Should certain businesses and businesspeople receive privileged treatment from city council?
Watching the behaviour of the current council since it was elected in 2014 begs the question, who does this council, which I have called the “new majority,” listen to? The question arises now from two issues dogging council of late: location of the sewage-treatment plant and the derelict former Inn at Westview, whose owner, Seaboard Hotels, refuses to take responsibility.
The people involved in the two issues are treated very differently. Seaboard agent Jack Barr appeared at a recent council meeting with a presentation that mixed a sob story with a lecturing tone to council members. Not one of them had the jam to tell Barr the obvious: when people invest, they take a risk. When they lose, they pay up.
Barr seems to have a supporter on council in Russell Brewer, head of the finance committee. Brewer opined in a recent Peak article [“Inn at Westview agent appears before council,” February 21] that the issue really wasn’t that important and that he does not think it would not be an election issue in the fall.
Really? If getting rid of a dangerous, embarrassing eyesore and making the owners pay for its removal isn’t an issue, what is?
In the same story, Barr had the nerve to say Seaboard Hotels doesn’t have the money to do the job. Are you kidding me? I don’t have the money to buy a condo in Paris, but I don’t expect taxpayers to buy one for me.
As for the group of Townsite residents protesting the siting of the sewage-treatment plant, they get short shrift, except from councillor Rob Southcott. One councillor sneered at one Townsite speaker, saying she hoped they wouldn’t just repeat themselves. During another presentation, two councillors were seen joking (we don’t know about what).
Regardless of who is right on this issue, it is disturbing to see ordinary residents with genuine concerns so disrespected.
I highlight the “new majority” because they ran promising to do things differently. That things remain much the same, particularly in terms of equity, was revealed early in the new council’s term. Having agreed to get rid of the flat-tax portion of residential taxes over a period of seven years, all it took to get them to reverse their principled position was a handful of developers yelling at them (only Southcott refused to be intimidated).
Council quickly backed down and passed a resolution keeping the tax until 2030. This dreadful tax hits the poorest property owners the hardest and gives a break to the wealthiest homeowners.
Then, of course, there is the continued giveaway to Catalyst Paper Corporation. Despite having all the facts regarding the ineffectiveness of the tax break, council voted unanimously to continue giving a million dollars plus to Catalyst.
Everyone concerned knew municipal taxes make up about half of one per cent of Catalyst’s total operating costs. In short, the tax break will have almost no impact on the company’s bottom line. But it is having a real impact on working people and small businesses who have to make up the tax shortfall.
One of the 10 guiding principles in the Powell River’s 2014 Sustainable Official Community Plan is to “strive for equity.” Instead, what we have is a council too often failing to find the courage to do so.
Murray Dobbin is a Powell River freelance writer and social commentator.
