Bats are being killed.

Hundreds of bats found dead each year around wind turbines have suffered internal trauma from a sudden drop in air pressure at the turbine blades, according to new research… {link to source]

The bats haven’t got a hope in hell. It used to be steel plants and other industries but now the wind power lobby soon to become big eco-business dipping heavily into the corporate welfare trough will win out. They have the ear of government, the public has been brought on side by the media, Al Gore rules. Bats can’t compete against that. They aren’t soft and cute and cuddly with a nice white coat. They aren’t even as pretty as some birds - or as essential to business as bees. Nope. This form of eco terrorism will proceed and we will be left with the unintended consequences like the bio-fuel fiasco.

Wolfville is a nuclear free zone but wind turbines are being investigated and have been included as a possibiliy by development agreement in the draft LUB [pp. 46, 65] The alternate energy we would go for is solar since the sun runs the show.

We have bats but not for much longer. They are already under stress with the destruction of habitat which, believe it or not, we don’t like to see. As with so many other issues environmental fundementalists are out to lunch. They try to protect the forest but don’t see or bother about the loss of individual trees. Pretty soon then you don’t have a forest to save, especially when to save the forest they accidentally burn it down.

Later: In case you don’t believe the bit about corporate welfare - have you read this?

As part of the EU’s plan to generate 20 percent of the UK’s electricity using renewables, seven giant 340 ft, 2MW wind turbines are being planned on a remote corner of the district, known as Lower Farm, Bearstone, attracting objections from 2,333 residents and businesses, six Parish Councils, two MPs and the neighbouring Borough Council.

Yet, despite only five letters in support of the wind turbines, being developed on behalf of Nuon Electricity, the local planning officer has recommended its approval, citing the over-riding need to meet national quotas for renewable energy. …

Not only will the local residents have to pay top dollar for the electricity produced, through the government’s incentive scheme to encourage building wind farms – known as the Renewable Obligations Certificate – they will have to pay twice over. The total sum amounts to a colossal £43 million over the life of the project.

This is worked out of the basis of ROCs being paid out at the rate of £53 per MWh of electricity produced, which is added to consumers’ electricity bills. The turbines will produce an estimated 32,377 MWh a year, producing a subsidy of £1,715,981 for each of the 25 years the permission to operate lasts, totalling just under the £43 million.

Why this should be a wake-up call for the rest of the nation is that this illustrates the huge scale of the hidden incentives involved. Energy companies are not so much building wind as subsidy farms, such is the bonanza to be grabbed.

[link to source]

HT SDA

Wolfville has been robbed of another business. Curves has been forced to close because of another set of break ins. There have been 4 break ins in the 5 years the business has been open here. Poor policing costs us. It costs us business and deprives us of desirable services - and residents.

What is the reaction? Get an alarm system. We guess everyone in town will have to get an alarm system then.

Later: Remembered that the town and the RCMP are attempting to organize a citizens patrol. Perhaps if that helps we can get rid of the RCMP contract and use the $1 million dollars we pay them to get everyone in town an alarm system?

Wolfvillian Brian Sanderson wrote a letter to the CH editor a few days (CH Sat. Aug 23 Voice of the People) in answer to the article in which Elizabeth May goes on about failing dykeworks near Amherst which she believed is connected to rising sea levels brought about by global warming. How many people read this letter compared to the previous articles and then the subsequent reports on CBC radio where this connection and belief was repeated as a fact? Just to give this letter a bit more distribution we are copying it here (emph added is ours).

False premise

Elizabeth May (Aug. 19) seems to have fallen for the false premise that rising sea level brought about by global warming caused dike works to fail.

Church and White (2004) published credible estimates of global sea level rise in Geophysical Research Letters. Sea level has risen less than eight inches in the last 134 years and is projected to rise about a foot in the next 100 years. Such changes in sea level are minuscule in the context of tides in the Bay of Fundy and might be offset were we to exploit tides as a source of energy.

The failure of the recent dike works had nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with poor engineering. Remarkably, Elizabeth May goes on to suggest that Minister John Baird appears to be engaged in fear-mongering. Surely this is the pot calling the kettle black!

Humans affect the planet in many ways. Arguably, we have raised average global temperatures by less than one degree C (so far). Certainly we have caused a dramatic decline in wild fish stocks. Definitely, many of the natural ecosystems that used to exist on arable land have been replaced with farms (or desert). There are many, many in-your-face ways in which humans have changed planet Earth – and they are most obviously related to growth of the human population. Now that’s something that really is worth writing about. Go on, Liz, I dare you!

Brian Sanderson,

PhD, physical oceanography,

Wolfville

We don’t need to add anything to that except the obvious. Who knows how to build dykes properly anymore. Not the guys who did that work that’s for sure. The proof is the old aboiteau held.

“The federal government pulled out years ago and left it to the province. I checked with the federal Agriculture Department and they tell me they no longer have anyone on staff with the expertise to maintain the dikes and . . . I think the failure of this aboiteau shows the province has lost its expertise as well,” Mr. Bacon said.

“We need to get (that expertise) back, at both the federal and provincial level …

Wolfvillian Mr. Becker has been distributing another 2 page open letter with another complaint about this administration . He left some in the post office and a few days ago we managed to get a hold of a copy , before the mayor threw the rest of the stack in the waste basket. Those of you who belong to the 700 club will have read about it already in Mr. Becker’s own words. Apparently Mr. Becker had just left copies in the PO and saw the mayor go in. When Mr. Becker went back in after the mayor left he found all his material had been discarded. Now why would the mayor wish to stifle Mr. Becker? This isn’t China after all.

But back to Mr. Becker’s complaint. A Vendetta? He starts off by admitting that he has had issues in the past with Wolfville’s CAO over a number of problems . Some will see this as evidence that Mr. Becker has a grudge against the town and therefore dismiss his complaint as groundless. Others will see this as evidence of Mr. Becker’s experience with how this Administration handles things - badly. One you have this experience you start looking at everything the town does with new eyes.

Mr. Becker’s complaint this time is the generous employment package of our Hantsport resident CAO. He was curious when he heard that there was an “in camera” session regarding Mr. Brideau’s work performance and submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act for documents pertaining to Mr. Brideau’s contract. Mr. Becker goes into some detail but to cut to the chase he has found that:

• The original contract of 1996 (which was for 3 years starting at $58,000 to be reviewed annually) was amended after only a little more than a year into the contract (and just prior to municipal elections ) to:

1. make the term of the contract “indefinite“
2. the notice of termination provisions were revised to include generous severance pay if the Town ended his employment

• An additional amendment gave Mr. Brideau generous salary and pension increases up to the year 2011.

1. His salary for 08-09 which Mr. Becker gives appears to be about $10,000 richer than it would be with normal cost of living increases
2. and the pension contributions paid by the town increase from 5% to a whopping 18% over the next few years.

• Mr. Becker asks several questions: Which add up to when, why and how were these amendments made? Specifically:

1. He can find no notation in the Minutes to the “in camera” session where these amendment decisions were made and he questions whether the discussion and decisions about Mr. Brideau’s contract should have been made “in camera”. There are several discrepancies in the documentation which are puzzling and suspicious.
2. He questions whether the Town can give more than 5% in contributions to Mr. Brideau’s RRSP as the Municipal Government Act appears to restrict the Town to 5%
3. Where is the record of performance reviews which were supposed to have been done yearly and how can increases for future years be granted by the amendment before yearly evaluations have been done.
4. Why was a section of the letter to Mr. Brideau informing him of the generous amendment decisions blacked out? Mr. Becker is appealing this to the Review Office under the FOIPPA but he will not likely receive a reply before the municipal elections.
5. Why has the Town been so generous to Mr. Brideau at taxpayers expense, can they commit future Councils to these generous terms by way of this contract, and can they be held personally responsible?

It should be noted also that Mr. Brideau’s original contract also gave him a credit card for his use only for authorised business expenses (who monitors those we wonder?)

We haven’t seen these documents ourselves but we do believe Mr. Becker has grounds for disquiet as we too have heard rumours about Mr. Brideau’s over generous salary and working conditions. Mr. Becker’s investigation gives us even more reason to wish for a fresh Council which will be able to look into these questions and reassure residents that our interests are not being sacrificed for someone else’s benefit.

We must now watch to see what happens to Mr. Brideau’s position. Will Council suddenly terminate his employment “without cause” so he can cash in on the generous settlement terms in the amended contract before a new Council takes office? He’d have more time for golf then.

Before we proceed with another post about Wolfville issues we want to fulfill a promise we made to Bryan Henry, ex blogger of Blogging Nova Scotia who is appealing on behalf of the Cape Breton woman, Marilyn MacKay, awaiting a transplant in Ontario. Although the story is now getting some local press and help from the Lung Association of NS we want to highlight the need here also in case some of our readers are inclined to help this family out. Here is Bryon’s message which we are very happy to pass on.

I am friends with a member of the family and looking to help get her
support so she can stay in Toronto long enough to get the surgery
needed to save her life. The Nova Scotia government has agreed to pay
for the surgery and any medical costs but wont be able to assist with
cost of living, transportation or anything else.

Donations can be made at any TD bank in an account created for Marilyn
Mackay. Simply go to the bank and ask to give funds for the Marilyn
Mackay benefit fund being hosted at the Port Hawkesbury branch.

So toddle down to the TD branch in Kentville or contact the Lung Association and make a donation.

For several days we’ve been mulling over the article in the paper ( CH Sat. Aug 16th) regarding Kingston Village’s dismissal lawsuit. And now a personnel issue in Wolfville has blown up arisen and prompts us to get going and put our thoughts down. There are connections.

First the Kingston case very briefly, emph ours:

In the original statement of claim, Ms. Rice states that she was asked last December to sign a disciplinary letter that would put her on probation for 12 months and put a reprimand on her record for allegedly missing a funding application deadline.

She said she didn’t sign the letter, and six weeks later was shown another disciplinary letter making several allegations of deficiencies in her job performance.

The second letter, her court documents state, contained “factual errors, substantial omissions and misrepresentations, yet she was not given an opportunity to reply to these accusations.”

Her claim also said that Ms. Rice occasionally “took contrary positions to certain village commissioners or the entire village commission on various issues regarding the proper interpretation of the Municipal Government Act and the limitations within which village commissions are required to operate,” but always conducted herself professionally and courteously.

Ms. Rice had been employed with the commission for eight years.

The documents say that by firing Ms. Rice without cause while she was on sick leave, the village “acted vindictively, callously and in a retaliatory manner.”

Of course there is another side. There always is.

The Village of Kingston says its former clerk-treasurer didn’t do her job well. That’s part of its defence to a wrongful dismissal suit filed by Kelly Rice in June.

In the defence filed at Kentville Supreme Court, the village “denies she performed her duties diligently and that the alleged performance of her duties led to substantial opportunities for the village.”

The village also said that it “denies that she conducted herself at all times in a professional and courteous manner.”

The village said it set out a specific course of action to satisfy concerns about her job performance, including having a future meeting and offering further training.

The defence says the only response to the offer was a letter from Ms. Rice’s solicitor that alleged the village was conducting its affairs contrary to the Municipal Government Act. …

The village denies that she was on sick leave.

None of the allegations have been proven in court … [ link to source]

So who is right? Perhaps they both are. It is likely there were wrongs on both sides but the thing we notice is this- This issue in Kingston is to be decided in open court, where we, taxpayers and residents, can see both sides of the story and make a judgement. This is the right way to do things. When the case is settled - rightly or wrongly- at least townspeople will know some of the details and if money is paid out they will know the reasons given in answer to why.

We don’t know anything about the Kingston case. But at least there wasn’t a back room, in camera, settlement where the municipality buys its way out of a problem with an employee (or whistle blower). Nor has a sloppy civil servant wangled an undeserved windfall monetary handshake by bullying the council behind closed doors when he or she should be fired.

How many wrongful dismissal suits has Wolfville had? On the other hand we could ask the question- how many employee settlements have there been, with the monetary and other grimy details never disclosed to taxpayers and voters?

Since another another Wolfville Town employee is coming under scrutiny, or so we hear, we should watch to see whether there will be transparency or whether it will be settled out of court via “in camera” sessions. More about who and what is involved in our next post.

From an attendee at Monday’s MPS/LUB meeting :

Councillor Simpson stood up for his consituents at Council. He is our hero. He put forward a motion at the meeting on Monday night, based on  wording from Rob Porter’s submission concerning the R1 zone, which would have enshrined in the MPS ( in Section 8)  an intent to retain the single family dwelling zone as an integral part of Wolfville’s character and economic viability/sustainability .  Councillor McKay  is to be applauded also for seconding the motion. In the discussion that followed the motion the Deputy Mayor argued that the statement of intent was not necessary as the wording of the MPS implied the preservation of the zone as an intent and also argued that in any case anything that was written in the document could be amended by a subsequent Council so was not written in stone.  Although a number of Councillors spoke to the motion  the mayor said nothing. The motion was defeated. Is the R1 zone safe given this attitude?

Our comments re Deputy Mayor Wrye’s arguments: 1) If an intent to retain the R1 zone was the intent of Council and the document then what harm would there be by making it explicit in the wording of the MPS?  2) If any clauses of the MPS can be so cavalierly amended as the deputy mayor implies than nothing in the MPS is safe, especially the R1 zone, which he himself advised should be revisited within the year.

The Conclusion? The only safety for residents of Wolfville regarding any zoning or any bylaw or any policy, environmentally sustainable or otherwise, is having a Council composed of members who DO feel that the MPS and LUB are not to be amended lightly.

Our other conclusion? The defeat of his motion won’t do Councillor Simpson any harm when it comes to the election which is looming. On the contrary.

You probably read in the August 14 copy of the Register, as we did, about the rash of break ins on the east side of town over the night of Aug 7th. We read the “from the cruiser” reports regularly and it is unusual to hear about break ins in that part of town. The timing is especially odd since with all the construction work on Sherwood lately there hasn’t been even the usual through traffic there. We expect the pony patrol RCMP are thinking along the same lines we are, ie. that there should be a whole whack of questions asked of the construction workers who have been tearing up that street- several times over from the looks of it- for two months or more.

It is clear that these break ins were not just a one off but were a planned series of thefts, perpetrated over one night, hitting certain out buildings which were targetted. So the area had been scouted, and as we said, it hasn’t been easy to go up or down that way recently for the ordinary thief to scout out targets - except of course for those working on the street. And what was taken? “Woodworking tools” from a garage on Parkview, ” $1,000 worth of tools” from an unlocked shed on Dale, ” a generator and tools” from another unlocked shed at the Blomidon Inn. The report doesn’t say what was taken from a locked storage shed on Sherwood but whoever did the deed had tools to cut the lock. Yep, planned and well chosen targets.

Not sure about that bunch the town chose to do the work. It was a very expensive project but you wouldn’t want to be choosing an unreputable company, even if they did have the lowest bid.

Hope the cops take some fingerprints of the construction crew. We don’t think it is enough to say ” These are the times we live in.”

We took a peek at Scott Brison’s website the other day hoping to see photos and a blurb about Scott’s participation in the Gay Pride Parade in Halifax on July 26th. He usually has a little rundown of his activities in the previous week and a heads up for the coming week, something like this one for last week. But we were disappointed. There was no report covering July 26th. On the report which covered his Barbeque on July 20th, and then some events covering July 29th to the 31st, we are informed that - Last week’s report was not issued due to some technical difficulties.

We wonder what possible technical difficulties those would be. While it might not have been possible to send immediate photos via cell phone or a report via his or his keeper’s blackberry surely after the event these could be included in the July 31 report - as his barbeque of July 20th was.

The Gay Pride parade is also not mentioned in a previous report, dated Thursday July 17th, as an upcoming activity.

The week ahead:

Scott will be in his constituency office for appointments on Monday. On Tuesday he is meeting with the executive director of the Heritage Canada Foundation regarding protection of Canada’s built heritage and in the evening will be attending the launch reception for the Annapolis Valley’s newest radio station, K-Rock, at the Old Orchard Inn.

We know he was there because Frank Magazine didn’t have any technical difficulties and has Brison’s picture on the front cover of issue 539 [good til Aug 19th] cosying up to Liberal MP Mike Savage and a vehicle, with Scott’s name proudly displayed on the front, is featured with other colourful participants of the Rainbow Parade in a colour centrefold.

Is Scott not proud? Is he not honest? Very puzzling.

We have a copy of another submission to Council, presented at the Aug 11 meeting, again via the Ratepayers Group. This one is from Keith Irving. We don’t need to add any comment. It speaks for itself.

Submission to the Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS)
and Land Use By-Law (LUB) — Special Meeting

by Keith Irving
Wolfville Ratepayer
August 11, 2008

A Municipal Planning Strategy is the most important and most democratic tool an elected Council has for involving community members in setting a vision for their community’s future.

The Sustainable Community Task Force recently heard from both your staff and the Chair that they are “proud” of this document feeling that it was the product of extensive public consultation and that it will “stand the test of time”.

Tonight I will provide you with a different perspective.

First, I will argue that that the MPS is an incomplete document - the result of a failed process that played lip service to the democratic principle of public consultation.

Secondly, I will argue that the MPS document failed to meet your contractual obligations to Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and this raises serious questions of trust and public confidence about this Council’s ability to manage a project of this importance.

Finally, I will offer thoughts on a way forward.

Now I know that using such harsh words such as ‘failed process’ automatically puts people on defensive.  Some will argue that the quality of the process is a matter of interpretation and perspective.

Let me offer some points to consider when you deliberate on the merits of the public process that lead to the document before you.

For well over a year,  a number of people, myself included,  have been  encouraging your staff and the PAC Chair to engage in a proper community participation program.

The Municipal Government Act ( Article 204) requires that a public participation program be adopted as a policy of Council in the process of preparing planning documents.

When I recently asked Chairman Wrye for a copy of the public participation program adopted by Council for this project he replied that he did not know what this was.

I was subsequently forwarded by town staff a policy passed almost 10 years ago which requires one public participation meeting in the process to amend of [sic] the MPS.

One meeting is not “a program” and therefore this policy could not really apply to this extensive 3 year review process.

Clearly this policy does not meet the intent of the MGA and falls woefully short of what might be considered adequate for a process as important as the intention for a comprehensive revision the MPS.

Your staff has argued that the community circles and STFC meetings were the most extensive public consultation processes in their experience.

Well, I had an opportunity to listen to the tapes of the last meeting of the Sustainable Community Task Force. The strongest comments came from John Brown and I quote:

“I was very disappointed with the process… in fact as a process it was a failure”

Mr. Brown also went on to say (quote)  “ the task force did not get any product from the Community Circles”. He wanted to make it clear that “the task force never in any of its deliberations acted in any way on what the Community Circles uncovered”

He also confirmed that he saw no evidence that The Natural Step process was used which was a contractual obligation of the FCM contract.

So, before you comfort yourself in the argument that this process involved the most extensive public consultation the community has seen, I urge you to take the next step of connecting the dots.

Presumably the new vision for the community as formulated through the community consultations would be reflected in the new land use maps. The maps would reveal a vision which we can all be excited and proud.

However, if you look carefully at the existing land use map and the future land use map you will note that they are virtually identical!

The Comparison Document that was produced by your staff - by public demand - to show the changes from the previous MPS included a list of 82 bulleted items. Yet,

·    20 of the changed items were only name changes for zones.
·    16 of the changes use the words “Slight” or “Modest” Change.
·    33 of the noted items say “no change”

This leaves 13 items that are different from the last plan - 13 items that presumably define a sustainable vision for the future. Take a look at them, there is really not much there.

Completely absent from the new Land Use Plan are features found in other communities also pursuing a sustainable vision, features such as:

·    New types of zoning designations for innovative sustainable housing or clustered housing.
·    locations for new facilities and playgrounds to attract families.
·    Locations for community gardens.
·    future bike routes and trails.

In short, Wolfville’s new MPS process took $160,000 and almost 3 years to arrive at a new plan with 13 minor changes from our last plan.

So not only does the value for dollar question come into play in looking at the results of the new Land Use Plan, but you must also examine whether you have met the terms of the contract with FCM.

The contract with FCM outlines five objectives that go well beyond reworking the MPS and LUB -  yet the process has been  remarkably silent about these other objectives. The Town of Wolfville is contractually obligated to complete all the objectives under the FCM contract.

It was only at the most recent meeting of the Task Force that there was acknowledgement that things like the community monitoring tools were not complete. Yet, the Task Force was happy to be dissolved at that meeting without completing this objective.

If these objectives have not been completed, the question must be asked: Who will be held responsible for not completing the objectives of this project?  From a citizen’s perspective, it is still not clear who holds accountability for the project content, the schedule or the budget.

A review of the FCM contract with the Town of Wolfville  leads to a fairly obvious conclusion: the terms of this contact cannot possibly be fulfilled by the completion date of Sept 30th.

What do you do now?

·    You can hold your nose and pass this MPS which lacks vision and has no evidence of public support.
·    You can hope that FCM looks the other way when they review your submission due on Sept 30th and that future Green Funds to Wolfville are not put at risk.
·    And you can hope that the electorate has forgotten what has happened over the past few months.

The biggest risk of this approach is of course, that the Town of Wolfville will plod forward with a plan that in no way addresses the core issues of a sustainable community vision.  We will muddle through issues of sustainability, boundary expansion, and difficult choices that compromise our community quality of life. We will continue to react to the vision of developers rather than leading a vision for our community. We will undertake lowest common denominator planning because the bar has not been set higher when we had a great opportunity to do so.

But, you can also pause this process and take the time review the FCM Contract and talk to folks like John Brown on his experience with the process.

You can then consider the difficult but right decision of asking FCM for an extension so that the new Council can have an opportunity to complete the process and restore the public faith in the planning process.

A vote for this Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use Plan places your voice behind a failed public process and a badly managed project that fell well short of your contractual obligations. It fell well short of the expectations of our citizens. I strongly urge that you vote against this Strategy and Land Use Plan.

Thank you.

Keith  Irving