You Can Stop this Travesty of Justice

[Doug James]

I’ve been asked to help spread the word about the travesty of justice that may be about to occur with regards the proposed gas pipeline route through Rockwood Park, the largest urban park in all of Canada.

As you know Friends of Rockwood Park (http://www.friendsofrockwoodpark.blogspot.com/) has been fighting the project since it was first conceived and has gained considerable respect for doing so. Unfortunately, it seems their efforts don’t count for much with the company that wants to push the pipeline through the park to carry gas to customers in the States or with local and provincial elected representatives.

While the National Energy Board has yet to give its approval for the pipeline route, a private member’s bill has already been introduced in the Legislature that would change the original purpose and intent of Rockwood Park (in place since 1894), as a place of pleasure and enjoyment for the people of Saint John.

Just as they approved the LNG terminal and had the law changed to make it happen, your own Mayor and Council have initiated this latest travesty of justice that, if successful, will result in blasting a route for a 30-inch gas pipeline through the very heart of nature.

It must be stopped!

You can help by sending a quick email to:

Mayor Norm McFarlane (norm.mcfarlane@saintjohn.ca)

Hon. Jack Keir (jack.keir@gnb.ca) (Minister of Energy)

Trevor Holder (Trevor.HOLDER@gnb.ca) (MLA Saint John Portland)

Nancy MacLeod (Manager, Community Relations - Emera Brunswick Pipeline) 1-888-491-3222. (Not surprisingly, she hasn’t published her email address on the company website).

In order to continue fighting this project, Friends of Rockwood Park also require financial assistance to help with legal expenses. Please give what you can.

Anyone who would like to make a donation can call Leland Thomas at (506) 635-4102, or mail a contribution to:

Leland Thomas
P.O. Box 6152
RPO Brunswick Square
Saint John, N.B.
E2L 4R6

Cheques or money orders should be made out to "Friends of Rockwood Park".

Let’s do what we can to prevent this travesty before it is too late.

[countesscurling]

Sorry, I have no problem with them running the pipeline along the hydro lines through Rockwood Park.

[Tremc]

I don't really see the big deal... they'll put the pipeline in, plant the trees back that were removed and presto... in time you won't be able to tell. I really think your making a big deal out of nothing.

[t-bone]

i bet that 90% of the people that signed that petition haven't set foot in rockwood park in 10 years.
i say let them run their pipeline, in the most envirmently way possible, and gouge them for every possible cent

[Doug James]

What you are missing here, among other things, is the abuse of power. Whenever the Mayor and Council want to ram something through, including the pipeline and, earlier, the LNG terminal tax concessions -- they simply convince the province to get a backbencher to introduce a Private Member's bill to change the law that prohibits it. To me, this is unconscionable. Ask yourself what's next?

You may not see any problem with the Rockwood Park pipeline route unto itself, but ask yourself why pristine public parkland is being used for business interests when another option is available. This pipeline is for exporting gas to the States. The only beneficiary will be the owners of the pipeline company and consumers south of the border. Recognizing this, the company offered, and the Mayor and Council readily accepted, $5.5 million in "park improvements" from the company. Until the company came up with with this 'incentive', the city had rejected the proposed pipeline route, presumably because they thought it wasn't acceptable to use the park for this purpose.

Looking at the pipeline itself, I have no real concerns over its safety. Gas pipelines extend along many hydro line routes in other provinces without problems...but at least the gas is made available to local consumers.

Start looking beyond the obvious and ask yourself if you can condone the actions of your elected representatives. If you can't, then you must oppose the pipeline route. If you can, then in the future you will get the government that you deserve with no guarantee that something else, perhaps something that affects you directly, won't suddenly be shoved down your throat.

[Crystalbeach]

I really don't understand what the fuss is all about..they'll lay the pipeline..cover it over and that'll be that..
I do not care a little bit about the "abuse of power"..I voted for them to act on my behalf and I find that this a good decision.

[Doug James]

It is very disturbing to hear you say you don't care about the abuse of power. This is the same attitude that allowed Saddam Hussein to rule Iraq for decades to cite just one example.

I understand that not everyone in the city sees a problem with building a gas pipeline through a pristine public park. I do. But that isn’t the real issue here.

The real issue is all about power and how it can be used for the public good or abused for the benefit of corporate interests.

The Mayor and city council is starting to make a habit of simply changing the law when it is convenient for them to do so – in recent cases for the sole benefit of Irving Oil and Emera Brunswick Pipelines.

It was against the law for the city to provide the Irvings with tax concessions in order to get the LNG Terminal built. So, the Mayor simply went to his buddies in Fredericton and got a private member’s bill introduced in the Legislature that would change that law – retroactively!

Now it is attempting to do the same with the pipeline. Under the law that gave the park to the public in 1894, such use of the land is illegal. Once again, the Mayor sends word to his cronies in the capital and miraculously, the member of the Legislature from Victoria-Tobique, Larry Kennedy, suddenly has an interest in getting a pipeline built hundreds of miles away in Saint John. Another private member’s bill is introduced to get the House to do McFarlane’s bidding. If you go to Kennedy’s bio page on the web, you’ll see an appropriately red-faced photo of the MLA – looking embarrassed and ashamed as he should be.

The Mayor and every councillor who changed their minds and voted to support the pipeline route when offered $5.5 million in ‘park improvements’ should also be embarrassed and ashamed of their actions. This is the people’s park, not theirs. It is not to be handed over to corporate interests that will further line their pockets exporting gas through the pipeline to markets in the States.

If you accept the pipeline route, then you accept that it is ok for elected representatives to abuse their power. One day it will come back to bite you. If you reject the abuse of power as demonstrated here – you have no choice but to reject the pipeline through Rockwood Park. I can tell you that it will be in your own best interests to do so, for as long as Norm McFarlane is Mayor of Saint John, he will use this tactic time and time again, regardless of your views and your concerns. He has made it clear who his friends are. They are not you nor I, nor anyone else who has the best interests of the city at heart.

[SaskSask]

Council does what it wants...another example of abuse of power in SJ ...that house going up across the street from the fire station uptown.
Seems all forms of gov do what they want.
What are we going to do about it...well we are Canadians.....and we will fight it with a very hearty----- oh well! or the more powerful hmmmphhh!

[skallywag]

Nice Saddam reference. Does Norm have "weapons of mass destruction'? :) You never know, better check....I live in Rothesay, would that make me a "Kurd"? Should I get a gas mask?

[Doug James]

Seems you are indeed a Scallywag. :)

[skallywag]

Glad you have a sense of humour!

Forget SJ taking over the KV, we'll take over SJ and straighten the mess out.

Step 1) Ward System

[rhiley_08j]

One of the stipulations of running the pipeline through Rockwood Park is that the land that they use, which currently is not even being enjoyed by the public, must be transformed for enjoyment for the public. Sounds pretty good to me.

As for the LNG, it is a storage facility, big deal. It is not a pollutant. Now as for the second refinery, that's a whole different story. People say that by giving Irving Oil Ltd a tax break that the council of our city betrayed t's people, but has not everyone considered the economic boost that a project of this size produces. The money that the city may have lost in tax revenue they will gain back from the spin-off of the project.

[Chinna Dah]

I really could care less either. go for it,put the pipe in, I just dont see what the big deal is really. What I do see is a lot of people getting upset over nothing.

[baseball 23]

I don't think it's a big deal to put the pipeline to follow the power lines through the park, that strip is already de-forested.
Abuse of power? I don't think so, didn't we elect them to make decisions like this on behalf of the citizens? aren't they executing that power in a way they see fit and isn't that why we elected them?

LNG tax deal - why is the city boundary even out that far? What services does the city provide out there? Plowing? it's not water or sewer, they don't extend that distance. So, we have a piece of land, that has no business even being in the city, that they choose to build an LNG terminal on, costs the city nothing, company builds a road the city could not afford and they give $500,000 a year for nothing. No services provided. In most jurisdictions, that land would not even be inside city boundaries and if it wasn't in this case, like say a few more miles down the road, what would the city get? nada, nothing, zilch. But we should jump and scream because a company that is going to employ a few people, put in a new road for local citizens, is going to pay $500,000 a year in taxes for no services in return. Me, i'm not complaining.

[gumbyone]

Glad you have a sense of humour!

Forget SJ taking over the KV, we'll take over SJ and straighten the mess out.

Step 1) Ward System



I hope your refering to Rothesay taking over, Quispamsis council cant even control the very few employees they have let alone a "super city"

dave

[kb]

Nice Saddam reference. Does Norm have "weapons of mass destruction'? :) You never know, better check....I live in Rothesay, would that make me a "Kurd"? Should I get a gas mask?

well don't bite my head off for this (you don't pay taxes in Saint John you have no say
also i'm for the pipeline going thru the park

[Doug James]

My fear ever since I began my blog, is that a great number of people in Saint John have become so used to "the way things are" that they will never think it is possible to have anything better. I'm not saying that my opinions are always right. What I am saying is that elected officials need to be held to a higher standard by the electorate. Not only must they do what is right, they must also be seen to be doing what is right.

We've seen both the federal and provincial governments break promise after promise within weeks of being elected. And now we see a city administration that changes laws for no other reason than to satisfy wealthy corporations. And, many of you don't seem to understand how this is wrong.

There is an old saying that 'the people get the government they deserve'. Whoever first said that had people like you in mind. But I can tell you that nobody deserves a municipal government such as the one you currently have. If you don't change it first chance you get, you can look forward to more of the same in the future. It is no wonder tens of thousands of Saint Johners have left the city over the last couple of decades. It would be no surprise to me to see thousands more leave in the years ahead.

[Crystalbeach]

I don't think that your opinion is the only viable one..you're very righteous about what you believe and that's ok but please don't accuse those of us who don't have a problem with the line going through the park of not understanding..

Many of us are as politically astute as you claim to be..some even more so..

Your opinion is just that...your opinion.

[Doug James]

Please read my post that precedes your post in which I state clearly that
"I'm not saying that my opinions are always right."

I said earlier why I oppose this particular pipeline route. I never suggested that everyone should have the same opinion. I then went on to explain what I believe, in my opinion, is the "real issue".

This is where political astuteness comes into play. It is not the pipeline route so much as the obscene tactics used by the Mayor to get his way.
Anyone who fails to understand the basic premise of my argument in this regard cannot possibly consider themselves to be politically astute.

I am indeed righteous on this issue, in the sense that my opinion arises from an outraged sense of justice. I'm not suggesting that everyone must feel the same. What I am saying that if you do not recognize injustice for what it is and fight against it, the world will never change for the better. Again, you, personally, may not feel that the Mayor's lobbying to change existing laws (on two separate occasions) for the sole benefit of corporate interests is unjust to the people of Saint John. If so, you are living in a completely different world than the one that I wish to live in; a world where the rights of the common man/woman are defended at all costs in a society that is fair and equal. That certainly is not the case in this case.

[baseball 23]

"We've seen both the federal and provincial governments break promise after promise within weeks of being elected. And now we see a city administration that changes laws for no other reason than to satisfy wealthy corporations. And, many of you don't seem to understand how this is wrong."

I like wealthy corporations, poor ones don't pay so well. In this game of capitalism we play in our country, there are winners and losers. I'd rather be with the winners and let The Friends of Rockwood Park be the losers. Changing a law to satisfy another's interest is ok, why should it matter if it is a wealthy corporation, an idividual or non-profit group? Why is the corportion inherently evil?

[kaj27]

If you don't mind what they do to Rockwood Park (I don't either). Why is this organization called Friends of Rockwood Park? If it's a political outcry the name should reflect that....no?


PS: I love it when people get all worked up about the dangers of LNG. Psssst what do you think a byproduct of refining crude oil is? Propane, Butane...pretty much all the anes! Guess how compressed that is.

[Tremc]

"We've seen both the federal and provincial governments break promise after promise within weeks of being elected. And now we see a city administration that changes laws for no other reason than to satisfy wealthy corporations. And, many of you don't seem to understand how this is wrong."

I like wealthy corporations, poor ones don't pay so well. In this game of capitalism we play in our country, there are winners and losers. I'd rather be with the winners and let The Friends of Rockwood Park be the losers. Changing a law to satisfy another's interest is ok, why should it matter if it is a wealthy corporation, an idividual or non-profit group? Why is the corportion inherently evil?

Very well put!

[Doug James]

This will be my last post on this issue. Not because I am clearly losing the argument :mad: but because I have other things I'd like to talk about. I want to make it clear to kaj27 that I am not a member of Friends of Rockwood Park, although I do generally agree with the group on this issue. Please read my earlier posts before you toss in your two cents worth.

Secondly, I have never suggested that corporations, wealthy or otherwise, are inherently evil as implied by baseball 23. Again, please read my earlier posts and think about what I have said before adding your own comments.

Finally, I want to further address baseball 23. You undoubtedly will not agree with me when I say that it was inherently evil for Irving to ask (demand would be a better word) for tax concessions on the LNG terminal lands while threatening to take the project elsewhere if the company didn't get what it wanted. While the numbers that have been thrown around have varied considerably, it is safe to say that many millions of dollars that might otherwise have flowed into city coffers to help pay for programs and services AND keep your own taxes down, will instead be used by this rich family to offset the costs of the terminal which will then surely become another cash cow for them.

Ditto for Emera Brunswick Pipelines and Norm McFarlane. Yes, Emera has offered the city $5.5 million dollars in park improvements to get their pipeline route. But the law clearly indicates what the park is to be used for....and it ain't this. So in order to appease Emera, McFarlane is simply going to have the law changed. Even if you put aside this important side of the argument, surely the family legacy that turned over this vast tract of land to the people of Saint John should be honoured. To do otherwise is both immoral and reprehensible.

Alas, it seems that most of you don't care that your Mayor gives away millions of dollars in future tax revenue and takes away property rights as if it were his own God-given right. I believe this is why Saint John has failed to climb out of the perpetual sink hole in which it is mired. I could lecture you on the inherent dangers of complacency but instead I think I will just spell out it out for you:

Complacency: self-satisfaction, especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies

I rest my case.

[baseball 23]

To reply to Doug, i make this point.

- if the irvings would have located the terminal a mile or two down the road, it would have been outside the city limits and the city would have gotten zero in taxes. Doesn't Irving has a responsibility to their shareholders - even if privatly held and not publically traded, to reduce their expenses, taxes being one of them?

- is changing a law to make improvements and progress wrong? what if the law is outdated? did they change it to allow the power lines to run through the park? the very same route to be followed by the pipeline?

[/QUOTE]Alas, it seems that most of you don't care that your Mayor gives away millions of dollars in future tax revenue and takes away property rights as if it were his own God-given right. I believe this is why Saint John has failed to climb out of the perpetual sink hole in which it is mired. I could lecture you on the inherent dangers of complacency but instead I think I will just spell out it out for you:

Complacency: self-satisfaction, especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies

I rest my case.[/QUOTE]

- did we not elect him to make decisions even if against a vocal minority or unpopular decision? Should he not do what he feels is right? Maybe Doug, you can get elected and rip up the pipeline yourself, repay emera and explain why you lost tax revenues to run the pipeline under water.

- maybe the sink hole has more to do with those who are against progress and change. Maybe it has more to do with those who find fault in everything and make it their life duty to criticize. Maybe this acceptance of progress will bring on bigger and better things.

- i am not complacent, i will do what i can to further progress and help this city advance and bring it out of the sinkhole you refer to, the sinkhole of anti-progress and anti-change.

[The_Dave]

It is wrong to put the pipeline through the park, but you cannot stop government, especially when they have been bribed with $5 million dollars from Irvings partner, Repsol or Emera, I believe. Anyway unless everyone stands up and makes politicians accountable for their actions, no matter what the situation, NOTHING will change. This is a fact and has been that way for years. I hate to say it but you are wasting your time about the pipeline.

[Doug James]

:D OK...I can't stay away. Getting hooked on the debate. I'm checking into the hydro lines through the park to see what I can find out the decision making process at the time. It wouldn't surprise me if the land was simply expropriated.

As for the suggestion that the Irvings could have moved the LNG terminal site a few miles down the road to avoid paying any taxes, I believe that would have put it smack dab in the Bay of Fundy. The road ends at the lighthouse that is just a stone's throw away from the chosen site.

As for Irving having a responsibility to its 'shareholders' (in this case themselves) to keep costs (including taxes) down and profits up, of course they do. But at the same time the Mayor and council have a responsibility to their 'shareholders', the taxpayers of Saint John who are the ones who lose out because of this deal.

As for whether it is wrong to change a law to make improvements and for progress, no, not if it is done for the right reasons. In both the case of the LNG terminal and the pipeline, it is/was done for the wrong reasons; simply to appease the Irvings yet again.

As for accepting the Mayor's approach on such matters because he is, afterall, the Mayor. No, absolutely not. Democracy does not end at the ballot box. It requires active participation by the public, constant oversight of the decision making process and, when necessary, protest. Your attitude is exactly what I was referring to yesterday....you get the government that you deserve.

As for me ripping up the pipeline, repaying Emera and explaining why the city is forgoing taxes from it, clearly nobody will be able to do that once the project is complete. If the plans are approved and go ahead, this is one mistake that nobody will be able to correct. This is why Friends of Rockwood Park are putting up such a fight. Ditto with the tax giveway to the Irvings. I can assure you, however, that if I were in a position of authority, I would be much more fiscally and socially responsible than the current Mayor and council.

As for the sink hole, you are absolutely correct. It has everything to do with progress and change but, I ask you, why is the city still in the hole 3 years after Norm McFarlane took office? Progress is critical to the future of any city but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about ensuring progress. So far, for every move Saint John takes in the right direction, it takes two backwards.

As for those (presumably you mean me) who find fault in everything and make it their life duty to criticize -- there is much to find fault with at City Hall, not only on this issue but also with regards the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability, the lack of adequate services and programs, the lack of effort that is required to bring new, sustainable knowledge-based industry to Saint John, the lack of adequate housing stock, the crumbling neighbourhoods, the poverty-rate, the exodus of young people and more. Things will not get better without criticizing the status quo.

As for you being complacent, you are anything but. The fact that you take the time to get involved in a discussion like this says you care about Saint John and I certainly respect you for that.

My goal now is to try and get you to see beyond the obvious and recognize that this city ain't going nowhere (pardon the grammar) with McFarlane at the helm. The Mayor claims the LNG terminal will generate $1 billion in economic activity. I'll tell you what. Once it is up and running and a bit of time goes by, count your pennies and see if you have any more as a result of this project. If you work one of the short-term jobs during construction or if you snag one of the 20 or 30 full-time positions that will be created to keep it running, you'll be able to answer yes. What about the other 68,000 residents of Saint John?

[baseball 23]

oh doug, i love the fact that we disagree but can still have an intelligent conversation about the issues. I agree, this is activism and this is what democracy is all about!

I respect your opinion, i don't agree with your reasons to oppose the pipeline route, i think i could understand better from the Nature point of view. I don't understand the "abuse of power" argument when we put him in power to make those decision.

I understand you don't agree with the mayor, that's your right, i think maybe you should run for office, but i do respect him. I would think he was very aware of the public backlash that would happen because of the LNG deal and that he put in jeopardy his own political future, but he still had the gonads to make that decision. You may not agree with it, but at least he didn't just take the easy or "populist" way out and he may a choice he thought was for the best.

PS. I'm going to check out your blog.

[The_Dave]

"but he still had the gonads to make that decision"


He (The Mayor) didn't need to make any decision, he was TOLD, do it or else. He has no gonads because he caved. Where else would the Irvings have built the LNG??? No where! Saint John is the ONLY logical choice. The Irvings are great at helping people make business decisions, especially when it is in their favour.

[sjcanuck]

I would be interested in knowing where you live that you feel this government doesn't apply to you.

You say "There is an old saying that 'the people get the government they deserve'. Whoever first said that had people like you in mind. But I can tell you that nobody deserves a municipal government such as the one you currently have. If you don't change it first chance you get, you can look forward to more of the same in the future."

Why don't you include yourself in this statement and say "we"?

[Rick]

All i have heard for the last two years it seems is negitivity on the tax break for the LNG project and the pipeline going thru the park.
It seems you hear and see the same people makeing coments and complaining?
What about all the people that agree with the way things were handled on these issues?
I will be nice to see the next civic election arrive and find out what the
silent majority in Saint John think and put these issues to rest at last!

[Doug James]

Hello sjCanuck.

First of all, I am addressing my comments to the collective "you" because I wrote the message. I find it rather awkward to address my own comments to myself. That would be like talking to myself, which, of course, I do all the time. My grandmother used to tell me that people who talk to themselves have money in the bank or they are simply crazy. I always try to keep at least a dollar or two in the bank so that nobody can accuse me of being the latter.

Now, as to where I live. That depends on where I work. When I work in Saint John, I live at my home on the Peninsula. (I know that is not in Saint John per se but that does not prevent me from offering opinions on political matters in the port city. Although I have lived and worked in many different places in the world, I was raised in Saint John and consider it to be my home. Home is more than just a place where you hang your hat. Carrying on...if I have work to do in the Toronto area, I live at my second home in Oakville. On the other hand, if I do a stint at CNBC Europe, I live in rented accomodation in central London. I could go on.

If you are suggesting that I don't have the right to comment on current events in Saint John because I have to sometimes leave to work elsewhere -- you cannot agree with the efforts being made by the city and the province to get people who've left Saint John to move back to the city. As you know, many, many generations of Saint Johners have had to leave this city in order to feed their families. Perhaps you know some of these people yourself. This does not make me or them any less of a Saint Johner than those who are fortunate in their line of work to be able to spend their lives in the city we love.

[Doug James]

Hello again baseball 23. I can't tell you how refreshing it is for me to discuss these issues with you and others on the forum. Of course, nobody is ever going to agree 100 per cent with me. The important thing is to just get talking. I'm not necessarily stuck to my position on these or any other matter and am more than willing to concede when I know that I am wrong. This forum and my own blog have given me the opportunity to learn how the "real people" of Saint John feel about these and other important issues. Let's keep it going.

[The_Dave]

sjcanuck, it doesn't matter at the next election what party, federal, provincial, or municipal you vote for to change things, they all talk the talk to get in, but once they are in, it is all about them. I am 44 and I have seen this all my life and things will NEVER change in politics. I wish I had gotten into politics years ago and lived off the taxpayers money and the kick backs and bribes. Politicians at any level should be able to be replaced after 6 to 12 months if they aren't living up to their promises and they should have to pay their salaries back!! Legal crooks is all they are.

[Martin]

What has totally shocked me...especially in today's news, was the whole issue with the Pension Board and Councillor John Ferguson. I wholly support Councillor Ferguson in this matter, if you ask me, he's being squashed from speaking up about the problems on the pension board?? Why? Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that his lawyer's bills were paid for by an insurance plan from the City, and the Pension Board's lawyers bills were also being paid for by another insurance plan from the city...sounds ridiculous to me!

In my opinion...top management at City Hall MUST BE REMOVED NOW....They are covering up their asses way too much!!!

[Doug James]

I just quick read that story on my way out the door this morning. But you are definately right to support Councillor Ferguson. He has every right to ask the questions he has been asking AND he has every right to expect answers -- not a lawsuit. Taxpayers should not have to pay for bruised egos.

To Dave...

I understand why you and many others feel this way. I won't say that any of our current local politicos are dishonest but, sometimes, they do think they can do whatever they want, simply because they were elected. I agree that there should be a way within the electoral system to recall any politician who gets elected as a direct result of promises he or she makes and then breaks those promises. Actually, you might say that is dishonesty. If I run for office, I won't be making any promises other than to do the very best job I can with the resources available to me. I would also take a pay cut right off the bat as a sign of good faith to the taxpayers and an indication to senior managers that they should voluntarily do the same or be forced to.

[girdy]

I agree that there should be a way within the electoral system to recall any politician who gets elected as a direct result of promises he or she makes and then breaks those promises. Actually, you might say that is dishonesty.

I always question this concept. If a politician makes a promise and later realizes it was an idiodic promise, are they forever bound to take that idiotic action? When the rest of us realize that we've said or promised something stupid, we apologize and adjust.

Frankly I'd rather have a politician who can adjust based on the facts and can be persuaded by constituents, rather than one that blindly plows ahead because of some possibly mis-guided promise in the past.

It's only dishonesty if someone knowingly promises something they do not intend to follow through on. It's not dishonesty if they smarten up and need to change positions.

[girdy]

I would also take a pay cut right off the bat as a sign of good faith to the taxpayers and an indication to senior managers that they should voluntarily do the same or be forced to.

It must be nice to be independently wealthy, and not require an adequate paycheck to pay the bills.

When you pay crap wages, you get crap people. When you lower wages, the good people leave, the bad ones stay.

I would encourage you not to do this stunt.

[frylock]

It must be nice to be independently wealthy, and not require an adequate paycheck to pay the bills.

When you pay crap wages, you get crap people. When you lower wages, the good people leave, the bad ones stay.

I would encourage you not to do this stunt.

Although I somewhat agree with your point about politicians needing to change their position in some cases (although let's be honest, they still do it for crass reasons too often... most of the time?) , in fairness to Doug, I remember him posting about the salary issue earlier:
http://www.isaintjohn.com/classifieds/showthread.php?p=64972#post64972
..and he said it would be a temporary decrease. And I think he said somewhere it could then be increased later, which I would agree with as it's sad that the mayor of a city our size makes less than many call centre workers :eek:

[girdy]

Although I somewhat agree with your point about politicians needing to change their position in some cases (although let's be honest, they still do it for crass reasons too often... most of the time?) , in fairness to Doug, I remember him posting about the salary issue earlier:
http://www.isaintjohn.com/classifieds/showthread.php?p=64972#post64972
..and he said it would be a temporary decrease. And I think he said somewhere it could then be increased later, which I would agree with as it's sad that the mayor of a city our size makes less than many call centre workers :eek:

Thanks for the link, I hadn't noticed that post. I think he says his salary reduction as mayor would be for one term only, but that the emphasis would be on reducing the management salaries which he feels are far too extravagant. I'm intepreting the latter reduction would be permanent. So I think I still need to stay with my earlier comments. Thinking the ills of the city are caused by paying managers too much, and that paying managers less money is going to result in something positive, I just don't get. I don't believe that you get better qualified people by lowering salaries. You certainly don't get more motivated people by lowering salaries.

[Doug James]

Let me clarify my position on taking a salary cut if I were to run and be fortunate enough to become Mayor. I am not independently wealthy. I work hard for my money, just as I am sure you do. I've even put my life on the line, on more than one occasion, to earn my living while reporting in war zones.

My pledge to cut my pay by 10 per cent in the first term is no stunt but a symbol that Saint John is, unfortunately, a city in need. Things may change if the refinery project goes ahead. But, that is still far from certain. Right now the city needs a break and everyone who draws a municipal paycheque should be willing to concede a little something.

The Mayor is in a position to send a powerful message to the public that he, for one, is willing to share the burden in the short term and put others at City Hall on notice that, perhaps, they should at least hold off on additional salary demands in the short-term future.

There is no question that the Mayor's salary is inadequate -- especially if he or she works at it full-time as one clearly must in order to help Saint John get back on its feet and carve out a decent future. But with the poverty rate in Saint John still hovering between 20 and 25 per cent, even the Mayor's $40,000 annual salary must look pretty good to those 15,000 or so people who earn far, far less. And then there are the senior city managers. Do you really believe Saint John can afford to pay its Tourism Manager $89,000 a year plus incredible benefits? Most other senior management jobs are at least in that range, and in some cases they pay considerably more.

All of this is, of course, based on assumptions, because your Mayor doesn't believe you should really know the salaries of individual public servants -- let alone what benefits they enjoy and how much they spend on expenses. I challenged the Mayor exactly one week ago to publish this information on the city website to backup his claim to be open and transparent. He has not done so. He has not even had the courtesy to answer my email to him on this matter. Neither have 9 of the 10 councillors. Only one, Councillor John Ferguson, responded. I'll have more on this on my blog www.portcitypolitics.com (http://www.portcitypolitics.com) early next week.)

[girdy]

Its more complicated than salary cost. Saint John could afford to pay the tourism manager a million a year, if the tourism manager would drive tourism to the level relevant to the cost. Tourism can drive the economy, which helps drive the tax base. So you pay for a good tourism manager so that your city economy activity increases so that the tax base increases which pays for the salary. If a good tourism manager can drive the economy to the point that some people in poverty get a higher standard of living and you've got fewer people below the poverty level, it's money well spent.

Alternatively, if you want to control the cost of the tourism manager, pay the person minimum wage and have no tourism and no tourism tax base, and drive the poverty level up. You've reduced the salary cost of the tourism manager, but isn't what you want to do is reduce the poverty rate?

Everyone in the private sector, understands you need to pay for quality. In the public sector, it seems nobody understands that you need to pay for quality, and everyone gets fixated on salary cost with no appreciation about value. That's why many of us won't touch public sector jobs.

My position is that better candidates cost more money. The problems of the city aren't going to be solved by people less qualified than we have now, and a focus on reducing (position) salary is going to result in less qualified individuals in the long haul.

If you feel the Mayor isn't getting good advice from staff and mistakes are being made, giving the mayor less qualified staff isn't the way to fix that.

In case you're wondering, I don't work for the city. And I have no idea who the tourism manager is. My comments are theoretical based on your example.

[Doug James]

I won't deny that you make good points. It isn't that I am unaware of any of this. The fact is our $89,000 Tourism Manager may not have been the best person for the job to begin with. I've been trying to get the Mayor to tell us what qualifications Margaret Totten brought to the job, other than the fact she is married to the City Manager. He won't tell me because, despite the fact that he claims to run an open and transparent administration, he does not. Totten has since resigned. At least I think she has. The reason I don't know is because it was announced she had quit but then the Telegraph-Journal discovered that she was still on the payroll -- although she might still be on sick leave. Who knows what deal she worked out with the city? The Mayor believes that's secret information that only a select few at City Hall have a right to know. With this approach, how can anyone know if anyone who is hired by the city is the best candidate for the job and are worth their salaries?

You have to ask yourself too how successful Margaret Totten was in the position. More cruises ships are coming this summer but, so what? They stay for a day or two, buy a meal and a few trinkets and then they're gone. Maybe, one day, a few will come back and spend more time and money in the city. Then again, maybe not. What else has the city done lately to attract tourists? I've been to Martello Tower and other 'tourism' sites in the city in the middle of the summer and seen no one except the person who works there.

I agree with your contention that a Tourism Manager who puts the city on the map and attracts 50 or 100 times the visitors (not just cruise ship passengers)-- deserves a high salary. But, I disagree that tourism is or ever should be an economic engine. That, my friend, is a fool's game. And, even if a significant boost in tourism were to occur -- it would do little or nothing to decrease poverty or improve the lives of the disadvantaged. Being poor is not solely about not having a job. With as many people in Saint John below the poverty line as there are, the city should hire a commissioner of opportunity who, if he or she could reduce the poverty level to, say, 10 per cent....would indeed be worth a million dollars.

[Flaxie]

I know alot of people are going ot hate my response to you but it is really how I perceive an unfortunately large portion of our "poor" people.

I come from working poor parents who are now in the lower middle class bracket. I myself have taken money from our social assistance system due to LACK of decision making when I was a teen. Here's what I have seen in a PORTION, of course not all, poverty stricken families/individuals.

Some people on assitance think of it as a way of life. They are proud of playing the system and being able to do what they want. Many truely feel they are owed this. They have not contributed to society in any way as their parents grew up on assitance and so have they. People who are 2nd and 3rd generation welfare have been raised to expect that check at the first of the month. They have not "worked" for anything and even in school were not taught the value of working to support themselves. Some become insulted at the suggestion that they a) finish school b) look for work, It's crazy really.

Now I know there are many who look around themselves and say "Hey I want better!" I could give you examples of people who have done just that. And you know what....The ones that truely want better get it! They put the effort into it that is required to get out of the system and support themselves.

I truly believe if we want to fight poverty we need to start by encouraging a work ethic and sense of self-esteem in our children and youth. Teach them in school and out in the community that by working for something they will get what they want. Many of our disadvantaged young here in Saint John do not get this at home, their parents are caught up in the welfare cycle. The stay home, hang out with friends, maybe work the odd job here or there, collect welfare take their children with them to the food bank every month, get xmas baskets each year. etc etc What do we think these kids are learning about life this way???

Yes all the above services need to be provided. But lets also focus on providing a work ethic and self esteem to these kids.

And if anyone is thinking its great to say that Flaxie but how do we do it?
Well I would love to get together with people and brainstorm to see with what we can come up with. There are many groups out there trying to do just what I have suggested as well. More of us need to get involved. It may not be our "biological" child at risk but it certainly is our children.

[Doug James]

Flaxie...you are right that some people, especially some who are second and third generations caught in the welfare cycle have an attitude of entitlement. But, honestly, I think this is a small number overall. Don't forget, even some senior managers at City Hall and the Irving family generally, also express an attitude of entitlement. (That's why the Irvings asked for and got the LNG tax concessions. They didn't need them. They know the people of Saint John need the tax revenue far more than they do. But they asked for and got the concessions because they knew they could and they knew they would.

As I said earlier, being poor is more than not having a job. It is also the things you have mentioned, poor parental guidance, lack of higher education, lack of confidence, inept social skills. I know, because I came from just such a background and yet I was determined to break out of it and did.

How do you instill or inspire others to do the same? You care. You encourage teachers to identify certain traits they see in children early on and you help build the confidence of kids and ensure that they are not isolated or ignored by others. I was fortunate enough to have such a teacher in high school, Mr. Smith. I was also fortunate enough to have people who were popular, people like my classmates Hartley Green, Douglas Melvin and others to take more than a passing interest in me. Their kindness meant more to me than they could ever imagine.

Social skills should be taught in school. Basics such as public speaking and other confidence building programs are desperately needed. People who find themselves in a welfare cycle but who have skills and talents should be trained in fields that interest them and given paid internships rather than social assistance. They need to learn to stand on their own feet. And, as you say, it would be great if more people in the community would get involved in helping to solve this chronic problem that holds them and all of Saint John back.