Time To Revisit Municipal Election Laws

Mr. Bill Bell's Ringside Seat column in today's North Shore News seems a good topic for discussion on this blog.

To be or not to be supported by a special interest group such as CUPE or a Developer when running as a candidate in a civic election? That is the question.

The answer seems clear to me. The interests of the community are best served when an elected official's vote on all issues is independent of influence. After all who is supposed to making decisions at District and City Hall, the Developers and/or CUPE or independent-minded politicians?

I am not anti-union or anti-sustainable developement and obviously if either group supports a candidate in a campaign it increases their chances of being elected but, somewhere along the way they will have to answer to the piper and that may not be in the communities best interests.

I think running with an independent platform and if elected being able to listen to all aspects of the community with as little bias as possible is the best for the community. Unfortunately it may not get you elected but, it's the ethical way to approach it.

In the meantime to create a more level municipal election playing field, it may be time to re-examine the election donor rules.

Ringing hypocrisy

The following letter was published in the Province yesterday. It is interesting to note that I posted this yesterday, and it was deleted. I will try again.

"I see that 14-metre-high Olympic rings are being lit on a barge in Burrard Inlet. The City of Vancouver and the province deem this is safe for drivers and are not worried about it being a distraction. Yet so many have a problem with the Squamish Nation putting up much smaller billboards on their OWN land. What hypocrites."

Task Force Proposed on Improving Community Engagement in City of North Vancouver

It seems to be the bane of all elected bodies these days - How do we meaningfully engage a broader section of the community? Particularly when it comes to the decisions of the day that have a major impact on the long term shape of the community and the institutions that we all rely on.

The City of North Vancouver passed a motion this week to consider the establishment of a task force to look into the idea increasing community engagement. According to Councillor Guy Heywood the motion came about for a number of reasons, in addition to the obvious low voter turnout in North Vancouver in recent years. Heywood says with the Provincial Government is considering reforms to local government designed to foster greater community participation, it is incumbent that we think about this locally well before this comes to us from the Province. He also points to the City's Official Community Plan review set to take place in the next year, which includes engaging the community in the planning process.

Bottom line is that the make-up of the City of North Vancouver has dramatically changed in recent years, with over 60 residential towers now housing a good portion of the City's population. Strata Council's are more a part of people's lives in the City, in addition to residents becoming more economically and culturally diverse.

Heywood says the current low engagement rate comes at the same time as the City is doing more than just about any municipality in Metro Vancouver to advertise opportunities to get involved and engaged in civic initiatives.

With the City committed to looking for ways to increase engagement perhaps there is an opportunity to get the District of North Vancouver involved in the process, possibly passing a similar motion to the CNV's. While we are at it, the North Vancouver School District is currently involved in engaging members of the Community in the budget challenges it is facing, and it would be interesting if the local Board of Education was at the table to share its experiences in this area, and increase engagement at the local school level.

This is all about starting the conversation. What should a "Civic Task Force", if any, look like if it is to embark on "investigating ways of involving the public more closely in municipal affairs."

Olympics - Show Me The Money?

A story this week at theTyee.ca does a little arithmetic and concludes that the economic benefits of the Olympics will be pretty slim.

More to the point, about 6.7 billion dollars less than promised by the Campbell Liberals.

The government was using the number $10.7 billion as the estimated economic activity hosting the Olympics would produce. Now it prefers to say it will be $4 billion.

But even that amount is based on a best case scenario mapped seven years ago by a consulting company, and real tourism revenues in recent years fall well short of that projection.

Honestly I'm not in the least surprised. When a government commits to something like the Olympic Games they always present the most rosy picture possible. The reality is never close to what is promised.

How much will these games really cost us? And will we ever know the true figures?

(Photo Note: this picture of NDP leader Carole James and Tina impersonator Luisa Marshall is not at all newsworthy, but at least she's not wearing red mittens...)

North Vancouver MP Andrew Saxton marks 100 days until the 2010 Winter Olympics in House of Commons

Setting H1N1 Priorities.

The North Shore News reports that shortages of H1N1 vaccine mean that many health care workers can't be immunized:

NOT all health care workers will be getting their swine flu vaccines as originally planned this week, after the B.C. Centre for Disease Control received fewer doses of the H1N1 shots than anticipated.

CBC News reports that RBC/Coca Cola Torch Relay runners are a priority group for H1N1 immunizations:

Public health officials say it was vital to give members of the Olympic torch team inoculations for swine flu, despite the short supply of vaccine for people in other high-risk groups.

Am I alone in thinking that there are some serious problems here?

H1N1 -- The Facts

Health is politics: How much of our money goes directly into the health care system?

Know the Difference between Cold and H1N1 Flu Symptoms

Fever
Fever is rare with a cold.
Fever is usually present with the flu in up to 80% of all flu cases. A temperature of 100°F or higher for 3 to 4 days is associated with the H1N1flu.

Coughing
A hacking, productive (mucus- producing) cough is often present with a cold.
A non-productive (non-mucus producing) cough is usually present with the H1N1flu (sometimes referred to as dry cough).

Aches
Slight body aches and pains can be part of a cold.
Severe aches and pains are common with the H1N1flu.

Stuffy Nose
Stuffy nose is commonly present with a cold and typically resolves spontaneously within a week.
Stuffy nose is not commonly present with the H1N1 flu.

Chills
Chills are uncommon with a cold.
60% of people who have the H1N1flu experience chills.

Tiredness
Tiredness is fairly mild with a cold.
Tiredness is moderate to severe with the H1N1flu.

Sneezing
Sneezing is commonly present with a cold.
Sneezing is not common with the H1N1flu.

Sudden Symptoms
Cold symptoms tend to develop over a few days.
The flu has a rapid onset within 3-6 hours. The H1N1flu hits hard and includes sudden symptoms like high fever, aches and pains.

Headache
A headache is fairly uncommon with a cold.
A headache is very common with the flu, present in 80% of H1N1flu cases.

Sore Throat
Sore throat is commonly present with a cold.
Sore throat is not commonly present with the H1N1flu.

Chest Discomfort
Chest discomfort is mild to moderate with a cold.
Chest discomfort is often severe with the H1N1flu.


The only way to stop the spread of the epidemic is to spread the awareness.

The previous was sent to me by a friend, TMS, who has been a community health nurse on the North shore for 44 years.