This was only the tip of the iceberg, as we became aware of a greater number of homeless in Abbotsford. I recall making several visits to the encampment, and I also remember Mayor Ferguson expressing concern about their condition, given the temperatures at that time.

He was resolved to address the issue, and convinced Council of the day that something significant needed to be initiated.

A number of community groups and charitable organizations were doing their best to provide some form of relief for these individuals, and it was during that first year that the Abbotsford Social Development Advisory Committee was formed, drawing in numerous community stakeholders.

This committee, while not acting alone, became the voice of all those who had been advocating for the City to address social concerns in an intentional way. Consequently, a variety of initiatives were begun, from ‘cold-weather housing’ to managing the Supportive Recovery Home scene. Most significantly, however, was the initiative that addressed the issue of affordable housing, and housing for those who have traditionally, been hard to house.

While numerous initiatives took place between 2006 and 2009, in 2010 Council adopted an Affordable Housing Strategy, which provided a ‘road map’ for moving forward in a more intentional way. In that same year, two unique projects were initiated: the Atangard Community Project, an innovative use of empty, downtown space, geared mainly for young professionals and students in search of affordable housing; and the Harmony Flex Housing project on McKenzie Road, a partnership between the City and CMHC, providing opportunities for lower and middle-income individuals to enter the housing market, through a construction design that includes ground-level rental suites, intended to help owners carry the mortgage load. This project received national attention for its innovative approach.

In February, 2011, the Elizabeth Fry Society established 22 units of housing for single women and women with children, for which the City made a one-time Affordable Housing Opportunities contribution of $110,000.00

In May of this year, the Christine Lamb Residence (construction began in 2011) celebrated its opening. The residence has 41 units for women or women with children at risk of homelessness, made possible through a partnership between the City and the Provincial Government.

A few kilometres south, on King Road, construction is underway for a 31-unit, transitional housing project for recovering addicts, at Kinghaven. This project too is only possible because of a partnership between the City and the Provincial Government.

Mr. Breckenridge would have you believe that with respect to homelessness and affordable housing, the City has failed – “… while accomplishing nothing – or at least nothing of a positive nature” (May 16, 2012).

Whether the City could or should have done more, I will leave to the readers to decide, but I can assure Mr. Breckenridge, it was more than “nothing”, and it certainly was “positive.”

Councillor Dave Loewen

Dave Loewen is a three-term Abbotsford City Councillor whose columns and contributions can be found here.

Article source: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=82325

Other than the multi-million dollar Abbotsford Heat subsidy and the failure of the Abbotsford Entertainment Centre (AESC) Abbotsford is perhaps best known outside of the community for our ‘anti-harm reduction’ bylaw. Council will revisit the ill-conceived foray into moral healthcare on May 28.

Mayor Bruce Banman has said he would like the bylaw rescinded.

Councillor Simon Gibson has argued that Abbotsford could end up being a centre for drug treatment programs that support continued addiction if we don’t ban needle exchanges and safe injection sites.

That’s a major part of the tortured logic he uses to support Abbotsford’s anti-harm reduction bylaw.

Councillor Simon Gibson

(It is perhaps the ultimate example of political doublespeak that we don’t refer to the bylaw in a more straightforward and honest manner by calling it what it is -the Abbotsford pro-harm bylaw)

As James Breckenridge pointed out in a recent Abbotsford Today column, “If Abbotsford council were to repeal the bylaw there would be NO flood of people into Abbotsford. For the simple reason that harm reduction is part of healthcare everywhere in BC except Abbotsford, and since people everywhere else in BC already have access to these services they have no need to come to Abbotsford.”

Here’s the reality on the ground – Mark Townsend of the PHS Community Services Society, which manages the Downtown Eastside’s InSite safe-injection site told The Vancouver Sun this week, “What we found distributing at our needle exchanges is that people were coming from as far away as Abbotsford to get clean needles.”

Is this perhaps what Gibson actually supports? Driving addicts out of Abbotsford? (We may be on to something here)

Look at Abbotsford’s approach to the Homeless or the women of the Warm Zone. Are these perhaps just not the kind of people certain people in Abbotsford want around?

In the same article, by Elaine O’Connor, it was revealed that, despite Simon Gibson’s attempts to deny Abbotsford residents the same life saving health care services all other BC residents receive, caring individuals in the community have been helping those in need anyway (sneaky lovers of their neighbours).

Abbotsford to mull bylaw banning safe-injection sites

Excerpt:
The reality is, harm-reduction services have been operating illegally in the region for years.

Abbotsford so-call ‘Anti-Harm Reduction Bylaw’ targets the most vulnerable in the community. Photo from markhoustonrecovery.com

A consortium of Abbotsford community groups, called the Supporting Wellness and Reducing Harm Committee, have been quietly distributing needles in Abbotsford shooting galleries since 2005.

“Is there a need? Absolutely,” said Brian Gross, board member and Abbotsford liaison for the BC/Yukon Association of Drug War Survivors, a consortium member.

“They go out with thousands of needles at night and they come back with none.”

Gross said councillors shouldn’t set health policy and felt the bylaw sent a cruel message: “They would rather see addicts dead than within the city.”

Mayor Bruce Banman has targeted Abbotsford’s pro-harm bylaw as something he would personally like to see abandoned in favour of a more humane, legal and ethical approach to the disease of drug addiction.

Whether due to Banman’s influence or not, we’ve heard that many on Council are leaning in the same direction. It would be nice if Abbotsford could move forward into the last century and begin helping the victims of drugs instead of punishing them and denying them life-saving health care.

For More On The Topic Click Here.

Article source: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=82254

Let’s get stuck in …

So, the list of the City of Abbotsford’s spending priorities was published over the last couple of weeks. Aside from the ever present and scary “cost undetermined” beside some of the items, we still seem to think that spending $3.3 million on an Urban Trail is good value for our tax dollars.

Let me tell you a secret folks at City Hall … shhhhh … don’t tell anyone else … all levels of government are completely unaware of this so let’s have it be our little secret…

IT ISN’T YOUR JOB TO BUILD TRAILS!

Oh yes, as we need one leading to the front door of the Food Bank as Abbotsford hits 11.1% unemployment, but we aren’t an urban centre … 75% of Abbotsford is farm land … and you’ve already spent millions and millions of dollars on the Discovery Trail and no one ever uses it!!!

Yep, we were reviewed as having the worst roads in BC a couple of years back so what did we do? We spent in excess of $8 million on paving a trail through the woods … and we paved a trail that was already a trail. We even had a ribbon cutting and grand opening of the paved trail that used to be a trail, but I guess was now more important because it had a sign and asphalt.

Look … we’ve blown the city’s future on AESC and the Heat. We’re building gazebos in the middle of nowhere and paving trails that no one uses. We’re propping up golf courses with excuses now too and what is the result? Add it all up and it can easily amount to half of the more than 40% property tax increase over the last 5 years. In fact, I can show you the math, but you’d get bored.

Let’s go back to the golf course…

Mayor and Council seem to think that it can’t be managed better. Yet right in the middle of the recent Abbotsford News article it states that lounge staff will now be paid by the hour. What? Were they on “salary”? I hate to tell you this, but if that is the best management we can get, we’re doomed! I don’t think the written word alone can possibly explain how unbelievably stupid that management team is and this is only the first bonehead thing we’ve heard about.

I have a guess that perhaps we are employing the same managerial acumen at AESC??

What is truly sad for our community is that instead of having even one single idea, one single action, one single solution…not even a sniff at one…the Mayor thinks you need to solve it by spending your money.

We can’t do anything about Ledgeview, but if you like it, go play a couple of rounds!

IDIOT!

Anyone that can afford to play golf is playing golf.

Yes, I’m ranting now … but I think I deserve it. We elect the same people who sit in the chair and let all these issues go by hoping that we’ll forget about them or fall into despair about them … which is what most of Abbotsford has done. C’mon…1300 people at the last Heat game. Where’s City Manager Frank Pizzuto with his assurances that “next year will be better” and “we’re positive about the future” and “we’re working hard to make it a success”.

Seriously, you’re all just sitting there hoping it will go away.

If you wanted to fix these things you might listen to the community. Oh you ask for it, but apparently if it is good enough to work, you’ll save it for another day and let taxpayers fund your games until you can take credit for it.

Please note: in 2009 the Abbotsford Ratepayers Association recommended the creation of an Economic Development Corporation. We were ignored and now this year, it appears in the city’s Strategic Plan. Yeah, I read that crap.

In broad strokes, the key to resolving our debt issues is this … governments of all levels need to go back to providing their core services … and nothing else. For municipalities that is just a very few things:

• Infrastructure – our roads are falling behind and our water mains need upgrading. We can debate the water source issue elsewhere, but development will stagnate if we don’t catch up with our water main infrasture.
• Policing – at one point Abbotsford had more officers per capita than we should have. We now don’t have enough, but we are top heavy … too many senior officers and not enough street level cops. We need better balance so that we don’t have relentless pressure on new hiring every year just fill patrol officer shoes. Additionally, we do not need a new Police Station. We do need de-centralized, precinct style growth and that is much, much cheaper than a new mega-building.
• Economic Development – not what we do, but the real kind. If we don’t define a target industry and go after it for this city we will wallow in low wages, high unemployment (seasonal or not) and the number of people that can afford to go to Heat game or play a round of golf will steadily decrease.

Now sure, the City does other things … building permits, business licenses, etc, etc … but you’ll see a big department missing in my list … Parks and Recreation.

That department needs to prove its value to this community before it gets to spend any more money. It’s legacy includes:

• The Friendship Garden – unused/unneeded
• The Discovery Trail – unused/unneeded
• AESC – white elephant status confirmed
• Botched Centennial Pool Upgrade
• ARC Expansion – this gets lost in the Plan A debacle, but we spent $20 million there. That is either some creative accounting, or we got ripped off. I’m a member at that facility and there is no way $20 million was spent on that expansion. Again, I can do that math for you if you want.
• Choosing basketball courts over a 50 metre pool. Now we’ll have to spend the same $25 million to partner with the YMCA just to get the pool we should have had a decade ago.
• Major contribution to soccer? Put fences around the fields and charge the kids double to use them … good times …
• The Reach – loses twice its projected budget and is never open … ’nuff said.

Parks and Rec has to put one in the “win” column before it gets to spend anymore of my money. Displaying the price of admission on a new flat screen TV instead of a chalkboard when half the machines in the gym don’t work just ain’t cutting it.

So, quite a column! I think I covered everything. Let’s recap:

1. Don’t give Ledgeview a dime.
2. Go back to the basics and save our money
3. Demand performance from our Department heads
4. Use your common sense

Oooo … bit much that last one I think

(Footnote: Median total income, by family type, by census metropolitan area)

Article source: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=82123

Delves is the President and CEO of Quantum Properties, the company that is building The Mahogany at Mill Lake, a controversial development that is currently applying for rezoning which is being vehemently opposed (as was the original proposal) by neighbours in that area of Abbotsford.

Diane Delves, President and CEO of Quantum Properties

The project she is defending is hardly an incidental business interest that is off the radar when it comes to council business and municipal politics in Abbotsford. The project is probably the most contentious land use issue in Abbotsford politics in recent memory.

Would it not therefore be proper for Delves to step aside from her role as a privileged advisor to the City of Abbotsford so long as such a contentious issue is being discussed?

One of the reasons Abbotsford Today and many others made such an issue of the makeup of the City of Abbotsford’s committee structure during the run up to the last election was the growing perception that the elite of Abbotsford – developers, wealthy business owners, land owners, hoteliers and others with a vested interest in municipal decisions, were over-represented in the councils of power at the City of Abbotsford.

Mayor Banman, in his first video interview after being elected, challenged the citizens of Abbotsford to join the committees of the City and have their voice heard. When last reported there were 24 applicants for 17 positions on the City’s committees.

One name that stood out on the list of those not leaving their post as a public member at large was Diane Delves on the Economic Development Advisory Committee.

Council watcher Lily Kaetler has been a vocal critic of the fact that the interest groups and individuals representing developers, realtors, land owners and businesses in Abbotsford seem to populate committees such as the Abbotsford Airport Authority, the Economic Development Committee and the Industry Development Committee. Furthermore; the same names seem to stay on the committees year in and year out.

Why are land developers, hoteliers, AHL hockey club owners (who are taxpayer subsidized) the ones the City chooses to populate the committee structure?

While it can certainly be argued that representatives from business and industry ought to be advising a municipal council on public policy decisions affecting the economic growth and wellbeing of the City, particularly on matters in which they exhibit a specific expertise, the possibility of conflict of interest must always be of concern to taxpayers who entrust these people with the job of running our city.

Diane Delves’ expertise in development is certainly a valuable asset to the City of Abbotsford and any advice she wants to give is and should be welcomed. Her position on the Abbotsford Airport Authority, for instance, should only come into question if her company is likely to benefit from the decisions being made to divvy up and sell off the land around the airport for development.

However, in the interest of proper optics surrounding potential conflict of interest, especially since, if it existed it would be of a pecuniary nature; Diane Delves should step down from her seat on the Economic Development Committee until her controversial high rise development has been dealt with.

Traffic, parking and the character of the single-family home neighbourhood in which she is building are legitimate concerns of her neighbours and one would think she should be mindful of not providing critics of the process with ammunition against her.

There are enough questions being asked about the benefits received by private businesses and organizations in direct competition with private businesses that it would be best for all concerned if she stepped down.

Article source: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=82066

Grumblings around City Hall sound a lot like push back coming from both staff and other Councillors. Whether that is true or not, those in favour should push harder than ever before … and I’ll tell you why.

Each year, our city’s Senior Management receives completely unjustified pay increases. One way to justify those increases is to have a performance review. That is what it is called in the private sector by the way. Yes, we hope that our City Staff is being re-evaluated constantly, but it certainly feels like that is not the case. Here is their chance to prove me wrong.

To ascertain whether or not Senior Staff have done their job properly on a structural level, we simply must perform a Core Services Review. I also suggest that a full Policy and Procedures review be done in tandem with this work.

While the best reasons for this may seem anecdotal to many city staff, to the public who have to deal directly with inconsistencies and failures in the ability to deliver services, not performing this review is costly indeed.

So, why wouldn’t you?

We are told every year that Management gets a pay raise so we can compete with the private sector for their talent.

… let’s break for a moment while you take the time to laugh out loud …

OK … we’re back …

Let’s assume that this childish excuse is true. I’ll tell you about a real world case…one of those companies that our City is competing with for that ‘top talent.’

Jim Pattison is a pretty well known name. Imagine working for him. Now imagine that you are part of his senior staff. Guess what? According to a former General Manager, every quarter you must develop and present a full business plan to Mr. Pattison. Not the slapdash PowerPoint jokes that our staff present, but a full business plan … for every department. Didn’t meet your budget or projections? Sorry … good bye!

Councillor Henry Braun

Now imagine that a City Councillor like Henry Braun, who really knows about the business world, suggests a review that will allow you to justify all the work you do. I can tell you that I would welcome that review. In fact, our City Senior Management should have their departments capable of a full review at any time.

I will go so far as to say that if you are a Senior Manager in the City of Abbotsford and you fight the idea of a Core Services review in any way, you should be considered for termination. You are morally and ethically obligated to prove to taxpayers, at their demand, your performance. You are charged with the protection of our tax dollars and that includes spending those dollars in the most effective way possible. If you can’t, or won’t, prove that you are doing that, you should be terminated.

Core Service reviews save money. Policy and Procedure reviews create harmony of services, public trust and they increase staff morale.

As a representative of taxpayers in Abbotsford, these reviews are what we want our money spent on.

Do them.

Article source: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=82117

This is an incredibly stupid contract that binds the Abbotsford taxpayers for at least 10 years, and possibly longer, if Council does not give notice at the mid-point that it will not be renewed at the end of the 10 year contract.

Related – Jesse Kline: Politicians and business sense don’t mix, National Post , May 15, 2012

Jesse Kline

It has not been a great post-season for hockey in B.C.’s Lower Mainland. First the Vancouver Canucks were eliminated during the first round of the playoffs, despite their stellar regular-season record. Then, last week, the Abbotsford Heat — a minor-league hockey team located about 75 kilometers outside of Vancouver — were defeated by the Toronto Marlies. While all this may be bad news for hockey fans on the West Coast, it’s taxpayers in Abbotsford, B.C., who are really feeling the sting.

The franchise was lured to the suburban city (population of 133,000) in 2009, after the city borrowed $85-million to finance the construction of a 7,100 seat hockey arena and agreed to subsidize the team for upwards of $57-million over a 10-year period, if it was unable to turn a profit. The owners are guaranteed to make $5.7-million per season, regardless of whether anyone is willing to watch the games and, as it turns out, very few people are interested in the team.

Article source: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=81993

No blame to be laid at the feet of the players, nor, I believe, should blame be laid at the feet of the coaching staff. The team had an excellent season and did us proud.

Where the week became interesting was with the coverage of the management and political issues surrounding the company.

The first mention of the Abbotsford Entertainment and Sports Centre (AESC) loss for the past year was made on Twitter by ‘Deceitindrugs’ under #Abbotsford on May 3, 2012 (appearing on the home page of the Abbotsford News).

The Tweet was based on the quite release of the City of Abbotsford financial statement showing the taxpayers of Abbotsford lost $2.83 million on the AESC last year (including $1.1 million for the Abbotsford Heat) which was $400,000 less than the City had predicted.

None of the Abbotsford media, including Abbotsford Today, picked up on the story until May 11 when the City of Abbotsford placed a classified ad in the back of the Abbotsford News which also covered the story editorially on page A-10 announcing the loss was less than expected.

I guess that passes for good news when it comes to the amount of money taxpayers are losing on business ventures in Abbotsford and, to be fair, credit is certainly due for the Global Spectrum teams’ ability to attract more entertainment events this past year which is quoted as the main reason the AESC only lost $2.83 million.

City Manager Frank Pizzuto

The fact that City Manager Frank Pizzuto has been widely off the mark every single year he has predicted the amount taxpayers would lose on the AESC and the Abbotsford Heat should perhaps have been the story.

Whether more or less than predicted, the actual multimillion dollar cost of the White Elephant on King Road is still unacceptable and Pizzuto’s inability to tell council how much the two are likely to lose in any given year is a very worrisome trend.

One thing we now know for sure – Frank Pizzuto’s financial estimates are about as worthless as his self-serving predictions about the end of economic development in Abbotsford during the P3 water debacle. The man is clearly pulling figures out of thin air on which council is supposed to make intelligent decisions.

Much like Pizzuto’s arguments for bailing out Ledgeview Golf Course his estimates and thinking seem based on a pre-determined conclusion followed by whatever tortured logic and imaginary figures he can come up with to justify a decision he’s already made.

This is not financial or management advice. This is sandbox economics at it’s worst.

Then came the Vancouver Sun story on Friday, May 11, dealing with the fact that the crowd for the final playoff game was a “franchise-worst crowd of just 1,360.”

Heat president Ryan Walter then expressed dissatisfaction and puzzlement at the low attendance.
—————————————————————————————–

Abbotsford heat president Ryan Walter

“Though crushing the loss was, the small number of fans who strolled through the turnstiles to witness it left a sour aftertaste for those in the organization the following morning.

“When the game was on the line, and we’re the only hockey game playing in the [Fraser Valley], it was puzzling,” said Heat president Ryan Walter, who is about [to] complete his first year under that job title.

“There’s no excuses. We’re looking for solutions to those problems, but I think the people in the building felt that, too. I talked to a lot of season ticket holders in the last week, and I think to a person in the building, they were disappointed. They were saying, ‘How come the rest of our community isn’t here?’

“We’re not happy about the crowd. No one is.”

—————————————————————————————–
Walter was then quoted as saying the management of the team want to work on the “the negative feelings people may harbour against the Heat for being the Flames farm club.”

Walter seems to be falling victim to the same malaise which has set in at City Hall over the reasons for the failure of the Abbotsford Heat and the AESC.

Abbotsford Heat Attendance. Stats from HockeyDb.com. Click For Full Size

No one seems prepared to say that the plan, such as it was, was a failure from the start. Before sinking, what is going to end up being more than $500 million of taxpayers’ money into the ill-conceived proposal, nobody did any actual research to determine how many hockey fans in Abbotsford were prepared to pay to attend the home games of an AHL farm team.

As unbelievable as that may sound, that is exactly how we got into this mess. First council and city staff blamed the naysayers (those, and there were many, who had the temerity to point out the errors being made) for the low attendance, now it’s the negative feelings towards the Calgary Flames.

Truth is; there simply aren’t enough hockey fans to support an AHL franchise in Abbotsford – period. The Heat are getting the attendence that is out there and the numbers are going south as time goes by*.

Even Mayor Bruce Banman blamed the low attendance on those in the community who disagreed with the financial guarantee to the Heat owners and feel the City broke the law with George Peary’s Deal* providing financial support to a private business.

Parks Rec Director Mark Taylor

There isn’t a hockey fan in the world who would pass up the kind of great hockey the Heat players and coaching staff have provided because of the local political debate over the costs to the taxpayers. Nor is there a hockey fan in the world who would pass on an opportunity to see some of the best professional hockey available in their own town.

Economic Development Manager Jay Teichroeb

The simple fact is that the Abbotsford Heat are getting all of the hockey fans in Abbotsford they are ever going to get. The fact is that somewhere around 3,000 people are prepared to fork over the cash to watch professional hockey in Abbotsford.

The fact that no one in their right mind would sink any of their own money into a multimillion dollar pro sports franchise with those kind of numbers seems to have escaped Parks and Recreation Direction Mark Taylor and Economic Development Manager Jay Tecihroeb when they pushed ahead, oblivious to the dangers and ignored all of the very public advice against such a course – none of which was properly covered (if at all) in the local newspapers.

Even Plan A architect and pitch man former councillor Bruce Beck said, “The AHL has not got any west coast teams and if we bring in an AHL team, then the travel burden would be terrific and we would be the most expensive team to run – which would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Foprmer Councillor and Plan A architect Bruce Beck

The WHL is not an option.” – Bruce Beck, Jan 9, 2009 – [Italics ours].

Let’s stop blaming the failure of the AESC and the Abbotsford Heat on the people of Abbotsford and look to the people who made so many incompetent decisions behind closed doors and against all of the advice against their blunders.

It’s about time somebody owned up to the massive incompetence which has lead to this financial disaster and start facing the facts. Unless we stop dithering, pretending it’ll al be OK and blaming ghosts we are going to be in far worse shape thatn we already are.

It’s called leadership.

—

* Abbotsford heat AttendenceStats from HockeyDb.com
—
** George Peary’s Deal

• Mayor Banman Has To Stop Shooting The Messengers On The Abbotsford Heat Failure
• Dimanno Questions George Peary’s Deal On Abbotsford Heat
• Peary Defends His Deal With The Heat, Admits Intial Ticket Sales Hopes ‘Naive’

Editor’s Note: Thanks to Lily Kaetler and Shaheen Shivji for background information and links

Article source: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=81847

Rhonda Latreille

Will where you live affect your quality of life as you age? International conference speaker and author, Rhonda Latreille, MBA, CPCA, will share how the psychology and dynamics of aging creates a critical imperative for planning where we choose to age and how this will greatly impact our quality of life. Inspired by the successful UnitedNations endorsed Age-Friendly City and Rural Communities initiatives; Rhonda founded an organization that elevates the needs and customer experience for people 45+. (Visit www.cpcacanada.com for more information on Rhonda
Latreille)

Councillor Kim Richter

Says CARP Chapter #48 Chair and veteran Langley Township Councillor, Kim Richter: “Designing communities so people can age in place is of critical and growing importance in the South Fraser region. We need people to stay in our communities as they age because their contributions to the development of our communities are what have made, and will continue to make, the South Fraser such a vital and dynamic area to live, work, and play.”

“CARP is an important advocacy agency for issues affecting the aging population. We need their voice here to help
ensure that our Zoomer and seniors’ issues will not be overlooked as our communities continue to grow and expand.”

At this same free public event, South Fraser OnTrax Co-Founder Nathan Pachal will speak on the linkage between
where we live and our transportation needs moving forward as people age. South Fraser OnTrax is a sponsor of this
CARP South Fraser Chapter #48 event. Everyone is welcome to participate and you do not have to be a member of
CARP to attend. Door prizes will be given away and a social time with free refreshments will follow the meeting.

Event Details:
Thursday, May 10, 2012 – 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm (Social Time To Follow)
Fraser River Presentation Theatre – 4th Floor
Township of Langley Civic Facility
(20338 – 65 Avenue, Langley, BC)

Please R.S.V.P. by email to: southfrasercarp@gmail.com

What’s a Zoomer? – Zoomers are people 45+, including Baby Boomers and those who are older. There are more than
14.5 Million Zoomers in Canada today!

About CARP – CARP is a national, non-partisan, non-profit organization with over 360,000 members committed to advocating for a New Vision of Aging for Canada, promoting social change that will bring financial security, equitable access to health care and freedom from discrimination. CARP seeks to ensure that the marketplace serves the needs and expectations of Canadians as they age and provides value-added benefits, products and services to our members.

Through a network of chapters across Canada, CARP is dedicated to building a sense of community and shared
values among our members in support of CARP’s mission. (Visit www.carp.ca for more information on CARP)

CARP South Fraser Chapter # 48 – Our chapter serves Langley Township, Langley City and the City of Abbotsford and is made up of people who volunteer their time to put their talent, knowledge and sense of community spirit to work in our area. Our chapter helps keep members informed and involved. We provide opportunities for members to develop ideas and activities of interest to our community, support CARP’s advocacy, and meet new people. Although a newly formed chapter, our South Fraser chapter already has over 800 members. Everyone is welcome.

South Fraser CARP directors, Cathleen Vecchiato (L) and Joe Zaccaria (Centre Right), Langley Township Councillor Kim Richter (Centre Left) and April Lewis, CARP’s BC representative (Far Right).

About South Fraser OnTrax (SFOT) – SFOT is Langley-based Society that advocates for improved transit services and smart growth in the South of Fraser region. They publish a daily web blog addressing these regional issues at
www.southfraser.net .

Article source: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=81229

Community Sustainability Strategy
Abbotsford’s Community Sustainability Strategy (CSS) will be a high-level, guiding document that will establish a long-term (25+ years) vision for moving the community toward fiscal, economic, environmental and social sustainability. The CSS will have two components: a Sustainability Charter and an Implementation Plan.

Draft Sustainability Charter
Abbotsford’s Sustainability Charter was initially adopted in 2003 and is now in the process of being updated. A Draft Sustainability Charter has been developed with a new sustainability commitment along with identification of a series of future states that define economic, environmental, social and fiscal sustainability for the community. This Charter update was developed through review of the existing Charter and select City master plans, including the City of Abbotsford’s Strategic Directions and the Official Community Plan. The draft Charter was then refined based on input from CSS Advisory Groups (including an External Advisory Group and a City Staff Advisory Group) and a CSS Steering Committee.

Open House Information:Wednesday, May 9, 2012
6:30 – 8:30pm
Matsqui Recreation Centre, Senior’s Centre
3106 Clearbrook Road, Abbotsford

Over the next few months, the draft Charter will be presented to a number of audiences, including Committees of Council, external organizations, and the public at an Open House on May 9, 2012.

The public is invited to review and comment on the sustainability survey, which includes information that will further inform the Charter. You can also provide comments by downloading the Community Sustainabiliy survey and sending it to Rod Shead, Community Planning Division, City of Abbotsford, 32315 South Fraser Way, Abbotsford, BC, V2T 1W7, by email to sustainability@abbotsford.ca, or by filling out an online comment form.

The draft Charter will be revised based on the above input and then presented to the CSS Advisory Groups and CSS Steering Committee before being presented to Council in late spring 2012 for approval in principle. Once approved, the project will focus on the development of the Charter Implementation Plan.

Sustainability Charter Implementation Plan
Once the Charter is approved by Council the project will focus on the development of the Charter Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan will provide recommendations on how the City will embed sustainability into its decision making process. It will also outline how current plans support the Sustainability Charter, and will identify gaps and opportunities to achieve the future states along with defining responsibilities of community stakeholders (businesses, developers, industry, government agencies, community organizations, members of the public) and the City to address these opportunities.

In early fall 2012 the draft Implementation Plan will be presented to a number of audiences and the City will seek public input through verbal and written comments via online feedback, a survey, and an open house. Input will be considered in the development of the final CSS document which is expected to be completed in early 2013.

For more information about the Community Sustainability Strategy call 604-851-4174 or email sustainability@abbotsford.ca.

Photo and release from City of Abbotsford website.

Article source: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=81332

Bob Rodgers sent along a few “historical” observations that I am taking the liberty to share with you, below, just as his views seem to capture, in part, the massive frustration that exists after lo these near 7 years of little progress.

REMINDER, Important Report by Sharon Fletcher, Director Planning about Seniors’ Activity Centre “Open House Questionnaire” results tonight, Mission Council Chambers, 6:30pm. Please check web.site www.mission.ca under “Agenda” find tonight’s AGENDA and read pages 165-170. Please try to attend and show your personal interest support to efforts being made to “designate the Mission Community Activity Centre as a Seniors’ Activity Centre NOW”! As well, to build a new Activity Centre as “ability to pay” is established, maybe 3-5 years, if Amenity Fees and other Funding is achieved.

To date, until (recent) election of (new) MSCA Board, Seniors were at the (perceived) mercy of MSCA Board per se and presumably a Chair/President and certain Board Members (unknown) who may or may not have (pro-actively comprehensively) represented ALL Membership “Seniors’ Public at-large views”, often meeting in private, no Agenda/Minutes, seldom any progress report (written/verbal) and efforts to attain an Activity Centre were largely stagnant unknown publicly.

Hence, the Elder Citizen Action Coalition (ECAC) emerged and our more vocal (public) views emerged and while we continue, we have extended a courtesy to Bob Ingram, to tame our sentiments (refer recent RECORD “Letter” and May Newsletter) but in essence, to give his (new) Board an opportunity to try and progress. We have, I believe, stated any objections expectations clearly to Bob. Bob, has stated he is optimistic some announcement/headway will occur in due course, month or two maybe 3, but we (ECAC) have set September 1, 2012 as a deadline for action Seniors’ occupancy of the Mission Community Activity Centre as a “Seniors’ facility”.

Lastly, while some recent (meetings) with the Mayor and/or others unknown, given, again no Agenda/Minutes of any meetings have been published, we must have so-called (blind faith) that while not something we are totally adverse to, nothing beats (personal) involvement and/or transparent public offerings of points discussed, agreed, impasse or clear idea of “what is to be adopted and when”?

My concern, as a result of the Sharon Fletcher (Report) now following a growing list of (Delegations to Council/Reports/Consultant Reviews/Focus Group/Open House) is four-fold, first, in the absence of any AGENDA/Minutes of MSCA Board (who actually is meeting with the Mayor and/or Councillor’s and/or Parks Rec and/or Sharon Fletcher), second, what is actually discussed, third, tentative or firm agreement is made or pending? As Bob Ingram stated, a two-fold pathway (is) being followed and fourth, judging from content of Sharon’s (Report) and some (outdated/impractical points continuing to appear) are Planning/Council/MSCA/ECAC indeed on the same page and if not, what is to be done now to accommodate each position?

At first blush, ECAC has confidence in the (new) MSAC Board will await the presentation on Monday night by Sharon Fletcher and observe any commentary by members of Council, before concluding anything pro or con achievement of Seniors’ needs, notably Seniors’ Activity Centre’s, temporary now longer-term.

George F. Evens

www.thecouncilclaw.ca “click’ CONTENTS Elder Citizen Action Coalition

COPY OF COMMENTS BY BOB RODGERS

HI George
I seem to have the same reaction as you to this whole episode.
1. After all the previous work that has been done and the effort made by all involved since the first inception by the Mission Seniors Advisory Committee to look into the possibility of a seniors’ centre and what it may look like and could do for all seniors’.

2 The visits by that committee to the various centre’s in the lower mainland at that time, all of these centre’s that gave us input and support and sent representatives to have discussion with that group and the membership that evolved out of our Mission Senior Centre Association. Also the various centre’s that gave us a copy of their news letters or in some cases booklets and constitution etc., all in the effort to make this happen for our Mission seniors’ and to help avoid the mistakes that each of them made when getting their centre’s together before they were up and running. I for one after the many hours of research and visits I personally made by arranging meetings for those wanting to attend for these disruptions to take place.

3 The first was a door to door survey of the seniors in mission of which was compiled into a document and submitted to the Advisory committee for council
Then there was a submission to council of some thousands of signed documents from all mission residents stating that we wanted a seniors centre now which were presented to council at one of the councils meetings, and all the buttons that we wore making such a statement by members of the public to council and others that made us proud of our community knowing that they also were in agreement that a centre was long overdue

4 Then there was the Consultant that council paid for to tell them that which they should have known all along that seniors and youth in one area sharing was not a good idea for when you only have a limited space for activities and you have certain rooms set up for events that that equipment is stationery and cannot be moved it limits the use for both parties.

5 then there was the time I arranged for two busses to take anyone who wanted to go and visit two facilities, I also invited all of the councillor’s who wanted to come with us, alas only one came, Heather Stewart. These establishments went out of their way to provide us with food and treated us with the utmost respect. I think that everyone who went on that trip, one thing agreed was how their council in their areas treated their seniors was with the greatest respect. Their question to their seniors was “what can we do to make your life better”, for all the time that they, the seniors put in doing volunteer work in the community not only for other seniors but for their work for the community as a whole.

6 I would like to add that while all this time is wasted, many more of our seniors will never live to enjoy the last days of their life, in what I would call, enjoying the company of each other and making new friends and reaching out to those lonely and in need of such companionship. Bob

——————————————————————————–

Critique by ECAC (George F. Evens) of Sharon Fletcher Report to Council

Dear Seniors’, District of Mission, Elder Citizen Action Coalition Advocates/Supporters, MSCA Board

We are attaching a link to the District AGENDA for Monday May 7, 2012 notably refer to pages 165-170. Sharon Fletcher, Director Planning will present a (Report) about Seniors’ Activity Centre “Open House Questionnaires”.

Frankly, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry?????

Link: http://www.mission.ca/wp-content/uploads/OPEN-Regular-Council-Agenda-May-7-2012-markup.pdf
First; “Short Medium Term action options”, such as for example, 1. “appoint a seniors’ centre facility working group” – which has potential (conflicting) terms, in that first, there is a (Seniors’ body) notably MSCA but there could be advantage to a (broader Seniors’ group) or 6. assess the feasibility of a combined youth and seniors’ facility – something already discounted as in impractical terms undesired.

Second; reference is still made to the impractical notion of the (temporary site, being used by Seniors’ six days per week 9-4 and shared Sunday and evenings with others).

Third; reference in the last document is perceived to have favoured St. Andrew’s United Church, whereas the flavour of this month seems to be more toward Pleasant view, with Fletcher Private Property still on the fringe but the most popular and preferred site since the outset, notably District owned land adjacent and in-conjunction with the Leisure Centre is not mentioned, beyond alluding to the (temporary) use of Mission Community Activity Centre site. But during “Location options” section, some vague reference is expanded to “Leisure Centre property” but whether semantics at play or reference is the current “Community Activity Centre” property or indeed, to adjacent “Leisure Centre” property. So, some clarification to actual (site) definitions may help.

Fourth; it is evident confusion persists in that a clear division of Temporary site longer term site needs, must be divided and approached separately.

Fifth; in the “Proposal Overview” it is correctly stated, “Mission Seniors’ Centre Association’s mandate is to work with the District of Mission to establish and operate a permanent centre for seniors”, but frankly, some reservations still exist “are all Seniors’ needs views being adequately represented assertively sought”?
Sixth; “Preliminary Considerations” section, alludes to (timelines), which we respectfully submit ought to be immediate use of current Community Activity Centre as a designated Seniors’ Activity Centre and 3-5 years (not 5-10 years in document) for a permanent Seniors’ Activity Centre on adjacent Leisure Centre property. Thus, it can safely be stated,

1. Eliminate St. Andrews United Church, Pleasant view Fletcher Private Property from options

2. Short term action options need to reexamine a more inclusive or even “let Seniors’ decide what they need and run the show” and by creation of a “seniors’ centre facility working group” leadership needs to come from Seniors’, not a continuance of “telling Seniors’ what they want can have, when”; to provide “Staff Support” accordingly; point 2 is viable and should commence immediately; pt. 3 eliminate; pt. 4 in part, once immediately designated a Seniors’ Activity Centre will require some renovations now, abandon the 5-10 year idea touted; pt. 5 is a viable option in the 3-5 year plan scheme; pt. 6. simply proceed with separate planning for Seniors’ or Youth, do not bring into same equation or discussions.

At least, upon cursory review of details this is my initial reaction but again, review/discuss/plan two separate sites, immediate and longer-term, commence liaison between District and Seniors’, with further thought given to stakeholders determined (players) from the conceptual needs plans of longer term and immediate determination of Governance planning, scheduling and administration along with designated Operations Management of Volunteers fee-for-service to function.

Article source: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/?p=81261