To assist Mission voters, CAUSS surveyed all 17 candidates for Councillor in the upcoming November 15 election. Their answers to the six questions are organized under each separate question followed by responses under each individual candidate’s name.
The responses are verbatim and listed in the order in which they were received. The candidates were asked to limit each answer to 50 words or less; some did not respect this request. To date, the following have not responded: C. Cassel, T. Gidda, M. Scudder, L. Nundal.
CANDIDATES’ RESPONSES BY QUESTION
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
PAUL HORN: Jobs/economic stimulation. Expanded educational opportunities. These are my top two, but there are many more priorities. I think my voting record shows what I care about.
DAN WILLIAMSON: My development priority would be shifting residential growth emphasis to the infill of existing neighbourhoods. It is the most economical way to provide more single family housing. In the area between 3rd and 7th from Wren east to Stave Lake Road I would try to encourage the development of multi family and apartment units. I would also want to encourage subdivision development in areas immediately adjacent existing residential development. That is the most economical way for communities to develop. Downtown must be preserved and improved. One of the most important factors is to divert through highway traffic to a bypass. Another is to demand that absentee property owners maintain their property. The downtown area has to be an integral part of the planning for the waterfront. My emphasis for the Silverdale and Steelhead areas would be better road maintenance and policing patrols.
GEORGE EVANS: My priority would be to concentrate upon renewal of Downtown but suspect while seeds can be planted, the actual results will take time to reach fruition, due to complexity of changing Council minds to place a Civic Centre, Civic Square, Parkade, Art Centre downtown; to liaise with both “absentee owners” and toward implementing my full concept plans for Small Business & Downtown specifically. As well, to try and get Council to rethink the unacceptable unprecedented 20 year PDA, rewrite clauses permitting risk assessment, arbitration, mediation, start/finish DCC increases, from 400 homes regardless of time frame, to a specific time that DCC will increase, to more closely equate to other Developer conditions & DCC charge, not unending as planned in PDA. Frankly, I feel there are many more pressing and important priorities than devoting so much time to Silverdale and would like to priorize, even if that means stopping Silverdale or revising plans to a smaller development.
WESLEY CRAGG: Downtown Revitilization, Seniors Centre, Sports Park Soccer Field. I gave you three because they are all equally important to me. Truth is, I have 15 platforms that I personally wrote and signed because they are all important to me, and I want them all done in the next three years.
JENNY STEVENS: Many issues will arise but two of those requiring immediate attention will be: *2009/2011 budget- before spending package consideration, the provisional tax increase is alarming. Current economic factors will make achieving a realistic budget within affordable limits even more challenging than usual. *The Community Amenities Contribution Proposal requires major amendments including: identification of needs versus wishes; timing relative to growth rather than year; gradual annual increases, in accordance with economic circumstances, rather than one jump increase.
GURPREET CHAHAL: My top two priorities over the next three years would be to stop the Silverdale Neighbourhood one, and bring more jobs in Mission and restore public services back in Mission.
DANNY PLECAS: My top two priorities, if elected are,first: to undertake a initiative to redevelop the residental area below 7th Avenue. I feel the neigbourhood process we followed with Silverdale would be helpful. A designed development that is inviting is critical to creating a sustained retail mix downtown. There are numerous housing concepts that would fit in well in this area. Real investment in downtown will not take place until we create a market that will actually shop in the downtown. Secondly, I want to move the Silverdale Plan along. It however, may take some time to get underway. Initial work may take 12-18 months and we might be another year before we see the start of real development .
HEATHER STEWART: Priority #1: Environmental Stewardship: We must continue to implement recommendations of our new Environmental Charter. We must support it with education and awareness programs, appropriate policies and bylaws where necessary. I have already advocated for several environmental measures that reflect the Charter’s essentials. Priority #2: Post-Secondary Education opportunities: We must attract both public and private technical and trades training programs to Mission for young and older adults. This will lead to a better skilled citizenry and more Mission people in Mission jobs. A Task Force, of which I am a member, will present its community education report to the Economic Development Committee in or before the New Year.
LEN GRATTO: Revitalization of our downtown core to support local businesses and provide employment opportunities should be priority one in community building. Growth should occur from the inside out. Offer a well and spring monitoring program to rural residents on a voluntary basis, funded by development charges. Early detection of problems will alert residents and the District of Mission.
KEVIN O’BEIRNE: I would like to give the homeowners some relief from taxes. Based on population, we are one of the highest taxed municipalities in B.C. Also, safety and security is a priority. People need to feel safe when they go downtown Mission or they won’t go downtown.
JEANETTE SMITH: Start the revitalization of downtown, which has been so neglected for many years, whilst Council has favoured the advancement of Southwest Mission using finances and human resources at City Hall. This fact has been aired by members of the Downtown Business Association. Exclusion is almost palpable. Commence plans for a superb waterfront development with the intent for Mission to become the “Jewel of the Fraser Valley”, along with positive action to upgrade Mission’s hospital.
SCOTT ETCHES: The two priorities are reactive and proactive. Reactive. I would prioritize reactive responses over the proactive visionary goals for Mission. These include following through with mitigating the impacts of the leachite breakout at the Landfill, dyke improvement given the changed assessment of the Fraser River and implementing sound policy to address past building standards for development on hillsides as we enter a period of extreme weather patterns. What else is coming down the pipe that will need our immediate attention? I do not have a crystal ball but can tell but we have been establishing frameworks of policy to address a variety of issues like Bird flu, earthquakes and other natural disasters that have not been part of previous planning procedures. Preparedness can save lives. Proactive: Given the state of the economy and an ever increasing influx of people with challenges into our neighbourhoods I will continue to strive to fully implement the Social develoiopment plan into the planning processes of the District of Mission.. We must learn to manage social services on a local level to maximize the benefits of federal and municipal dollars flowing into our communities and to reduce redundancies while also providing strategies to those who have hurdles to living fulfilling lives. Also we must complete the technical studies for the Waterfront to realize the full value of Mission. Our recent acquisition of provincial properties with a value of upwards to 15 million dollars can be leveraged to jumpstart the neighbourhood planning process. Also a full University campus in Mission will provide for employment lands outside of traditional properties sought by industry and give Mission a base line economy of sustainability.
BOBBY BRAR: My top priority is more transparency in the working of the Council and the residents’ views should be welcomed at all levels. Creating local jobs for the Mission citizens so they spend more time with their families instead in vehicles. Revitalizing downtown Mission is more of a duty of every citizen as it’s the symbol of our culture and heritage. Promote tourism to bring revenue in town. I like to do something for our senior citizens because they deserve the best at this part of their life. For Silverdale neighbourhood, I raise my voice to make a four lane highway. I like to work more closely with Silverdale neighbourhood so I know what else is on their priority list.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
PAUL HORN: Spend tax dollars judiciously. Council’s job is not to keep taxes artificially low, but rather to spend, save and invest wisely. If we need a service, we should pay for it. If we don’t, we shouldn’t. It hurts us if we have to play “catch-up” later.
DAN WILLIAMSON: If you want the services they have to be paid for. I will certainly work to develop a more economical delivery of services but there is just about zero chance of reducing taxes in the next two years unless the province steps forward to share some of the revenue that they should be sharing with municipal governments (eg. gasoline taxes). Anyone who promises tax reductions in the next two years does not understand municipal finance or they are lying.
GEORGE EVENS: First, consult with Economic Development Officer to ascertain why we have not acheived a broader Industrial tax base and indeed, did not, in my mind, achieve any more development than we would have without an Economic Development Offcier and/or Economic Developmnent Committee; Second, refocus direct approach to specific Industry, such as Electronic, others to be identified, some that we could integrate with West Coast Express transportation, as in many Countries commuters use the train; Third, to introduce a new more demandining budget planning process concept, similar to “Zero Based Budgeting” that makes all Department Heads specify, line by line, planned expense, justify each cost and build the budget up cutting out unnecessary personnel, services and need to justify, not just add a percentage to a past year budget.
WESLEY CRAGG: Level taxes equally at .70 percent of the BC Assessed value for ALL residents. That will ease the financial burden of our taxpayers and force a bit more transparancy and accountability as to how our taxes are spent at city hall.
JENNY STEVENS: Vigilantly supervised spending and increased business investment are essential. General economic forcasts are challenging. The Employment Lands Inventory and Use Assesment report will be a valuable tool. It will focus Council on specificaly seeking labour intensive businesses whose requirements match our available sites and labour force. Downtown/Waterfront development is clearly a high priority.
GURPREET CHAHAL: I will study where we are spending too much money and I will work hard to stop the extra cost that we are spending without reasons, and I will try to get funds from both provincial and federal govts., so that we don’t have to increase the property tax.
DANNY PLECAS: To relieve the tax burden on homeowners, I would undertake a strategy to market underutilized industrial lands. Many firms in the Vancouver area along the LRT line are being priced out of their properties due to demand for residental demand. We have to tap into this market and aggressively market the land we have available.
HEATHER STEWART: To ease the tax burden on home and property owners, I would advocate for providing additional resources toward (a) attracting clean industry to Mission; and (b) by exploring new markets—particularly international ones—for the goods we produce in Mission. By “new resources,” I mean restricting the duties of the Economic Development Officer to only the above (a) and b) and by assigning tourism promotion to another staff member or organization such as the Chamber of Commerce. Although there is overlap between the two functions—and tourism of any kind is an economic driver—for the present and near future we need a stronger emphasis as stated above. All of these areas require commitment and involvement from individual citizens, community groups and agencies, business and the two other levels of government. We must continue to lobby the provincial and federal levels for assistance in each of these initiatives.
LEN GRATTO: Tie municipal spending to the current budget. Set a limit of tax increases to the rate of inflation. Prioritize community projects to eliminate waste of taxpayers’ money. Implement triple bottom line accounting to cut all unnecessary expenditures. Ensure that there is an optimal ratio of industrial and commercial to residential development.
KEVIN O’BEIRNE: We need industrial and commercial development to ease the residential tax burden. Residential development does not ease the tax burden; it adds to the tax burden. Has residential development in Cedar Valley lowered your taxes?
JEANETTE SMITH: Eliminate automatic annual increases for senior staff and eliminate excess senior District staff. Evaluate all city programmes. Basically, trim the financial sails to fit the budget.
SCOTT ETCHES: What have we done is more important. Current council has implemented policy to review fees and charges on a regular basis. Our DCC’s had not been adjusted in over 15 years. Current Council has adjusted that to reflect true costs. We are currently going through a public review process of our Community Amenity fees. New development must pay upfront for the amenities that are necessary for those new residents and I do not agree with waiting till they are here, not charging them and then borrowing money and making current residents pay for their quality of life. We must plan the community we want and then create the funding models to pay for those amenities outside of traditional models of demanding the current homeowner cover costs for those who move in later and create need. Also we have established a three year budgeting model which facilitates the planning process. We can no longer allow councils to put off to next year necessary items because they seek to hit some imaginary target of a tax hike. Wait till next year planning does not work. That sort of planning has lead to us to not adjusting the department budgets to reflect CPI in over 15 years and necessary items like the labour pool at public works has not increased since the late 1980’s.
BOBBY BRAR: I am in favour of providing affordable housing like coach houses. Active “planning department” so they plan right in beginning, so city saves taxpayer money.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
PAUL HORN: A Public Hearing is underway and I am still listening. I have concerns at this point about jobs/economic impacts, wells, surface road traffic, the inclusivity of the process and Genstar/Madison’s recent letters.
DAN WILLIAMSON: To be blunt—I am confused. I have to find out what the majority of the residence want. It does make sense for part of the area between Turner / Rook and the creek to be looked at for development eventually but I don’t think it should be the first residential development priority.
GEORGE EVENS: My greatest disappointment is Jim Taylor, perceived ‘flip flop” now supporting the plan (refer Mission Record November 7, 2008 Letters to Editor) but beyond that, it is my view that while claims are made about “studying endlessly and completely”, the premise to build such a large development, plus taking into account additional neighbourhoods and Silvermere Lake, all of which I do not beleive we can isolate nor solely look at Neighbourhood one in isolation, as solely a “land use today situation” is ludicrous. Councils, “we can do that later” approach (ie; perceived placing onus on the Developer to satisfy Ministry Environment or Ministry Fisheries before their development can proceed) is an abdication of responsibility to Mission. I am trying to stall Public Hearings, until a later date that the new Council may decide upon proceeding and properly structure a series of advertised dates to afford the Public ample opportunity to attend. If an appropriate timing, for a 3rd reading poses (subject to election results and balance of power on Council) I may agree to a vote. But as presented, I believe the complete process is unacceptable in its present form and instead we should be building from the existing Town gradually.
WESLEY CRAGG: As an insurance broker. I don’t deal in “best case scenarios”. I deal in “worst case scenarios” where things go wrong and someone needs to pay up! In this case, the worst case scenario was never addressed and when it happens, Mission taxpayers will be the ones paying!
JENNY STEVENS: This plan unlike that previously presented, which I opposed, has grown from significant community input rather than being only the proponent’s plan. It therefore merits serious consideration. If approved, continual supervision to ensure compliance with community wishes will be essential. If regected, questions will arise such as: how can Silverdale be given water and sewer connections? How can we prevent major investors from being detered from participation in projects such as the Downtown/Waterfront project?
GURPREET CHAHAL: I think this is not good for Mission. It will destroy our wildlife, and it will create pollution and traffic problems.
DANNY PLECAS: My views on Neighbourhood I. As a member of the committee, I support the plan that was put forward to council. I do however have concerns with the secondary area and the Lougheed corridor
HEATHER STEWART: I will comment after the Public Hearing is completed.
LEN GRATTO: I spoke against the plan at the public hearing because of the unknown serious risks it poses to Mission residents. Council needs to act now to protect the water of residents in Silverdale. Council needs to hire a qualified project manager to reduce all risks to the Mission taxpayer before adopting the plan.
KEVIN O’BEIRNE: At the Public Hearings, concerns were raised about the last letters from Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Ministry of Environment, which stated their concerns with the present Plan. DFO stated that they could not support the Plan in its present form. Since I served on the Neighbourhood Plan Advisory Committee (NPAC), many unanswered questions still remain. Mission deserves better. I still do not support the Plan.
JEANETTE SMITH: The plan before Council is only “Conceptual” so unless a detailed plan is unveiled, it should not even be voted upon. As sure as grass is green, there will be no guarantee that the 40% of Green Space shown on the conceptual plan will remain so. Indeed, it is most likely to end up looking ” Nuked” like Sudbury, Ont. A Moonscape covered in houses.
SCOTT ETCHES: Current Council adhered to LAN 48 as created by the proponent and opponents in an effort to create a shared plan and adjusted as necessary to make it a realistic policy rather than a policy which was unaffordable to the taxpayer of Mission. We then created a committee of the community and let them design a community vision for the area. Serious questions still need to be addressed and third reading reports should consider a variety of issues raised by the public hearing process. In regards to long range growth planning. Can we have a controlled growth without these long range planning processes? No, year by year growth without a plan is dysfunctional and environmentally irresponsible. We need a good long range plan for southwest Mission, with or without Genstar. We need a long range plan for Hatzic, Ferndale, Stave Lake and the Waterfront. We need to plan and not have growth be reactive to individual applications. In regards to the referendum question I think we can all agree that there ahs been far too many red herring arguments for the general public to make a quality decision in the case.
BOBBY BRAR: I am totally against this plan. It’s not good for environment. As I said, NATURE is our mother. I don’t let nature [be] destroyed in name of development. More than that, I am in favour of spread in instead of spread out.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
PAUL HORN: Again, I’m still listening but the length of the agreement is NOT a concern to me. We have many agreements of this length and longer. The key is that it must entrench OUR rights and provisions. Agreements need to ensure that Mission gets its share. Few people have commented on its content, and I want them to.
DAN WILLIAMSON: I don’t like it. Other areas need to be “developed’ first. Leapfrog development is, particularly in areas with hilly topography like Mission, generally very uneconomic unless the development is an integral part of an industrial / commercial or recreational / commercial development. An example of a positive development would have been Hemlock Valley – if it had been adequately financed.
GEORGE EVENS: I touched upon this unacceptable plan above, but simply, an unprecedented 20 year, trying to appease the Developer and permit such a lengthy period to recoup investment, is not the responsibility of Mission, it is unjustified to tie future Council hands, it is ill-conceived, negotiated by persons who do not possess the needed acumen, reference and facts, to make such sweeping agreement and not in the interests of taxpayers.
WESLEY CRAGG: I want an independant contract lawyer that is not hired by The District, to review the contract and in plain english give a proper, written assesment of the benefits and pitfalls laid within it. An independant lawyer would represent the people’s interests and as such, give an unbiased legal assessment.
JENNY STEVENS: This agreement is inovative but essential. It assures the developer of a return on his initial investment but more importantly, gives future Councils the power to stop further building if promised specifications and amenities are not met.
GURPREET CHAHAL: Twenty-year phased development agreement can cause lot of problems for Mission residents, no one knows what is happening in next 20 years. I think we will end up with a big tax increase, and people would start moving from Mission. I think Mission is the best place to live, but in 20 years it would be the worst.
DANNY PLECAS: The PDA agreement between the developer and the city, will offer Genstar some certainty. To truley measure the positive impact on the city may be difficult, as the benefit is not realized until future years. as mentioned at one of the public hearing, there needs to be some risk management tool that would reassure the taxpayer they where getting good value for their money.
HEATHER STEWART: I will comment after the Public Hearing is completed.
LEN GRATTO: No other municipality has a 20-year PDA with a developer so a cautious approach is required. Given the current state of the economy, I am opposed to a legal commitment that reduces the ability of Council to respond to future economic realities. More information about the agreement should be provided to citizens and then a District-wide referendum should be held.
KEVIN O’BEIRNE: In my opinion, to do due diligence with regard to the PDA, since the proponents’ lawyers wrote the Agreement, the District of Mission should have lawyers of similar experience give a written legal assessment of this PDA, stating the pros and cons keeping the District’s best interests in mind.
JEANETTE SMITH: In no way should councils’ hands be tied for 20 years, as one may be sure that the Phased Development Agreement is in the interest of developer and not to the advantage of the taxpayer. 20 years is a lifetime away and no one can see that far. Such agreements make future councils redundant. There also should a Risk Management Policy in situ.
SCOTT ETCHES: Developers have to pay for the amenity demands they create to eliminate the current taxpayer from shouldering the burden of new development. Let’s get every dime we can while ensuring we have the control measures like the no build covenants. Should we seek to lessen the burden on the developer as requested? No! The Gulf Island trust gets 75% of the profit for development and that is rolled into acquiring green space. Is Mission any less valuable to me? No! Do I believe we can have planned growth to reduce the risk of slash and burn development without long term agreements facilitating investment? No.
BOBBY BRAR: I consider this Phased Development Agreement as the development of a particular section of people. Not much emphasis was given to environment and wildlife while planning this project. I am not only against this project but any project in future, too, which disturbs the basic concept and structure of the city.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
PAUL HORN: No.
DAN WILLIAMSON: NO.
GEORGE EVENS: Absolutely not, I am a strong supporter of increasing land reserves, encouraging more use of current reserves in many forms of farming, support of local farmers, support of more public gardening spots, more active farming on land reserves by owners such as more local produce for local use and adjoining municipalities, than reliance too often on greenhouses elsewhere and far too much importing of products. But someone with insight and knowledge is going to need to display more assertive farming leadership, that may contribute toward negating current owners to perceive land use as a futile cost/retention and which prompts them to want to sell to achieve revenue. Sadly, there is always those of this same ilk on Councils, who have no sense of values for land, water, environment, etc. and to have landowners constantly coming before them pleading their case, wanting to remove land, exchange land, it is an onerous task, so my position is freeze land, no further options, it is ALR in perpetuity.
WESLEY CRAGG: No.
JENNY STEVENS: I consistantly oppose land removal from the ALR. Special circumstances could arise. I must therefore, as with every issue, carefuly consider the community’s potential gains and loses before voting.
GURPREET CHAHAL: No, I cannot let any other land [be] removed from the Agricultural Land.
DANNY PLECAS: I do not support the removal of land from the ALR.
HEATHER STEWART: No. I will continue to speak out loudly about preserving and better utilizing farm land—only for agriculture.
LEN GRATTO: Council has supported too many ALR exclusions and has sent a message that repeat applications for exclusions are welcome. We need to conserve our farmland. I would vote to pass a bylaw to prevent any more ALR exclusions unless replaced by an equal amount of land of equal or better farming capacity, to be designated as ALR.
KEVIN O’BEIRNE: I am not in favour of any more removal of land from the ALR. There is only 5% of ALR land left. Recent food-related problems in China show the value of a local food supply.
JEANETTE SMITH: Absolutely not. Everyone needs to eat. There has been far too much good productive land removed from the Agricultural Land Reserve in the past As no one is making land anymore and we are only but custodians of this planet, the land should be treasured.
SCOTT ETCHES: Planning, planning, planning! What is the plan. If we establish a long range employment lands strategy we can assess where it is a greater benefit to the community and where it is not. As to the lands below Silverdale as more than likely is your area of concern we have to establish the line of demarcation. I have argued in the past it is Nelson street and Paul has argued Silver Creek Though I must admit he has been convincing in the past and would seek to draw the line at Silver Creek if indeed he gets on board for the sliver of unusable agricultural land outside the dyke on the Whynyck property now that it is not on teh radar of the Ports. All in all food security is a sovereignty issue and we have the best lands in the Nation. Though we must establish employment strategies too. It is a balance and not a dogma.
BOBBY BRAR: I don’t support the removal of more land from Agriculture Land Reserve in Mission in the name of development. This won’t solve the basic necessities of this city, which are affordable housing and local jobs, but would create more problems.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
PAUL HORN: Town hall meetings work. Councillors sit on many community boards. They get many invitations from groups and individuals and have built many community-based committees. Contact info is published on mission.ca and we get many letters, email and calls. Last night, I got a call at 10:00 pm. That’s part of the job.
DAN WILLIAMSON: The perpetual question! A. Better website.—much more interactive and proactive. B. For the long term—more involvement of highschool and college people in the political life of the community. C. We need more proactive council involvement with community groups. If I am elected you might find yourself wishing that I wouldn’t “drop in” quite so much—but I will consider you to be a resource and will expect you to help me get the facts and make my decisions. It is very easy for staff and the council to get into an adversarial relationship with community groups. Some individuals can be ignorant, ill mannered and just plain nasty. They seem to think that such behaviour will get results. It does not. My Grandmother once said to me “Danny good manners are NEVER out of place”. She was right (as usual). We need to work together. There will be disagreements but we all need to remember that everyone is trying to improve the community. I would really work on attracting “clean commerce”. Some companies would really benefit from moving out here. They would get much better results from non-commuting employees and you do not have to be a block away from one another with modern communication technology. Some executives like the “Business Lunch” too much.
GEORGE EVENS: First, encourage a more informed, concilliarty, respectful and pro-active Council, Second, a new “Communication strategy” including Newspapers, to properly and factually infom the public; Third, hold two Public Town Hall Meetings annually at Best Western to solicit public input but similalry try to structure that it is both a “feedback” but similarly try to gain some concensus on some items” that may give Council better direction and expectation of the Public, particularly the lower the Voter turnout and no mandate, such as PDA, Silverdale should never have proceeded to this stage, without a Referendum, it simply exacerbated a polarization of the community, without proper mandate. I have proposed formation of “new” groups to achieve funding efforts, such as Arts Foundation, Animal Welfare Foundation, Seniors Foundation and similar approach to other groups; to always retain a Municipal Project Manager to govern all major development (in the true development scenario); to stop foolish thinking that witnesses events like Genstar Development paying all costs, using their Consultants then Mission retaining peer review Consultants, thinking by Genstar paying all costs Mission has saved money in the long-term, similarly failing to provide risk assessments – I think we need more insightful inclusive and ongoing Public consultation (not an NPAC Committee stacked participation body, with no proper diligence to screen possible conflict, exclude all with a conflict, actually I would not recommend using such a model).
WESLEY CRAGG: Kevin and I came up with an idea, as it pertained to NPAC. Instead of placing a majority of pro-development citizens, there should be a jury selection process, whereby equal number of citizens with opposing viewpoints, as well as special interest groups like, First Nations could all have EQUAL representation.
JENNY STEVENS: This Council has increased community involvement on planning processes. Parks and Trails Masterplan, the Heritage, Cultural and Social Development Commissions, the Measuring Up Initiative and the Downtown/Waterfront Development Concept are all community driven. As awareness of their empowerment spreads, I believe more citizens will become actively engaged in civic affairs.
GURPREET CHAHAL: We have to educate our people and we need to do workshops for our citizens.
DANNY PLECAS: To improve community involvement in the process, I would like to take a grass roots approach. Like for example the design of the Spirit square for the waterfront. The city hired a consultant to draft a concept idea and allow the public voice their thoughts. I would assume the consultant goes back and draws up a more detailed plan from these comments. My approach would be to sit down with the citizens first and draw up a concept plan. It would have been a good idea to have high school student involved in this process. We could use it as a term project, with district staff and a project leader helping the students work through a plan for the Spirit square. Just one idea.
HEATHER STEWART: To improve citizen participation, I have begun with youth of the community. I will continue to encourage youth to participate at the committee level in all aspects of District activities. For example, we had a strong contingent of students serving on the Cultural Resources Committee, which initiated a new community survey and a revised Cultural Resources Management Plan. All this activity resulted in the formation of the Cultural Resources Commission—further involving community participation. This process had also been used in the formation of the Heritage Commission and the Social Development Commission, to name a few of many other District of Mission community committees. In the New Year, District staff and community members will be planning for a new Sports Hall/Wall of Fame and I will make sure that youth are involved in this new venture. Much of this has been accomplished with cooperation from the School District administration and staff. I see additional opportunities for improving community participation within activities that assist implementation of the Environmental Charter: community gardens, wetlands work, continuing downtown revitalization, etc. Finally, this question relates back to my focus on post-secondary training and jobs in Mission. Citizens who commute elsewhere for work are less likely to have much participation in developing our community. Mission training and Mission jobs can lead to community participation.
LEN GRATTO: Citizen participation is essential to ensure development is wanted, needed and affordable. The current Council has encouraged division instead of upholding its responsibility to protect the public interest. I would work to ensure that all citizens have a forum to voice their concerns and that their efforts are awarded with an appropriate Council response.
KEVIN O’BEIRNE: Remove the present bylaw requiring 60 days between presentations to Council by a delegation on the same issue. Restore the 15-minute time limit for presentations to Council (this Council reduced it to 10 minutes). Listen to what the people want because we represent the people.
JEANETTE SMITH: Open up inner sanctum of city hall and make people welcome. Advertise all happenings, agendas, minutes, votes for what and by whom on a dedicated page in the local papers, on a large, visibly displayed notice board downtown in a prominent position. Explore the possibility of having T.V. coverage of Council meetings.
SCOTT ETCHES: Hmmmm, how would you suggest? Everything we do is a community facilitated process. Some choose not to participate as they have other demands on their time though the opportunity is given. Social development committee was community driven. Environmental Charter was community driven. NPAC? Community driven. Master Plan for Parks and Trails? Community driven. Waterfront? Community driven process. Heritage Commission? Community Driven Arts and Culture Master Plan? Community driven. Though in retrospect there was one main key process that was not community driven and that was the initial strategic plan for council. I would like to see initial planning for overall strategies for new councils to be a public process so the community prioritizes the councils goals rather than council itself.
BOBBY BRAR: My motto is “work for people” and “work with people”. I would prefer going to people with their problems and asking their views and seeking their participation in solving them. I learn from life “problems never come alone, they always come with a solution. We need to see the big picture”.
RESPONSES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE
PAUL HORN
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
Jobs/economic stimulation. Expanded educational opportunities. These are my top two, but there are many more priorities. I think my voting record shows what I care about.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
Spend tax dollars judiciously. Council’s job is not to keep taxes artificially low, but rather to spend, save and invest wisely. If we need a service, we should pay for it. If we don’t, we shouldn’t. It hurts us if we have to play “catch-up” later.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
A Public Hearing is underway and I am still listening. I have concerns at this point about jobs/economic impacts, wells, surface road traffic, the inclusivity of the process and Genstar/Madison’s recent letters.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
Again, I’m still listening but the length of the agreement is NOT a concern to me. We have many agreements of this length and longer. The key is that it must entrench OUR rights and provisions. Agreements need to ensure that Mission gets its share. Few people have commented on its content, and I want them to.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
No.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
Town hall meetings work. Councillors sit on many community boards. They get
many invitations from groups and individuals and have built many community-
based committees. Contact info is published on mission.ca and we get many
letters, email and calls. Last night, I got a call at 10:00 pm. That’s part
of the job.
DAN WILLIAMSON
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
My development priority would be shifting residential growth emphasis to the infill of existing neighbourhoods. It is the most economical way to provide more single family housing. In the area between 3rd and 7th from Wren east to Stave Lake Road I would try to encourage the development of multi family and apartment units. I would also want to encourage subdivision development in areas immediately adjacent existing residential development. That is the most economical way for communities to develop.
Downtown must be preserved and improved. One of the most important factors is to divert through highway traffic to a bypass. Another is to demand that absentee property owners maintain their property. The downtown area has to be an integral part of the planning for the waterfront.
My emphasis for the Silverdale and Steelhead areas would be better road maintenance and policing patrols.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
If you want the services they have to be paid for.
I will certainly work to develop a more economical delivery of services but there is just about zero chance of reducing taxes in the next two years unless the province steps forward to share some of the revenue that they should be sharing with municipal governments (eg. gasoline taxes). Anyone who promises tax reductions in the next two years does not understand municipal finance or they are lying.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
To be blunt—I am confused. I have to find out what the majority of the residence want. It does make sense for part of the area between Turner / Rook and the creek to be looked at for development eventually but I don’t think it should be the first residential development priority.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
I don’t like it. Other areas need to be “developed’ first. Leapfrog development is, particularly in areas with hilly topography like Mission, generally very uneconomic unless the development is an integral part of an industrial / commercial or recreational / commercial development. An example of a positive development would have been Hemlock Valley – if it had been adequately financed.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
NO.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
The perpetual question!
A. Better website.—much more interactive and proactive.
B. For the long term—more involvement of highschool and college people in the political life of the community.
C. We need more proactive council involvement with community groups. If I am elected you might find yourself wishing that I wouldn’t “drop in” quite so much—but I will consider you to be a resource and will expect you to help me get the facts and make my decisions.
It is very easy for staff and the council to get into an adversarial relationship with community groups. Some individuals can be ignorant, ill mannered and just plain nasty. They seem to think that such behaviour will get results. It does not. My Grandmother once said to me “Danny good manners are NEVER out of place”. She was right (as usual). We need to work together. There will be disagreements but we all need to remember that everyone is trying to improve the community.
I would really work on attracting “clean commerce”. Some companies would really benefit from moving out here. They would get much better results from non-commuting employees and you do not have to be a block away from one another with modern communication technology. Some executives like the “Business Lunch” too much.
GEORGE EVANS
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years/ For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.?
My priority would be to concentrate upon renewal of Downtown but suspect while seeds can be planted, the actual results will take time to reach fruition, due to complexity of changing Council minds to place a Civic Centre, Civic Square, Parkade, Art Centre downtown; to liaise with both “absentee owners” and toward implementing my full concept plans for Small Business & Downtown specifically. As well, to try and get Council to rethink the unacceptable unprecedented 20 year PDA, rewrite clauses permitting risk assessment, arbitration, mediation, start/finish DCC increases, from 400 homes regardless of time frame, to a specific time that DCC will increase, to more closely equate to other Developer conditions & DCC charge, not unending as planned in PDA. Frankly, I feel there are many more pressing and important priorities than devoting so much time to Silverdale and would like to priorize, even if that means stopping Silverdale or revising plans to a smaller development.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
First, consult with Economic Development Officer to ascertain why we have not acheived a broader Industrial tax base and indeed, did not, in my mind, achieve any more development than we would have without an Economic Development Offcier and/or Economic Developmnent Committee; Second, refocus direct approach to specific Industry, such as Electronic, others to be identified, some that we could integrate with West Coast Express transportation, as in many Countries commuters use the train; Third, to introduce a new more demandining budget planning process concept, similar to “Zero Based Budgeting” that makes all Department Heads specify, line by line, planned expense, justify each cost and build the budget up cutting out unnecessary personnel, services and need to justify, not just add a percentage to a past year budget.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
My greatest disappointment is Jim Taylor, perceived ‘flip flop” now supporting the plan (refer Mission Record November 7, 2008 Letters to Editor) but beyond that, it is my view that while claims are made about “studying endlessly and completely”, the premise to build such a large development, plus taking into account additional neighbourhoods and Silvermere Lake, all of which I do not beleive we can isolate nor solely look at Neighbourhood one in isolation, as solely a “land use today situation” is ludicrous. Councils, “we can do that later” approach (ie; perceived placing onus on the Developer to satisfy Ministry Environment or Ministry Fisheries before their development can proceed) is an abdication of responsibility to Mission. I am trying to stall Public Hearings, until a later date that the new Council may decide upon proceeding and properly structure a series of advertised dates to afford the Public ample opportunity to attend. If an appropriate timing, for a 3rd reading poses (subject to election results and balance of power on Council) I may agree to a vote. But as presented, I believe the complete process is unacceptable in its present form and instead we should be building from the existing Town gradually.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
I touched upon this unacceptable plan above, but simply, an unprecedented 20 year, trying to appease the Developer and permit such a lengthy period to recoup investment, is not the responsibility of Mission, it is unjustified to tie future Council hands, it is ill-conceived, negotiated by persons who do not possess the needed acumen, reference and facts, to make such sweeping agreement and not in the interests of taxpayers.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
Absolutely not, I am a strong supporter of increasing land reserves, encouraging more use of current reserves in many forms of farming, support of local farmers, support of more public gardening spots, more active farming on land reserves by owners such as more local produce for local use and adjoining municipalities, than reliance too often on greenhouses elsewhere and far too much importing of products. But someone with insight and knowledge is going to need to display more assertive farming leadership, that may contribute toward negating current owners to perceive land use as a futile cost/retention and which prompts them to want to sell to achieve revenue. Sadly, there is always those of this same ilk on Councils, who have no sense of values for land, water, environment, etc. and to have landowners constantly coming before them pleading their case, wanting to remove land, exchange land, it is an onerous task, so my position is freeze land, no further options, it is ALR in perpetuity.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
First, encourage a more informed, concilliarty, respectful and pro-active Council, Second, a new “Communication strategy” including Newspapers, to properly and factually infom the public; Third, hold two Public Town Hall Meetings annually at Best Western to solicit public input but similalry try to structure that it is both a “feedback” but similarly try to gain some concensus on some items” that may give Council better direction and expectation of the Public, particularly the lower the Voter turnout and no mandate, such as PDA, Silverdale should never have proceeded to this stage, without a Referendum, it simply exacerbated a polarization of the community, without proper mandate. I have proposed formation of “new” groups to achieve funding efforts, such as Arts Foundation, Animal Welfare Foundation, Seniors Foundation and similar approach to other groups; to always retain a Municipal Project Manager to govern all major development (in the true development scenario); to stop foolish thinking that witnesses events like Genstar Development paying all costs, using their Consultants then Mission retaining peer review Consultants, thinking by Genstar paying all costs Mission has saved money in the long-term, similarly failing to provide risk assessments – I think we need more insightful inclusive and ongoing Public consultation (not an NPAC Committee stacked participation body, with no proper diligence to screen possible conflict, exclude all with a conflict, actually I would not recommend using such a model).
WESLEY CRAGG
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
Downtown Revitilization, Seniors Centre, Sports Park Soccer Field. I gave you three because they are all equally important to me. Truth is, I have 15 platforms that I personally wrote and signed because they are all important to me, and I want them all done in the next three years.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
Level taxes equally at .70 percent of the BC Assessed value for ALL residents. That will ease the financial burden of our taxpayers and force a bit more transparancy and accountability as to how our taxes are spent at city hall
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
As an insurance broker. I don’t deal in “best case scenarios”. I deal in “worst case scenarios” where things go wrong and someone needs to pay up! In this case, the worst case scenario was never addressed and when it happens, Mission taxpayers will be the ones paying!
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
I want an independant contract lawyer that is not hired by The District, to review the contract and in plain english give a proper, written assesment of the benefits and pitfalls laid within it. An independant lawyer would represent the people’s interests and as such, give an unbiased legal assessment.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
No.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
Kevin and I came up with an idea, as it pertained to NPAC. Instead of placing a majority of pro-development citizens, there should be a jury selection process, whereby equal number of citizens with opposing viewpoints, as well as special interest groups like, First Nations could all have EQUAL representation.
JENNY STEVENS
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
Many issues will arise but two of those requiring immediate attention will be:
*2009/2011 budget- before spending package consideration, the provisional tax increase is alarming. Current economic factors will make achieving a realistic budget within affordable limits even more challenging than usual.
*The Community Amenities Contribution Proposal requires major amendments including: identification of needs versus wishes; timing relative to growth rather than year; gradual annual increases, in accordance with economic circumstances, rather than one jump increase.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
Vigilantly supervised spending and increased business investment are essential. General economic forcasts are challenging. The Employment Lands Inventory and Use Assesment report will be a valuable tool. It will focus Council on specificaly seeking labour intensive businesses whose requirements match our available sites and labour force. Downtown/Waterfront development is clearly a high priority.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
This plan unlike that previously presented, which I opposed, has grown from significant community input rather than being only the proponent’s plan. It therefore merits serious consideration. If approved, continual supervision to ensure compliance with community wishes will be essential. If regected, questions will arise such as: how can Silverdale be given water and sewer connections? How can we prevent major investors from being detered from participation in projects such as the Downtown/Waterfront project?
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
This agreement is inovative but essential. It assures the developer of a return on his initial investment but more importantly, gives future Councils the power to stop further building if promised specifications and amenities are not met.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
I consistantly oppose land removal from the ALR. Special circumstances could arise. I must therefore, as with every issue, carefuly consider the community’s potential gains and loses before voting.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
This Council has increased community involvement on planning processes. Parks and Trails Masterplan, the Heritage, Cultural and Social Development Commissions, the Measuring Up Initiative and the Downtown/Waterfront Development Concept are all community driven. As awareness of their empowerment spreads, I believe more citizens will become actively engaged in civic affairs.
GURPREET CHAHAL
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
My top two priorities over the next three years would be to stop the Silverdale Neighbourhood one, and bring more jobs in Mission and restore public services back in Mission.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
I will study where we are spending too much money and I will work hard to stop the extra cost that we are spending without reasons, and I will try to get funds from both provincial and federal govts., so that we don’t have to increase the property tax.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
I think this is not good for Mission. It will destroy our wildlife, and it will create pollution and traffic problems.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
Twenty-year phased development agreement can cause lot of problems for Mission residents, no one knows what is happening in next 20 years. I think we will end up with a big tax increase, and people would start moving from Mission. I think Mission is the best place to live, but in 20 years it would be the worst.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
No, I cannot let any other land [be] removed from the Agricultural Land.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
We have to educate our people and we need to do workshops for our citizens.
DANNY PLECAS
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
My top two priorities, if elected are,first: to undertake a initiative to redevelop the residental area below 7th Avenue. I feel the neigbourhood process we followed with Silverdale would be helpful. A designed development that is inviting is critical to creating a sustained retail mix downtown. There are numerous housing concepts that would fit in well in this area. Real investment in downtown will not take place until we create a market that will actually shop in the downtown. Secondly, I want to move the Silverdale Plan along. It however, may take some time to get underway. Initial work may take 12-18 months and we might be another year before we see the start of real development .
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
To relieve the tax burden on homeowners, I would undertake a strategy to market underutilized industrial lands. Many firms in the Vancouver area along the LRT line are being priced out of their properties due to demand for residental demand. We have to tap into this market and aggressively market the land we have available.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
My views on Neighbourhood I. As a member of the committee, I support the plan that was put forward to council. I do however have concerns with the secondary area and the Lougheed corridor.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
The PDA agreement between the developer and the city , will offer Genstar some certainty .To truley measure the positive impact on the city may be difficult, as the benefit is not realized until future years. as mentioned at one of the public hearing, there needs to be some risk management tool that would reassure the taxpayer they where getting good value for their money.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
I do not support the removal of land from the ALR.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
To improve community involvement in the process, I would like to take a grass roots approach. Like for example the design of the Spirit square for the waterfront. The city hired a consultant to draft a concept idea and allow the public voice their thoughts. I would assume the consultant goes back and draws up a more detailed plan from these comments. My approach would be to sit down with the citizens first and draw up a concept plan. It would have been a good idea to have high school student involved in this process. We could use it as a term project, with district staff and a project leader helping the students work through a plan for the Spirit square. Just one idea.
HEATHER STEWART
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
Priority #1: Environmental Stewardship: We must continue to implement recommendations of our new Environmental Charter. We must support it with education and awareness programs, appropriate policies and bylaws where necessary. I have already advocated for several environmental measures that reflect the Charter’s essentials.
Priority #2: Post-Secondary Education opportunities: We must attract both public and private technical and trades training programs to Mission for young and older adults. This will lead to a better skilled citizenry and more Mission people in Mission jobs. A Task Force, of which I am a member, will present its community education report to the Economic Development Committee in or before the New Year.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
To ease the tax burden on home and property owners, I would advocate for providing additional resources toward (a) attracting clean industry to Mission; and (b) by exploring new markets—particularly international ones—for the goods we produce in Mission.
By “new resources,” I mean restricting the duties of the Economic Development Officer to only the above (a) and b) and by assigning tourism promotion to another staff member or organization such as the Chamber of Commerce. Although there is overlap between the two functions—and tourism of any kind is an economic driver—for the present and near future we need a stronger emphasis as stated above.
All of these areas require commitment and involvement from individual citizens, community groups and agencies, business and the two other levels of government. We must continue to lobby the provincial and federal levels for assistance in each of these initiatives.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
I will comment after the Public Hearing is completed.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
I will comment after the Public Hearing is completed.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
No. I will continue to speak out loudly about preserving and better utilizing farm land—only for agriculture.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
To improve citizen participation, I have begun with youth of the community. I will continue to encourage youth to participate at the committee level in all aspects of District activities. For example, we had a strong contingent of students serving on the Cultural Resources Committee, which initiated a new community survey and a revised Cultural Resources Management Plan. All this activity resulted in the formation of the Cultural Resources Commission—further involving community participation. This process had also been used in the formation of the Heritage Commission and the Social Development Commission, to name a few of many other District of Mission community committees.
In the New Year, District staff and community members will be planning for a new Sports Hall/Wall of Fame and I will make sure that youth are involved in this new venture. Much of this has been accomplished with cooperation from the School District administration and staff.
I see additional opportunities for improving community participation within activities that assist implementation of the Environmental Charter: community gardens, wetlands work, continuing downtown revitalization, etc.
Finally, this question relates back to my focus on post-secondary training and jobs in Mission. Citizens who commute elsewhere for work are less likely to have much participation in developing our community. Mission training and Mission jobs can lead to community participation.
LEN GRATTO
1. If elected what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
Revitalization of our downtown core to support local businesses and provide employment opportunities should be priority one in community building. Growth should occur from the inside out. Offer a well and spring monitoring program to rural residents on a voluntary basis, funded by development charges. Early detection of problems will alert residents and the District of Mission.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
Tie municipal spending to the current budget. Set a limit of tax increases to the rate of inflation. Prioritize community projects to eliminate waste of taxpayers’ money. Implement triple bottom line accounting to cut all unnecessary expenditures. Ensure that there is an optimal ratio of industrial and commercial to residential development.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
I spoke against the plan at the public hearing because of the unknown serious risks it poses to Mission residents. Council needs to act now to protect the water of residents in Silverdale. Council needs to hire a qualified project manager to reduce all risks to the Mission taxpayer before adopting the plan.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
No other municipality has a 20-year PDA with a developer so a cautious approach is required. Given the current state of the economy, I am opposed to a legal commitment that reduces the ability of Council to respond to future economic realities. More information about the agreement should be provided to citizens and then a District-wide referendum should be held.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
Council has supported too many ALR exclusions and has sent a message that repeat applications for exclusions are welcome. We need to conserve our farmland. I would vote to pass a bylaw to prevent any more ALR exclusions unless replaced by an equal amount of land of equal or better farming capacity, to be designated as ALR.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
Citizen participation is essential to ensure development is wanted, needed and affordable. The current Council has encouraged division instead of upholding its responsibility to protect the public interest. I would work to ensure that all citizens have a forum to voice their concerns and that their efforts are awarded with an appropriate Council response.
KEVIN O’BEIRNE
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
I would like to give the homeowners some relief from taxes. Based on population, we are one of the highest taxed municipalities in B.C. Also, safety and security is a priority.
People need to feel safe when they go downtown Mission or they won’t go downtown.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
We need industrial and commercial development to ease the residential tax burden. Residential development does not ease the tax burden; it adds to the tax burden. Has residential development in Cedar Valley lowered your taxes?
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
At the Public Hearings, concerns were raised about the last letters from Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Ministry of Environment, which stated their concerns with the present Plan. DFO stated that they could not support the Plan in its present form. Since I served on the Neighbourhood Plan Advisory Committee (NPAC), many unanswered questions still remain. Mission deserves better. I still do not support the Plan.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
In my opinion, to do due diligence with regard to the PDA, since the proponents’ lawyers wrote the Agreement, the District of Mission should have lawyers of similar experience give a written legal assessment of this PDA, stating the pros and cons keeping the District’s best interests in mind.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
I am not in favour of any more removal of land from the ALR. There is only 5% of ALR land left. Recent food-related problems in China show the value of a local food supply.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
Remove the present bylaw requiring 60 days between presentations to Council by a delegation on the same issue. Restore the 15-minute time limit for presentations to Council (this Council reduced it to 10 minutes). Listen to what the people want because we represent the people.
JEANETTE SMITH
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
Start the revitalization of downtown, which has been so neglected for many years, whilst Council has favoured the advancement of Southwest Mission using finances and human resources at City Hall. This fact has been aired by members of the Downtown Business Association. Exclusion is almost palpable. Commence plans for a superb waterfront development with the intent for Mission to become the “Jewel of the Fraser Valley”, along with positive action to upgrade Mission’s hospital.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
Eliminate automatic annual increases for senior staff and eliminate excess senior District staff. Evaluate all city programmes. Basically, trim the financial sails to fit the budget.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One plan for Silverdale?
The plan before Council is only “Conceptual” so unless a detailed plan is unveiled, it should not even be voted upon. As sure as grass is green, there will be no guarantee that the 40% of Green Space shown on the conceptual plan will remain so. Indeed, it is most likely to end up looking ” Nuked” like Sudbury, Ont. A Moonscape covered in houses.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
In no way should councils’ hands be tied for 20 years, as one may be sure that the Phased Development Agreement is in the interest of developer and not to the advantage of the taxpayer. 20 years is a lifetime away and no one can see that far. Such agreements make future councils redundant. There also should a Risk Management Policy in situ.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
Absolutely not. Everyone needs to eat. There has been far too much good productive land removed from the Agricultural Land Reserve in the past As no one is making land anymore and we are only but custodians of this planet, the land should be treasured.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
Open up inner sanctum of city hall and make people welcome. Advertise all happenings, agendas, minutes, votes for what and by whom on a dedicated page in the local papers, on a large, visibly displayed notice board downtown in a prominent position. Explore the possibility of having T.V. coverage of Council meetings.
SCOTT ETCHES
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
The two priorities are reactive and proactive.
Reactive. I would prioritize reactive responses over the proactive visionary goals for Mission. These include following through with mitigating the impacts of the leachite breakout at the Landfill, dyke improvement given the changed assessment of the Fraser River and implementing sound policy to address past building standards for development on hillsides as we enter a period of extreme weather patterns. What else is coming down the pipe that will need our immediate attention? I do not have a crystal ball but can tell but we have been establishing frameworks of policy to address a variety of issues like Bird flu, earthquakes and other natural disasters that have not been part of previous planning procedures. Preparedness can save lives.
Proactive: Given the state of the economy and an ever increasing influx of people with challenges into our neighbourhoods I will continue to strive to fully implement the Social develoiopment plan into the planning processes of the District of Mission.. We must learn to manage social services on a local level to maximize the benefits of federal and municipal dollars flowing into our communities and to reduce redundancies while also providing strategies to those who have hurdles to living fulfilling lives. Also we must complete the technical studies for the Waterfront to realize the full value of Mission. Our recent acquisition of provincial properties with a value of upwards to 15 million dollars can be leveraged to jumpstart the neighbourhood planning process. Also a full University campus in Mission will provide for employment lands outside of traditional properties sought by industry and give Mission a base line economy of sustainability.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
What have we done is more important. Current council has implemented policy to review fees and charges on a regular basis. Our DCC’s had not been adjusted in over 15 years. Current Council has adjusted that to reflect true costs. We are currently going through a public review process of our Community Amenity fees. New development must pay upfront for the amenities that are necessary for those new residents and I do not agree with waiting till they are here, not charging them and then borrowing money and making current residents pay for their quality of life. We must plan the community we want and then create the funding models to pay for those amenities outside of traditional models of demanding the current homeowner cover costs for those who move in later and create need. Also we have established a three year budgeting model which facilitates the planning process. We can no longer allow councils to put off to next year necessary items because they seek to hit some imaginary target of a tax hike. Wait till next year planning does not work. That sort of planning has lead to us to not adjusting the department budgets to reflect CPI in over 15 years and necessary items like the labour pool at public works has not increased since the late 1980’s.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
Current Council adhered to LAN 48 as created by the proponent and opponents in an effort to create a shared plan and adjusted as necessary to make it a realistic policy rather than a policy which was unaffordable to the taxpayer of Mission. We then created a committee of the community and let them design a community vision for the area. Serious questions still need to be addressed and third reading reports should consider a variety of issues raised by the public hearing process. In regards to long range growth planning. Can we have a controlled growth without these long range planning processes? No, year by year growth without a plan is dysfunctional and environmentally irresponsible. We need a good long range plan for southwest Mission, with or without Genstar. We need a long range plan for Hatzic, Ferndale, Stave Lake and the Waterfront. We need to plan and not have growth be reactive to individual applications. In regards to the referendum question I think we can all agree that there ahs been far too many red herring arguments for the general public to make a quality decision in the case.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
Developers have to pay for the amenity demands they create to eliminate the current taxpayer from shouldering the burden of new development. Let’s get every dime we can while ensuring we have the control measures like the no build covenants. Should we seek to lessen the burden on the developer as requested? No! The Gulf Island trust gets 75% of the profit for development and that is rolled into acquiring green space. Is Mission any less valuable to me? No! Do I believe we can have planned growth to reduce the risk of slash and burn development without long term agreements facilitating investment? No.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
Planning, planning, planning! What is the plan. If we establish a long range employment lands strategy we can assess where it is a greater benefit to the community and where it is not. As to the lands below Silverdale as more than likely is your area of concern we have to establish the line of demarcation. I have argued in the past it is Nelson street and Paul has argued Silver Creek Though I must admit he has been convincing in the past and would seek to draw the line at Silver Creek if indeed he gets on board for the sliver of unusable agricultural land outside the dyke on the Whynyck property now that it is not on teh radar of the Ports. All in all food security is a sovereignty issue and we have the best lands in the Nation. Though we must establish employment strategies too. It is a balance and not a dogma.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
Hmmmm, how would you suggest? Everything we do is a community facilitated process. Some choose not to participate as they have other demands on their time though the opportunity is given. Social development committee was community driven. Environmental Charter was community driven. NPAC? Community driven. Master Plan for Parks and Trails? Community driven. Waterfront? Community driven process. Heritage Commission? Community Driven Arts and Culture Master Plan? Community driven. Though in retrospect there was one main key process that was not community driven and that was the initial strategic plan for council. I would like to see initial planning for overall strategies for new councils to be a public process so the community prioritizes the councils goals rather than council itself.
BOBBY BRAR
1. If elected, what will be your top two priorities over the next three years? For example, moving forward with Silverdale Neighbourhood One, revitalizing downtown Mission, etc.
My top priority is more transparency in the working of the Council and the residents’ views should be welcomed at all levels. Creating local jobs for the Mission citizens so they spend more time with their families instead in vehicles. Revitalizing downtown Mission is more of a duty of every citizen as it’s the symbol of our culture and heritage. Promote tourism to bring revenue in town. I like to do something for our senior citizens because they deserve the best at this part of their life. For Silverdale neighbourhood, I raise my voice to make a four lane highway. I like to work more closely with Silverdale neighbourhood so I know what else is on their priority list.
2. What would you do to ease the tax burden on Mission home and property owners?
I am in favour of providing affordable housing like coach houses. Active “planning department” so they plan right in beginning, so city saves taxpayer money.
3. What are your views on the Neighbourhood One Plan for Silverdale?
I am totally against this plan. It’s not good for environment. As I said, NATURE is our mother. I don’t let nature [be] destroyed in name of development. More than that, I am in favour of spread in instead of spread out.
4. What are your views on the 20-year Phased Development Agreement with Genstar and Madison development corporations?
I consider this Phased Development Agreement as the development of a particular section of people. Not much emphasis was given to environment and wildlife while planning this project. I am not only against this project but any project in future, too, which disturbs the basic concept and structure of the city.
5. Do you support the removal of more land from the Agricultural Land Reserve in Mission?
I don’t support the removal of more land from Agriculture Land Reserve in Mission in the name of development. This won’t solve the basic necessities of this city, which are affordable housing and local jobs, but would create more problems.
6. How would you improve citizen participation in developing our community?
My motto is “work for people” and “work with people”. I would prefer going to people with their problems and asking their views and seeking their participation in solving them. I learn from life “problems never come alone, they always come with a solution. We need to see the big picture”.
