It has been five years since Dangermouse and I had the idea of starting a political blog for Medicine Hat.  In lieu of this special date we thought about trading wood or silverware. As romantic as that sounds, we instead settled on redesigning and relaunching the site.

Sometime in the next couple weeks, we will have a whole new website separate from this one.  You will still be able to access this one at www.medhatblog.com/old.

I have turned comments off on this one, as it has become over run with spam.  I spent about 6 hours deleting all the spam, and we shouldnt see anymore.  If you would like to comment on one of the existing posts for posterity sake, make a comment then email me: medhatblog@gmail.com and I will approve the comment.

Thank you for sticking with us over the years, and I look forward to another five years.

Skeet

I might be old school, but when the Olympic Bronze Medalist (1988) in biathlon spoke at my school I didn’t think he was a loser. I actually thought “That guy is the 3rd best in the whole world!” granted at a sport I had never heard of, but it was still pretty kick ass. Back then Canada was proud of athletes that just showed up, put their passion on the line against the very best in the world at their sport and did their best.

It used to be that we were proud of someone doing their personal best. The media likes to report Canada as having the “dubious” distinction of being the only host country to not win a gold medal on their home soil. What a spectacular collective re-write of history. Strange how, back in 1988 we barely cared. When did it become “dubious”? Was there any Canadian alive in 1988 who was “ashamed” of Canada after our last Olympics? It seems to me our country was deservedly filled with pride after a worldwide celebration focused on Canada.

Well now we have a gold medal on home soil– and yet are the beat writers in our media excited by that? Nope. Are we finally allowed to be proud of ourselves? Not according to our media. In every Olympic games there are people expected to win who rise to the occasion, people who fall and those who surprise and inspire all of us. Everyone knew these games would have plenty of all 3. Canada Press ran a head line today “Canadian Chokers!” - Seriously…we have 9 medals. 4 of them are gold. Why can we not celebrate that? When was that bad? We have the collective population of less than California, yet the media seem embarrassed that Americans are winning at a rate greater than Canadians. Have they watched an Olympics before?

Canada had 13 medals in 1994 and jumped to 24 at Turin in 2006. That’s was good enough for 7th…which if I look at the medal standings just over the half way point of 2010 …we are in 5th. That’s on pace for our very best ever. Would you know that from listening to our media?
Canadian media want to focus on anything negative that catches their eye. Long line up for a gondola ride, dig it out! We are a country of 30 million people, whose winter sport passions are not evenly distributed by medal opportunity. We are much better at producing hockey players than skiers, but the Olympics have only 2 medals for hockey and about 20 for skiing. These are a great games and our athletes are doing us proud – the only ones choking are the unimaginative beat writers for our press that can’t do the real journalistic work and write something as inspiring as the people they are covering.

Watching the discussion in council tonight I was struck by the oddest thing. There is nothing wrong with debate, certainly any important decision should have lots of that. The two things that really stuck out for me was:

1) That the 2 sides were not even having the same discussion.

2) How ugly and personal some of the discussion was.

To issue #1.

To hear the alderman share their viewpoints it was not as though they all had a singular position of fact on which they were deciding for or against. Rather what you saw was a series of misunderstanding, misinformation and blatant political grandstanding. It may be a matter of opinion whether or not the city can or should invest X amount of dollars for benefit Z, but the facts surrounding that discussion still do exist and I think everybody making a speech should at least have a passing grasp on what those facts are.

6/9 Alderman by their comments tonight support this statement “I support the events center” - after that though there is little agreement on exactly what the facts of the case are. You can have an opinion about whether something is good or bad, opinions are for subjective things. You cant have an opinion about a fact. The interest rate is X, that is a fact.

You have one alderman claiming that interest rates are too risky and the borrowed money could cost too much money. Then city staff point out that the rate would be set at 4.26% for 25 years and would not change. The fundamental FACTS of the issue actually do exist, and are not subjective or speculative. Yet here were alderman justifying their stance not with the information they paid money to acquire, but with numbers and figures that seemingly come from nowhere, certainly no where they have to justify. You have alderman claiming tonight is the first they have heard for certain aspects of costs. For me that’s just not doing their homework. Shame on them.

At different points tonight 6 alderman agreed that we need to build a new events center. There isn’t a massive disagreement about the benefits, So what are they in disagreement about? One group wants to save money by committing to build it today (4 votes) Another wants to build it when more funds are secured (2 votes) and another says no way no how (3 votes). Is this miles apart? not really.

I can respect that two groups of people thoughtfully disagree on any issue. God Bless you for disagreeing but loving our community as much as I do. However if you are going to stand up and grandstand or write letters to the editor, you have an obligation to make sure you have your facts right.

As for point #2

I have every belief that there are 1000’s of people in Medicine Hat who genuinely believe that the events center is the right direction for our city, that it is a mistake to let the opportunity to bring federal tax money and invest it here in SE Alberta pass us by, and that waiting to build an events center will raise the price needlessly. We know we have to build one, it makes no sense to fix the current arena and I share their view point, though I criticize the pro arena crowd for being unable to package this information in a way that easily communicates the FACTS to the people. The facts do exist but you have to dig for them yourself - and that causes a whole bunch of misunderstanding.

By the same token, I believe that 1000’s of people in Medicine Hat have real concern with the costs and the funding and are worried the city will make a mistake that costs more than we can afford. I don’t share this viewpoint. The reason I don’t share it is because most of the comments surrounding this viewpoint tend to be making conclusions not supported by any of the information and facts available.

In either case though I think both sides are LEGITIMATE - and neither deserve to be completely ignored.

I have heard people against the events center allege a giant organized deception, bribery and ugliness.

I have heard people who support the events center shout down an alderman for changing his vote, or his voting error or whatever that was.

We all share this city with each other. Nobody wakes up every day scheming to screw the city of Medicine Hat and its citizens. I would like to see a debate where people have to justify their viewpoint. If you want to throw facts and figures out prepare to support them, I can do that. If you want to insult people’s integrity or attack their character for disagreeing with your viewpoint - prove that too. This mess that we have now …that’s no way for a city to make decisions. We can do better.

In any political discussion it is good to have healthy debate. This is the very premise of the parliamentary system of democracy - with a government and an official opposition. Its good to have a group whose job is to oppose every single thing the government does. Thing is, nobody takes that opposition as being 100% genuine, the opposition party will by the very nature of our system oppose almost everything the government does. As such both sides get exposed as hypocrites should a change in government occur.

In municipal politics it seems to me we have this group as well. I have heard them called the grump old man lobby.

Statler: Wake up you old fool. You slept through the show.
Waldorf: Who’s a fool? You watched it

For these guys there has never been an idea or concept that was ever good enough to justify anything. I swear that if the city contemplated spending money to keep our drinking water safe they would oppose it and offer this kind of logic:

“Its a well known fact that people get used to drinking contaminated water! You will raise a generation of weak pansies if you always give them safe drinking water” etc

I know its a straw man argument, but It seems that almost nothing can be presented that would persuade this group that any decision could every possibly have any merit. They are like our own self appointed opposition party. They sound every bit as credible as the parliamentary ones to me some days.

I guess I long for a more mature debate. Where two sides can bring together valid concerns and continue working until the best possible arrangement can be made for the good of the most people….There need not be a scourched earth, winner take all discussion where ideas and hard work to benifit many can never come to fruition, but rather people work to address real concerns, make fair concessions and eventually move to make decisions that benefit the most people.

I think the events center in Medicine Hat over the past 5 years has actually done that.

I have had several e-mails asking me my position about the new proposed events center. For full disclosure I will give you my position then and now:

My position back in 2005:

I was always “pro” events center, but not at any price …and in 2005 I had some serious concerns:

1) Why were outside consultants used to determine available locations for the new events center instead of RFP’s - how is that any more valid than asking Todd from accounting? They couldn’t even list all the potential spots, let alone pick one with any credibility.

2) How were they going to pay for it - why wouldnt they say …and sorry 20% tax hikes are unacceptable (as a certain ex alderman told the press)

3) Why were they going to put it over top of houses where productive citizens were living full and imaginative lives (thinking of you spider!)

4) Downtown? ….no thank you and almost everyone I had spoken to that didn’t own business downtown thought it was a terrible location. Many have said they support it there …many more said no way!

So …and here DangerMouse gives some credit…the city did the right thing! Unlike the Esplanade They had some public feedback and listened to it! The consulted with the people, created an open process, took proposals on locations. Feedback was deafening about 4 years ago. Don’t put it downtown, and figure out the details before you raise everybody’s taxes. A reasonable request.

My position on the events center in 2010

Much has changed since then. The city did their job. They were open, transparent (with some pestering, but they managed) They found a location where not only was there no harm to building a new events center, but significant benefit to doing so. Now instead of kicking people out of houses, businesses are committing to build convention centers to bring people to the Hat. What a difference a few years and some hard work and negotiations can make! This is not the voodoo “economic spin off” argument of the past claiming that we would bring in the world juniors one year and pay for everything…This is about having large, long term commercial development that will have real and measurable economic activity for decades to come!

in spite of the misinformation to the contrary, Nobody is contemplating raising taxes to pay for it; they have a business plan, a location that works and financial plan in place. The business development around the new events center will eventually generate more taxes for the city than the payment on the events center even costs. That is smart investing! Not at all like the original position proposed to hatters.

Finally there is a viable business case for building the events center instead of wasting 47 million dollars on fixing the old arena. (which is what happens if we don’t build an events center) Like most issues though people have to check into the details themselves. The people who can make a sound business case for the events center need to speak. I agree with the News editor who also pointed out that there are some real strong arguments to be made in support of the events center today …and people will have to do a job of selling it in the next weeks. Hopefully a better case can be made to the average hatter so they can make a sound and informed decision. It seems that most hatters get their information from Statler and Waldorf - instead of leaders in the community…My hope is in the coming weeks there are other more credible sources who step forward.

To me the events center discussion shows that democracy works. Democracy is not built for speed, but through proper public consultation the best outcomes for the most people can be realized.

However there does come a point when people have to be willing to reconsider their ardent positions. We all have to be willing to re-examine an issue when the conditions around it change. Some people will complain about anything – should we always govern by their say?

I guess I hope that people investigate the absurd claims they hear …make sure those assumptions are true before you accept them - on either side of the issue. When someone makes an outrageous claim – investigate it before you accept it. Challenge it.

I have heard the new events center will lose $10 million / year - From the mouth of an alderman no less …

actual fact check …it is projected to lose $150,000 per year *Source GEC Report page 5 top of column 2

You might initially have a knee jerk reaction to shout how unacceptable that loss is… You might not think so after you read this fun fact:

fun fact – the current arena losses $300,000+(growing) per year

I might accept that “Ma and Pa” would never build a new events center and think that future hatters living in the best city in Alberta should just go without the economic and competitive advantage of the Lethbridges and Red Deers…

That kind of folksie rhetoric might even wax nostalgic for certain people who remember better days when people didn’t rely on the government to do things ….I might have accepted that except for one teensie detail ….that Ma and Pa did build an arena here. 40 years ago - when it befitted their city to do so.

There has to be some combination of benefit and timing that makes such a purchase finally feasible. The city waited 5 years, they did their due diligence, they are doing it right this time.

In my view the time is now.

Canada’s youngest mass murderer has been moved into open custody. Luckily our justice system is going to continue to punish her for the murder of her mother, father and little brother by making her take a chaperon on her trips to the mall. That is what counts as criminal justice and punishment in Canada.

Any semblance of the concept of justice was shattered back at her sentencing - when the system was completely unable to handle such a young mass murderer …but to be moved to open custody after serving only 6 months per murder is just absurd and astonishingly insensitive. I don’t care if her case worker says she is “ready” - she has barely been punished for one of the countries most heinous crimes. I think her little brother is ready to be un-killed, since our courts in their wisdom cant grant that, I am unwilling to support this action either.

I consider myself a supporter of fiscal conservatism. Or at least I support the concept as it once was, back when I decided to support it. You see the phrase seems to change teams a lot, and different groups constantly lay claim to fiscal responsibility.

What does fiscal responsibility mean in Alberta?

A difficult question to answer. Currently you have, what I consider to be a “fringe” movement on the right side of the legislature currently the domain of the Wild Rose Alliance. During the last election, then leader Paul Hinman routinely labeled the ruling Conservative party to be “socialists”. A ploy of rhetoric right of the Republican Party / Fox News playbook from south of the border…How can any party be taken seriously with comments like that I wonder? Yet they are gaining steam. It seems weird that Alberta would ever elect such a massive majority of socialists to the Legislature…Of course that is the furthest thing from the truth. Ask any Liberal or NDP supporter if the conservatives and their spending habits represent fair minded left thinking social spending. I bet once they stopped laughing they would set you straight.

To those of you who support the Wild Rose – and God Bless you for caring enough to support any party, I would only say this …if the Conservative party of Alberta represents the most “Left” viewpoint you can imagine …you should talk to more Albertans. (and maybe stay away from Edmonton)

What is the sin of the current Conservative leadership that makes them “socialists”? Spending.
The people crying for fiscal conservatism today point to the massively increased spending as proof of run away socialist style spending. Under Ralph Klein we didn’t spend like this – they would argue.

Let’s return to our roots!

I would argue that todays Conservative budget IS a return to our roots, but memories in Alberta seem short. The long, laissez-faire rule of Ralph Klein has obscured the PC roots in this Province under a more progressive Peter Laugheed. Government spending was not always considered bad in this province - and that was by the same conservative minded voters who lay claim to Conservatism today. Danielle Smith the new Wild Rose Alliance leader said that she did not leave the Conservative party, but the conservatives left her. I respectfully point out the Ralph Klein days she longs for were a stark departure from the roots of the PC party she used to support, not the origins of it.

Of course reckless spending is wrong.

If our leaders are racking up gambling debts in Vegas, spending beyond their budgets on marketing projects and pork barrel policies and stick our children with Billions in debt than they are perpetrating a fraud. They are stealing from future Albertans and they should be ashamed. Fiscal conservatism does not support this type of spending.

Yet not all spending is wrong. – it may well be necessary and completely fiscally responsible. Under Ralph Klein the Province eliminated our debt largely on the backs of ignoring our obligations. The government, even fiscally responsible ones – still have an obligation to pay for those things that make our economy and society work and prosper.

Alberta under Ralph Klein became the only government in North America to ever shut down and implode a fully operational Hospital like the Calgary General. If we set aside the emotional attachment Calgarians had to a 100 year old hospital as a fiscal responsibility watch dog I ask …was it financially smart? The answer in hindsight was clearly NO!

You see hospitals cost a lot of money to build and maintain. Hatters have been waiting for a decade for the much overdue expansion to our hospital. In 1997 the Klein government rejected building a new hospital in Calgary because it cost 400 million dollars. Today to build that same hospital would cost 1.6 Billion. Turns out avoiding paying for something you need doesn’t save you money. By avoiding the Province’s obligation to build and support the infrastructure communities need to prosper – they gave our children additional future costs! It’s as irresponsible to the other end of the spectrum as wasteful spending is because it doesn’t save money – it costs more!

Spending money on capital and infrastructure is not the same as spending it on a pork barrel policy, just as buying a house, even with a mortgage is not the same as racking up your credit card on a shopping spree.

Spending money on Schools, overpasses, hospitals, parks, community centers and the like – does not represent fiscal irresponsibility. Government spending is not in and of itself bad. WASTEFUL government spending is bad – and there is a big difference.

So why suddenly does a fiscally responsible ruling party like the provincial PC’s need to increase their deficit and threaten to take on debt for such a rich Province? Is it a burning need to return to socialism as the fringe Wild Rose Alliance party alleges? Hardly.

Infrastructure is expensive because you pay for it today …but use it for 50 years. Alberta ignored building its infrastructure for 15 years so we could look good by eliminating our debts – but we did so at a terrible cost. Fort McMurray’s exploding population seriously threatened safe and clean drinking water for its citizens. Hi ways became crowded and dangerous. Hospitals unbuilt, unexpanded and underfunded left to rot. Schools dilapidated. The movement of goods and services became slower on our roads and more expensive for businesses.

Meanwhile Alberta added people. Lots of people! Alberta added the population of Red Deer every year for a decade. Imagine all the infrastructure that needs to be built to support an entire new major provincial city each year. Think of all the infrastructure purchased in a Red Deer sized area over an 80 year period! Roads, schools, hospitals – and yes even parks, pathways, library’s, and rec facilities. We are talking 10’s of billions of dollars behind. When all those thousands of people moved here from Saskatchewan, Ontario and beyond – they left all the taxes they paid in their lives elsewhere back home….they didn’t transfer that tax money, classroom space or hospital beds over here.

Alberta really is that far behind the 8 ball.

Medicine Hat has likely doubled in population size since the last hospital expansion. Our classrooms grew full. Our schools started falling apart…Does anyone remember what Hat High and CHHS looked like in the mid 1990’s under King Ralph? I remember dodging falling ceiling tiles in the gym during highschool athletics.

Fiscal responsibility and conservatism does not mean the avoidance of all government spending- even if that means deficit or debt. Borrowing money today to pay for an asset enjoyed or needed for 50 years is not irresponsible. Postponing the purchase while it balloons in price is irresponsible. Fact is spending money on infrastructure now is long overdue, badly needed, and can be purchased on the cheap today – AND help stimulate the economy (the free market one) in the process. If the government goes into dept to overpay for wasteful projects and spending all should be outraged.

If they spend money on things that Albertan communities need (water treatment, hiways, hospitals, schools, and community infrastructure) than they are just doing their job.
Alberta has been solidly “right wing” since 1935. If government spending was always bad…how did our cities get all the old infrastructure we have now? Where did the hospitals and schools and museums and parks and rec centers and arenas etc …Where did all of that come from if there is no appropriate time to ever spend money? Where would our communities be today if our forefathers had been so “responsible” as to ignore their obligation to build and support the people moving to do business in our province back then?

Our province is badly low on infrastructure. The price is the lowest it’s going to get, the spending does the most good for the economy right now! At some point the discussion of eliminating wasteful spending was transformed into elimination of any spending - even if holding off on projects is foolish and wastes more money. I just don’t see how that is more fiscally responsible.

After the death of the bikini bylaw and the election of a new counsel. Medicine Hat was left with a dirth of dubious morally imposed policies. I am sure every city in the world has policy on the books that is outdated like “You cant feed your horse vitamins on Thursdays” or something, but we are left with moral policies who results are deliberate though not specifically named.

Escort Licensing is one of those political issues that is hard to find a champion. Its toxic. Nobody wants to be considered “pro escort” - Call a spade a spade, is there anyone naive enough to believe that this isn’t a thin front for prostitution? Yet Medicine Hats policy regarding the licensing of escort agency’s remained what can only be described as punitive. The thinking must have gone that by making the fee so high we might reduce the number of escorts in Medicine Hat. A new restaurant will pay a $100ish for a business license, and escort agency $6500.00

If the old council was so opposed to what is frankly a dubious business practice, (though legal) - why are they choosing to have the tax payer profit from their work? Looking at taking $30,000 a year in extra taxes from a few escort agencies. What does that make us?

My problem with all of this is that the role of city hall should never have been to impose a moral policy on things outside the municipal governments purview - yet many of these policies are still on the books and are politically damaging to remove. It seems that only the threat of having the policy overturned in the courts will force city hall to do whats right.

Lets be honest though, it should never have been that way. Its backwards to think that the moral imposition of the few, should be able to impose on the legal activity of other citizens. Whether I might dislike something or not this is a free country.

To this day there are severe restrictions on selling lingerie in our city. Not any open policy that says you cant, just business zoning policy that is so restrictive it prevents new businesses from selling it most anywhere one might put a business. To me that was dishonest leadership. Policies like that slipped by the citizens who were slow to anger, until the group just plain went too far and the people ousted them - but much of their handiwork remains today.

Luckily for those sinning newlyweds who like silk. Previous stores selling women’s delicates were grandfathered in. I am challenging myself to remain consistent on this - It is just as wrong to impose back door morality barriers to selling magazines and lingerie as it is to use punitive licensing fees to punish legal escort agencies. Even if the escort agencies cover for a service most Hatters would rather pretend doesn’t go on here. That is not a democratic way of dealing with it.

If you want to ban an activity or business practice - lobby the appropriate level of government. Creating policy with a clear but unspoken agenda at a level of government not tasked with those decisions. That is no way to govern in a transparent democracy.

My view on escort agencies: I think escort agencies, while perhaps a practical solution to managing a potentially dangerous activity should not be given the quasi legal protection of being a “legitimate business.” That is my personal opinion of their business status. I readily admit though that I am completely naive as to the social costs of not having this sort of agency system in place.

I am on the whole, anti escort agency.

I happen to also be pro lingerie.

Who decided those types of products and services were the same?

In either case I don’t support the creation of civic policy directed at undermining activity legislated as legal by Federal or Provincial guidelines. We don’t get a veto. If we don’t like a law, change the law because at least in that debate the public could decide which business practices are acceptable and which are not.

As this was done a small group gains civic influence enough to warp our policies and bylaws to their means - we have the public locked out of the debate. City Hall is not the place for this type of policy. Citizens dont need council’s permission to buy or sell perfectly legal products and services.

Everything on the following list is completely legal to sell in our community.

Cosmo Magazine
Lingerie
artistic expression
massage oils
Marital aids
erotic dance
escort agencies

Not every citizen would agree that every item (or any item ) on that list is beneath our community standards. Creating “sneaky policy” to limit specific services, while perhaps in line with ones moral beliefs - is still an inappropriate use of municipal government powers. City Hall doesn’t need to be in our bedrooms, no matter how freaky you may be in there.

I think a good litmus test for this type of policy … if city hall is changing their policy under threat of legal action …perhaps the policy was out of line in the first place.

Just my perspective as I ease back into my blogging hobby.

Huh …Kind of missed this place.

DM

Starting with last night’s council meeting City of Medicine Hat will have on its website video and audio of council meetings.

Previously there was no record of discussion or comments made by elected representatives in public meetings. As people who follow this blog know the city has always made available minutes, but that is only a record of what was done, not a record of what was said. As this blog reported in 2007, the only copy of our council meeting was owned exclusively by Shaw and they refused to make the meetings available to the public if the meeting ever proved to be controversial. Strangely the people of Medicine Hat owned no record of their elected officials discussion and public dialogue.
Now council members are on the record when they speak, and I think that will finally add a level ongoing accountability to the voters and people of Medicine Hat.

Congratulations on the new council members for FINALLY making this happen, it was an election issue (mainly on this blog, but it was discussed) and it took too long to happen, but it’s great to have a chance for Hatters to keep informed in modern times with the happenings of their elected officials. This is modern access to our democracy and the current mayor and alderman made this happen.

http://www.medicinehat.ca/City%20Government/City%20Council/Video/index.asp

From Sept 2007
2) Open government - It was brought to my attention by a thoughtful e-mailer some months ago, and I never have blogged on it (Spider might have more info on this as well) – the comments and actions of council members DURING COUNCIL meetings are not recorded by our city hall and are not necessarily available to all our citizens. A council member can literally stand up in council and call for the implementation of slavery – and there would be no public record of those comments. Currently a private company (Shaw) legally owns the rights to the recoding of the council meetings – and on controversial issues like the CAPCS bikini bylaw – they actually chose NOT to release those tapes to the public. Further local library’s requesting a copy of the tape were also denied by Shaw. Our council could easily and affordably make their actions, comments, statements a matter of public record. Currently only their motions and votes are recorded in the official minutes. How inexpensive would it be for City hall to record and archive all the meetings (video and audio) and all that was said – I even suggest that council meetings be available for viewing through a webcast, for citizens to review at their leisure and watch the actions of the people elected to represent them. Transcripts are an unnecessary expense – webcams, microphones and Youtube are pretty low cost. The comments made in council, in my view, ought to be a matter of public record –

HIT THE GAS AND DON’T EVEN WORRY ABOUT THE SPEED LIMITS!

Precedence has now been set and the Legal community must pay attention.

On September 1, 2009, the Honorable Judge Ted Fisher passed a judgment that will make it theoretically impossible for anyone to be charged with dangerous driving while speeding.  His judgment to throw out a charge of dangerous driving for a person caught traveling at a speed of about 130kph in a 50kph zone, has shown the way for the entire legal community to claim that there is no need for any speed limits nor any need to have a “dangerous driving” regulation on the books.

The City Police have never been my favorites when it comes to the enforcement of speed limits.

I have more than once asked them when they are going to take down the white signs with the black letters on specific roads, (such as Dunmore Road), because they never enforce them and the average driver in this city does not pay attention to them.  NOW the average driver is in the right!

OH included in this overall judgment is a really great way of beating the breathalizer.  Chew Gum…. two or three sticks in seperate areas of the mouth…. then you can claim that you were chewing gum when the test was administered…. and you walk!!!

What a crock!

How did this guy ever become a judge! and what has become of our society when we cannot have the local authorities enforce nationally accepted regulations like speed limits…. and at the same time our “lawmakers” are putting forward things like the “responsible pet owners” bylaw…

Today we saw our police chief saying that he was going to ask for more money from the province in order to better protect the members of our society.  My comments are two fold.

1) All the more power (and money) to you, as long as the enforcement end is increased

and

2)  Why bother…. “Fisher” will probably overturn any legitimate charges anyway!

I’m back!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSjRuHALdVQ[/youtube]

More on Ald. Ty Schneider’s ‘View from Council’

http://tyschneider.blogspot.com/