Street vending inconsistency
Further to the street vending fee bylaw which is up for review on June 6, 2013, I have contacted various comparable coastal communities to Powell River and I have the following information for City of Powell River council to review [“Street vendors ask for review of proposed locations,” May 22].
Campbell River’s business licence fee is only $150 for the year. It does not charge a monthly fee. Comox’s business licence fee is only $250 for the year with no monthly fee. Courtenay has not yet passed a street vending bylaw. Nanaimo’s business licence fee is only $165 for the year with no monthly fee. Parksville’s business licence fee is only $150 for the year and no monthly fee. Qualicum provides a business licence for $110 for the year with a $400 yearly fee for city land use. Sechelt’s business licence is $125 for the year and fees are based on a bid system for vendors. After August 1 the business licence fee is prorated to 50 per cent.
As can be seen from the fees above, these other coastal communities (both small and large) are not trying to gouge vendors, however they are trying to promote them. Please note that all these communities are larger in population and have a larger tourist population compared to Powell River. The fees charged by the communities listed above include use of city property and services (such as park benches, power, ocean front and or seawalk, public washrooms, et cetera).
I have asked council to answer the following questions: Why the addition of an exorbitant amount ($2,400 per annum) for street vendors? Why is Powell River trying to target small business instead of trying to promote it? Why, when council directed city staff to work with vendors regarding locations, did that not happen? Does council not want street vendors? What services would vendors be getting from the city for these fees?
Romeo Styles
Maple Avenue
Identical letters provide no response
On May 30 I received a letter from John Weston, MP serving West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country riding, in reply to concerns I sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper about the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) [“Protestors oppose agreement,” November 7, 2012]. The letter is the third I received, identical to replies dated November 1 and November 12, 2012, in reply to previous inquiries. This letter does not address the specific concerns I raised, the principal one being why the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism allows an unelected tribunal to make decisions beyond appeal or the jurisdiction of Canadian courts and how they can call the process transparent when: “The Article also deftly requires confidentiality where indiscreet disclosure of sensitive information could compromise a party’s commercial interests.” This leaves the option open for any party for any ostensible reason to request confidentiality and it will be granted, meaning that we, the taxpayers, know nothing until the cost shows up in the provincial expenses and on our tax bill.
What this exchange shows is how little respect Weston and the Conservative Party of Canada have for constituents and their legitimate questions when they simply dispense rubber stamp party propaganda as a reply.
Richard Fahlman
Gillies Bay
