Monday, March 14, 2011

Hold your nose

I like Councillor Heidt. During my term on council I quickly learned that if Heidt gave you his word he was good for it. He wouldn't blind side you. So it pains me to trash him on the issue of the super sized police station. His comment in the Saturday's SP (March 12/11) was absurd, that being "There will be ample room to discuss it after we award the contract." What's left to discuss after the contract has been awarded? Only how much our taxes will go up to pay for it.

And why was the issue of increasing the scope of the project done in committee? From what has been reported, this item does not meet the criteria established for committee discussion. Credit has to be given to Hill for bringing this to the public eye. But where are the rest of the councillors on this matter? There are some long serving councillors that are well-acquainted with committee rules that need to explain themselves.

I personally think the station should be built to meet the needs for the reasonably foreseeable future with provision made for expansion if and when the need arises. Although we are a rapidly growing city, we are still years away from a population of 325,000.00. Perhaps police enforcement tactics will change over the next few decades and the police force of the future will require something totally different that what is being designed today.

In today's SP (March 14/11) in commenting on the viability of the weir project, the Mayor said "It's a question of wants and needs" "Our budgets are becoming more and more strictly matters of need."

It is time for council to publicly discuss the police station project needs. The public in general is supportive of police needs. If the increasing size of police station project is a need, then let the public know those needs and council may garner support.

As it currently stands, this whole thing just stinks!


  1. The rest of council is most likely in shock although with people like Glen Penner (son's a cop) and Tiffany Paulsen x-committee member (Married to a Police Superintendent) it's no wonder the public is being kept out of the loop.

    It is easy for Councilors to let this slide and not question any amount of money spent with our violent crime rate at the top of the national average, Council sees it as an easy sell.

    My problem is the concept that Councilors believe there is any ability to discuss matters after you have signed a contract with-out any consequences. Every item whether they add or delete will ultimately cost the taxpayer more money. That is why it is even more important to have a clear idea as the Mayor puts it "your needs vs your wants". I'm sure those being mugged on a regular basis would rather there be more officers on the street than in a mega building.

    As for building for the future that is a "COP"-out as it is impossible to foresee the future, unless of course the Mayor and his merry men and women are all Gypsies.

  2. Anon 10:14 - I thought you had pretty good comments up to your last paragraph. Not sure why, unless you thought it funny, that you had to add your last statement.

    If you have problems with Councilors and the Mayor and their decisions, I have a suggestion for for council in 2012.

  3. Anon 12:52

    Why do you believe one must run for Council if they have a problem with the current regime?? Can one not express their displeasure with some of their decisions. I voted for the Mayor and also the Councilor in my ward however that doesn't mean I have to agree with all their decisions and the only way they will understand if they are doing the things I want is to lambaste them when I don't agree.

    This Blog is the perfect spot because if they aren't watching it, someone they know is.

    Thanks to the Mistress for providing a great public service to those of us that can't hob nob with them on a daily basis. Let alone get a call back from them.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.