Tag: Acting Locally

Mayor Nantel?

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

UPDATE: He’s on Twitter! And apparently following Bill Gates and Bill Vander Zalm. oh boy.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, I’ve been asking it around town for a week and a half, and no-one can answer: Who the hell is Francois Nantel?

This municipal election we have no less than four people running for Mayor. Besides the Incumbent, we have Vance McFayden, a long-time resident and community builder, and we have Citizen Advocate James Crosty, and you all know who he is. The mystery to me is Francois Nantel.

Notably, last time Francois was on a ballot in New Westminster was the federal election of 2000, I was living in Illinois (the only Federal Election I have missed since the one a couple of weeks after my 19th birthday when I was living in the crappy apartment on Royal Ave…), but he ran for the federal Green Party! I’m not trying to suggest I am all things “green” in New West, but if I don’t know who this guy is, he has a serious name-recognition problem.

I spent several years serving on the local Green Party EDA (but am not a member of the party any longer… another post, another time), and I have helped the campaigns of Carrie McLaren, Marshall Smith, and Rebecca Helps, but I don’t remember him being at any of those meetings. A couple of friends I have are attached to the Provincial Party, and they have no idea who he is. He isn’t “friends” on Facebook with any of the Green Party Candidates in New West over the last 10 years. So, I guess his ties with the Green Party are pretty severed.

What about community groups? The New Westminster Environmental Partners have been at the forefront of numerous environmental issues in the City over the last few years, from the UBE to solid waste to community gardens, but I don’t remember Francois ever taking part. Neither do the members who started the group before I got active.

There are several citizen committees in New West, but I don’t see his name listed on any of the committees in 2010 or 2011. As a resident of the West End, he is a member of the West End Residents Association, one of the most active in the City, who post their minutes on-line. Mr. Nantel’s name is conspicuously absent .

I asked one of the longer-serving City Councillors on Friday night, and he said “I think he popped up about 10 years ago, angry about Wal Mart, but I don’t know where he has been since…”

I searched the minutes of every Council Meeting in 2011, and I did not find one reference to Mr. Nantel: no delegations, no correspondence. I assume he watched a few of them on TV! If he has any opinions about what he saw, he sure didn’t share them, as searches for “Nantel” of both the News Leader and the Record come up with only a few hits, all of them from the last two weeks, and all little more than mentions that he is running for mayor.

The record article is most concerning. Apparently, this run for Mayor is just a “stepping stone” to bigger, better things in Federal Politics. Yikes. Not a good sign for local leadership.

You know, I have been asking candidates two things this election: don’t go negative, and show me your vision. So I am going to avoid being negative, and accentuate the positive here. I am happy Francois Nantel has shown us what his vision for New Westminster is: a stepping stone in his rear-view mirror as he flies off to Ottawa. Bonne chance, mon frère.

New West Doc Fest – Day 2

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

It was quite the full day! Besides taking tickets, helping promote the NWEP at the booth, and visiting with folks, I still got to see most of the films, although I did not get to spend as much time in the Q&A sessions as I would have liked.

The day began with a short called “The Most Livable City”, which talked about one of those little social development topics most people just don’t think of – where to the City’s homeless, and those living in run-down decrepit SROs, go to get a drink of water? The City has few operating fountains in the summer, and even fewer in the winter. Public washroom facilities are few and far between. Vancouver City Councillor Andrea Reimer raises the point that the City has purposely removed these types of things to discourage drug use… how’s that working out?

The main morning feature was “Tapped” – about the bottled water industry. A topic I have mentioned here in the past. If I was to review the movie (um… which I guess I am doing), it was about 20% new and quite interesting information (in the States, the bottled water industry is regulated by the FDA, unless the water is bottled in the same state it is consumed. Since most of it is filtered city water sold locally, more than 80% of the bottled water industry is completely unregulated), 60% was info well known to anyone who has been awake for the last decade (billions of discarded PET bottles are mucking up marine ecosystems around the entire Pacific Ocean; buying bottled water is a ridiculous consumer choice, 2000x the cost of safer tap water), and 20% is unfortunate hyperbole (PET is made using a substance in the same family as benzene, which causes cancer! well, if the same family you mean aromatic hydrocarbons, you are right, but PET does not cause cancer, and no-one seems to be concerned about all the benzene we are consuming every day breathing car exhaust).

In the end, the message was on track, and if they drifted occasionally into hyperbole, it may be a cause for people to do their own research. Like most exposes of Corporate America, the best moments were the “caught-ya” moments when the corporate spokesflak realizes he is in over his head when says something like “There has never been a bottled water recall in America”, or “We are not in competition with tap water”, then are confronted with their own press releases that say the exact opposite. The lingering camera on the silenced spokesflak is always good for a chuckle.

I think the movie “65_redroses” is well known to most New West folks. Although I was familiar with Eva Markvoort’s story, I had never seen the movie. If you have not seen it, you should, mostly because the filmmakers did an excellent job accentuating the positive side of organ donation and how this young woman gained her life back through science, through good luck, and through the immense support she received from friends, family and strangers. In the end, they do not dwell on the sadness of the end, but on the hope and happiness of the brief life Eva had.

Before 65_Redroses was a short, “Corona Station”, also about love and loss. Beyond being a humorous theme, the short is remarkably well filmed, easy to forget these are film students!

The “Vanishing of the Bees” is a very smart and insightful look at Colony Collapse Disorder, and issue impacting commercial honey bees across the world. Although the movie emphasises the strongly suspected link between systemic pesticide use and CCD, it also explores how the way we manage bees is likely the main issue, with the systemic pesticides one very large hammer in drawer full of other nasty tools. We ship bees around in the backs of trucks from mono-culture crop to mono-culture crop, even in the bellied of airliners from Australia to California, completely messing with their natural rhythms. We keep them in massive crowded populations, one beekeeper managing 40,000 hives, where parasites and diseases can prosper. We artificially inseminate the queens (yes, they show the not-so-romantic procedure!), then kill them off after the eggs are laid and replace then with surrogates. We take their honey and feed them refined sugars. When hives start to die off, we split them in half and introduce new queens (in cages to keep the bees from killing the interloper), potentially spreading diseases around. All this to keep a pollinating population alive for the fruit and nut industries, as the market for honey production has been eroded by cheaper imports (often containing “honey blends” with corn syrup or lactose syrup).

With all this stacked up against them, it would be more shocking if 30% of the bees weren’t dying off! Although the film starts with gloom and doom, it is clear that the scientists, policy makers (in Europe at least), and the farmers are starting to realize what the issues are, and are working towards reforming the way the beekeeping industry is managed.

On the topic of pollinators, don’t get me started on mosquitoes and larvicides.

The final film, “H2Oil” I had seen before. All I can say is that the way Canada has mis-handled the Athabasca Tar/Oil Sands is criminal, no less than an act of war against our own country. If anyone can see how a nation responsibly manages a dumb-luck oil find, look at the case of Norway. Then ask yourself, how have the Tar/Oil sands benefited you? How does the rapid expansion and export of raw bitumen and the linking of the Canadian dollar to the cost of oil help any other sector of Canada’s economy?

I was unfortunately too busy to sit in on the post-film chat with local MPs Fin Donnelly and Peter Julian. If someone out there in blogland wants to write up a quick review, please let me know!

The Doc Fest itself was seamlessly run. The NWEP basically provided volunteer time and a little logistic support (our budget could not have bought our members tickets!), but it was Andrew Murray and the ladies from the Green Ideas Network who did most of the heavy lifting. Tireless volunteer Kathleen did a bunch of fundraising, and found a wide range of sponsors, all interested in building this community – they need to be thanked, and supported!

The good news is that for a first year- they pulled it off. Everything went smoothly, the films were on time, the extra entertainment (musicians, poets, artists) were entertaining, the venue worked out great. The early report is that the fest broke even with a little bit of a profit, to be reinvested in next year’s show. The foundations have been laid, and next year will be bigger and better.

New West Doc Fest – Day 1

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

Tonight was the first night of the First Annual New West Doc Fest.

The turn out was pretty good, including the Mayor and Councillors Cote, Williams, and Harper. After a bit of mingling with the sultry tones of the Redrick Sultan Jazz Trio, the main event began.

There were three short films before the feature documentary of the night.

The first was “Meathead”, a strangely funny 3-minute short made by students at Pull Focus Film School. It was strangely funny, because you could see most of the jokes coming, but the actor managed to sell the punchlines with a turn of expression that made you laugh. Quick, irreverent, with a message, student film-making at it’s best.

Two documentary shorts were on the subject of the proposed Enbridge oil pipeline to Kitimat. The animated talk-piece “Cetaceans of the Great Bear” told of the threat to cetaceans represented by increased tanker traffic. Although the animation and graphic treatments were at times quite compelling, the message came across a little too strident and wrapped in over-the-top rhetoric to be effective as a message to anyone but the true believer. Let’s just say Dave Brett might not approve. The second, “Oil in Eden” is a little richer in actual content, and tells a much more complete story about the reasons for the oil pipeline, the potential risks, and the groups (especially first nations) who are against the idea.

The main feature was “Burning Water”, a story about a couple of farmers in the outskirts of Calgary with the little problem of flammable drinking water. Although the trailer makes it look like this is about a pissed-off farmer who won’t take it any more, the reality of the story is much more nuanced. This is because of the approach the owners of Valhalla Farm, Fiona and John Lauridsen, take to the issue.

Their problems started when energy giant Encana created a few “coal bed methane” gas wells on their property using “hydraulic fracturing”. Fiona takes a rational approach of asking Encana to do something about it, until Encana determined it wasn’t their fault. She ten takes the rational approach of going to the Government, who do something worse than doing nothing: they are actively indifferent to her plight. John takes the non-confrontational approach of just dealing with it and trying to move on, much to Fiona’s frustration, until he finally decides to strike back at Encana in a rather humorous way.

What makes this more than a simple David-vs-Goliath story is the fact the town in which the Lauridsens live relies on grant money from Encana for their community theatre (a major economic driver), their library, their parks. The Lauridsens even rely on EnCana for non-farm income: from the land-use settlement for the wells and Fiona for her part-time job in the community theatre. They are acutely aware that Encana is an important part of their economy; they just want to be able to continue living on their farm, seemingly made unliveable by Encana’s activity. In the end, all they want is Encana to respect their issue, and Encana, for their own reasons, cannot.

Unfortunately, the story arc is left unfinished, we don’t really know what the solution is, nor are we left with a hint of what the solution will be. But you are not left with the feeling that Fiona’s simple dream of living on her Prairie Valhalla is a sustainable one.

The Doc was followed by a brief but informative Q&A session with the Pembina Institute’s Matt Horne. It seemed the only positive way forward was to assure that we compel our government to develop and enforce a regulatory regime that protects the environment, to counter the forces behind run-away exploration and development of oil and gas, especially in BC’s north-east. However, between BC’s inability to modernize it’s Water Act, the weakness of our groundwater regulation, the fact the Oil and Gas Commission can overrule any BC law, and our current government’s commitment to “reduce red tape” for resource extraction, I am not left filled with confidence.

But hey, tomorrow’s four documentary films have a chance to lift my spirits!

Doc Fest this Weekend!

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Whoo Hoo!
New Westminster is having it’s first film fest this coming weekend.

Through the efforts of the indefatigable Andrew Murray, the NWEP is working with the Green Ideas Network to bring the first annual New West Doc Fest.

Although this is the freshman year for the event, the line-up of Documentaries, Shorts, and special Events are pretty spectacular, and Douglas College is providing a great venue.

Many of the films have a “Green / Sustainability” theme, but this is not really an “environmentalist” event. There are films on various topics that will interest many people for different reasons.

I think the biggest draw will be a Saturday showing of 65_RedRoses, the story of New Westminster’s own Eva Markvoort, whose inspirational struggle with Cystic Fibrosis became an international story. The Screening will be followed by a Q&A with Eva’s friend and one of the Directors of the film, Nimisha Mukerji. It should be a thought-provoking and inspirational afternoon for everyone.

Friday Night will feature a showing of Burning Water, about some farmers in Alberta who are having a small problem with the flammability of their drinking water:

Yikes!

There will be a panel discussion after the film with Matt Horne from the Pembina Institute.

There will be three more feature-length documentaries on the weekend, one on the subject of Bottled Water (might be of interest to our current Board of Education Candidates?), one on the mysterious issues affecting honey bees in North America, and the third on the topic of the Athabaska Oil Sands and their impacts on the ground and surface water supply of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Each Film will have a Q&A session after, including with a couple of Members of Parliament after one film!

Plus, just like when you were a kid, there will be shorts shown before each full-length Doc, all made by students at Pull Focus Film School. There will be other events happening over the weekend in the lobby, and at the films.

You can get tickets on-line right now, or at the door. I highly recommend the Festival Pass to make sure you don’t miss any of the extras – all the cool kids are getting them. For only $20, you get to see a gaggle of great documentaries, and you can support a new initiative in New Westminster so it can grow in the future. And hold onto that pass, 20 years from now, you will be able to tell your kids you were there when it all started.

Thinking Forward

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Here are a couple of pictures I took this summer, a day apart. See if you can figure what they have in common.

click to Art-decotize

Both of these are pictures of public toilets at busy tourist areas.

The first is at Hoover Dam. This was the largest engineering project in the world at the time, and one that was built with public money during the largest economic depression of the post-industrial revolution (the kind of “stimulus spending” that actually puts people to work, well, those it didn’t kill, anyway…). This might be the finest-looking monument to urination ever built: art deco, bas relief sculpture, brass doors, and beautiful tile mosaics inside.

The second is a crappy industrial toilet built at a major trailhead at the Grand Canyon. Nothing wrong with it: four walls and a roof and a composting toilet. Wheelchair accessible, probably built in the late 90s, functional, a little squat, just dull enough to be almost completely unregarded. A Park Service General-Function Shithouse Type #4. Probably tossed together in an afternoon from pre-fab bits imported from China. It is only sad when compared to the architectural grandeur of the Hoover Dam crapper.

This, if you will follow along a bit, says a lot about where we are in North America in the dawn of the 21st century.

You see, there was a time when America (and Canada, as America’s fluffy toque) built things that they were proud of. They dared to dream. If people asked FDR why they were building the largest arch-gravity dam on earth at the height of the Great Depression, he would have said something along the lines of “because we can build a better future today!” But no-one would have asked such a silly question: they knew already. America was the place where people had big dreams and did big things.

This is why the 20th Century belonged to America. Put a man on the moon? No freaking problem: banged the most complicated engineering feat in history together in less than 9 years. From the Chrysler building in 1930 to the Sears Tower in 1998, the United States was home to a series of the world’s tallest skyscrapers. The USof A won the most medals at the Olympics, had the best schools, lead in all fields of science, from FermiLab to the Mayo Clinic to M.I.T. USA! USA! USA!

It is pretty clear to anyone not currently running for President that those times are gone. The US cannot put a human being in space without relying on the very ballistic missile technology developed to destroy the USA. The Middle and Far East are competing to build the greatest Cities in the world. China wins more gold medals, builds more high-speed rail every year than the entire stock of high-speed rail in the United States, and now builds almost twice as many automobiles as the country that made the building of lots of automobiles their entire business plan. There are many countries in the world looking forward and building great things. The USA just isn’t one of them anymore. And now that Steve Jobs is gone…

I’m thinking the toilets above are emblematic of the problem. Where we used to dream and build great things, now we seem to think “what’s the point?” Especially if we can build something less great for less money. When the biggest building in any town USA is the WalMart (and the biggest building in New Westminster is a Lowe’s), why build it fancy? The race is on for cheaper, faster, more of less. There is a cultural malaise where all they can do is look inward, protect what they have. This is a place where people are afraid of the future.

It’s not just me saying this, it is an ongoing theme I am noticing from people much, much smarter than me, and with diverse back grounds, like Umair Haque and Neil DeGrasse Tyson .

I suspect a large part of the problem is the one thing in which the USA still leads to the world: Negative politics.

The problem with negative politics is that it creates an environment where things like Vision and Hope are set up for ridicule. Why come up with a new idea when you can make cheap political points outlining all the potential problems with your opponent’s ideas? Criticism is much easier that creativity. As a result, no politician in the 21st century is going to say “were going to put a man on the moon and return him safety to Earth by the end of the decade”. No-one is brave enough to suggest the US should invest in high-speed rail, or a sustainable energy future (other than “Drill, baby Drill!” – a non-solution that nonetheless is easy for the noisemakers the chant), or in renewing their public education system. Suggesting that maybe people should have health insurance is enough to cost significant political capital.

In today’s political climate, the dreams are too easy to crush:

But that’s the States. What does it have to do with us?

New Westminster is a City that is proud of it’s past, and for good reason. But this Municipal election, I’m going to be thinking about it’s future, not it’s past. This City, like it or not, is going to grow to 100,000 people by the middle of the century. We need to start thinking now about how that future works. How are people going to live in New Westminster in 2050? How are they going to move about New Westminster? Where are they going to work in New Westminster? How will we maintain our livability, our economic stability, our infrastructure?

Now is the time to dream, now is the time to have a vision. I think there are glimmers of a bright future offered by the current Council. I don’t think many will argue that Sapperton and Downtown are more vibrant places, more “complete” neighbourhoods than they were a decade ago. Progress is being made. To continue this trend, we are going to need some bigger ideas. We need to be brave enough to build things we are proud of, so our future is as bright as our past.

There are several members of the Council that I support strongly, but I think there is room for some fresh vision at that table as well. I wish good luck to all the Candidates, and hope to hear some great discussion about the City’s future. Let’s keep it above the belt, and be ready to wow us with your ideas. However, if all you bring to the table is the problems with every one else’s ideas, then may I humbly suggest you get out of the way and let someone else lead.

The Trains of October -UPDATE

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I guess once James Crosty stepped up to run for Mayor, it was inevitable that a distraction like train noise would become a central talking point in this election.

Vital transportation link or loaded shotgun? Actually, both.

Based on recent comments in the local media, trains are either the worst thing that ever happened to New Westminster, or they are completely benign and only bother a couple of Nimby whiners. Like most things, the reality is somewhere in between the two. And like most political hot-button topics, there are numerous interacting issues here, none of them being addressed by the overtly-partisan letter-writers to the local papers. Yes, I’m talking to you, Ted Eddy.

First off, and pointed out by Matt Laird in a letter that garnered no feedback a few weeks ago, the issue that the Quayside Board and the esteemed Mr. Crosty was fighting is a completely different issue than train whistles and the City’s new plan to address whistle cessation. Matt should know: he is named in the court case, Mr. Crosty is not. The City doesn’t really have a horse in the first fight, but has significant input on the second. I’m not sure if conflating the two issues is particularly helpful, as any success we will make in whistle cessation is going to require participation with the railways in question and collaboration, not court fights.

Scott Larsen’s very long letter to both papers last week was a treatise on the “who gives a shit?” side of the argument. The thesis, that being “trains are here, love them or leave” is kind of unsatisfying.

I don’t see trains as different than any other business or resident in the City. They have a right to use their land and to do business, and to not be unnecessarily fettered by unreasonable neighbours. Like any other part of the community, they also have some (ethical, if not legal) responsibility towards their neighbours, and need to consider what reasonable accommodation they can afford their neighbours. Since Rail companies are not beholden to City Bylaws and do not pay property tax, there is little that Cities can do but respectfully request these accommodations, and work with the Rail Companies in a partnership to manage them. For this to happen, both sides need to be honest brokers, and the Rail Company needs to be concerned about the needs of their neighbours.

I have worked with railways on “emissions” issues in the past (emissions being the catch-all term for air pollutants, vibrations, and noise), and from my limited personal experience: the small guys are great to deal with, the two big Canadian railways are harder to deal with, and BNSF are a bunch of jerks. My suspicion is that this reflects their corporate structures, as the larger and more pan-national the organizations, the less accountability the guy across the table has to the community and the more he has to the “shareholders”, wherever they are.

In the case of the Quayside, it seems that efforts to be honest brokering fell apart years ago, although none of us really know what happened, as the agreement was kept confidential, and no-one is talking about it. However, continued engagement is the best bet the Quayside has, and Mr. Crosty and company should get kudos for doing so much to keep the issue moving along. I’m not sure conflict through the courts is the best approach, but I am on the outside, am not party to the confidential agreement, nor to their strategy discussions with their legal counsel. Here is the point: neither are most of the people commenting so vociferously about this issue! Therefore, you are criticising Mr. Crosty and the Quayside about something you don’t know anything about!

The most idiotic and useless part of this public discourse is the “they were here first” trope. Residential development pre-dates rails in New Westminster by at least 20 years. Of course, the rails were here before James Crosty moved to the Quayside, but James Crosty and many of the Quayside condos were there before SRY Railway (the current keeper of the bridge through the Quayside) was created, and down the rabbit hole we go. All of this built the idea that whoever is here first can do whatever they want, and anyone who comes later has to lump it. That is anti-community, anti-democracy, anti-development, anti-progress, and a silly argument for an adult to make.

That said, Mr. Crosty’s argument that the First Nations were really here first is kind of bizarre: I don’t think the First Nations experience is a good image to evoke about how newcomers should treat long-time residents…

His long response to Mr. Larsen’s letter the New Leader makes it clear that Mr. Crosty wants this issue to stay in front of the election. Which is too bad, because I think that there are other issues in the City that need more attention this election than the Quayside’s ongoing battle with the Railways. Clearly that is one issue that will not be solved in this election or during the next council term. The role of the City in finding that solution is also hard to define, and in the end, Mr. Crosty and Mayor Wright are on the same side of this fight: they want the rails and the people of the Quayside to peacefully coexist.

Finally, does anyone else think it is a bizarre that there was a lot of news, much generated by Mr. Crosty himself when the Court of Appeal hearing was held,  now that the decision has been returned, and the Quayside appears to have lost, there has been no mention of this setback in the local news or on Mr. Crosty’s website?

UPDATE: Mr. Crosty sent me a message, and addressed some of the issues above. here is his note:

What you state is a loss may not be. We are waiting for the CTA to determine the outcome. The Judgement’s first page states the following:

“The appeal is allowed, the decision of the Agency is set aside and the matter is returned for re-determination in accordance with the reasons of the Court with one set of costs payable by the Canadian Transportation Agency to the Appellants.”

In other words the second complaint was rejected and the original complaint has yet to be dealt with. The CTA ruled on the second complaint this was rejected by the court hence the CTA is required to pay costs on this successful appeal by the rail companies.
As per usual court decisions are complicated matters we will not know what happens until the CTA convenes with it’s legal council. Sorry you have to wait but this is not a simple court case. We prefer to wait for the CTA to render it’s findings. The QCB has been patient, these things move slowly thru the system when it is the first time – after all we been waiting 5 years whats another week, month, or year 🙂 I trust you understand.

Like I said, I’m not a lawyer, and I am not in the middle of this case, so I am obviously missing a lot of the subtlety. Mr. Crosty’s trust is misplaced, as I really don’t understand. But the QCB has a strategy, so let’s wait to see where it goes before we pass any judgement.

Smart Meters?

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

There seems to be a lot of talk about Smart Meters. Although the program has been in the works for a couple of years, it was the Green Party who really brought the issue to the front page this summer with their strange dip into the EMF health Scare issue this summer. Now the UBCM has brought the issue into the mainstream, and random, sporadic reports are coming out about how the installation process is causing all sorts of trouble for a very small number of BC Hydro’s 4 million customers.

As complaints about the Smart Meter program keep popping up like some sort of cosmic whinging whack-a-mole game, I keep flip-flopping between supporting them and not supporting them. When the local media asked if the NWEP had a position on the meters, and we had to answer no. There has been lots of discussion at NWEP meetings, and socially amongst the various NWEP folks, and frankly, we do not have a consensus opinion. Some are “for”, some are “against”, and most for very different reasons. I’m going to go through some of the issues, and give my opinions (worth, as always, exactly what you pay for them), about Smart Meters, and address them individually. None of these opinions necessarily reflect the opinions of the NWEP membership.

First off, there is no measurable health risk related to the use of microwave communications for the reading of Smart Meters. This is not only my opinion, it is by far the scientific consensus. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Orac. Frankly, I’m tired of that debate, and would rather argue with Astrologers about how the location of Jupiter when I passed through the birth canal impacted my life.

A second common complaint is a loss of privacy. Some people seem to be afraid that BC Hydro will somehow know when they like to make toast or do laundry. My response to that is also an easy dismissive: who cares? I think that a utility that sells you a service has the right to collect data on how much you use and when you use it, in order to better facilitate billing and to optimize their resource allocation. I am also not so narcissistic to think that my refrigeration or vacuuming habits are of anyone’s interest, as long as I pay my bill, and frankly, I don’t care what your habits are. In a time when people tweet their bowel movements, is your hourly electricity use really a high-security issue? Electricity in BC is a public resource, much like treated drinking water, the minerals in the ground, the trees in the forest, and the fish in the river. Like all of these things (except, paradoxically, water), in order for you to personally benefit from the common resource, you need to pay a little for it, and we also ask that you tell the government how much of the resource you have used and when you used it. This is a fundamental principle of resource management. You always have the option to opt out and go off grid. Good luck.

Probably a better argument against the meters is the apparent lack of a business case. BC Hydro is, believe it or not, still the property of the BC Taxpayers, and no matter how much the BC Liberals try to dice it up, sell it off, and cripple it, there is still strong public support for keeping our electrical utility in public hands. Fundamental to that is that there be transparent oversight by an independent Utilities Commission. From my meagre research, the roll-out of the Smart Meter program has not been public, it has not been overseen, and it has been contracted out to a private company for an unknown and unaccounted cost. The program might be good for BC Hydro and good for all British Columbians, but if that is the case, it should be opened up to oversight and scrutiny (this sounds like an HST argument all of the sudden). Otherwise, it leaves a bad taste, and only fuels the fire of the conspiracy theorists.

My biggest issue with the program is that Darth Coleman keeps on saying that the Smart Meters are not going to be used for the one thing they are good at. It is like he is trading in his K-car for a Corvette and says he doesn’t like to drive fast. I am talking about variable billing based on time-of-use. This has the potential to save BC Hydro a ton of electricity, and us a ton of money, by reducing peak demand, as demonstrated in BC Hydro’s own study of the issue. Ultimately, energy conservation at the “peak” saves us needing to build new generation capacity, and provides a easier planning for a robust energy infrastructure. Just being able to measure and account for peak and off-peak times may provide enough benefit for BC hydro to make the switch worth while, (although, again, I would be a lot more confident in this statement if BC Hydro were to be more transparent around the business case) by charging less at off-peak times to allow those with the ability to use electricity flexibly (industrial users, those charging electric vehicles, house-hold co-generators, people watching Canucks games at pubs instead of at home, etc.)

One of the funnier tropes in this debate is that somehow Smart Meters are a sneaky way to increase power rates. This is wrong on so many levels. I don’t know if anyone noticed, but BC hydro can raise rates without the need for Smart Meters. They would need to demonstrate to the B.C. Utility Commission that there is a genuine need for an organization that belongs to the taxpayers to charge the taxpayer more money for a product that belongs to the taxpayer and is transmitted through infrastructure that belongs to the taxpayer, but that has worked for them in the past. It is perhaps telling of BC Hydro’s broken governance system and the current BC Government’s lack of transparency that they did not have to go to the BCUC to demonstrate the business case for the Meters, but that is a flawed governance issue, not a Smart Meter issue. Whether your electricity is measured by a Smart Meters or analog meters or by handing out batteries has no relation whatsoever to how much money BC hydro can collect from power users. Yes, it provides them flexibility in pricing, but ultimately, the overall cost per KW/h delivered will be the same.

These conspiracies assume that the ultimate goal of BC Hydro is to unnecessarily raise rates. Why? They are not a for-profit organization; they do not pay dividends to shareholders. They do not transfer profits to the Provincial government to make the deficit improve elect-ability. The worst things they do with their money are pay wages to British Columbians and buy equipment and services from BC companies. The senior management would seem to benefit most from providing BC taxpayers with a financially solvent, well-managed and reliable utility that provides us the lowest rates possible, in order to keep the pitchfork-and-torches crowd chasing David Hahn instead of them. This grand conspiracy lacks a plausible benefit, and once again Hanlon’s Razor rears it’s ugly head: Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice.

The issue of Smart Meters did come up in Monday’s City Council meeting in New West. With our own Electrical Utility, the Mayor was quick to point out that the people of New Westminster would be making their own decision about whether Smart Meters or other technologies would be used in New Westminster homes. Perhaps this is a good question to ask Mayor Wright, the Council representative the Electricity Commission, during the election campaign. Does he see wireless Smart Meter technology suiting New Westminster’s Electrical conservation goals? Actually, let’s step back and ask if New Westminster has electrical conservation goals.

One year on.

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 4 Comments.

Things are so busy these days, I forgot to notice I have been doing this for a year. It’s been a year since I first posted with what has become my regular schtick: Half complaining about the City, while also giving them kudos.

1 year

139 posts (~one every 2.5 days)

13,000 all-time hits (including, I suspect, 6,500 by my Mom)

1,500 average monthly hits for last few months.

All-time most-read post: “on being visionary”.

O.K., when it comes to bandwidth and net presence, this is clearly not CNN, or even DrunkCyclist, but 40-50 hits a day is more than I should probably expect, as my target market is pretty tiny, I tend to blather on about the same crap, day-in and day-out, my marketing is non-existent, and anyone on the web in New West really should be spending their time over at 10ttF, where much more useful discussions ensue, and there is less profanity and fewer unending run-on sentences like this one.

However, going in, the purpose of this blog was to give me some practice writing, which I clearly need. I still start too many sentences with conjunctions, and end too many with prepositions. This has also forced me to bring my ideas and thoughts out in to open, which hopefully causes me to reason them through a little more, and hopefully learn from your criticism. This goes for my political ideas about the City, and my ideas about what it means to be an “environmental scientist”, when so much of the rhetoric around environmentalism (for and against) lacks scientific rigor. It also helps keep my spleen vented, and all the money I raise through it will go directly to my political campaign.

Clearly, I still need these things, so onward to Year 2. And thanks, Mom, for coming by.

Finally, for those who have come this far, I thought I would provide a rare glimpse into the process. Here is a brief behind-the-scenes view in the Green New West Headquarters, with me at my creative best…

Game ON! -UPDATE

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

In case no-one noticed, Municipal Election time is here. The Silly Season has begun. I feel like I need to make a few things clear going in.

Over on the right side of this blog there is a title that reads “What this Is(n’t)”. Click that and read. There is a lot of important stuff about who I am, and what this blog is about.

I do other things in the community besides this blog, but this blog is my opinion, and my words. Anything I say about politics is not the opinion of the NWEP or any other organization I work with.

The NWEP is non-partisan, partly because it is a diverse group of people with varying opinions, partly because the NWEP will be working with whoever wins the next election (as they work now with the people who won the last one) to make positive change in the community, regardless of their political stripe.

So entering this Municipal Election, I will be supporting some candidates, and not supporting others. My support does not constitute the support of the NWEP, nor does it constitute the support of the Environmental Managers Association of BC or the Uncle Tupelo Fan Club, or any other group I belong to. I haven’t really decided who I will and will not support yet, but not all of the Candidates have declared yet.

We know all of the current council will be running.

We know Voice will be running Candidates, probably four for Council.

And unless we have been under a rock, we are aware James Crosty is going to take on Wayne Wright for the big Chair.

James Crosty and friends celebrate a successful campaign launch.

We can speculate on who else will be running, but many suspect a certain former Councillor, and a 12th Street Business Owner will throw their hats in the Ring. Any President of any Neighbourhood Advisory Committee is probably suspect. Until nominations are official on October 21st, it is all speculation.

But I will be blogging about the election, and I will send out kudos and criticism to all candidates, as I feel they deserve it. However, my criticizing a candidate doesn’t mean I won’t vote for them, and my sending them kudos doesn’t mean I will. I am entering this election with an open mind, will be watching carefully, and will be voting based on who I think will do the best job running the City and spending my tax money.

The only thing I can promise the candidates, and this goes back to a long discussion thread on Tenth to the Fraser: I will always treat all candidates with respect. If I make fun of them (see image above), I will do so in the spirit of fun, not malicious attack. If I call someone out, I promise to give them a fair hearing. I will stand behind statements I make, and will stand to be corrected. When all else fails, I will agree to disagree. As pointed out in that TttF post, anyone who stands for office is doing a good thing, and we should all strive to create a respectful environment where people are encouraged to take part. That is the only way we will attract the best possible people to serve.

UPDATE – Do we need any more evidence of a Silly Season than this exchange between Mayor Stewart and Mayor Wright?. Moving a 150-year old hospital and regional trauma care centre with 400+ beds and a couple of thousand staff to a less-central location with worse transportation connections, because you have a little bit of empty space available? Good for them for both coming out so strongly in support of their communities, after all, there might be giants behind those windmills.

New West needs Renewal (the substation agreement, anyway)

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 4 Comments.

This is one of the stranger things I have read in the City Page .

It seems that New Westminster’s main substation (which is owned by BC Hydro) needs some upgrades. This makes sense, the City has seen a lot of growth in the last 10 years, it seems reasonable that a few upgrades would be needed. It also happens the agreement between the City’s unique electrical utility and our beleaguered provincial Power Authority over the maintenance and operation of the substation also needs some upgrades, so they are going to do both concurrently. No problems there.

Most of the rest doesn’t make sense to me, however.

Granted, I am a little thick.

First off, the whole reason for this notice is that the agreement is longer than a typical 5-year agreement, and that creates some interesting problems in the Community Charter (the Provincial regulation outlining the roles and responsibilities of local government).* Essentially, these types of agreements that involve financial commitments are easy if they last 5 years or less. Longer than 5 years and the City needs to be approved by the electorate. Essentially, an elected Council has more authority to make 5-year commitments than longer ones. This makes sense when you think about it, it stops one particular Council from dooming a City to a life of servitude to a bad agreement. The practical result is that Cities make a lot of 5-year agreements, and renew them every 5 years. So why is Hydro requesting an 8-year one here?

And who exactly is paying for this $23.5 million upgrade? Here is the quote:

“The cost of the upgrades will be fully funded by BC Hydro. The Agreement commits the City to reimburse BC Hydro for all costs relating to operating, maintaining and upgrading the substation and provides the option for the City to pay out the full amount of the remaining balance of the substation upgrade costs at any time during the term of the agreement.”

I read that as saying BC Hydro is paying the cash up front, but we can expect a bill. That seems fair, we are the ones who need it. The 30,000 residences and businesses that hook up to New Westminster Power should pay the $800 each to cover the cost. Except our Electrical Utility has a $33 Million accumulated surplus, so I guess we could pay it off right away. Or maybe we can’t, as maybe that surplus includes assets? Jeezz… I need an accountant here. (Talking to accountants, I have learned enough to know that I know too little to make actual intelligent discussion about accounting – Me talking accounting is like Kirk Cameron talking evolutionary biology…hopelessly out of my element)

But it is this part of the proposed agreement that first raised my eyebrows:

“The Agreement also includes a “revenue guarantee” provision in accordance with BC Hydro’s Tariff Supplemental No. 6. The “revenue guarantee”…(clip) …is only paid out if incremental revenue projections accruing to BC Hydro over the next 12 years are not realized.”

So if I read that right, BC Hydro has decided the amount of electricity New Westminster will buy over the next decade or more, and if New Westminster does not buy that much, they still get paid for that much? As the environmental whacko I am, this makes me wonder what this means for the City’s energy management goals? If the City were to decide, a few years down the road, to take a proactive approach to energy conservation, and start seriously reducing it’s use of electricity, and incentivise efficiency of co-generation amongst the users of the Electrical Utility, will that effectively work against our financial interest? Is this a built-in incentive against conservation? 

What does that mean for the new energy manager we are about to hire?

I have a second concern about the whole “Democracy-Accountability” side of this issue. Since they need to get approval from the electorate to enter this agreement, they have decided to allow people to voluntarily vote against it, by showing up at City Hall and filling out a form. And if 4,900 people fill out that form within the next month or so, they will take it to referendum. Is it just me, or is that a little bass-ackwards?

For perspective, 4,900 people is more than the number of votes required last election to get elected to City Council (of our present 6 councilors, only Jonathan Cote received more than 4,900 votes), and the City seriously expects 4,900 people to show up and fill out a form to force a referendum over a vague agreement with BC Hydro based on a vague ad in the local paper?

Especially when an actual election is coming up in November, doesn’t it make sense to just add this to the Civic Election as a referendum question? That way the issue can actually be discussed, and the people in the City who have decided this deal is a good one for the City can actually stand up and explain to us why it is a good deal. They would be able to educate the electorate about the need, and we can vote. Isn’t that how democracy should work? Does anyone doubt that the HST would still be here if the Liberals had taken the truthful approach and sold it on it’s benefits before en election instead of lying about it after?

Some may suggest I am tilting at windmills here, and I may be. However, the Community Charter has good reasons for creating these limitations on local government power, and sets clear criteria for when the electorate must be consulted. I just think those types of rules should be respected in the spirit of, not just the letter of, the law.

*As we go into the municipal election season, I think this will be the question I ask any Candidate for Council or Mayor who knocks on my door: “Can you explain to me the difference between the Community Charter and the Local Government Act?” Since they constitute the regulatory framework under which a City is administered, and the Candidate is looking for a job administering a City, I think the question is quite fair.