when no legitimate reason to complain exists just need to be slapped down.

I agree with her comments as well but think she could have done a better job of presentation. Ms Sentes, in her social clique is well informed of who Mr McWaters is. With her blunt "Do you know the reputation this winery proprietor has?", I think she was erroneously assuming everyone must know the man. In that regard, it was a bit of arrogance. I also believe a bit of frustration came through from having to deal with "cave" people. None of us are immune to that frustration, myself included lately.
I think the higher road for her to have taken would have been a simple acknowledgment of the man's concerns and a statement of reassurance that the applicant was well known and impeccable in past business practices and that council had every confidence he would continue in the same fashion with this enterprise.

[fluffy]

With her blunt "Do you know the reputation this winery proprietor has?", I think she was erroneously assuming everyone must know the man.

Sure, there may be some of that in there, but as I said, Mr. Pohl was implying that the business owner might intend to run his business without respect for the neighbouring residents. Whether he knows Mr. McWaters or not, that is definitely an attack on his character and I think that is where Ms. Sentes was coming from. Add to that the fact that there are already remedies in place through local bylaws to deal with the situation should it ever arise, Mr. Pohl was just making senseless noise.

[twobits]

He was making senseless noise. All I am saying is that it would have been better to placate and inform a concerned and uninformed neighbour to the property rather than publicly dumb him down with a "Do you even know........?" No matter what kind of tone the question was asked in, it is condescending.
It might be ok on these forums but as an elected official sitting at a Council meeting table, it is not. I know enuff about you fluff from years of posting that even you would not have responded in the same manner.

[fluffy]

Well I got the impression that she had been around the block with him on this issue before, but he was the type that wouldn't let go. The first thing that came to mind when I watched the video was the recent petition from the residents of Cherry Lane Towers trying to say that building a family oriented apartment block next to an elementary school was a bad idea. Some people have no shame.

[twobits]

the recent petition from the residents of Cherry Lane Towers trying to say that building a family oriented apartment block next to an elementary school was a bad idea. Some people have no shame.

Agreed. But it is human nature to look out for ones own best interest........even if it makes no logical sense to the majority of City residents. One of the primary jobs of Councillors is to inform the people that oppose why their position is flawed and why it is not in the best public interest.
The second most important job they have is to differentiate and acknowledge when they misjudged what they believed what was in the best interest of the majority of City residents.
That is what this Council has had a problem with.

[fluffy]

One of the primary jobs of Councillors is to inform the people that oppose why their position is flawed and why it is not in the best public interest.

That's my point. Mr Pohl's reference in the video to previous interaction with council on this same issue makes me suspect that the the flaws in his position have been pointed out to him already, perhaps repeatedly. That would make Ms. Sentes's frustration all the more understandable.

At the risk of opening this can of worms yet again, it is often a difficult task to judge just what constitutes a "majority of residents" given that those holding a negative position are often so much louder as to obscure their numbers.

Being a city councilor in a town so divided on so many issues is not an enviable task. No matter what you do, half the town is going to be screaming for your head on a pike. I certainly don't begrudge any of them the right to sticking to what they believe in. Given a choice between someone who gets a little ticked off when they hear something they don't like or just another plastic-smile baby-kissing politician representing me, I'll go with the real human every time.

[twobits]

At the risk of opening this can of worms yet again, it is often a difficult task to judge just what constitutes a "majority of residents" given that those holding a negative position are often so much louder as to obscure their numbers.

I don't think it's that difficult. Petitions to have any validity require a residential addy. If the bulk of petitioner signatories are addressed from the Cherry Lane towers, I would tend to look at it as one signatory that is concerned about their view being blocked. The rest of their arguments, including the inappropriateness of a family complex next to a school is simply grasping at a straw man. There is not in this case a definitive broad section of the population opposed to this development but rather some very specific special interest opposition.
Contrast this opposition to the opposition of Skaha Park development. That sort of broad spectrum opposition is something that a Councillor should consider and take very seriously as community opposition.

[fluffy]

Contrast this opposition to the opposition of Skaha Park development. That sort of broad spectrum opposition is something that a Councillor should consider and take very seriously as community opposition.

That was the example that I had in mind with my comments. A large percentage of signatories to the petitions were from out-of-town people, add to that the questionable "recruiting" tactics of the "No" side and the waters are already muddied enough to defy any credible estimate of numbers.

I'm just saying that most situations are not as cut-and-dried as many seem to think they are.