Rating Councillors/Directors

User avatar
FunkyBunch
Übergod
Posts: 1266
Joined: Dec 1st, 2007, 2:23 pm

Re: Rating Councillors/Directors

Post by FunkyBunch »

Then what about these articles?


On April 30, City Council voted unanimously to remove the 60-year-old Simpson Covenant from the 11 acre parcel of land which borders the lake on the West, Ellis St. on the East, Doyle Ave. on the North and Queensway on the South.



Kelowna City council has voted unanimously to scrap the 60-year old agreement and re-zone some waterfront property for park-use only.



http://www.castanet.net/cgi-bin2/newNews/news_list.cgi?method=show_story&id=29299&query=search

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-29832--search.htm
User avatar
Nebula
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 16288
Joined: Jul 6th, 2005, 9:52 am

Re: Rating Councillors/Directors

Post by Nebula »

Oh sure. Throw the truth into the mix. How are we ever supposed to debate with the truth thrown in?

Actually, I wasn't aware of that, or I just plain forgot. Thanks for setting the record straight.
You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not use reason to arrive at.
User avatar
FunkyBunch
Übergod
Posts: 1266
Joined: Dec 1st, 2007, 2:23 pm

Re: Rating Councillors/Directors

Post by FunkyBunch »

Anytime. I have been wrong on occasion, but I was sure she had a done a "two-face" on this one.

First she campaigns on not doing anything to the Simpson Covenant.
Then she votes to remove it.
Then she fights the Simpsons in court.
Then the city appeals, citizens are mad, and she decides to campaign on her mind being changed? But it's only been changed in the past month. Prior to that she was willing to go against what she promised before the last election. Her principles seem to be for sale to the highest possible vote count or only matter right before an election.
User avatar
damngrumpy
Übergod
Posts: 1714
Joined: Dec 19th, 2005, 11:29 am

Re: Rating Councillors/Directors

Post by damngrumpy »

Now be serious, you should never let the truth interfere with a good story.
It is true the city voted unanimously to get rid of the covanent, that means at some point Sharon
voted with her fellow councillors. In fact it is a case of I was for it until I was against it.
That is why I keep saying throw them all out and start over.
Some don't have a clue, some we need bigger doors to get their heads thought, and some do know what is going on and that is the problem.
The answer dump them all. Elect a council that will also deal with the rascals in high city hall planning decisions, senior management must be fired and replaced as well.
This city needs a clean sweep and it starts in November or we will go on and on without much to show for it
holdin
Newbie
Posts: 70
Joined: Nov 24th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: Rating Councillors/Directors

Post by holdin »

I may be naive but I believe that most of the people that run for office really feel that they can make Kelowna a better place but, and it's a big but, something happens when they get into office and they seem to forget who and why they were elected--do they listen to the scummy lobbyists or to the staff or to others members of council or to a select bunch of special interests group or do they get that "special sense of entitlement"? It seems the longer they are in office the more out of touch they become.
It may sound sexist but I thought that the females would not play the games and be part of the old boy's club, but obviously I was wrong.
The decisions being made just do not make sense--there has to be more to the stupid decisions than stupidity.
I realize that it is probably difficult to try and make change on your own against the old school councillors and the staff,( who are in some people's opinion are out of control) so what is needed in my opinion is what others have said and that is a wholesale change in council and perhaps even more importantly, the staff.This staff doesn't work for us but instead they dictate to us.
I feel, and I know it's wrong, that it just isn't worth it to even vote here. I have lived in big cities and small, in most of the provinces, but I have never seen such a complete disregard for the citizens of this city by this council and it's staff.
User avatar
damngrumpy
Übergod
Posts: 1714
Joined: Dec 19th, 2005, 11:29 am

Re: Rating Councillors/Directors

Post by damngrumpy »

I have been saying for a long time they all have to go, including the senior staff. This election is really about the citizens chance to set the record straight, and oust most if not all the councillors and the staff, who do what they please. They treat people according to their mood it seems and
that is not very good.
We need to vote only for the councillors we really want, like 3 ro maybe 4 its called plumping but it works. And we need to really listen to the candidates for mayor, and get someone who cares first of all about what you and I think.
I don't mind when someone makes a decision I am opposed to if they did it in the best interests of the city as a whole, instead of what benefits their own little group of supporters who put them there in this case most are developers and we don't need anymore of that crowd.
Here is an example though of someone who has voted for exactly what he said he would do.
I disagree with a lot of things about Norm Letnick, yet he says how he thinks and he votes that way he doesn't flip flop, or outright say one thing and do another.
And for those with short memories, the council voted to scrap the covenant the first time, with one voice, so Shepard does have flat feet from jumping on and off the bandwagon
2by4angel
Fledgling
Posts: 213
Joined: Sep 12th, 2006, 12:09 am

Re: Rating Councillors/Directors

Post by 2by4angel »

....and then people wonder why the number of those seeking election to City Council/RDCO/or Trustee positions are so limited :runforlife: :dyinglaughing:

Perhaps those who are doing most of the complaining would be interested in throwing their hats into the ring?
User avatar
Bestside
Guru
Posts: 5897
Joined: Apr 29th, 2007, 1:03 am

Re: Rating Councillors/Directors

Post by Bestside »

FunkyBunch wrote:Anytime. I have been wrong on occasion, but I was sure she had a done a "two-face" on this one.

First she campaigns on not doing anything to the Simpson Covenant.
Then she votes to remove it.
Then she fights the Simpsons in court.
Then the city appeals, citizens are mad, and she decides to campaign on her mind being changed? But it's only been changed in the past month. Prior to that she was willing to go against what she promised before the last election. Her principles seem to be for sale to the highest possible vote count or only matter right before an election.

This sums up Mayor Simpson.
"Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking" - David Frum

Return to “Kelowna”