City of North Vancouver 2041?
Upcoming: Council Meeting Apr 20th Policy Committee Meeting re Gaming Facilities in the City
(further detail in the posting titled Shiny Sexy Legacy Project)
Updated Apr 12: Council Meeting Apr 13th summary:
-Delegation re off-lease dog park in Lower Lonsdale, (petition with hundreds of signatures in favour)
-Finance Committee meeting with tax increase options
-Temporary Use Permit for 925 Harbourside (Concert Properties) to establish a specialty food indicator “Hawkers Market” for a term of 3 years using shipping containers. Four sites are zoned for mixed use and will be constructed in 4 phases over the next 10-15 years. This will be interim use to create activity in the area while prior phases are under construction – 925 will be scheduled in phase 3.
-$75,000 to establish temporary trail (property bought by City at 619 E 1st for over $1M), building to be demolished
-Endorsement of planning division work priorities – East 3rd/Moodyville development controls and Density Bonus Policy Finalization
-Endorsement of Shipyards Lot 5 Vision – site planning, next steps. Foreshore water feature and Observation Wheel have been eliminated from plan – remainder of plan follows Roger Brooks proposal
Full agenda here: http://www.cnv.org/CouncilAgenda
Updated Mar 29: Council Meeting March 30th 6.30pm- Financial Plan Update Public Meeting
The tax rate will be approved – options are 3.9%, 6.4% or 7.9%. Members of Council have prioritized the 10 year project plan. We note that our Mayor has rated the Harry Jerome Redevelopment Study and Building Renewal as a ‘C’ priority. The explanation for ‘C’ is ‘postpone project’. Other members of his team have rated it as a ‘B’ and the independent Council members – Councillors Bell, Bookham and Clark rated it as an ‘A’ which bumps it up overall to a ‘B’ priority (should stay on the list and be completed within 10 years).
Updated Feb 23: Want to know who gave what expecting what for it?
Time will tell – what we know now: 161 E Keith applicants; gaming establishment supporter, more to come.
Campaign disclosures: https://nvcityvoices.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/local-election-spending-cnv-nov-2014/
Updated Dec 4: NS News coverage “Mussatto sets priorities”:
3rd quarter (Jul-Sep 2014) Council expenses now posted:
Update April 12: 4th quarter 2014 and total year expected to be available in April
Coun. Bell $1058.52 year to date: $5294.46
Coun. Bookham $55.00 $220.27
Coun. Buchanan $2829.38 $8320.76
Coun. Clark $5420.48
Coun. Keating $1259.11 $2921.94
Mayor Mussatto $3097.97 $10532.31
Updated Dec 2: Mayor’s Inaugural Address:
Little evidence in the address of heeding the words in the News editorial. No evidence of any humility or working together “in the spirit of diplomacy and cooperation”. No mention of the Museum on the waterfront. Evidence of a change in the process of committee appointments by singling out Clr. Buchanan to lead a committee. First priority seems to be to bring the Brooks vision for the waterfront to reality. Disappointing.
Now a likely probability? pro-development slate majority with voter turnout less than 30%.
Comment from Voices: We echo the sentiment expressed in this Editorial “we hope Council will work together in a spirit of diplomacy and cooperation”. The Mussatto team of Keating, Buchanan, Back, McGrenera, Clark and Makris generated a total of 21,842 votes – about 42% of the total. The ‘Independents’ totalled 29,793 Councilor votes, which related to 57% of the total. The Mayoral race results were 52% for Mayor Mussatto and 44% for Kerry Morris. We define ‘Independents’ as those Councillor candidates who do not accept donations from developers or unions.
The next four years will be interesting, with major projects to come before Council. In part: the OCP, the waterfront, Harry Jerome, Lot 5, Site 8, the Museum, the Polygon Gallery, Harbourside and needed infrastructure and transit improvements. We trust that the new pro-development majority on Council will break with past tradition and not vote in lock-step for the next four years. We would also remind those Councillors that, even with the ‘dirty tricks’, they do not have a majority of voters behind them.
Editorial from the North Shore News November 30, 2014:
Democracy on the North Shore was comparatively well served in 2014. Voter turnout stretched above 2011 levels but we need to do better.
Despite pending Park Royal towers in West Vancouver and North Van’s waterfront fight, more than 70 per cent of people avoided polls like the plague on Election Day. There has to be a way to engage voters that doesn’t involve snaking Highway 1 past their front door.
Just as we urge residents to watch council meetings, appraise developments and help author the OCP , we ask politicians to be available, honest, and sometimes downright blunt.
District of North Vancouver Coun. Roger Bassam took some criticism during the Panorama Drive parking dustup when he said it’s not the role of government to solve every “minor crisis.”
We’re not saying he’s right or wrong, but we applaud all elected officials who say what they mean and mean what they say – an increasingly rare commodity in politics.
That said, forthrightness isn’t the only virtue we seek in our civic leaders.
The City of North Vancouver’s municipal election was as contentious as it was competitive. But now that the election signs are gone and the last of the mud has been slung, we hope council will work together in a spirit of diplomacy and co-operation. It’s true the winner of any election enjoys a mandate, but that mandate shouldn’t preclude any councillor from considering good ideas – whether they’re from a voter or a resident still waiting for a reason to vote.
© North Shore News – See more at: http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/editorial/rules-of-engagement-1.1627554#sthash.fXuarmQi.dpuf
How is your group going to deal with this issue? Can you have any influence on the decision? What do you need in order for it to be voted down?.This was our reply:.On how our group will deal with these issues – we’ll do what we have on previous similar proposals – show up at all the open houses and public hearings and provide detailed rebuttals. We’ll support the things that we think are good for the community and oppose the things that are not. If we feel height or floor space bonuses are being given to developers too cheaply, we’ll point that out and demand a better deal for the city. We’ll remind council about the overriding issues we have addressed consistently till now – traffic, community services falling behind, overpopulation, the glut of high-rise condos, etc.
On influencing the decision – we have had some success here and there, getting the city to slow down some of the development growth. We support candidates not funded by developers and unions..