This past week we received a Community Planning 2011 Accountability Report.  It’s a simple to read document with graphs, photos and straight forward descriptions outlining the various activities of the city department responsible for the ‘strategic coordination of sustainable land uses’.  The Department is responsible for neighbourhood planning, Coquitlam’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, Homelessness/Housing Affordability, Geographic Information Systems, Design Guidelines, Regional Growth Strategy and Social Planning among other activities.

As I read through the document I am asking “How will we know that we have been successful?”

As a family therapist I have always worked with goals.  I ask my client what they want to achieve through our work together and I help them formulate achievable goals in the time we have, constantly checking in with them to see if we are meeting our targets.  As SHARE’s fundraiser it was dead easy to monitor progress – there’s nothing easier than counting money as an indicator for measuring goal achievement.

Housing choices, housing affordability and Coquitlam’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy appear easier to measure – we can attach numbers to easily measured indicators that permit us to monitor our progress.  Community and neighbourhood planning however is very different.

So I question how we measure whether or not we have a good community or neighbourhood plan.

We go though various processes in an attempt to try to engage as many residents as possible (which is a whole other issue that I will blog about later).  We work with advisory committees, consultants, experts in community planning to come up with a plan - we take it to the neighbourhood for feedback – tweak the plan – take it back to the community – repeat 2-3 times and then Council makes a decision.  But how do we know when we have a good plan?  How do we know that we made a good decision?

We talk about creating more walkable, compact communities – are we checking to make sure that we are in fact reaching these goals?  Are people walking more in these communities? We talk about sustainable development that includes protection of watercourses and environmentally sensitive areas – are we measuring our performance to see that we are, in fact, achieving these goals?  Are we measuring how well we are protecting these sensitive areas?

It’s easy to talk about goals and vision….it’s quite something else to measure your progress in a meaningful way.

I will continue to pursue this line of questioning – it’s the only way I think we can really be accountable.

Back in 2009 when I first walked into this same Council Committee Room we were pleased that we were making some head way on getting a small piece of property in Coquitlam zoned for housing a YWCA project single moms but frustrated and concerned about how challenging it was to make something happen for the homeless in our community.

Today,  we are mostly the same faces that sat around the table three years ago –  a group of about 15 regular attendees that include service providers (including libraries, social service agencies, police etc), community volunteers, city staff and politicians (myself along with Greg Moore from Port Coquitlam and Bob Elliot from Port Moody – both whom have been consistently supportive and hard-working to address the issue of homelessness).

So here we are,  in a room that I first walked into three years ago and we  have not only zoned and serviced the site at 3030 Gordon for a homeless shelter, but we added a new member to our table:  Mark Smith from Raincity Housing - a service provider who will operate the shelter and transitional housing beds at 3030 Gordon and we look forward to the opening of Como Lake Gardens - a YWCA facility for single mothers – in a few months.

For me it was exciting to look around the table to see the progress we have made.  Hope for Freedom Society with the collaboration of five church communities has successfully run a temporary mat program for the homeless for five years which helped to reduce the numbers of homeless in our community and highlighted the need for a permanent shelter.   Hope for Freedom will continue to operate the mat program through to March 2012 and are currently seeking funding to provide interim shelter through the winter months until our stand alone shelter/transitional housing at 3030 Gordon is built (even though the Province announced the funding last month, it can take up to two years to get it built). And Homes for Good Society is up and running working hard on behalf of homeless individuals to find rental accommodation.

Looking around the table at all those who have stepped up, especially Sandy Burpee, Chair of the Tri-Cities Homelessness Task Group, I felt so proud to be part of this community and so honoured to have been part of group that has brought about so much for those in our community who are often most challenged to be heard.

I am looking forward to the next three years – to the opening of Como Lake Gardens, to seeing a permanent shelter/transitional housing resource being built and serving some of the most vulnerable in our community and to addressing the dearth of rental accommodation and affordable housing in our community.  We must be prepared to look beyond homelessness and to address the range of housing needs in our community.

As I look around the room I know that these folks are up for the challenge.  Are you?

Two items did stand out for me.  The first was a proposal for a development variance permit to build a house on a piece of property in the northeast that is precariously close (I think) to a salmon bearing stream.  When I first read the staff report I was not too comfortable with the proposal and had placed a big fat question mark on the report – my shorthand for ‘undecided’.  When some of my colleagues started to ask questions about the zoning for the property we were repeatedly informed that this zone did not permit a secondary suite.  One of my Council colleagues noted that there was a kitchen in the drawings for the basement which caught my attention.  I then began to scrutinize the drawings even further and noted that there was a parking allocation next to the house that was labelled ‘Suite Parking’ – aha!

I was disappointed that a developer/builder would try to ‘slip’ this by us.  Unfortunately this proposal was referred back to staff - I was prepared to reject the entire proposal – my big fat question mark turned into a big fat “X”.

The second issue was the staff recommendation to ask developers to include bicycle parking with commercial developments and designated bike storage in multi-family residential buildings.  For me, this recommendation reflects our commitment to increase the number of cycling trips made in our city.  We have been working on an updated Transportation Plan and there is a strong commitment to increase the mode share for cycling trips in the city (which will free up road space for goods movement and those unable to cycle – a good thing for motorists and consumers).   The question asked at Council is whether or not we should permit market forces to dictate these changes.

Interesting question.  I do think that if we build and facilitate structures that can help people get out of their cars, then we all benefit.  When we develop a transportation plan looking to shift how we travel, then we need to have some ideas on how to facilitate this shift.  We have so many multi-family dwellings being built in Coquitlam right now and retrofitting is so expensive.  Why would we wait when we know that change is a comin’?   We also know that the market response is a delayed response.  My preference is to support and encourage some of these changes so that we are ahead of the curve rather than behind it.  What do you think?

And…what if Council permitted the market to do its thing and that development permit application I mentioned earlier in my post…the one to have two units of housing (the one where the builders pretended that there was no basement suite planned) located right by that fish-bearing stream?  hmmmm….not sure I trust the market on this one.

Greetings Councillor Robinson,

I hope this email finds you well. Congratulations on your re-election as Councillor for the City of Coquitlam. You are an amazing asset to the City of Coquitlam Council and I look forward to working with you more in this capacity.

 The City of Coquitlam has begun taking steps towards a pesticide-free community and as you know, the province has a similar opportunity. The province of BC has struck a Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides that is consulting the public on the use and sale of these products and you may be interested in sharing your views or encouraging your networks, family and friends to do the same. Our goal is to have 8,000 submissions made to the online consultation – we have 3,000 more to go before the deadline of December 16^th.  We are encouraging the public to firstly, download the Canadian Cancer Society model response and secondly, visit the online questionnaire and encourage the province to enact province-wide pesticide legislation banning the sale and use.

Below you will find an e-blast encouraging the public to submit their views. Please feel free to share widely – and if you deem it appropriate, possibly through your blog.

Many thanks,

Brittney Parks

Health Promotion Coordinator Canadian Cancer Society Greater Vancouver Region

This is me sharing it through my blog.  I encourage you to take a look at the suggested responses on the Canadian Cancer Society site and to follow the link to the BC Government site to share your thoughts on a provincial pesticide ban that would make my efforts to secure a ban for our Coquitlam irrelevant which would be the best thing for our community.

Martin Wyant, CEO of SHARE Family and Community Services, recently wrote in the Tri-City News and spoke to reporters at the NOW newspaper about the need for levels of government to stop pointing fingers at each other and to start working together to address child poverty.  Wyant points out that no one wants to be poor and I recognize the heartstrings value of speaking to child poverty, but let’s face it –  poor children live in poor families.

When I was SHARE’s Director of Fund Development (ie fundraiser) I spent considerable time encouraging the community to support the food bank – a program that was supposed to be a temporary measure to help individuals and families get through the recession that hit us in the mid 1980s.  This temporary program has become a community fixture that  helps people get through tough times and might make being poor a little easier, but it does nothing to help people get out of poverty.  Food banks are not poverty reduction programs, they are poverty relief programs.  For all of the generous acts that we do at this time of year to help poor families by making donations to food banks, sponsoring families at Christmas and other feel good programs that make being poor a bit more comfortable - we just don’t do enough to reduce poverty.

I do think that all levels of government have something to bring to the table that can make a difference.

Municipalities have a huge responsibility related to land use.  Seems to me like we can bring that role to the table.  We know that increased densities brings more transit.  Poor families sometimes need to use the food bank because in order for mom to get to her job in Richmond, she needs to drive (a very expensive proposition) as transit is inefficient and would take too long, increasing her childcare costs.  If there were better transit (or more local job opportunities) then perhaps a car won’t be needed (or a local job will require fewer childcare hours) which would leave more financial resources for other things.

I think the Austin Heights plan for increased density is a prime example of how municipalities can make a difference.  When there are more affordable home ownership options people have the opportunity to start developing an asset, a way to build wealth.  And there are some who will never be able to own their home, but they need to live somewhere.  Ensuring that we protect existing rental stock and perhaps increasing this stock will help keep rental rates more affordable.  And then there are opportunities to ensure that there is housing for seniors and those with disabilities - some of these folks are people who cannot participate in the economy and so their fixed income limits their ability to find housing that meets their needs.

I don’t think that reducing poverty is easy….if that were the case we wouldn’t have food banks.

I do know that what we have been doing hasn’t been working and my philosophy as a family therapist has always been ‘if what you are doing isn’t working, then its time to try something different’.

I will be among those sitting at the table with Martin Wyant and others who want to get to work to identify collaborative ways that we can work together to reduce poverty in our community.  Will you be joining us?  I know we can use all the help we can get.

This was my first re-election, an entirely different experience than my first attempt at politics in 2008.  Over the past three years I have learned that the bulk of the work on Council is relationship based (just as it is in many workplaces).  When you have good working relationships with people you work with you are able to make more happen.  With just one vote on Council, it is critical that you have the ability to work well with others, treat others with respect and that you can find common ground with your colleagues.

During this election campaign I saw some embellishments, nasty letters, disrespectful commentary, inaccurate representations and false claims.   In short, the high road gave way to high school.  I suspect that panic and anxiety coupled with a ‘win at all cost’ attitude took over and some forget that there are real people involved in politics, some of whom will have to work together for three years.  I liken an election campaign to tryouts for a hockey team.  The ‘scouts’ (Coquitlam voters) are watching us battle in the corner for the ‘puck’ (debate/door knock/vision etc) and at some point the ‘scouts’ (voters) pick the ‘team’ (Council) that will have to work as a team to ’represent’ (govern) the city.  So when we are in the corner, it doesn’t serve us well to ‘hit from behind’ (throw out barbs,  misrepresentations, partial truths or to be disrespectful).  We all need to be able to put our best skills out there for the scouts to see and when all is said and done….we have to go for beer and put the game behind us.  This is harder to do when there are  ‘slashings’, ‘trippings’ and other such hockey no-nos tossed about.

So where does this leave us now?

I think the low road slows our ability to become a functioning Council.  It takes time to heal wounds and until those wounds are healed the risk of bickering, blaming and backstabbing can put good governance aside.  I will be watching closely to see how well we can move forward and identifying how each person contributes to starting the healing process.

The UBC’s Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions is hosting a conference this week on ‘Why Don’t More (Good) People Enter Politics?’ .  I think I know why.

Want to hear more from me in person?  There are a series of all candidates meetings coming up or you can join me at my Fireside Chat Thursday, December 17 7-8pm at the Coquitlam Public Library on Poirier.

Coquitlam All Candidates Meetings:

• Wednesday Nov 9 – 6:30 – 9pm Douglas College Health Sciences Building Rm 1008-1009 hosted by Douglas College Dialogue Club
• Thursday Nov 10 – 7-9pm Banting Middle School hosted by the Burquitlam Community Association
• Sunday Nov 13 – 7-9pm Place Maillardville hosted by the Maillardville Residents Association.

Fireside Chat

• Thursday, Nov 17- 7-8pm Coquitlam Public Library Poirier hosted by Selina

Some express a concern for increased traffic volumes.  I don’t disagree that this will bring more cars to Austin, but the idea is the traffic will be taken up mostly by Blue Mountain.   According to our traffic data, our current road network can handle the extra vehicles that density will bring.  Additionally, in order to get better bus service through this area, we need to have an increased density, otherwise this area will never be properly served by transit.

Others complain the limited parking in the area will only be made worse by the increased density.  Parking along Austin and Ridgeway at present, is horrible.  Building high rises, complete with residential parking AND the required commercial parking will actually increase the parking for the area.

And yet others think that density is just a bad idea for the area and should just be concentrated in Coquitlam City Centre.  I have grave concerns about the poor choice of housing we have in the older parts of our city.  I often wonder about the seniors who have spent the last 50 years raising their children in Austin Heights and then living a retired life – caring for a house that no longer serves them well and their desire to downsize.  There are almost no options in Austin Heights for downsizing and aging in the community where you are most familiar with friends and neighbours, physicians, banking and other resources that make it meaningful to stay.  Having high-rise apartments in this community will mean that our friends, neighbours and parents/grandparents can find alternate housing that meets their needs and I think this is important to having a complete community.

And there are others who think that high rises and increased density are a good thing for Austin Heights.  They are looking forward to a renewed neighbourhood with interesting shops, added parking with a pedestrian orientation and a place that can be called a complete community.

And there was one resident I spoke to who said “I don’t think high rises belong at the corner of Austin and Blue Mountain” and when I asked him what he thought should be there he replied “a gas station”.  Some people just don’t want change.

“My neighbourhood is changing, what does this mean for me?” - Most people recognize that we need to densify and change our traditional suburban ways but it is unclear to them how this will change their communities as we densify neighbourhoods like Burquitlam, Austin Heights, City Centre and Maillardville.  Residents are expressing concerns about how we will keep pace, making sure we have the amenities and resources to maintain the quality of life we have created for ourselves.

“Cars are speeding in our neighbourhood making it dangerous for pedestrians” - Residents are concerned about the speed of traffic on our main arteries through residential areas (e.g., Mariner Way, Como Lake Ave, Austin Ave.).  They are also concerned about speed of vehicles through quiet residential streets where children are walking to school (these residents identify the  parents who choose to drive their children to school as these culprits).  They are concerned about pedestrian access to bus stops, having to cross busy streets to get to bus stops.

“I can’t keep paying these tax increases”- Residents (especially those on fixed incomes) are saying that they just can’t keep up with the tax requirements.  Many point out that it’s not just the municipal property tax piece, they are looking at the whole picture and are concerned that they will not be able to maintain their financial security with ongoing increases.

Here are my thoughts on these issues:

We need to make sure that we manage the pace of redevelopment so that we can ensure that the proper amenities are developed in a timely fashion.  I am concerned that once the Port Mann Toll Bridge is complete, Coquitlam will be the hot spot for redevelopment as people seek housing and employment on this side of the bridge.  I want to make sure that we do not miss opportunities to build the necessary infrastructure and resources that we need to maintain our city and our quality of life.

We do need to do a better job of tightening up our expenditures and seeking more creative ways to generate revenues and amenities for our community.  I did not support the first budget after I was elected.  I thought the budgeting process was flawed – there were two very important pieces missing in our process – we lacked performance measures that would help guide our budget decision-making process and we were not considering which programs and services we could reduce or remove from our budget.  Two years ago we started to include performance measures and we have directed staff to create a potential reductions for Council to consider.  We need to continue with this process and we need to get better at it.  With better understanding of how we are meeting our goals, we will be able to make better decisions related to how we spend your money.

Some residents would like a police car on their very own street handing out tickets to as many speeding drivers as possible, but we all know that this is not realistic.  We need to continue focussing police efforts on high collision areas, we could probably benefit from additional speed reader boards and we need to change how we are building our streets.  The urban design can have great influence on how fast we drive.  You may notice that around some schools we have started to narrow the streets so that it is easier (shorter distance) to cross – which also slows cars down.  We need to continue looking for best practices that will help in this effort.

When I first saw this on the agenda I breathed a sigh of relief.  It has been a hard-fought battle to get this by-law even to the Committee table.  Back in early 2009 I brought forward a Notice of Motion to invite Council to consult with the community to see if there was an appetite to ban the use of cosmetic pesticides in Coquitlam.  The Notice of Motion was shot down with most of Council reporting that this ‘wasn’t our jurisdiction’, ‘personal property rights would be trampled’ or that ‘pesticides were safe’ and that ‘we needed them to ensure that children who were allergic to bees would not be compromised’.  These were the kinds of comments I heard back then.  Since that time I have been working diligently to educate Council and to persist in my efforts to get a cosmetic pesticide ban.

So this past Monday we had our first opportunity to actually sink our teeth into something that would help to educate Coquitlam residents about how to take care of their lawns and gardens without the use of potentially harmful chemicals….and we did sink our teeth into something akin to swiss cheese.  There were many holes in the proposed by-law half of the Standing Committee were not prepared to support what was before us so it has gone back to staff for reworking.

Here were my concerns:

• The proposed by-law  permit residents to get a pesticide use permit for “URGENT management of an infestation that THREATENS sensitive ecosystems, poses a SERIOUS environmental or economic loss to owner of land” provided alternatives were not available and a pest control expert verifies the issue.  Firstly, urgent, threatens and serious are all subjective experiences.   Secondly, getting verification from a pest control company that you are likely to hire to provide the pest control is a conflict of interest.  From my perspective we either have a pesticide ban or we don’t – it’s like being a little bit pregnant!
• The staff report noted that Coquitlam wanted to be in line with our neighbouring municipalities in order to cross promote that we are a pesticide free region.  I really like the idea, but none of our neighbours have a permitting process allowing people to spray potentially harmful chemicals on their lawns – I don’t think this puts us in line with our neighbours.
• The report also made some exceptions related to our Rose Gardens, sports fields and boulevard medians.  If we, as a city, are asking our residents to eliminate the use of potentially harmful chemicals, then we ought to be leading by example.  It is inappropriate for us to spray herbicides on our roses when an amateur gardener down the road has to use alternatives.  Additionally, we received a letter from the Canadian Cancer Society pointing out that our children are the most vulnerable population to pesticide exposure and for this reason we ought not to be using pesticides on our sports fields.
• When staff were asked to put together a by-law, one of the requests made by Council was progressive penalties for contravening the by-law – this was not included in the recommendation.
• Councillor Neal Nicholson pointed out that the details of the permitting process where not even included in the by-law but the specifics for how to apply pesticides should a permit be granted, were clearly laid out.  More details were needed in the by-law itself.

And yet…..

There were some things that I did think were valuable and I was fully prepared to support:

• Notifying Coquitlam businesses that sell pesticides about the by-law.  Given that staff proposed to require businesses that sell pesticides to post that Coquitlam has a pesticide ban at point of sale would help consumers make the decision to purchase alternative products.
• Educating our residents about safe alternatives to managing weeds and pests in their lawns and gardens
• Directing staff to prepare reports regarding median maintenance/renovation that eliminate the need to use pesticides

After much discussion, debate and a defeated vote to refer this back for fine tuning, the by-law wound up going back to staff anyway because there weren’t enough votes around the table to move it forward.

Stay tuned….the final chapter on this saga is yet to come.