Wolfville watch

Wind farms are not farms

Ww — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:05:19 +0000

With the discussion taking place presently in the County re wind farms, perhaps the No Farms, No Food people should consider this:

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture wants the provincial government to temporarily pull the plug on industrial wind turbine development until serious shortcomings with the program can be fixed.

Federation president Mark Wales says the developments are pitting rural residents against each other. In addition during the past few weeks, members have told federation representatives about health problems associated with the turbines, concerns over the loss of farmland, encumbrances on their properties and other issues. …

Nipissing MPP Vic Fedeli, the Progressive Conservative’s energy critic, says Ontario Auditor General’s Jim McCarter notes in his 2011 report released in December that for every job created in the wind and solar industries, two to four jobs in other sectors are lost because of higher electricity prices….

Among the federation’s concerns are:

•    the price paid for wind power;
•    the inefficiency of wind power – it can’t be stored for use during peak demand periods;
•    setbacks and induced currents;
•    health and nuisance matters; and
•    removal of municipal input from wind turbine projects.

Read the rest

From the Mud Creek News

Ww — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:50:26 +0000

A submission from David Daniels, also available in the Mud Creek News which may, or may not be, at the Post Office.

LEADERSHIP BY OMISSION OR HOW DECISIONS ARE MADE BY DOING NOTHING

The RCMP’S long term contract under which it provides policing services to the Town is set to expire in March, 2012. The Town budgeted $1,131,400 for police protection for fiscal year 2011-2012. That amounts to slightly less than 15% of the Town’s total operating budget or about 1 out of every 7 tax dollars goes towards policing.

Has the Mayor led a public effort to investigate whether

Town residents are satisfied with the policing services provided by the RCMP before a new multi-year contract is signed? Has the Mayor or Council explored alternatives to the RCMP such as a cooperative agreement with the Kentville police department or Kings County or forming its own police force, which it once had? Has the Mayor even informed the public about the status of the RCMP contract? (The two 2011 Mayor’s Newsletters did not contain any mention that the RCMP contract would be expiring in March of 2012.)

Chapter 38 of the Town’s Bylaws states that the Police Services Advisory Committee “ . . . shall make a complete annual report to Town Council, and other reports from time to time as required.” It also requires the Committee “To provide annually to Council and the NCO an evaluation of the policing services with the Town with reference to Policing Goals and Objectives as stated.”

If such reports were available, at least the Council and public might be able to make an informed decision about the policing services provided by the RCMP. But there are no such reports on the Town’s website.

In 2009, the Town spent $20,000 on consultants to write a Public Engagement Tool Kit. The Tool Kit includes a Public Participation Process

Checklist/Guide. If the Council had gone through the checklist, which it did not, it might have decided to engage the public on this issue.

It isn’t as though this issue snuck up on the Mayor; it’s been known for years that the RCMP contract was ending in March 2012. If the Town Council could spend time deciding whether the Witch Hazel should be the official tree of Wolfville, it had the time to discuss with the public whether it was getting its money’s worth from a $1.13 million expenditure.

I don’t know if the Town should sign another multi-year contract with the RCMP; I don’t know if there are other options available; or whether the contract for RCMP policing can be modified to better serve the needs of Town residents. I didn’t live in the Town when it had its own police force.

Why hasn’t the Mayor or Council pushed for public consultation on this issue? Is it because the Mayor and other Council members feel it is not an important issue warranting public engagement? Do they believe that there are no good alternatives?

Whatever the reason, it doesn’t matter anymore. It’s too late. By doing nothing, a decision has been made.

Submission re Gaspereau Ave Development

Ww — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:10:49 +0000

Here is a letter from David Daniels to Council concerning the plans for Gaspereau Ave. He has asked us to post here and we are happy to oblige.

January 9, 2012

Dear Council Members:

Please accept the following comments concerning the Gaspereau Avenue apartment project.
——————

I asked at a Council meeting whether the Council had provided any directions to Mr. Morrison for his upcoming negotiations with the developer of the Gaspereau Avenue project. The answer was “no”.

I do not understand why the Council would not provide guidance to staff when staff members are negotiating a development agreement (DA) which amounts to a contract between the Town and the developer.

Recall that Mr. Morrison has already negotiated one DA with the developer. That DA was unanimously rejected by Council. The developer no doubt expended a good deal of time and money working on this rejected proposal. In addition, the developer has now appealed the rejection to the UARB which has resulted in both the Town and the developer incurring legal costs.

Ms. Mombourquette and Mr. Morrison may prepare for the negotiations by reviewing the minutes or recording of the Council meeting at which the first proposal was rejected. But why not then confer directly with the Council members? Council members may provide further insight into what they would like to see and not see in the development. They also may raise new issues which they believe need to be addressed during the negotiations.

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that individual Council members provide absolute conditions which must be satisfied before he would vote in favour of a proposal. Rather, Council members should be able to express concerns and issues which they believe should be part of the negotiations. Providing this sort of guidance does not preclude Council members from coming to the public hearing with an open mind and being amenable to persuasion.
——————

Although it may be difficult to predict the outcome of the pending UARB appeal, it is important when negotiating with the developer to have some sense of the developer’s chances of success. If the negotiations break down, the developer has the option of moving forward with the litigation. If his chances of success at the UARB are not good, then the Town is in a better position to make demands on the developer.

One question I do not know the answer to is: does the Town have the obligation to consider a second proposal if the negotiations break down while litigation is on hold? The answer might depend upon the nature of the consent given by the Town when it agreed to adjourn the UARB proceeding.

——————

The Town should consider retaining a qualified planning consultant to participate in its negotiations with the developer. (Perhaps some cooperative arrangement can be reached with Kings County.) The final building approved will very likely be a large one with the potential to have a significant impact upon the Town.

A qualified planner can assist the Town in setting out its negotiation position or in responding to particular details in the developer’s proposal. A qualified planner may bring suggestions and perspectives to the negotiation table which would not otherwise be thought of.

In addition, the involvement of a qualified planner might make future litigation less likely. For example, the developer may claim that an idea suggested by the Town is not reasonably consistent with the Town’s MPS or goes against accepted planning practices. If the Town’s idea has the okay of a qualified planner, the Town will have a comfort level in making the demand, and the developer will know that the idea has the imprimatur of a planner. The developer will be less likely to want to litigate if he knows that the Town planner will testify as an expert that the Council’s decision is in line with good planning practices and is reasonably consistent with Town’s MPS.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.

Respectfully,

David A. Daniels

Municipal Madhouse

Ww — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:29:41 +0000

Does municipal government need reform? You betcha!

Shame!

It’s not just Wolfville.

Could Dexter learn from Thatcher?

Ww — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:43:31 +0000

This caught our eye:

As the privatization of state-owned industries proceeded, and unemployment temporarily rose to one million, then two, and finally three-million (before sharply declining), the London County Council, dominated by Marxists, was almost screaming for her blood. Mrs. Thatcher replied by abolishing the municipal government, put one of the greatest cities in the world under direct rule from the Home Office, sold the London government headquarters, County Hall, the largest building in the country, to Japanese developers to be turned into an aquarium, and London enjoyed better municipal administration. [read the rest]

All of NS isn’t as big as the London Municipality. Some amalgamation is going to be needed – school Boards, Municipalities. Has Dexter got ~~the balls~~ courage?

A letter

Ww — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:03:13 +0000

A letter to the C. H. from Wolfvillian B. Sanderson, sometime reader of, commenter and contributor to Ww - in case you missed it.

Personal freedom key

Re: “Religious freedom ‘essential’” (Jan. 3). Surprise, surprise! Our government is going to bless us all with an “Office of Religious Freedom.” The Holy See in Rome, the Aga Khan, head of the Greek Orthodox Church, and other foreign powers were duly consulted. So who would have the temerity to complain? Me, that’s who! I refuse to be governed according to secret advice from foreign god-pushers!

We have been told that the Office of Religious Freedom will protect religious rights and advocate on behalf of religions. It is the job of government to represent people, not religions. Religions do not have rights. People have rights! Let us have an “Office of Personal Freedom.” [emph ours]

Brian Sanderson, Wolfville [link to Voice of the People]

Have to agree. Better they should get rid of the ~~Kangaroo Courts~~ so called Human Rights Tribunals.

Questions for prospective NDP leader

Ww — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:13:53 +0000

The CBC wants questions you would like put to the NDP candidates for leadership of the party.

Ww readers might like to submit theirs, with this in mind :

We’ll be choosing open-ended questions in order to fuel conversation, rather than questions that can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.”

As you see quite a few people have added their questions already.

Re-view 2011

Ww — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:03:35 +0000

Often at this time of year we offer a review of posts from previous years which we think bear revisiting. Here is our list for this year, in no particular order.

Aims Municipal Performance Report

Wind Folly

Reflections on living downtown

Can we trade ( a discussion on density)

Wolfville’s wild Spending

10 is the usual – but we are contrary so we offer only 9!

Merry Christmas etc

Ww — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:36:09 +0000

To all Ww readers - Happy Christmas

and

Merry Chanukah

Vandals strike again

Ww — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:25:24 +0000

We wonder how and why these vandals choose their targets, or is it just random idiocy?

From the Police Briefs , Dec. 16th

Vandalism under investigation

Three incidents of vandalism took place in Wolfville during the weekend.

Early on Dec. 10 a window was broken at Wolfville School when a piece of metal was thrown at it.

On Dec. 11 some windows were broken at MP Scott Brison’s office off Harbourside Drive while a hammer was used to break windows at the Wolfville Memorial Library.