After the recent mess with the Police building vote (for Peel Plaza), you would think that Council would be more inclined to think more about the ramifications to the taxpayers in the city!

The next messy vote coming up is around the parking garage that the city wants to build for Peel Plaza.

It sounds like a fine idea, except for the fact that this parking garage will cost  us (the taxpayers) every year that it operates:

Should common council approve a new garage for Carleton Street, the parking commission would own, operate and finance the structure.

To cover construction and operating costs, the commission would have to put about $300,000 of its annual surplus revenues into the project. The commission typically generates surpluses as part of its regular business of offering parking services in the city.

This means that we, as taxpayers, will be subsidizing people driving into the city center and parking for the day.

At least one Councillor can be counted on to represent us – Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase.

“Peel Plaza is going to be a sponge that will sop up all the available financial resources of the parking commission,” Chase said.

The deputy mayor said he’s opposed to the parking garage and plans to vote against it once the matter comes before common council. He said he’s not happy that taxpayers would have to spend $300,000 a year to subsidize a new parking structure.

“Everything about this project is like taking a round peg and trying to smash it into a square hole,” said Chase, who was also among three council members who voted against a $20.6-million police station. “It’s costing valuable revenue that could otherwise be spent on curbside services and recreational needs.”

Unfortunately, there are still those Councillors out there looking to make a name for themselves.

I’d typically advocate contacting them to let them know what you think; however, I’ve recently found that most don’t care what you think.

Until we can get the silent majority to stand up and fight, Peel Plaza is a done deal – one that we will be paying for many generations over.

After much public outrage over the costs of Peel Plaza, last week Council voted to go forward with the Police HQ component of Peel Plaza:

In one of the most contentious decisions of its mandate, common council voted Wednesday night to build a $20.6-million police station in the city centre.

After a two-hour debate in the council chamber, eight of the 11 politicians approved what will become a legacy project for the group of civic leaders.

Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase, Coun. Bill Farren and Coun. Patty Higgins were the only dissenters around the council table who argued the city could not afford the project, the most controversial component of Peel Plaza.

The threat of a property tax rate increase now looms over the municipality as city staff’s funding projections call for council to rein in spending or hike the rate.

Not that I am surprised that it was pushed through, given the quality of council; but, I am proud of the following three Councillors for standing up for taxpayers and voting against this deal:

You have earned my support (along with many others) for your stand!

I received a great email this weekend on the topic of Peel Plaza, and I’d like to share it with everyone!

Check it out, and let me know what you think:

The stench of Marsh Creek near the Post Office and by the brook on Bridge Street in the north end would lead tourists to believe we are still living in the days when people had to duck to avoid sewage being thrown out the window into the street. Do our Council members really have no sense of smell along with their deafness when it comes to hearing what Saint John citizens want done with our money?

We pay close to $1,000 a year to have third world quality water with known carcinogens delivered to us through our household taps, being sold to us as “drinking water”. It does not meet modern standards that are in place to protect us from waterborne diseases. Why?

A large number of “asleep at the switch” Council members would rather leave water treatment for another day in favour of building another revenue losing monument to their egos, Peel Plaza.

Ivan Court was on Tom Young’s show the other day saying the six bidders on Peel Plaza were Maritime contractors. Pomerleau, the low bidder is not a Maritime based company Mr. Court. This is from their website; “Since 1964, Pomerleau has been an important player in the construction industry. Today, the company leads the QUEBEC construction industry and is one of the top builders in Canada.”

Half truths equal lies and there have been so many lies told about the Peel Plaza project no right minded politician should want to be tarred with the broad brush strokes it will leave if it goes ahead. They need to get OUR priorities straight in their heads, not Staff’s and not their own!

Any Council member who votes in favour of Peel Plaza should be turfed out at the first opportunity. Let the Councillors know you will not vote for them if they put Peel Plaza ahead of clean safe drinking water and they don’t put an end to City wastewater being discharged untreated into our waterways before they do anything else.

Today’s Telegraph-Journal is reporting that a vote on the police station portion of Peel Plaza will take place soon:

Common council is preparing for a vote on a new police station uptown after the city received five qualified bids for the project, with the lowest bidder pegging construction costs at $20.6 million.

While the price tag may sound “low” compared to other numbers previously thrown around, it’s important to keep in mind that there are more components coming that will see the end costs soar to over $40 million dollars:

Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase said he has no plans to support a new police station when the vote takes place. He said while the bids are lower than estimates, the difference isn’t substantial, and even the lowest bid would make the project too expensive.

“I’m also concerned about cost overruns,” Chase said. “Just a 10 per cent cost overrun, which is typical on traditional city contracts, will do away with any percentage savings from the bid that came in lower.”

In addition, Chase said if a majority of council approves the police station, the politicians will likely have no choice but to approve the remaining projects, regardless of the price tags.

“Once you commit to the police station, you are committed to the other two. If the plaza and parking garage come in over budget, then you’re stuck with that,” he said.

Now, is the time to contact your councillors and let them know what you think about Peel Plaza!

Earlier today, I sent out the following email to the Mayor and all Councillors:

Vote NO to Peel Plaza

I am writing this letter to the Mayor and all Councillors to ask for you to vote against Peel Plaza.

The citizens of Saint John do have many issues and concerns; however, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that a new police station is priority.  It also hasn’t been a factor for people moving to Saint John.

Council clearly identified its top priorities in 2009, and the document is easily available on the city’s website: http://www.saintjohn.ca/documents/Council%20Priorities.pdf; however, there is no mention of a need for a new police station.

It is clear that this is not a priority for residents.  It is clear that this was not identified as a priority of council in 2009.  Why then is this a high priority for certain individuals on council today?

The city cannot afford to pay for this without borrowing large sums of money or raising taxes.  Residents are strongly opposed to both of these options.

The only viable option left for those Councillors who want Peel Plaza is to pay for it themselves and leave us taxpayers out of it!

How are you getting the word out? Have you heard back from any Councillors?

Let me know!

Update:  My letter was printed in the Telegraph-Journal on the following Monday.

The Facebook Group “Stop Saint John Sprawl” is starting to get some media attention!

Today’s Telegraph-Journal featured an article “Facebook group fosters debate about planned highway expansion“:

SAINT JOHN – Smart cities grow up, not out, says Kurt Peacock, a Saint John civic activist and urban researcher.

Peacock, and fellow civic activist Shawn Peterson, are the administrators of a rapidly growing Facebook group called Stop Saint John Sprawl. The group, with close to 200 members, aims to create public debate about the planned Mackay Highway expansion and discuss the merits of smart and sustainable urban growth.

Plans to add two additional lanes to the Mackay Highway were unveiled in July of last year with the intention of improving traffic flow in and out of the city as part of the Route 1 Gateway Project.

The proposed expansion made headlines again this summer after Mayor Ivan Court publicly urged the province to reconsider.

Peacock said there was no public discussion surrounding the merits of the proposal, calling it “bad transportation policy.”

“There’s a maxim among transportation engineers that increasing highway capacity to combat congestion is like increasing your pant size to tackle obesity,” he said.

“It just does not work.”

Peacock referred to a report published by the provincial government outlining its goal of making Saint John a more sustainable city. He feels the planned expansion goes against a “more sustainable” Saint John and said it has little economic or environmental benefit for the city.

“That’s why we’ve created this group and we’re hoping in the weeks and months to come to challenge candidates for the New Brunswick legislature and find out quite simply, are they for or against urban sprawl,” he said.

The group is home to posts both for and against the proposed expansion, in addition to posted studies, reports and examples of how other cities have fared through highway expansions.

Peacock said studies done on cities such as Los Angeles, Atlanta and Toronto have proven that expanding highways can have a negative effect.

“They’re much less livable now than they were 20 or 30 years ago, largely because government invested in highways as opposed to investing in structures that people truly care about. Better schools. Better cultural facilities. Better sports and recreation,” he said, adding that the traffic problem on the highway is miniscule in comparison to larger metropolitan areas.

For Peacock and his fellow activists, the planned expansion goes against the concept of smart growth. The concept has become one of the central discussions in this year’s Plan SJ public forum.

Read the rest of this entry »

“Water, water, everywhere, Nor any drop to drink.”

When Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote that famous line in The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, he wasn’t writing about Saint John; however,with water on everyone’s mind, it’s a fitting line for Saint John’s number one priority – Clean, Safe, Drinking Water (at least on paper).

This past weekend, Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase wrote an article titled Turn down tap on water rates, which discussed potential ways to avoid “rate shocks” for those of us hooked up to the municipal water system.

In today’s Telegraph-Journal, there were more items on the subject of water.

First in the form of an editorial from the editorial titled Don’t blow out water rates.  Below are some key snippets:

Council must offset the impact of this one-time strategic investment. Mr. Chase has suggested one way in which it could be done: by funding the water treatment plant through the city’s capital budget, rather than the water utility’s budget.

If council were to set aside capital projects with less priority, such as the police headquarters and parking garage proposed for Peel Plaza, it might even be possible to build the water treatment plant without raising the tax rate. This would meet two of council’s top policy objectives.

Mr. Chase’s proposal will probably be resisted, since council has shown little inclination to prioritize its spending. Perhaps the debate will begin in earnest when Paul Groody, the city’s commissioner of municipal operations, explains in detail what building the water network will cost.

Along with another article, Chase looking to cushion blow.  Below are some key snippets:

The deputy mayor is scheduled to present a motion to common council tonight that asks city solicitor John Nugent to determine if provincial laws would allow the municipality to help cover the costs of its public water utility.

“We really have to exhaust all avenues to find a means to pay for this without creating a water rate that is just too unaffordable,” Chase said.

“We anticipate the federal and provincial governments will help us, they’ve helped us before, but even one third of the share is a huge cost to the city.”

The proposal would mean that property taxpayers would cover some of the costs of a new water system. To ensure the tax rate doesn’t increase, Chase said the city must cut down on major spending projects.

For example, the deputy mayor said the city could hold off on building a new police station, parking garage and public park in the city centre, a $42-million project known as Peel Plaza.

“You really have to consider your priorities and right now water is the number one priority.”

As discussed in the various articles above, the city must re-evaluate it’s priorities.

If water really is council’s top priority – then there is no reason to continue with Peel Plaza.  We are better off taking the hit on what money has been spent so far instead of spending millions more.

Citizens in Saint John want clean, safe, drinking water – not a police station.  That has been clean since day one.

I just hope that Council realizes it before it’s too late!

Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase wrote a great article that appeared in today’s Telegraph Journal, check it out below!

In its most recent presentation to Saint John Common Council, the chairman of Saint John’s economic development agency identified the implementation of a modern water treatment and delivery system as an economic development initiative: it will encourage people to choose Saint John as a place to live and do business. This claim is an endorsement of council identifying water treatment as its No. 1 priority.

While this is an important quality-of-life issue that must be achieved, water needs to be affordable or we not only risk losing any competitive advantage that an otherwise quality system would provide but also place on the ratepayers an onerous burden of parsimonious consumption even for the bare necessity of use. This would create a situation that would be the exact opposite of what we wanted to achieve.

Water costs are rising

The city’s general operating and capital borrowing program (which is distinct from the water utility operating and capital borrowing program) provides an opportunity for council to implement some fiscal policy measures that will dampen the rising cost of water rates, which is expected to increase by more than 20 per cent by 2012 from the 2009 rate. This will further push Saint John’s water rate, which is already the highest in Canada, a good distance past those of other Canadian municipalities.

This is not good. It will be a determent to attracting new residents and commercial enterprise, and will also result in a financial water hammer that will be untenable for those already hooked up to our pipes. Moreover, this rate does not yet account for the cost to build and operate the much-needed water treatment plant, which is estimated to cost $257 million, and the $100 million waste water treatment system currently under construction.

To truly make this council’s priority, water rates need to be wrestled down so that growth – both residential and commercial – is encouraged along with quality of life. This strategic fiscal reform can be achieved by way of policies and legislative changes that skilfully link the operating and capital budget programs together in support of achieving water treatment at affordable measures.

The solution

I believe the water utility’s operating funding and the repayment of debt incurred by the water utility’s capital costs should be proportionally shared from the general tax fund. At present this is not the case, because the water utility budget must be built on a user pay, cost-recovery basis. All operating expenses and debt payments for water and sewer capital investment must be recovered in water rates.

Read the rest of this entry »

There was a really great article in today’s Telegraph-Journal on the widening of the Mackay Highway, and I would recommend everyone take a moment to check it out:

Mayor Ivan Court has a point in questioning the widening of the Mackay Highway to make it easier for Kennebecasis Valley residents to get back and forth to their jobs in Saint John.

Oldtime Saint Johners, packing their lunch boxes to work in the factories that gave the port city its gritty manufacturing base, used to scoff at “the swells” who chose to live in suburban Rothesay, while making their living in Saint John.

When I started work in the 1940s, workers from outside the city had to pay a “poll tax” to offset the fact they were enjoying job benefits in the city without paying city taxes. Of course, people have a right to live where they choose, and the poll tax was abolished with Premier Louis Robichaud’s Program of Equal Opportunity in the 1960s.

Why do so many people choose to live in the suburbs? It’s cheaper, it’s prettier, the weather is better, further from the sea that brings so much summer fog. In recent years, there has been an almost explosive exodus to the valley communities. The dual-lane suburban growth area people drive through now bears little resemblance to the quaint suburbia of yesteryear.

But the basic fact remains.

Saint John, with its dwindling population base, is still the economic engine of the area. And suburbanites – who use the city’s roads, water and other infrastructure in their daily job visits – aren’t the ones who are paying the freight to keep it up.

I’m all for better and safer highway systems. But Court makes the point that creating extra lanes to make it easier for suburban commuters to get in and out of Saint John also adds to the city’s own traffic and parking problems.

The popularity of suburban living has brought dramatic growth to the valley. Their levels of government have expanded, they have their own shopping centres, schools, theatres, recreation facilities. They’ve become largely self-sufficient communities. Except for the one essential element.

They come to work in Saint John.

Now more people live in the burgeoning outskirts than live in the shrinking city. And an element of unfairness can be seen in the fact that a majority can take advantage of what the city has to offer, while a minority is stuck with the cost of its upkeep.

I’ve heard suggestions that people would move to the city if it were managed better. That might be a factor, but it’s not that simple. The exodus has been going on for many years, eroding the city’s tax base and providing less revenue to get things done.

Today is the feast of St. John the Baptist, which is why explorers Champlain and de Monts decided to call the place they discovered Saint John. We can bicker about choice and fairness in cost-sharing. I’ve seen this argument going on all my life.

It has always been a sore point, for example, when people can occupy good Saint John municipal jobs – in the fire, police or works departments – yet choose to live in the suburbs – where their taxes aren’t contributing to their city salaries. That’s seen as someone else’s problem, while Saint John’s tax base continues to shrink as more people move to the valley.

We need more consultation and co-operation. But from what I’ve seen developing over the years, we’re ultimately going to have to face a full and fair solution. Saint John is Canada’s oldest incorporated city. It needs to be able to compete with Moncton and other expanding cities.

The word “amalgamation” scares those with vested interests in their own piece of the pie. But Greater Saint John shares a community of interests. We need to explore innovative ways of sharing the load.

You don’t solve a problem by ignoring it.

Fred Hazel is a retired editor-in-chief of this newspaper. His column appears on Thursdays.

There was a great Letter to the Editor in today’s Telegraph-Journal:

Spending tax dollars wisely

I am very disappointed in the Liberals’ plan to spend $30 million to add an extra lane along the MacKay Highway.

Adding an extra lane only increases the size of the funnel and does not get commuters to work any faster or safer.

After already expending millions on new commuter buses for the valley and on infrastructure to encourage fewer vehicles on the road and alleviate the stress on Saint John’s road system, this move counters the dollars spent to improve our environment.

My suggestion would be, in partnership with Saint John, to use that money to repair and upgrade streets within the city that are under tremendous stress from the number of commuters traveling in from the valley.

This would encourage commuters to use the bus system; improve the road system; and provide much-needed funding to Saint John as compensation for the heavy use by commuters.

I recommend this only be done with some very tight strings attached to ensure the municipal politicians spend the money correctly.

JOHN CAMPBELL

Saint John

I completely agree with John’s comment and suggestion.

This is a complete waste of money on a highway that is only busy during the morning and evening rush hour.

Adding another lane?  It will still be busy during those key times – and it will be just as fast and unsafe.

This money is needed much more inside the city on existing road upgrades and maintenance!

Today’s Telegraph-Journal had a great article about people using Twitter to let everyone know what was happening during the recent Peel Plaza meeting at City Hall.

I was following along that evening, and I found these tweets to be very informative.

I really like how it allows everyone reading to be connected to what was happening in the room.

Below is a blurb from the article:

Anne McShane knows not everyone wants to sit through a council meeting to find out what’s going on.

But that doesn’t mean they’re not interested.

And when it came to common council’s vote on Peel Plaza on Monday night, she knew it would be no different.

So as council members debated whether to issue tenders for the multimillion-dollar project, McShane used her iTouch to post comments – called “tweets-” on Twitter, a popular social-networking website.

“I just tweet so some of those people can know what’s going on,” said McShane, who owns the Feel Good Store on Germain Street.

“It’s just another way to get the information out.”

McShane was one of several people lighting up Twitter with a Peel Plaza play-by-play Monday night.

Twitter allows users to post short bits of information, in 140 characters or less.

“Chase trying to slow the train down. Mayor throwing more coal on,” McShane wrote at one point, referring to Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase and Mayor Ivan Court, who were engaged in a heated debate.

Nathalie Godbout, a lawyer and the former chairwoman of the Saint John Board of Trade, was also posting live tweets right from the council chambers, using her BlackBerry.

She said politicians need to realize this debate is happening on the Internet.

“There’s a whole other demographic that’s having that discussion online – so you can’t be afraid of it, you’ve got to get in there and at least follow it, and if you feel so inclined, participate,” she said in an interview Tuesday.

“It’s a discussion that’s just being immortalized in a whole different way.”

Godbout said she’s tweeted from other events. She knew a lot of people would be interested in council’s Peel Plaza decision, so she wanted to get the information out there.

“Sounds like Pat Woods leaving door open for council backing out after tender process if #s that come back are not favorable,” she wrote at one point in reference to city manager Patrick Woods.

Thanks again to Anne and Nathalie!

Be sure to check out the tweets from that night, and beyond, using the hashtag #peelplaza!