It’s seems one of my dreams has come true!

Today, I was featured in a CBC story on Open Data in New Brunswick –  airing on CBC radio, web, and TV:

Read onward for the Web version (with video):

Citizens ask for access to public data

The New Brunswick government and its universities are coming under pressure from citizens to make more raw data available to the public.

Many governments in Canada and around the world have embraced the so-called open data agenda and have freed up raw data to citizens so they can arrange public information in useful ways and collaborate with others to better understand the numbers.

Now, New Brunswick citizens and companies are arguing the government and universities should stop holding back similar information.

Shawn Peterson built the website — propertize.ca — because he wanted to compare his property tax assessment with his neighbours.

It’s now online and contains easy to find data for the entire province.

“I’d like to take it forward and be able to expand it into other provinces,” he said.

He’s taken public information and made it easy to use. But Peterson has also taken something for nothing and turned a profit.

Those pushing for more access to data have other ideas of how information can be used.

City buses could be tracked through smartphones, potholes could be reported and a city could notify people when they were fixed and snowplows could be monitored so people don’t have to shovel twice.

Patrick Lacroix, the managing director for the Fredericton-based company T4G, said there are many ways that the open data agenda could actually make life easier for citizens and allow communities to become more democratic.

“We have technology today that enables for much easier citizen engagement, and citizen engagement in a much smarter way,” he said.

Peterson said the potential applications and business models are only limited by the amount of information governments are willing to make public.

Open data sites

While the New Brunswick government is being pressured to start freeing up data for its citizens, the federal government is already moving in that direction.

The federal government announced last month that it is easing restrictions on the use of the taxpayer-funded data it makes available to the public.

The federal government’s open data portal collates 260,000 data sets that span everything from immigration statistics to mapping co-ordinates.

When Treasury Board President Tony Clement made the announcement, he said he had not heard yet of anyone doing anything creative with the federal government data made available to date. But he said the federal government was “liberalizing” the approach to opening up data.

He said the new rules would “make it easier for innovation to occur.”

Open data sites are not simply the domain of the federal government. The British Columbia government also has an open data site.

That page lists recent health data, information about visitor attendance at provincial parks and salary information for civil servants who earn more than $75,000.

What do you think about Open Data? Let me know!

I wanted to highlight a blog post from Sarah Craig yesterday about a neighbourhood meeting that got out of hand due to the antics of Councillor Bruce Court (our Ward 4 representative):

Initially, I was pleased they took the time to show up, and they did exactly as they said they would by sitting at the back of the room and took it all in. It was a fairly orderly meeting despite the unexpected high turnout, lack of an agenda, and high tension in the room. Overall, people were not thrilled with the re-zoning application, and as all these things tend to do, it devolved at one point into a group vent about poor snow removal and city services. We settled on a path forward, people volunteered, and we have an action plan. True grassroots organization at its best. That was until I heard shouting.

As people were mingling at the end of the meeting taking the rare opportunity to meet and catch up with neighbours I heard a lady yell “you assured me it wouldn’t happen and it did!” I looked over to see a petite dark haired women and our East Side Representative, Councillor Bruce Court, in a very heated exchange. He was in her face, yelling at her, and pointing a finger at her nose. This went on for a minute or so, when eventually he put his hand, palm out, in her face and walked toward the front of the room. He spoke to the women who organized the meeting, brought her back to the petite dark-haired women, where he continued to yell at her for a further 30 seconds. He put up his hand again in her face, and walked out. She followed him and continued to yell, “You’re not listening to me”.

Check out Sarah’s post for more details along with pictures!

The Telegraph-Journal had an interesting article yesterday on a city staff report declaring that cancelling private garbage collection would save the city money:

The city should take full responsibility of trash collection services and scrap the contract with private haulers, a move that would save the municipality $500,000 annually, a city staff report says.

In their review of expenses, city staffers compared the current costs of trash collection to the costs of fully contracting out the service or taking it over completely. They based their calculations on submissions from private haulers who estimated what they would charge if they assumed total control of curbside pickup.

Too bad it doesn’t add up in short term or long term.

In the short term, the city would need to pay $794,000 up-front to buy new trucks AND hire more city workers (remember that pension issue – the one where we, tax-payers, are paying for everyone else’s pension):

Long term is where it get’s even more ridiculous, consider the following:

The final report concludes that while the two alternatives are comparable in price, hiring private contractors to service all 53 routes is not viable largely because the city can’t lay off crews who are responsible for trash collection.

The city’s contract with the outside workers union, CUPE Local 18, guarantees 293 jobs will stay on the payroll until mid-2014, a provision the employee group secured when negotiating pension concessions. This means if the city fully contracted out the collection service, it would have to move the crews somewhere else.

Because the city has a contract the specifies a staffing level number (which make no sense at all) until 2014, they somehow decided that this still saves money in the long term – even the costs are cheaper for going private (factoring in the extra costs for new trucks and employees).

Consider if we keep things as-is until the contract expires.

The city could then switch to fully private garbage collection afterwards – reducing staffing numbers, reducing pension liability, and maintaining a reliable contract cost.

This shouldn’t be a difficult decision, contracting out garbage collection is good for Saint John taxpayers!

Today, an opinion piece captured it perfectly:

Council must weigh full service costs

The growing debate over garbage collection in Saint John illustrates the appeal and the drawbacks of short-term thinking. The city contracts out garbage pickup on 19 routes, while 34 routes are handled by municipal workers. At council’s request, city staffers have investigated two alternatives to this arrangement, from contracting out every route to abandoning private contracts.

These options are comparable in price, but in the short term, the city’s labour agreement with outside workers prohibits layoffs. Even if the city were to shift all garbage collection to a private contractor, it would still be paying the wages of municipal garbage crews until mid-2014. So, city staffers are recommending that the city take over all garbage collection. The appeal of this proposal is the potential savings it would create, which staffers have estimated at $500,000 a year. The drawback is that to service those 19 extra routes, the city would need to spend $794,000 on new trucks and hire four additional workers.

Even on the face of it, this is no bargain. The current garbage contract does not expire until September, 2011. A retooled municipal garbage service would not be available for eight to 10 months, taking the city into 2012. The capital expense of buying new trucks would write off the first year and a half of savings, so council would not see any net benefits until the 2014 fiscal year. Maybe we’re missing something, but that’s roughly the same time as the city’s guarantee of 293 jobs for outside workers is set to expire. Wouldn’t it be just as easy to plan for a smaller municipal workforce in 2014, supported by more private contractors?

Every time council increases the municipal workforce, it drives up the city’s annual financial obligations, from basic payroll costs to its pension commitments. Council must have a full accounting of the labour costs associated with this proposal before it can make an informed decision.

Councillors should review the city’s last three budgets. The cost of in-house labour and servicing the municipal pension deficit make up 60 per cent or more of the city’s spending.

If council wants to save more money in the long run, that is where it needs to cut.

——————-

More great comments from the original article:

John Campbell wrote:

was the cost of pensions for city employees taken into account

owen meaney wrote:

What a joke. The alleged savngs are based on the minimum worker contract, which is one of the main problems. The next contract must remove this clause, and everyone knows it. Keep the 6 workers and have them fill potholes until 2014, then deal with it. In the meantime, the current contract allows for no pension liability. Oh, and the casual mention of spending big money on trucks, and decreasing service. Silly. Imagine trying to get through the south end while garbage pickup is done through the day. Now imagine the trash all over the place because of biweekly pickup. This is a stupid idea, and should be treated like a stupid idea. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Ella H wrote:

Operating costs drop by 500K….. and on the other side…buy three new trucks, costing about $794,000, and hire four workers ..and those four new workers come with employment expenses – pension,benefits,employment taxes.

So just how is the city SAVING anything? I see an INCREASE in costs to the city.

Colin H wrote:

The city’s contract with the outside workers union, CUPE Local 18, guarantees 293 jobs will stay on the payroll until mid-2014″

I hope the city staff report looks at what the potential savings of contracting it all could be after 2014 (assuming the city doesn’t lock itself foolishly in to a minimum number of employees again). Does there cost projections include fully loaded wage costs including bebfits? Can taking over the contracted out routes require hiring of more city staff and the long term costs of that or can it be done with existing staff?

I look forward to reading the report seeing how the costs and potential savings were estimated.

Riverhill Drive wrote:

Let’s be realistic about what this is all about. The Mayor and his brother are doing anything they can to support unions at the expense of the tax payers. Do you wonder why they asked unionized employees to prepare an analysis that could lead to the addition of more members in their local? The answer was defined from the beginning. I have to give the preparers of the report credit for at least putting honest numbers in their report. Anyone with a calculator though can tell the private route is a much better way to go in the long term. Until we elect a council that is qualified to manage things, this is what is going to keep happening. It’s embarrassing that they think they can convince us of this stuff.

Note: As always, the following post is written by myself as a tax paying citizen of Saint John, and do not reflect the views of any other group or organization!

As highlighted by the Telegraph-Journal last week, three new development projects are seeking approval from Council that clash with PlanSJ:

Developers will soon ask city council for the green light to build more than 250 homes along Loch Lomond Road, but they will likely have to prove their projects pass the muster of the municipality’s new plan.

Two numbered companies and A. J. Mallette & Sons have proposed three separate developments on the east side artery. And they want to build fairly big subdivisions, ranging from 69 to 111 lots.

—-

One of the proposed developments, a 69-lot subdivision on 2797 Loch Lomond Rd. near Greenwood, would be in a rural, non-serviced area.

—–

The other two big proposals for Loch Lomond Road would not fall inside any of these targeted areas.

A numbered company proposes a 76-lot subdivision on 1429 Loch Lomond Rd., between Bon Accord Drive and Ganong Road. Another numbered company wants to build a 111-lot subdivision on 1515 Loch Lomond Rd., between Ganong Road and Pauline Street. Both proposals ask for zoning that would allow for one and two-family homes.

The issue is that this isn’t a test of PlanSJ – it’s a test of Council to actually follow the draft plan:

• The rural development plan definitely goes against PlanSJ. The plan is clear that growth outside the serviced areas of the city isn’t sustainable. There is room for minor development in the rural areas; but, it’s meant to be small growth on existing streets.
• The two suburban plans are also against the Plan.  While these plans are both located inside the serviced area of the city, the Future Land Use Map identifies this area as Stable Residential and not inside an intensification area (meaning major change, such as two new subdivisions, is not planned here).  See below for more information on Stable Residential areas – special emphasis on Policy LU-82 section f.

From the Draft Municipal Plan document (still open to citizen feedback):

3.5.4 Stable Community Areas

These lands are other developed lands inside the Primary Development Area identified as Stable Community Areas the City which are generally built-out and are not anticipated to receive major change over the planning period. Three land use designations are established in this Plan to provide policy direction for the future use of land in these areas:

Stable Residential Areas

Council shall:

Policy LU-80 Create the Stable Residential designation on the Future Land Use Map.  Within the Stable Residential designation, housing of almost every form and density may be found and its acceptability is dependent on its specific location.  In addition, other compatible uses may be found in the Stable Residential designation including convenience stores, home occupations, parks, and community facilities which are permitted in the designation without amendment to the Municipal Plan.

Policy LU-81 Intend that the areas designated Stable Residential will evolve over time from a land use perspective but that new and redeveloped land uses are to reinforce the predominant community character and make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.

Policy LU-82 Ensure that significant new development and redevelopment in areas designated Stable Residential shall generally be permitted only subject to a rezoning process where compliance is demonstrated with the following criteria:

a.  The proposed land use is desirable and contributes positively to the neighbourhood;

b. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses;

c.  The development is in a location where all necessary water and sewer services, parks and recreation services, schools, public transit and other community facilities and protective services can readily and adequately be provided;

d.  Site design features that adequately address such matters as safe access, buffering and landscaping, site grading and storm water management are incorporated;

e.  An exterior building design of high quality is provided that contributes positively to

f.  The proposal is on a property identified as a Corridor in the City Structure Map or new residential development to the Primary Centres, Local Centres, and Intensification Areas.

It will be interesting to see what Council decides.  I will be watching to see if the draft plan is followed (and hopefully mentioned as part of the decision making process).

Ignoring this draft plan (and in turn the feedback from many citizens of Saint John over the past year and a half) would not instill a great deal of confidence in me that the finalized Municipal Plan, to be adopted this fall, will be followed going forward.

Join in the conversation on Saint John’s Municipal Plan online using: Twitter (via the hashtag #plansj) or the Facebook Group!

It’s hard to believe that it’s been nearly four years since I worked on Stephen’s last municipal campaign!

Since then we have become good friends, which is why I am glad to hear the following news today:

Saint John Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase has been acclaimed as the Liberal Candidate for Saint John.

The Campaign Headquarters official opening will be on Saturday April 2nd at 60 Waterloo St.

Stephen will make a great candidate as he has an amazing track record on city council, and he truly cares about making things better in Saint John.

I’m looking forward to helping out on this new campaign – and I would strongly encourage any others who support him to get involved.

It’s going to be a busy few weeks!

Today’s TJ included a good summary of the debate over Enterprise Saint John in the 2011 Municipal budget last night:

Common council is putting the region’s economic development agency “on notice,” promising only half of Enterprise Saint John’s $400,000 grant for the first six months of the year.

But Coun. Mel Norton questioned what kind of message the reduced funding will send for entrepreneurship in the city.

“Taking it away or cutting its funding, or holding a proverbial gun to its head that we’re going to cut your funding in six months, or your funding is iffy, is not the right message,” he said Monday at council’s special meeting to pass the 2011 budget, where councillors voted to hold the tax rate at $1.785 per $100 of assessment for the second year in a row.

Norton said he saw it as a negative message that Enterprise Saint John was “on notice.”

We walk a dangerous line when we threaten the funding of the very agencies that help us be sustainable for the future and grow our creativity and grow our workforce,” he said.

Norton was one of two council members who voted against a motion attached to the budget, which included a stipulation that Enterprise Saint John’s grant should be split into two payments. The idea is to give the province time for its review of the enterprise model. After six months, the city will again decide on whether to continue funding Enterprise Saint John.

The grant is already a $43,000 drop from what the city gave to the economic development agency last year.

—-

Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase, who also voted against the decision, said he was worried that half a year was not enough time for the group to wind down files and move to another model.

He said the agency helped recruit and place 27 physicians in the area last year.

Chase asked city manager Patrick Woods if the city had the capacity to duplicate everything Enterprise Saint John is doing, and Woods said it couldn’t.

Enterprise Saint John does work for entrepreneurs, and it’s a service that the city would not be able to deliver itself at the same level for the same price, regardless of what some Councillors may think:

But councillors Peter McGuire and Bruce Court both said they would rather see the city stop funding the economic development group and do the work in-house.

Once again, I can’t say how happy I am that we now have two great representatives on council looking our for the citizens of Saint John – Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase and Councillor Mel Norton!

Learn more about what Enterprise Saint John does here!

Great news today in Saint John!

Mel Norton today announces his candidacy in the upcoming Saint John city by-election:

“Saint John is my home. I was born here, have lived here for most of my life, and like most of the people that call Saint John home, we want great things for our city. We want Saint John and the people that live here to do well. We want to help make Saint John better,” says Norton.

About Mel Norton:

Mel graduated from Saint John High School in 1992, and went on to complete a Bachelor of Arts with a major in Political Science at the University of New Brunswick in Saint John. Mel obtained his law degree from the University of New Brunswick in 1999.Mel and his wife Stephanie live in the heart of uptown Saint John. Mel enjoys being actively involved in the Saint John community, including volunteering with the Saint John Theatre Company and the historic Church of St. Andrew and St. David. One of Mel’s more adventurous undertakings is with the Canadian Forces as a Reserve Legal Officer.An advocate for affordable and quality housing, Mel volunteers with BCAPI and the Abbey Saint Andrews Housing project. Mel also works with The Paramount Restoration project as well as numerous non-profit agencies.

Follow Mel at: melnortonsj.ca, on Facebook, twitter, and LinkedIn

There was an article in last Friday’s Telegraph-Journal that really ticked me off.

It featured various quotes from Ward 4 Councillor Bruce Court on helping to fund a new recreation complex being organized by the Saint John Exhibition Association:

• “I just don’t know if we can afford it.”
• “My main concern is where we’re going to get the money from.”

Why does this tick me (and many others) off?

This comes immediately after he voted in favour of Peel Plaza – committing the city to spending millions of dollars on a new Police Station and Parking Garage, something that the city can’t afford without borrowing money.

To top it off, it looks like the Parking Garage will actually lose money year over year, putting the taxpayers of Saint John in an even worse financial state.

Taxes will go up, yet, residents will receive no better services that what they have now.  So much for council’s 2009-2012 priorities (which DO NOT  include a new Police Station or Parking Garage)!

Today’s newspaper featured my letter to the editor in response:

Recreation complex should be a priority

Friday’s article titled “Councillor has doubts about project” features lots of talk from Bruce Court about concerns on costs for a new recreation complex on the East Side.

He says in the article, “I just don’t know if we can afford it.” Funny, he never asked that question when it came to Peel Plaza.

He voted in favour of building a large new police station and parking garage uptown. These costs are still up in the air – yet we are moving full steam ahead.

Can we afford that? No, not without taxes going up.

In the end, it all comes down to priorities. For my family, a recreation complex, like the one the Saint John Exhibition Association wants to build, has many more benefits to the people who live in this city now and to people considering moving here.

If my taxes are going up to pay for something, it better be for something that we need. Recreation and clean drinking water are real priorities.

I wonder when Bruce Court will realize that!

SHAWN PETERSON

Saint John

This past Friday, the Telegraph-Journal posted one of my Letters to the Editor along with another great comic by Greg Perry:

Deputy mayor speaks for him

Regarding Mayor Ivan Court’s “Stabbing us in the back” comment, the only people being stabbed in the back are the taxpayers in Saint John. This was captured perfectly by Greg Perry in Thursday’s comic.

The mayor and the majority of council seem bent on spending our money on items that are not priorities for the citizens in Saint John. The real costs of Peel Plaza seem to be growing each day, and it’s only thanks to Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase that these issues are even debated.

Stephen Chase has consistently been on the side of taxpayers since being elected, and I am so proud to say that he is representing my voice on council. It’s going to be a long two years until the next municipal elections in May 2012; however, until then, we can continue to count on Stephen Chase to represent us! “In Chase I trust.”

SHAWN PETERSON
Saint John

There were several other related letters that were really great to read as well!

It’s good to see so many others in Saint John concerned about Peel Plaza and the Parking Garage:

Be prudent and shelve proposed garage

In response to “Tempers flare at council,” Oct. 13:
Your article stated, “[Deputy Mayor Stephen] Chase said the city needs to be financially prudent to look for other sites to make sure a garage is built at the lowest possible cost.”

I personally think that the only way for the city to be financially prudent is to not move forward with the garage at all and to be more responsible with spending decisions.

Although city manager Patrick Woods stated taxpayers would not be on the hook, we indirectly will be, because $300,000 a year that would be going into public funds for city service costs would be returned to the parking commission to assist with funding the garage.

Also, if something were to happen to the financial situation of the garage, it would be the city that would be on the hook for it, and therefore taxpayers. The real question is, why are we building a parking garage to provide space for a provincial building?

Should that not have been considered by the province before beginning the construction? The new police headquarters will have underground parking, so this garage is not needed to accommodate additional cars from there, yet its design is “more than twice the size of the anticipated needs of the new courthouse” (“Drop the double speak and debate the costs,” Oct. 14).

It seems there is some back-peddling happening, yet again, because of miscommunication taking place between city staff, council, and the public. When will this end?

SCOTT MCKINNON
Saint John

What’s wrong with cost efficiency?

Well, from the comments this week from our esteemed mayor, Ivan Court, bringing a plan to the table that will save “us” (the taxpayers) money is “stabbing us in the back.”

I can’t believe that a mayor can get away with accusing his deputy mayor of this for bringing forth the idea of lessening the cost of a parking garage for Peel Plaza.

We could have been much smarter with the decision to build a new police station and bus terminal. Someone steps up to the plate and is lambasted by the leader of this city. No wonder Saint John is looked down on by so many of our outlying communities and provincial rivals.

What type of leader calls out another councillor for trying to bring a more cost-effective plan to the table? Even worse, only one councillor supported the deputy mayor on his motion, Patty Higgins. At least there is one councillor besides Mr. Chase who would dare step on the mayor’s Plaza deal.

Saint Johners will have an unique opportunity to make some changes at the council table through the upcoming byelection. It is clear that the mayor and most of his council want to leave their mark on the city through the Peel Plaza development. All the while, we sit here waiting until we get the next boil order from the city.

Wake up council! It was bad enough that provincially, we had the Liberals making inept decision after decision, but to have to stand by and watch this mayor and the majority of councilors waste our money is unfathomable.

SCOTT WADDELL
Saint John

What’s driving Peel Plaza?

When highly educated and intelligent people have to resort to double-speak and bullying to push a project forward that has no apparent advantage and goes against priorities they have set themselves, I’m forced to wonder why.

Who is really behind this project? Who has the power and influence to convince our civic leaders and city managers that it is in their best interest to support the project? Who will benefit from this development?

Are others asking the same questions?

DON LEAMAN
Saint John

A lot has been made of the attacks from Mayor Ivan Court against Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase in the media recently: Tempers flare at council, Clash of the big two, etc.

In case you missed it (background on the parking garage proposal), here is the quick overview of the attacks:

Sparks flew at common council’s regular meeting Monday night during a debate about alternative sites for a parking garage that’s now proposed for the city centre.

Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase proposed issuing a call for proposals to ask private companies to suggest cheaper locations for the garage, but he drew the ire of major project supporters.

Councillor Chris Titus called the proposal “irresponsible,” while Mayor Ivan Court accused Chase of “trying to stab us in the back,” charges the deputy mayor denied.

Chase said the city needs to be financially prudent to look for other sites to make sure a garage is built at the lowest possible cost.

“Stab us in the back?”

The only people being stabbed in the back are the taxpayers in Saint John, which was captured perfectly by Greg Perry in the following comic:

The Mayor and his henchmen (the majority of council) are hellbent on spending OUR money on items that are not priorities for the citizens in Saint John.

Go ask people – you will soon find that clean, safe, drinking water is a real priority (unlike Peel Plaza)!

The real costs of Peel Plaza seems to be growing each day, and it’s only thanks to Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase that these issues are even debated.

Stephen Chase has consistently been on the side of taxpayers since being elected, and I am so proud to say that he is representing my voice on council.

It’s going to be a long two years until the next Municipal elections in May 2012; however, until then, we can continue to count on Stephen Chase to represent us!

“In Chase I Trust”