Double standard
City of Powell River council has evoked a double standard in handling the derelict buildings cleanup [“Demolition to proceed on derelict house,” February 22].
Two building owners were pressured to demolish and dispose of their buildings. One is the old Inn at Westview and the other a fire-damaged, ex-rental house on Joyce Avenue.
While the former inn’s owners are having trouble finding a structural engineer, the other fellow (myself) has taken time off from his full-time job in Vancouver to come home to Powell River to deal with his mess.
I have bills for thousands of dollars that have been spent so far to make the situation right. Hiring a certified demolition company to carry out the work at the property was already in the plans. The quotes were in and I was in the process of making a decision on that.
I was in conversation with the city inspector on February 22 and had told him I would provide him with the quotes. In the meantime, a dumpster was brought in and the property has been cleaned up and fenced. Everything that could be done is completed in good faith and at considerable expense.
Now council has decided I should foot the bill for the municipality to do the demolition while we can have the job done to everyone’s satisfaction and right away.
I submit that the hotel company has been dragging the process since it was shut down by the majority shareholders many years ago. Council is displaying gross favouritism and that it is easier to pick on the little guy.
We could not complete the job by the planned February 15 deadline, so were asking for a short extension to finish the job, but were refused.
What I do not understand is that the property was in this condition for the last 16-plus years, but the city failed to take a notice of it then.
If, for any reason, the city is after us for cleaning up this property, what harm could an extension of two or three months have done?
Rajinder and Shelley Mann
Vancouver, BC
Unacceptable performance
City of Powell River council just voted unanimously to give themselves an 18.8 per cent pay increase [“Council briefs: Adopts council pay increase bylaw,” February 22] after having received annual pay increases equal to the Consumers Price Index (CPI) for the last 10 years.
While the amount of the increase is disconcerting, more troubling is council’s decision to change the pay indexing formula. Council is betting on a different horse to carry them to financial glory and have changed the index for the annual pay adjustment from the CPI index to 58 per cent of Powell River residents’ average income per Canada Revenue Agency data [“Council seeks pay parity,” February 15].
The new benchmark is a conflict of interest. The city’s payroll is the third or fourth largest among employers in the city and, as a result, its staff’s income has an appreciable impact on the average income of Powell River residents. It becomes very similar to the conflict that would be created if the index were tied to city staff’s increases.
Lack of negotiation pushback is also a concern. Pay adjustments are usually determined through discussions between employees and the employer or their representatives. The only controlling pressure council has is the electorate.
As councillor Karen Skadsheim pointed out at one of the early meetings on the subject, the benefit of doing the pay adjustment midterm would be to minimize public debate/concern during the next municipal elections. It is certainly not illegal, but the optics are questionable.
Finally, the new pay adjustment formula is not linked to performance, while references have been made to an elusive body of work.
Halfway through the current council’s term, the city financial performance/position is unacceptable and unsustainable. City expenses are increasing at close to double-digit levels more than three times the cost of living, reserves are down and debt is up.
Paul McMahon
Invermere Court
Taking exception
It is in my mind to respond to R. W. Langdale’s letter [“Letters: Two emergency services needed,” March 1]. I am a paramedic, but my views are mine and mine alone.
In his letter, Langdale makes a number of allegations that need some clarification. The fire department does indeed take it upon itself to attend medical calls through a first responders agreement with the province.
Contrary to what Langdale states, actual structure fires are on the decline and have been for many years, ironically thanks in large part to the efforts of various fire departments advocating for sprinkler systems, smoke detectors and better building codes, et cetera.
With economic woes facing many municipalities, fire department budgets and what is received for those budgets is coming under increased scrutiny. Fire chiefs and the firefighters union are very aware of this scrutiny and are scrambling to show value-added status in their duties.
What is really needed is for the provincial government to acknowledge its responsibility to provide timely ambulance care and fund the service properly. It should in no way fall upon municipal taxpayers to pay provincial and municipal taxes for this single service. Let paramedics be paramedics and let firefighters be firefighters. Neither of them have any desire to do the other job at all.
Langdale’s response is to be expected, as he acknowledges he was a fire chief. He considers it his duty to advocate for any and all fire departments and I can understand that.
I do, however, take exception to his impugning City of Powell River councillor Rob Southcott’s reputation. I have known Southcott for almost 20 years. I know him to be honest, forthright, and that he cares deeply for his community. His motives in bringing this issue to light stem from concerns of municipal budget problems, as is his duty as a duly elected councillor.
Cameron Bailey
Huntingdon Street
