The Reverse Petition Designed to Fail

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 03:45 AM

The reverse petition, more formally called “alternate approval process” got an airing this week.

The petition garnered 1,147 people who signed to say they did not want to spend an additional $13.8 million dollars to build a new police station.

Of course you also have to add the other $25 million that had been approved earlier in two similar amounts.

So you may wonder why there were not enough people signing the petition to get city hall to hold a referendum. Well for many, they have a good memory, and it tells them that in the case of the Terasen gas deal, there were more than enough signatures to force the referendum, but then city hall held the referendum spending $660,000 dollars of taxpayer money, to convince you along the way it was good deal and we got saddled with it.

So scratch several thousand people from the list who would have laid their name on the paper, saying what’s the point?

There then is the matter that if you want your name on the reverse petition, you needed to go down to city hall, catch the elevator to the fifth floor and then , put your name on the paper complete with your signature and address just to make sure it was you signing .

Now you can vote without letting people know who you’re voting for, but by God if you don’t want something in the city, put your face out there for everyone to see. That is democracy? That is the free system that we like to say we cherish so much?

Then there is the matter of the three part approval of the money for the new station, which by the way will saddle the city with an additional $38 million in debt. Why didn’t the City have the courage of conviction to put the whole amount to the taxpayers and see what they say, not one third of the price.

Just a nice neat way of getting around the voters.

We need to remember how the police station was put together come November, because no matter how you view the number of people who signed the petition, it was designed to fail the moment it was introduced.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s’ opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Eagleone on January 11 2011 7:36 AM

I agree... I also remember Dan Rodgers campaigning last election promising a referendum vote on the entire police station. That didn't happen because he didn't have the conviction to carry out his campaign promise. I guess its more convenient for him now doing it this way....

Posted by: confused on January 11 2011 9:29 AM

I also agree 100%. The mayor wants the project to go ahead and will not rest until it does.

Posted by: StreetWise2 on January 11 2011 10:59 AM

You people think referndums are cheap?

Posted by: Loki on January 11 2011 11:09 AM

WIIFM?

Posted by: Loki on January 11 2011 11:17 AM

referendums are cheap. $600K vs $39 million.

Posted by: gus on January 11 2011 11:26 AM

WIIFM? Probably the same as for me and everyone else.

StreetWise2 .... To me it is very simple. If the politicians want to say that they did made a decision because that is what they were elected to do, then do it. Just don't throw an undemocratic reverse petition in my face and say "not enough people objected".

If you feel that you want to put a matter in front of people, then put it in front of people honestly. If you want to put it in front of people often enough, then come up with a cheaper way to do it. We make secure money transactions everyday and for those who can't or don't believe in it, they go directly to the bank for a face to face. It does not have to cost much, unless of course you need to spend an arm and a leg to hire some PR firm to tell the City's side of the story. They don't do that with a reverse petition. Why would one have to do more than that with a full vote?

People are just not applying their minds to solving simple problem because the province has handed them an inferior process.

Posted by: gus on January 11 2011 11:28 AM

There is no reaason why one could not cut a 0 off that figure. It would not take a genius.

Posted by: Charlie B on January 11 2011 11:46 AM

I never heard about the petition until I read it in the newspaper that it had failed. I also asked about 20 people at work and none of them had heard of it either.

Posted by: Harbinger on January 11 2011 2:34 PM

Hey folks. This ain't Californee with their Proposition 16 and stuff. These folks in city hall have your cheque books in their greedy little fingers. The sheep are gonna get sheared again. Just you wait. I have reason to suspect referendums ain't in our Constitution. They are in Switzerland. But we ain't there neither.

Posted by: NMG on January 11 2011 4:34 PM

Have to agree that they are designed to fail. Here's my idea:

- Implement a bylaw that says that referendum's will be required for all capital projects over a certain amount ($10M for example). The threshold would be simple and it would be based on the number of people who voted in the most immediately prior civic election. The process would be such that in order to pass, the motion would have to be supported by at least 50% of the total number of people who voted in the last election. If 15,000 people voted, then 7,501 "yes" votes would be required for the project, as proposed, to go ahead. Of course, if 7,501 people votes "yes" and 8,000 voted "no" (thus where the total votes exceed the last election turnout), then the proposition would fail.

Relatively simple and straightforward.

Posted by: Harbinger on January 11 2011 4:58 PM

" Implement a bylaw".....he says. Order! Order! Mr. Speaker, the previous comment should be stricken from the record. The gentleman did not have the floor. I therefore make a motion that all suggestions from the fleeced masses be null and void in this theatre of politics. All those in favour say aye! The ayes have it. Any new business? If not, meeting adjourned. BANG! (gavel hitting desk)

Posted by: gus on January 11 2011 7:00 PM

I agree. NMG's proposal is far too simple and logical and thus must obviously be out of order.