Thank you to everyone who ran and did their bit in giving voters choice, no matter what that choice they offered voters was, and thank you to all those who supported my campaign however you did (volunteering, donating, or voting for me).

I believe the challenge for our newly elected Council is to engage the public in such a way that three years from now we have a lot more than 20% of people voting. Had I won and about 20% voted I wouldn’t be any much happier than having lost and about 20% of people voting. My goal was to reach out to that approximately 80% of voters that didn’t vote last time, and that 80% not voting again is my failure, and it’s a failure shared amongst all the candidates. Is it the fault of the candidates? The electoral system? The media? The way campaigns are run? Was it too nasty and it turned people off, or was it the reverse and people weren’t concerned enough to get out to the polls? This is the question I am asking myself, and this is the question we must all wrestle with I believe. Our democracy will not be healthy if every local government election is fought over trying to win a majority of 20% of voters.

Remembrance Day for me is about remembering the horrors of war, suffered by both combatants and civilians. It’s also a time to reflect on the freedoms that were secured for us in those times of strife. As many Canadians do, given a total of 1.8 million Canadian soldiers served in the two world wars, I have a personal connection to them in my family tree. This connection is part of why I find myself running for office in this election.

My great grandfather served in Canada’s military in the first World War. I never had the opportunity to know him, unfortunatley, he died shortly before I was born. I’m told he would never talk about his experiences after he came back and, given he served as a medic in horrific battles such as Passchendaele, who could blame him. Even though I’m generally a pacifist, I was proud to know he was willing to put himself in harm’s way to help others, and he was decorated for his bravery.

My grandfather was in Canada’s navy in the second world war, serving on one of Canada’s two aircraft carriers. He and I shared many years and many good times together before he passed away. Like my great grandfather he didn’t like to talk about his experiences very often, but every now and then he would. I was always thankful for these times because war is something hard for a pacifist to understand, and someone who doesn’t understand something is not in a good position to pass judgement on it.

I think it’s possible to hate war, yet still honour those who sacrifice themselves so we can be free. That was definitely the role my grandfather found himself in, in World War II. With the horrors of the first world war still fresh in their minds, these were not lads galavanting off on what they thought would be a grande adventure full of romance and bravery: these were people knowing they were going into the meatgrinder for those they loved back at home.

Hearing stories such as my grandfather having a fellow serviceman be struck by a bullet and fall down a set of stairs only to land on top on my grandpa really brought things to life for me. Even as a kid, these stories were more frightening than “cool’, and they brought to life the dangers he experienced on my behalf in addition to being a chilling reminder that my grandfather was lucky to make it back at all. Hearing these stories as a child, Knowing that they went through these horrors so that we could be free, I was filled with an undying belief that we should do all we can to make the most of the freedom we have.

As I matured, I never lost that belief that things can be better, or the desire to make it happen. But more than anything, I never forgot that my grandfather and so many others risked and sacrificed and, in many cases, died so that we could be free and that the best way we could honour them was by making the most of that freedom.

Whenever I see an abuse of democracy, I feel it’s disrespectful to our veterans who gave so much. What honours veterans more, a park or an arena in their name, or taking the freedom they secured for us and making our democracy all it can be? For me, there’s no question what my grandfather wanted, and I feel in some small way by getting involved in politics I am honouring his memory.

Some claim democracy isn’t efficient enough, but it’s important to understand that it never was meant to be; it was meant to be just. The democratic process isn’t the most efficient, nor should it be, but it is the fairest to the largest number, the largest percentage of the time. I think anything we can do as citizens that works towards making our community, and our nation, more democratic honours the Canadians who served this country more profoundly than anything else ever could.

There is a province-wide movement afoot amongst candidates for local government to endorse the forthcoming referendum next may on reforming the provincial voting system, by adopting the BC-STV proportional voting system. I’m pleased to support this movement as I approving BC-STV is the best thing we could do for improving accountability at the provincial level. STV is used at the local level in many parts of the world (Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, and elsewhere) and is worth looking at as an alternative voting system for municipal elections in the future, too.

For Immediate Release
November 6, 2008

12 municipal candidates declare support for B.C. electoral reform

Vancouver, BC – Twelve civic candidates from across British Columbia have publicly declared their support for electoral reform, and in particular for the proposed British Columbia Single Transferable Vote (BC-STV) system. This multi-partisan group includes candidates from across the province, such as members of Vancouver’s Non-Partisan Association (NPA), Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE), and Green Party; Richmond’s Independent Team of Electors (RITE); Victoria’s Green Party; and numerous other independents. The movement is also supported by directors from the NDP, federal Conservatives, BC Liberals, and BC Greens.

“Change is sweeping across North America, but taking a public stand for change can be difficult,” said Damian Kettlewell, organizer for I Vote Municipally for Candidates Who Support the Citizens’ Assembly. “From Kamloops to Victoria, from the heart of the city to the suburbs of Vancouver, we have identified twelve candidates who will voice their support for a more democratic, proportional electoral system: the Single Transferable Vote (STV). We encourage voters to engage with the twelve candidates: volunteer, donate and campaign for these candidates who support change. As well, we are encouraging voters to respectfully contact anti-STV civic candidates and thoughtfully suggest to them that they consider supporting electoral reform.

“Voter turn-out rates are declining throughout most of Canada, and apathy is becoming an unsettling problem. B.C.’s Citizens’ Assembly has proposed a new voting system, and considering that B.C. is often a catalyst for change, we feel the time is right for democracy to evolve in our province. It is time to embrace BC-STV.”

List of municipal candidates who support BC-STV:

Vancouver – Ellen Woodsworth ~ ellenwoodsworth.com
Vancouver – Michael Geller ~ michaelgeller.ca
Richmond – Michael Wolfe ~ voterite.ca
Coquitlam – Fin Donnelly ~ votefin.com
Coquitlam – Neal Nicholson
Coquitlam – Richard Stewart ~ richardformayor.com
Electoral Area A (UBC) – Ben West ~ votebenwest.ca
Victoria – Sonya Chandler ~ www.vicgreens.com
Langford – Steven Hurdle ~ stevenhurdle.ca
Esquimalt – Norman Swan
Kamloops – Arjun Singh ~ yourkamloops.com
Kelowna – Angela Reid ~ angelareid.ca

Anti-STV municipal candidates:
Vancouver – Andrea Reimer ~ andreareimer.ca

- end -

Background

The BC-STV electoral system was developed and recommended by the non-partisan, 158-person Citizens’ Assembly in 2004 and achieved 58% support in a referendum question in the 2005 provincial election. The question will be posed to B.C. voters again in May 2009, and requires 60% support to succeed. The B.C. Single Transferable Vote system reflects the following three values: (1) fairness, (2) better local representation and (3) more voter choice, and is best explained at: http://www.stv.ca/watch . Proponents of BC-STV feel that our current system for electing politicians (first past the post) does not reflect those values as effectively.

For more information:

Damian Kettlewell
Organizer, I Vote Municipally for Candidates Who Support the Citizens’ Assembly
(778) 840-8049
damian.kettlewell@gmail.com

The Times Colonist article on the Langford election is available on their web site, for those who didn’t read it when it hit news stands. It’s worth a read, and I get a few mentions as does our mayor. I’m not perfectly happy with it, and neither will the mayor be I expect, so I guess that means T-C reporter Bill Cleverley did his job well.

The following letter was requested by Michael McCormick of the Hidden Valley Seniors Manufactured Home Park Residents Association. I’m providing here my response here, for anyone it’s of interest to.

======================================

Hi Michael, thank you for taking the time to contacting me.

I have a deep history in Langford, having resided here for 19 years, starting when I moved here with my family when I was 16. Shortly after I bought my home near downtown Langford we had the blizzard of ‘96. During that crisis many people called CFAX asking for help, and some people called CFAX offering to provide help. I was amongst those who called and offered my help, and I walked in snow that was at times up to my thighs as I trekked all over Langford, from a hobby farm on Selwyn to Hidden Valley. When at Hidden Valley, I shoveled snow off of several manufactured homes before making the trek home. This was my introduction to Langford’s manufactured home parks, and the strong sense of community that exists within them. I was warmly invited into the community, offered tremendous hospitality, and they clearly articulated their appreciation of my contribution.

In my community involvement I have noted that, despite the passage of the Manufactured Home Redevelopment Assistance Policy, there is still anxiety amongst residents of the parks. I think this anxiety is telling, and signifies to me that more needs to be done. It’s not enough to protect people’s homes, people must *feel* that those homes are protected so they can feel safe and comfortable without fear or worry or losing them. A home you’re constantly worried about will feel more like a house than a home. We also have to consider that the parks are not merely individual homes, they are a community and any policy has to be predicated on the idea that transplanting it in part or in whole, such as moving them from one side of the highway to another for example, can hurt people even if the roof over their head is protected.

I support the current Manufactured Home Redevelopment Assistance Policy, and I would work towards ensuring enforcement of it. It is on the implementation side that we have seen problems with policies in Langford before. An example is that there was Langford Council’s promise to protect 52% of Hull’s Field (which was documented in the minutes of a Council meeting), but anyone who has been there recently can see that far less than 52% remains. That creates a credibility gap, and unfortunately the Manufactured Home Redevelopment Assistance Policy is not yet tested and we do not know how deep the political will to enforce it runs. The talk about moving Tri-Way to the other side of the highway, and some of the zonings applied to the parks in the recent Official Community Plan, raise further questions about whether the political will is there at present to enforce it.

I would not only enforce the current Manufactured Home policy, but I would enforce it with an eye to protecting the communities that exist in the parks, so that ties of friendship and neighbourhood are protected as well as individuals and their homes are protected. I would additionally look to enforce the policy guided by my understanding that it’s not enough just to ensure that residents of the parks get fair market value for their homes if they are forced to move, but that the goal is to proect their homes, and in their current places. I sometimes hear people refer to the parks as mere affordable housing, as a place where people end up when they have no other options, and I find this is upsetting because in fact they are communities that people choose to live in and they deserve respect just as much as they deserve protection. When shoveling snow off of the tops of trailers (as the residents called them at the time in 1996) I talked to friendly people who cared about their neighbours and their neighbours’ homes, whereas I lived in a single family dwelling in a residential street and knew fewer of my neighbours than they did, and I wasn’t at all sure I had the better half of the deal.

If elected to Langford Council, I would advocate for another change to the policy. At present the onus is on the residents to prove they don’t want to move, which requires the residents to get organised and to fight for their homes. On Council I would advocate for reversing this, and I would expect the park owners to do the work and to prove that the residents *do not* object to the park being rezoned, resettled, or redeveloped. At present the current policy forces residents to become their own advocates, sometimes difficult for people who are old, or infirm, people who have mobility impairment, or people with other challenges. The current situation, when an application for rezoning or redeveloping a park is made, also creates a period of stress where people have to wonder and doubt whether they will be able to adequately muster their forces to fight to save their homes, a worry residents of single family dwellings almost never have to fear. In fact, if someone is sick and in the hospital and unable to represent themselves or sign a petition, they would effectively be counted as a “yes” vote in favour of rezoning or redeveloping the park merely because they are unable to say “no”! Reversing this would reduce the stress and doubt that I hear from manufactured home owners about the future of their parks, as they would know it can only be sold if residents want it to, and that inaction on the part of a resident (who may or may not be able to advocate for themselves) isn’t seen by the park owner or by City Hall as tacit agreement in rezoning, resettling (moving), or redeveloping the park. While some may argue it’s a small change to the current policy, I think it’s an important change as it not only provides additional protection for the manufactured home parks, it shows a greater degree of respect for the residents of the parks and that the parks are communities and not just groups of homes.

I hope this informs you as to how I feel on the policy, and why I feel that way. I apologise if it was long and wordy at times, but this is an issue I feel very passionately about. I also took the liberty of sharing my idea of reversing the onus on who must demonstrate that park residents are in favour of a rezoning with some other candidates who I believed would be inclined to support it, and if they contact you expressing their support I hope that you would consider adding that to their submissions to you. Please contact me if you have any other questions.

Steven Hurdle

Opening the Doors to City Hall:

I believe that more citizens would get involved in their local government if they knew enough about the issues facing their community, and to that end I would advocate for a collection of reforms, including:

- increasing the accessibility of content on Langford’s website, as the search function at present is not adequate

- making all of Langford’s bylaws available on the website, not just some of them

- retaining agendas on the website (at the present time, agendas are removed when a meeting occurs and some of the attached documents are never made available on the website again)

- introducing rules governing how community input is recorded in the minutes of public meetings, to end the perception in the public that sometimes one side is favoured over another in the minutes of Council and committee meetings

- working towards ensuring all documents generated by City Hall staff are included in meeting agendas and minutes in their original form, not “scanned in” rendering them unsearchable

- making already publically available financial records available on Langford’s website, in a dated and easily searchable format (currently, many of these are only available in paper form during office hours at City Hall)

Inviting People In:

At present, members of the community speaking before Langford Council and Langford’s committees are required to give their full name and address before being allowed to speak. This practice is being seen as increasingly unacceptable as this is intimidating for many members of the public, especially when speaking to contentious issues. It’s also worth noting that, in an age of identity theft, people understandably don’t want their full name and address appearing in meeting minutes on Langford’s website, and law enforcement agencies now recommend people give out personal information as infrequently as possible, especially in public and on the internet. I would advocate for ending this increasingly controversial practice by recomending people only give their name and their neighbourhood of residence for non-contentious discussions. Where verification of Langford residency is required, speakers before Langford Council could in addition be asked to submit their name and address for verification on a piece of paper, with that information being retained by City Hall but the address not appearing in the minutes. I believe this would go a long way to creating a more welcoming environment for the public in interacting with their local government.

Ensuring Consistent Quality in Environmental Assessments:

There have been questions within the community as to whether environmental assessments have been appropriately done in the past. We’ve also seen new guidelines brought in with the new Official Community Plan that in some situations allow landowners proposing developments or rezonings to choose their own biologists, potentially opening up the system to further variations from one development to the next as to the quality of their environmental assessments. I would work towards harmonising these by proposing that an independent and credible third party select one or more respected environmental research firms, and work towards all environmental assessments (publically and privately paid for) be performed by one of the firms on the resultant list. This would establish a consistent level of quality in environmental assessments, thus restoring public confidence in those assessments. This would reduce the likelihood of developers, or other businesses, having the public question their environmental assessments and, in so doing, may reduce public opposition to their proposals.

All current councillors except Coun. John Goudy are seeking re-election. Throwing their hats in the ring too are Steven Hurdle, Herman Surkis and Michael Mortimore, all who took Langford to task on its new official community plan earlier this year.

Hurdle in particular squared off against council when he organized a petition calling for a referendum on borrowing money for the Spencer interchange. Hurdle collected 2,250 signatures from Langford residents.

Many residents in Langford say council doesn’t listen to citizen concerns and often appears to make decisions with little public discussion, Hurdle said.

“Since (the petition) many people have asked me to run. Almost every day somebody mentions it,” Hurdle said. “What I discovered a lot feel ignored, a lot don’t feel listened to

“I think the public is ready for discussion and debate at Langford council,” he said. “I think people are willing to vote for that.”

John Goudy is the only councillor not seeking re-election in Langford, where Mayor Stew Young runs a no-bones about it, pro-development municipality.

The popular Young has been acclaimed.

While condos are still being built and ribbons of red interlocking brick sidewalk continue to spread throughout the municipality, not everybody is happy with the pace of growth in Langford. The municipality had to call in extra RCMP this spring to clear out protesters taking to the treetops in opposition to the Spencer Road interchange now under construction.

And Langford’s plans to borrow money on behalf of private landowners wanting the interchange sparked a mock counter-petition led by Steven Hurdle. Hurdle, an active council watcher for months, is among 14 looking to get elected to one of six council positions.