Other Stories
-
by Andrew Bennett on May 16 2013 -
by Andrew Bennett on May 16 2013 -
by Rossland Recreation on May 15 2013 -
by Nelson Daily staff on May 13 2013 -
by Adrian Barnes on May 13 2013
Opinions
-
by Kyra Hoggan on Monday May 20 2013 -
by John King on Thursday May 16 2013 -
by Kyra Hoggan on Wednesday May 15 2013
-
by Andre Carrel on Tuesday May 14 2013 -
by Charles Jeanes on Tuesday May 14 2013
"No means no" ... or does it? Council grapples with slippery TALC plebiscite results
by Andrew Bennett on 18 Jul 2012
Some 491 Rossland residents—approximately one-fifth of the voting public—cast ballots in a plebiscite in June that asked if they were in favour of municipal financial contributions to the Trail Aquatic and Leisure Centre (TALC), and whether they actually planned to use TALC.
Council had varying opinions on how to interpret the results.
To summarize, some 198 people said, "Yes, I support council to make financial contributions through my property taxation for the use of the Trail Aquatic Centre," while 225 people said "no," and 75 people did not answer. That is, 46.8 per cent 'yes' to 53.2 per cent 'no.'
To the second question, 215 people said, "Yes, I intend to use the Trail Aquatic Centre," but 256 people sad "no," and 27 people did not answer. That is, 45.6 per cent 'yes' to 54.4 per cent 'no.'
The combination results also reveal some interesting patterns:
- 171 people answered "yes" to both questions.
- 189 people answered "no" to both questions.
- 27 people were willing to contribute taxes to TALC, but wouldn't use the pool themselves or didn't answer.
- 104 people had another response that was either against or neutral about taxation: 22 plan to use TALC but said "no" to taxation and another 22 plan to use TALC but didn't answer on taxation. Some 14 people said "no" to taxation but did not say whether they would use TALC, and 46 people turned up just to say "no," we won't use TALC.
Coun. Kathy Wallace opened the discussion with her explanation for why the numbers were close: "When I look at it, I'm assuming the individuals in the community who would like to go to TALC for the same price as anyone else in the world probably came out in force to make sure their voices were heard. I would assume the other people were rather neutral or not so committed to the idea, or didn't think it was necessary to vote for it.”
She concluded, "I think it's either one-third of the households in the community [who want us to support TALC], or it's one-sixteenth."
Coun. Jill Spearn acknowledged the numbers left wiggle room "depending on our mood or what we want to see." But she said, "The plebiscite shows us that there are a significant number of people in our community who feel strongly about using TALC."
"I suggested that we entertain a plebiscite, and we received criticism about that from some key players who want us to support TALC financially. If they all came out in full force because they feel extremely strongly about having a fair pay schedule at TALC, then I respect that."
Nevertheless, Wallace said, "Given that Rossland provides a great amount of recreation opportunity—as well as a swimming pool in the summer months complete with swimming lessons—at this point in time I don't think it's necessary for council to take any further action."
"[TALC] is not just a swimming pool," Spearn said, "It's got all kinds of activities that we're nowhere close to." Nevertheless Spearn agreed with Wallace that Rossland has many other recreation opportunities.
She added, "It's not outrageous to pay $10 to go swimming," comparing it to $10 to go to yoga. "It's certainly not outrageous in any other city or small city," she said.
She continued, "The problem is that we can't have a conversation with our counterpart down the hill unless we pay what we're told to pay. There's no room for negotiation, and I disagree with that strongly."
Spearn suggested that Rossland try again to start a "further conversation with Trail" to reach "a number that's reasonable to us and respectful to that facility."
Coun. Kathy Moore said the numbers were clear: "The plebiscite says citizens don't want us to go pay Trail the full amount.," she said, arguing against any action at this time.
Nevertheless, Moore pointed out that "a number of people boycotted the vote—which, to me, never makes sense—but their concerns weren't just about the pool." Moore explained that the format of the ballot confused some people, and others felt limited by it, when they wanted to discuss Rossland's access to all the recreational facilities in Trail.
She said it was not Rossland’s “shiniest moment” in public consultation.
Coun. Cary Fisher disagreed that there was anything confusing in the ballot. "I found it fairly easy to read," he said.
He continued, "There's a lot of history about that pool in Rossland. There was a vote. Now we're back voting in a plebiscite again."
Mayor Greg Granstrom later clarified, "Rossland voted ‘no’ when this thing was originally going to be built as a regional facility. Trail went and built it anyway. Now we've asked the citizens if they wish to subsidize it, and they've said no."
Fisher said, "A vote is a vote. The people of Rossland spoke years ago about this pool, and they just did again. So yes, some people are going to be affected who really want to use the pool. I'm absolutely sorry about that. But two votes "no" means no. No means no."
Fisher then hit what he feels is the crux of the issue: "As a region we either start thinking regionally—and that includes our partners down in Trail, and I call them out on it—because enough is enough. For us to be singled out…" he paused. "I'm a big supporter of all things in Trail, I really am. I've got lots of friends in Trail. I have no idea why this is going on. But at the end of the day it's a matter of protecting turf."
He concluded, "My kids would love to swim in the pool down there, but I choose not to go because of what they've done. I think it was childish."
Granstrom brought it back to the plebiscite: "Our whole democracy is run on the ballot. A no vote is a no vote."
Spearn objected to the strict interpretation, however. She said, "People were worried this was going to be the be-all-end-all. I feel strongly that it's not. We can use it as we want, we're not bound by it. We can make any decisions we want above and beyond it. I don't base my decision-making on one plebiscite that I actually asked to have."
Virtual Paperboy
Navigation
Comments
Really...
50% is a little low don't you think? Should they not pay more as they hold 85% of the assets and Jobs associated with the RD. The arguments are endless, the services corrupt and poor.
Things like recycling where if not profitable it is used as "loose fill" for the dump. Waste contracts pulled from locals so the RD can use their contractor...
One can not be hired in the Fire Department unless you live in Trail. Rossland has no full time Firemen..We pay more than Castlegar and get less service. I think the Firemen do a great job, but we don't get the service for $$ here. Our crew does a great job, but they deserve a paid Chief and the freedom that goes with it.
Sewer will be built in Trail with a new "service" bridge that we all are to pay for, instead of pumping to the existing bridge at a fraction of the cost. The jobs will be city of Trail. All we might be able to do, is spend a night in the new camp ground I am certain they will have next to the new plant..
The pool, built by Trail in Trail against the wishes of other members of the district now we are expected to be the only ones in BC to pay a higher price..
The "Regional Hospital" tucked away in a corner where half the "Region" is an hour away from...
You tell me that I need a break.. Maybe you are right. Time to bury ones head in the sand and let those who seek for themselves to run the world. Good luck......
What R U talking about liam?
Employees at TALC are not just from Trail. Rosslanders work there, too.
Assets like TALC, Butler Park, track oval, field house, arena etc all need service and maintenance. I don't get your point at all.
I don't know where the secondary treatment plant will be built but logically it should include Fruitvale, Montrose and Areas A & B. Perhaps a good location would be closer to the Waneta industrial area.
I don't follow your beef with the hiring of firefighters other than they need to be within a fast response vis a vis the regional fire hall. That's where the trucks are. Warfield has a fire station, yes?
You are way out of line with the hospital. It's staying right there like it or not. If the community, including Rossland and the province can come with $400 million for a new one, better make the most of what we have now. Grousing is pointless.
A majority of residents supported building TALC. I don't know the breakdown other than it was 51% in favour.
liam, resentment is a waste of energy and good will.
One way street..
Regional government was a dream with no foundation. It should be ended.. It has become another layer of beurocracy. People have lost sight.
I in no way resent anything here, and your presumptions are a little arrogant. You might choose to check that and take a look at things. We have all chosen where we live to some degree. I believe we should live there and complete that aspect of our lives to the best, not be wasting our time on issues in communities next door. It has led us to a place where corruption and poor decisions rule the day.
My point is Regional government for one reason or another is not good for people. Some it takes from others it promotes as the takers... You be the judge as you seem to think you reside in that capacity. But the numbers regardless of fabrication speak for them selves.
Until we have governments that are capable of sitting at a table working for the greater good, there is no point.
good sample...
Now lets vote our selves out of the greater Trail area... We certainly put more in than we get back..
1)Sewer
2) Education
3) Emergency services
4) Recreation ahhh, cross that one off, good start....
Lets face it there are those who would have us use river water and pipe it up the hill just so we can pay for it.. We are going to be expected to put a new bridge in Trail to pipe our sewer out to their campground so they can "treat" it.
As for the skiing issue, I think we as Rosslanders should have owned it all. Qualified for the grants, sold the real-estate according to the Official Community plan and had some money for our own recreation.... I think I am dreaming again...
Actually Liam
You don't put in your fair share. Trail taxpayers have carried Rossland forever.
Sewer treatment is regional, not just Trail's responsibility.
You guys can't run city hall how could you possibly run a municipal ski hill? Where would the money come from? Yes, you are dreaming and wasting precious analytical ability on creating rather than solving problems.
You might consider the reality before you throw the stone...
The center of the universe is not where the water flows. The money we have been pumping into an at best secondary emulsifier to pump sewer into the river is amazing.. I cannot understand how the ministry of environment allows it. Then again Trail is happy to drink it, as Castlegar does the same thing.
Sewer treatment is a municipal issue, the regional district was formed so we could share the burden. It does not work due to a misconception of equality. I really don't think we need to get into the inequitys that the philosophy of the Greater Trail Area has produced.
Problem is we give Trail our money then they spend it however they wish..
If the Columbia River
If the Columbia River flowed through Rossland, the smelter would have been built there. But it doesn't and the smelter was built in Trail Creek Landing on the Columbia. Why?
Because the smelter operation needs lots of water and power. That was in abundance in Trail. In turn, the employment in Trail offered prosperity for many who came from all provinces and European countries. Some of your ancestors probably settled under the stacks back in the day.
Like many residents, some chose to live in Warfield, Rossland, Montrose, Fruitvale etc and some stayed in Trail. Those taxpayers who stayed within the stacks have seen a very low return on their home or business property investment precisely because of the stigma associated with a smelter. Moreover, insults hurled from these other communities towards Trail hasn't helped either. Trail gets more credit and respect from larger centres such as Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal than its own immediate neighbours.
As for pumping sewage, need I remind you that until the 1960s, Rossland pumped raw sewage into the Trail Creek. It was Trail taxpayers who assisted and helped fund a sewer pipeline from Rossland to a treatment center. Rossland never had the money so Trail helped and continued subsidizing the cost of transporting Rossland's sewage to this day. Hopefully, some balance will be brought back to this equation.
Sewage treatment is expensive and about to get increasingly more costly as both provincial and federal standards have changed to impose secondary treatment plants. This is enormously expensive ($90 million ?) to small municipalities, even for Trail with a substantial industrial tax base.
Salting the scales a little??
So chopping it up and taking out the "solids" then dumping it in the river is ok then.... Let North Port drink it.
Might I remind you that the city of Rossland in the early 1990's was at the funding table with provicial government. On that table was a quaternary sewage treatment plant with a swamp filtration system and plans for attached green houses powered by the off gas from the plant. (plans are still in the archieves.) It did not happen due to REGIONAL governemt.
Then again.. A pipe to the edge of town works just great... We were doing it in the 60's now we are paying Trail to do it in 2012... Thats correct we "PAY."
Even a swamp system
is today outdated and new prov and fed regs will impose significant costs to all communities. What don't you get about this?
In the 60s you were dumping raw sewage into the Trail Creek fer XXXXsake.
And you don't pay your fair share. However that's now in or close to arbitration.
You are dumping in the river...
At least it keeps the fishing good. Trail Creek used to be great fishing...
Save the swearing for the local pub...
Like I said... We should end this fiasco called regional government. As it is only good for more beurocracy and soaking the money from the out lying communities.
Lets hope for a sober arbritrator that is not from Trail, and has truthful info presented to t them.
Who is "you"?
Rossland likely wouldn't survive without Regional District services. But, hey, fill your boots.
If Trail is paying 50% of the costs of RD and 70% of the sewer costs, how is that somehow soaking the outlying communities?
You need some down time liam, really.
What's with the dig regarding a yet to be appointed arbitrator? Parties to the dispute will have an opportunity to voice a provable apprehension of bias whenever the province appoints one. Then be prepared to pay for his or her services. Rossland brought this on itself. Sober? LOL, really liam.
You might consider the reality before you throw the stone...
By the way.. Tech Carries Trail... Not the tax payers...
Yes for 100 plus years
Teck has provided employment and prosperity to the whole region. And yes Teck is in Trail and is an industrial taxpayer.
It has also provided many grants to Rossland non profit endeavours. So what's your point exactly?
If you feel somehow cheated, you can always move to Trail and reap the benefits, including water supply. Or you can stay where you are and keep throwing stones.
I appreciate Tech very much
I appreciate Tech very much so. They are great to all the surrounding municipalities. Rightfully so, we have staffed them and lived under their pollution for a long time while they have made huge profits. I believe they do a decent job of putting back into the community and have done an amazing job cleaning up.
What I haven't seen is the tax dollars from Tech dumped into a regional fund.. So we all reap the benefits. Rather Trail soaks it up. Then we are all expected to put into a regional fund (fire, sewer, rec ect...) at a rate that is realtive to our population. So the communities with small industrial bases see a much higher drain on their tax dollars as their income is limited.
My point is it costs the Trail tax payer a smaller portion of their tax revenue than it does say Rossland or Fruitvale. A moot point in the minds of many, but when you crunch numbers it means a tonn to a smaller town.
By the way.. Tech was created because of Rossland... So if we are really the Greater Trail Area why don't we share everything. Instead of just what is good for Trail. Remember the BV Pool, why didn't we rebuild that as a region. We all voted against building a pool in Trail, so Trail did it anyway. Doesn't sound regional to me.
Start with a history review
http://www.trailchamber.bc.ca/area-info/a-history-of-discovery/
Rossland mines 1890-1898 played an initial role however both Trail and Rossland would be ghost towns had it not been for the CPR in 1898 and ore from the Sullivan mine in Kimberly and later Pine Point, etc.
The gold in Rossland petered out quickly and much of it was refined in North Port and not Trail.
BC Assessment Authority puts a valuation on properties. In the case of those properties that are within the view of Teck, they are valued lower even though had they been located in Glenmerry or Miral Heights they would have a higher valuation.
The municipality of Trail is the taxing authority for Trail properties. That includes Teck. If you want to draw taxes from Teck, Rossland would have to amalgamate with Trail.
If I worked in Rossland and lived in Trail, would I have access to Rossland's tourism tax base?...that's what you seem to be suggesting only the other way around.
No one is forcing you to use the aquatic center. You can do so if you choose. You have opted out in Rossland. Maybe that was done in a fit of pique and personality. What has resulted is that some Rosslanders will look for ways to get a free or at par membership by joining a school team for example. This is really short-sighted. It doesn't cost Rossland that much more to offer its citizens an excellent service.
Time to drop the personal attitude against this wonderful service. I see it as citizens in other communities contacting their reps to contribute because they want to use the service. Other municipalities listened to their citizens.
As for the issue of representaion and taxation....if Trail pays 70% of the regional sewer cost, following logic used in this post, Trail should have 70% of the guranteed vote, yes. Similarly, if Trail pays 50% of the East End Services, it should have a guaranteed 50% vote...at least that's what posts from liam and PhilF seem to be saying.
Trail's population is about 7600. What proportion is that to the whole of the regional district? How about the east end district? If Trail's pop is proportionately less, then why is it paying 70% or 50% of the total costs?
Vote! It is over!?
Did not vote but...
As they say, if you did not vote you have no reason to complain. However, having voting limited to Monday to Friday from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM is not the most inclusive way. Reality is that if you work outside of Rossland - and do not take time off to vote - you will not cast a ballot. I certainly would appreciate if Council allowed all taxpayers the opportunity to vote (online, Saturday hours, etc) on issues that are important to the City. And by the way I would have cast a vote for Yes to both questions.
Pat Hinds
Voting Hours
I agree with Pat on one thing: the 'vote' during normal working hours isn't representative. No matter how strongly I may feel I am a working stiff and I can't get to City Hall M-F 9-4. On the other hand I would have voted differently: 'No' to paying for it; and 'maybe' I'll go there sometime this year - but I don't expect Rossland taxpayers to bear the cost of my attendance!
Does that mean?
I don't have kids in the school system. Does that mean I can opt out so I don't have to "bear the cost of ...attendance"? No I can't and wouldn't because of the overall benefits to society to have children educated.
I attend the TALC often. It is helping those with injuries, recover. It is helping seniors increase their mobility and strength to maintain their health. It is helping all those young and old who enjoy swimming, year round.
It holds many health benefits for the community. So, if there are any out there in the Mountain Kingdom who don't have a negative bias towards Trail, move here and enjoy the TALC. You won't regret it and you wouldn't be the first, either.
Recreation is not Education
I can't agree that educating our children (by which I mean our society's children) equates in any meaningful way with joining a leisure centre like the TALC. On a simple economic basis, they are the ones who are going to pay for your and my health care and social programs as we age.
I ski and believe that there are many benefits to people who ski - doesn't mean I think society should pay for it. If you believe there is a benefit to TALC by all means go there but, unless you're going to kick in to my ski pass, you pay.
That's why feds
That's why parents can deduct recreation/sports costs for their children on their tax returns...because there is a correlation between health and fitness.
You should visit TALC and see the number of programs (and people) that are there to rehabilitate from sport or work related injuries. Also, many who require a high level of fitness for their jobs are found working out and maintaining their fitness levels year round. The programs are not free. User pays.
Seniors with mobility problems seem to enjoy the year round aqua fit classes or just doing laps. There are many health benefits for all.
It's supported by a number of communities, just not the Mountain Kingdom. That's why I suggested that those who want year round indoor fitness, including swimming, consider moving to Trail instead of fighting mindsets such as yours and Council's.
Forgot to add that
Forgot to point out that your ski pass funds a private sector enterprise so I couldn't fund it directly with my tax dollars anyway.
TALC is publically funded by communities such as Trail, Warfield, Beaver Valley, Riverside, etc but not Rossland. It would be unfair to the communities who pay the taxesso that Rossland gets a tax pass, especially since Rossland also belongs to the RDKB.
All children benefit and swim or take lessons, participate in meets through school programs, learn life guard skills, etc. This is a good thing, yes?
Tired of the argument
The vote's over, the people have spoken. But for the sake of argument, let's pick on Black Jack Ski Club then. It is a non-profit, it straddles city owned property (I believe), it provides health benefits. So why shouldn't we support cheaper ski passes there?
Rossland has their own outdoor pool. People learn to swim there, take lessons, participate in programs. We even let Trail and other outside residents use it, no extra fees.
I'm glad you like your living outside of Rossland, if it eases your conscience to have some lame argument at why Rosslanders should pay to operate your facilities, go ahead. But I'm getting a little tired of hearing it.
Don't know about
Don't know much about Black Jack other than it has received significant federal funding probably because it is run as a private non profit.
No one is forcing you to do anything. However, the municipal recreational contribution doesn't just cover the use of TALC. It's all the sports and recreation facilities. Some use the track oval or the many baseball and soccer fields, field house and arena. Many regional students have benefitted from the strong athletics and sports programs.
TALC is a year round facility that benefits many people, young and not so young, working families and retirees. The indoor pool requires staffing with life guards whenever in use, year round.
Phil, you just seem bitter. Other communities contribute to the operating costs because their citizens enjoy using the facilities, even Rosslanders.
A few Rosslanders volunteer at TALC so they can get a free membership.
The regional communities voted to have the TALC built. I think it passed by 51%. Not sure about this as I wasn't around when all that took place.
But ,in a snit, Rossland opted out of the regional agreement. Sad, really.
From what I've read...
I think Rossland voted against contributing towards building the Trail Aquatic Center, and I believe at least some other communities did too. Then Trail went ahead and built it anyway. Now, I wasn't around either, so I don't know what your 51% stands for. Perhaps every municipality voted and the overall vote was 51% in favour, including Trail residents. But that wouldn't mean much considering how big the population of Trail is compared to outlying communities.
Recreation used to be a regional thing, so then it makes sense to fund regional recreation. I'm all for that. But outlying municipalities funding Trail facilities is not regional recreational facilities. If it were, we should have representation in how it is run and budgeted. And at least some facilities should be in outlying regions. Trail is offering none of that. They just want our money for their facility, or else... And while other municipalities voted in favour of paying Trail recently, they did so grudgingly, and in many cases I can understand why because their municipalities don't have quite as many options for local recreation as Rossland residents. Trail is essentially attempting to strongarm other municipalities, when they have the richest tax base (due to their industrial tax base to which all area residents contribute with our labour). But as far as I'm concerned, giving Trail money to run Trail facilities exemplifies taxation without representation. We should not be asked to fund facilities we don't own, on an ongoing basis, without any say in how it is run or budgeted.
I'm not bitter, but I am getting tired of this issue. It's been argued to death, the people have voiced their opinion, many times, over many plebiscites, surveys, and votes, over many years. I would like it to die a quiet death now. The only reason I keep active as a voice against Rossland funding Trail facilities is that I've seen what happens in this town when a vocal group gets up and shouting - the best laid plans are often changed on short notice. You only have to look at the sudden reversal in the downtown's facelift to understand that - and I am bitter about that! And as the quotes from some councillors show, they are not entirely unwilling to shut the door on this issue either, despite the majority opinion shown in the plebiscite.
A double edged sword
Trail has no decision-making authority over Rossland's recreational facilities. If it did, it could make a claim on the funds used to repair the Rossland arena or butt in on building an indoor pool in Rossland. It hasn't involved itself, has it?
So why do you insist that somehow Rossland needs a vote on recreation funded largely by Trail with contributions from other communities who use the facilities?
Nelson had a similar fight with outlying regions to build its aquatic centre back in the day. Nelson managed to get just 51% of the vote as well.
There will always be those who don't want to pay to build something new but are then eager to enjoy it and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Was a it personal, ego-driven conflict or was it really based on a doable idea? Sometimes, we all need to pull in our horns a bit.
No for me...
All for the online vote. It's way overdue. Issue a voter number then away we go.... Might actually have a democracy.
Would need to be a binding vote, should voter turn out be greater than a predetermined percentage..
Takes the pressure off of city hall, and gets people involved.
Getting informed
Online democracy would be all right, but only for major issues, and I think it should be a fairly high number to make a vote binding, or at least have a high quorum.
The reason for that is it takes effort to get informed, and frankly that's what we elect officials to do. Get informed, and make decisions on our behalf. Then every so often we inform ourselves and make up our minds if they did a good job or not. Not every citizen wants to take the time to get involved in city issues, and that leaves such online democracy to be manipulated by small groups of people that feel very strongly about an issue and mobilize their members to vote. Results can get further skewed when said group uses emotional appeals to sway more people to vote their way. If this happens in a short time frame it also prevents an opposing voice to form and present opposing arguments, and in the absence of opposing arguments, people will tend to vote for what they've heard.
I'm not against online voting, but it doesn't and probably shouldn't replace elected representatives. By taking the time to inform themselves in the details of the issues (not merely reading a few articles in the media), they play an important role in government.
But online voting would facilitate the taking of opinions on issues (with paper balloting for the non-internet savvy), and it is important for councillors to get an idea of where the population stands on certain things from time to time. Should it be their only guide in making decisions? No, but it should play a part in their decision making.
Exactly what I was getting at...
It would however be nice to have a few binding decisions so people can see how lazy and uninvolved we have become. If we were as lazy in our own homes as we are with political issues we would be living in shacks.. The average person has no idea what is going on in their town..
Downloading onto politicians has created our society. One where the vote swings like emotion from party to party.. Corruption and incompetence rule..
Its about time people get educated on something other than derailers and board sizes.. Or where we get the next brew...
I think online voting might stirr a few, if not the masses to look farther. Right now if town hall says eat cake... We eat cake... Gone is the binding vote from the public that once made international news for Rossland....
Many people not online
I agree, lets get online with democracy.
'Online democracy' has the potential for residents to be polled far more frequently on a wider variety of issues, all at relatively little cost and effort for the city.
Many of the "selection effects" that council debates above can be reduced when voting becomes easier and public participation, therefore, increases.
But, as Beryl Davis told council on Monday, many people in town aren't online and don't want to be online.
Until everyone in town's online—or has easy access to the internet and access to assistance in using the system, perhaps right at City Hall—it's important to stick to the old ways in addition to new ways.
That said, let's get on with the new ways too, and soon!