Yippee Skippy, Yes, Yes, Yes, can hardly wait!

[Darkre]

Oh lord, if you can't figure that out from the previous 3 years, then no explanation is possible. We have endured three years of amateur hour with the exception of a cpl of Councillors. The City is big business....100 million dollar budget.....and some of these clowns can't even run a small business. Is that what you want in charge of decision making?
Get a grip. Personally, I expect a higher degree of education or experience and track record to run a budget of that size. And I certainly do not want a Chairman of the Board that is on the verge of bankruptcy of a small retail store at the helm of a 100 million dollar budget.
Defend that reality?

Maybe you haven't heard twobits but the brick and mortar retail sector in North America is massively struggling to survive right now. In fact, I've even heard that several nation wide retail chains have been forced into bankruptcy in the last few years. It's even possible that digital media has had an effect on CD and DVD sales, which was the basis of his business. Maybe I'll go to HMV, Blockbuster and Rogers Video and ask them how their sales are in the current climate.

As to your hero Vassiliki, he's fortunate that the real estate industry in Penticton has grown as it has over the last few years. Several developers across Canada, large and small, have been forced in to seeking court protection where the market tanked due to localized recession. 2 more in Calgary recently filed. Had he been in one of those markets he may have found himself in a similar situation.

Jakubeit found himself facing massive market shifts on 2 vital fronts for his business, the movement away from brick and mortar purchases and the digitization of the media he sold. Not many people could have survived that.

Also, mayors and councils can not be expected to have all the knowledge required to manage a small city like ours. There is a reason the CAO receive almost 3 times the salary our mayor does. The CAO and CFO manage the budget. Mayor and council provide guidance and make the final decision on matters brought to them by management.

As to your point claiming "three years of amateur hour" please elaborate. I've attempted to explain how much of the hatred thrown councils way is misguided or ill informed. Please show me where I'm wrong and the things I'm missing that make this council so terrible.

[fluffy]

You make valid points Darkre. Much of the anti-council rhetoric being spewed seeks to apply local blame to problems that are much wider in scope, even global in some aspects. I too would be interested in debating the specifics of what a vocal few see as failings of current council.

[twobits]

As I said in my previous post, if you cannot see it for what it is, no explanation is possible. Community division has never been higher. I am not interested in a pizzing match of position. This Council will get thumped next November and it won't be by uninformed voters. The only good thing this Council has accomplished is make the voters engaged and aware of the consequences of apathy.
So sorry it won't work out so well for the candidates you support.

[XT225]

I've never met a single member of council. Why am I so informed then? I actually take the time to do some research before jumping to conclusions.

I believe that most of us, myself included who are not satisfied with the present council have actually gone out and met them, learned about them directly; been to council meetings, and formed intelligent opinions afterwards. Anyone can do research and not learn a darned thing for certain, especially from Mr. Google or Wikipedia. I'm with twobits on this one.

[twobits]

Much of the anti-council rhetoric being spewed seeks to apply local blame to problems that are much wider in scope, even global in some aspects.

Ok, despite better judgment, I'll bite on that one. Sure, there are some local vocals that think a City Council of the size of Penticton should somehow be able to deliver some answer to affordable housing or to deliver a climate that creates 25 buck an hr with full benefits jobs. Most thinking folks realize that these things are beyond the scope of this and any Council of a community such as we have. There are just not the tools in the basket for them to do so. What the electorate is pizzed about is not things that are outside of Councils mandate or ability....it is about a seemingly total disconnect with the community sentiment. The two huge and glaring examples are use of Parkland and millions spent on pig lipstick for the dinosaur we call downtown. On downtown specifically, let market forces determine it's outcome. The City has no business in propping up an area that needs redevelopment to prolong the agony of the inevitable. Downtown needs to transform, not hold onto some nostalgic era of a brick and mortar retail area.
As an example for consideration, look at Front Street. The past orphan of the downtown. It has and is being redeveloped not because of City investment, but rather because property values were not propped up by taxpayer investment but by developer investment because property values made investment by the private sector make sense. No City Council is going to be smarter than someone spending their own money as opposed to someone else's money.

[Darkre]

Much of the anti-council rhetoric being spewed seeks to apply local blame to problems that are much wider in scope, even global in some aspects.

What the electorate is pizzed about is not things that are outside of Councils mandate or ability....it is about a seemingly total disconnect with the community sentiment. The two huge and glaring examples are use of Parkland and millions spent on pig lipstick for the dinosaur we call downtown. On downtown specifically, let market forces determine it's outcome.

Once again twobits you are just showing how misplaced the anger towards city council truly is. As I have shown time and time again the Skaha Park / Trio debacle and the Downtown Revitalization were the direct result of previous councils not this one. This council did have the final say on whether to proceed on the Downtown Revitalization but the design and budget for the project were approved by the last council. The city is fighting for the inclusion of commercial in the parks master plan because there is already commercial in Penticton's parks and the inclusion of such wording would put the future of those businesses and any future upgrades to those facilities at risk.

In regards to downtown I managed to find this interesting bit on the cities website:
"How much of the downtown revitalization work was spent on infrastructure?

An important job of the downtown revitalization work was to replace the aging water mains. Of the $4.2M spent to date, 77% was spent on infrastructure and 23% was provided for beautification."

Of the $4.2million, $3.23 million was spent on infrastructure and $966,000 was spent on beautification
Of the $966,000, 25% or $241,500 was paid for by local businesses through a special tax

That leaves $725,000 paid for by the taxpayer. Now consider that there would have been a significant cost to simply return the roads and sidewalks back to their former glory. Would that have been half the cost? Three quarters? Maybe only a third, I'll work with that because it seems like a reasonable number. Assuming a 33% cost to return Main to normal after the infrastructure upgrades that means it cost the city a whopping $486,000 not the millions that are being thrown around. This number could obviously be a little higher or a lot lower depending on what it would have cost to return to original would have been.

[Darkre]

Putting this in a seperate post so it doesn't get lost with the other info posted. I have no problem with people being upset with Skaha and Downtown. I just feel people need to lay the blame at the correct peoples feet. It was the last council that created and designed these issues so blame them.

If you are mad at council for these things you should really be mad at Jakubeit and Sentes. That also means you have to be mad at Vassiliki and all the other members of the previous council. You can't pick and choose.

[XT225]

Putting this in a seperate post so it doesn't get lost with the other info posted. I have no problem with people being upset with Skaha and Downtown. I just feel people need to lay the blame at the correct peoples feet. It was the last council that created and designed these issues so blame them.

If you are mad at council for these things you should really be mad at Jakubeit and Sentes. That also means you have to be mad at Vassiliki and all the other members of the previous council. You can't pick and choose.

I doubt that Vass would have ever gone ahead with spending so much on downtown; he was a fiscal conservative; unlike the rest of council. Jackubite definately is a guilty party to spending like drunken you know whats and Skaha Park problems. Sentes also deserves her walking papers.

[southy]

Darkre, I'm just a tad confused and perhaps you can enlighten us from all the research you have so kindly done. Was it not Mayor Jak who signed off on the Trio deal at the same time citizens of Penticton were protesting outside in front of city hall. If he signed off on it would that not also mean he and council could have said no to this project. Sorry - just don't get it. What are we missing here?

[Darkre]

Putting this in a seperate post so it doesn't get lost with the other info posted. I have no problem with people being upset with Skaha and Downtown. I just feel people need to lay the blame at the correct peoples feet. It was the last council that created and designed these issues so blame them.

If you are mad at council for these things you should really be mad at Jakubeit and Sentes. That also means you have to be mad at Vassiliki and all the other members of the previous council. You can't pick and choose.

I doubt that Vass would have ever gone ahead with spending so much on downtown; he was a fiscal conservative; unlike the rest of council. Jackubite definately is a guilty party to spending like drunken you know whats and Skaha Park problems. Sentes also deserves her walking papers.

Vassiliki did vote in favour of this project. It was one of my complaints about him as I felt it was a conflict of interest for him to be voting on a project that could directly effect the value of some of his properties.

Despite his support for the Save Skaha movement he also has not once come out and said he was against Skaha from the beginning. To me this shows that he was originally in favour and only changed his mind seeing the opposition to the project.

[Darkre]

Darkre, I'm just a tad confused and perhaps you can enlighten us from all the research you have so kindly done. Was it not Mayor Jak who signed off on the Trio deal at the same time citizens of Penticton were protesting outside in front of city hall. If he signed off on it would that not also mean he and council could have said no to this project. Sorry - just don't get it. What are we missing here?

The previous council entered in to the 30 year agreement with Trio after posing a RFP for the site that included waterslides as a suggested use. This agreement had an open option that TRIO could exercise at any time for the parcel of property that included the waterslides. As a result the current council was contractually obligated to sign the deal or the city would have faced a massive lawsuit for breach of contract. A lawsuit that would have cost the city significantly more then the $400k it eventually did to end the agreement (think 30 years of estimated profits).

This is actually my biggest gripe with this council and Jakubeit specifically. He should have come out and stated that it was the previous council, of which he was a member, then told everyone of the consequences of not finalizing the deal they were contractually obligated to sign.

There was a contractual grey area in that Trio was given a 1 year lease as part of the agreement by the previous council to finalize financing. Trio found themselves in a catch 22 situation. They couldn't finalize the financing without the 30 year lease and couldn't get the lease without the financing. I believe that Trio was eventually able to meet the finances in a satisfactory manner as they technically would have the funds available and the city signed to avoid a potential lawsuit.

[twobits]

The previous council entered in to the 30 year agreement with Trio after posing a RFP for the site that included waterslides as a suggested use.

I would like to see a verification of that timeline you see. I see it as a RPF put out by the previous council, not an entering into any agreement. The election was in November. There is no way the past council entered into any agreement.
An RPF is exactly that.....a Request for Proposals. It is not an agreement. The agreement to a stupid proposal lands squarely on the current Council not the past Council.
All of us have had ideas or plans and researched as well as asked for input and quotes. And we have all also abandoned those plans when they come back as out of budget or just plain stupid. We didn't enter any agreement, we were just researching possibilities. It's called due diligence. Just because an RPF is put out, it does not mean any action need be taken.

[Darkre]

The previous council entered in to the 30 year agreement with Trio after posing a RFP for the site that included waterslides as a suggested use.

I would like to see a verification of that timeline you see. I see it as a RPF put out by the previous council, not an entering into any agreement. The election was in November. There is no way the past council entered into any agreement.
An RPF is exactly that.....a Request for Proposals. It is not an agreement. The agreement to a stupid proposal lands squarely on the current Council not the past Council.
All of us have had ideas or plans and researched as well as asked for input and quotes. And we have all also abandoned those plans when they come back as out of budget or just plain stupid. We didn't enter any agreement, we were just researching possibilities. It's called due diligence. Just because an RPF is put out, it does not mean any action need be taken.

This article sums up the timeline fairly well. http://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/article_5d024998-3ec2-11e4-83b8-001a4bcf6878.html

Original request for proposals in May 2013
Top 2 proposals were invited to submit enhanced proposals Sept. 2013 where they select Trio's bid including the waterslides
Sept. 2014, 2 months before the elections, Council signs the interim agreement with Trio after a year of negotiations while the rest of the details are finalized (other reports later seemed to imply that these were detailed plans and financing for the project)

Sure seems that it was the previous council that led this charge no matter how badly you want to put it at the feet of the current council. Unfortunately due to the confidentiality agreement that the previous council also signed we don't know where exactly things stood before the new council was elected. However, there is no denying that Trio's marina enhancement and waterslide proposal was accepted and an agreement was made with the previous council.

You may also note that this initial agreement was completed almost 2 months to the day before the 2014 election. Various reports at that time indicated that waterslides were a rumoured possibility for this land and there was no discussion or objections raised about the waterslides during the election. Based on that you could understand why the current council may not have considered this to be a controversial subject.

[twobits]

This article sums up the timeline fairly well. http://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/article_5d024998-3ec2-11e4-83b8-001a4bcf6878.html

Original request for proposals in May 2013
Top 2 proposals were invited to submit enhanced proposals Sept. 2013 where they select Trio's bid including the waterslides
Sept. 2014, 2 months before the elections, Council signs the interim agreement with Trio after a year of negotiations while the rest of the details are finalized (other reports later seemed to imply that these were detailed plans and financing for the project)

Sure seems that it was the previous council that led this charge no matter how badly you want to put it at the feet of the current council. Unfortunately due to the confidentiality agreement that the previous council also signed we don't know where exactly things stood before the new council was elected. However, there is no denying that Trio's marina enhancement and waterslide proposal was accepted and an agreement was made with the previous council.

You may also note that this initial agreement was completed almost 2 months to the day before the 2014 election. Various reports at that time indicated that waterslides were a rumoured possibility for this land and there was no discussion or objections raised about the waterslides during the election. Based on that you could understand why the current council may not have considered this to be a controversial subject.

Thank you for that timeline. It did refresh my memory on some parts but does nothing to change the fact that it was this Council that entered into a legally binding contract, not the previous Council. The previous Council's approval of an "interim contract" is still a work in progress. It is not a binding agreement. What follows that interim agreement is public consultation. And that is where the whole thing failed. Until there was an interim agreement, there was nothing to consult the public with and we were then faced with an election. The current Council then inherited the interim agreement and despite rampant and large protest upon consultation after the election, the current chose to consummate and make a legal and binding agreement while hundreds protested outsite of City Hall while the Mayor put ink to paper.
I would ask you to speculate this......if the previous Council had remained intact, would they have consummated the interim agreement with the level of protest that happened? Speculation but I think not. And ultimately, the final verification that it is the current Council's burden to own the mistake is the Mayor's own concession and the opinion of the new and current CAO.....that they f'ed up and didn't listen.
Spin the timeline how you wish but the new Council and not the past one owns this debacle.

[XT225]

The current Council then inherited the interim agreement and despite rampant and large protest upon consultation after the election, the current chose to consummate and make a legal and binding agreement while hundreds protested outsite of City Hall while the Mayor put ink to paper.

That right there is the key to why Jackabite (and maybe others on council) will not be re-elected in 2018...they ignored that protest on that very day outside City Hall. Never, before can I remember any such similar public protest against City council. Any reasonable mayor and council would have put the breaks on immediately and at least listened. Karma is coming next Fall.