Posts
26th
Mid Island may see glut of jobs as boomers retire
This is all well and good for the Forestry, Construction and health industries, all well paying jobs, but it should also be noted that more and more seniors have to work after so called retirement because they do not have e
Yes in the mentioned industries retirement may open up jobs but with the increasing number of seniors having to work they will enter other sectors for employment thus negating the above which could have a huge effect have to work somewhere and
City Log: Residents can expect hike in water. garbage rates
And so they raise water rates in part to pay for the new 65 million dollar water treatment plant. Gee and I thought the borrowing of 22 million was supposed to pay for it along with reserves. Wait a minute, I think I get it. The water rate increase will pay for the interest we pay on the 22 million borrowed.
Nov 24
Elections BC wants young people pre-registered to vote
This is a good idea that should have happened ages ago. Youth are the future and if there is anything that can be done to get them involved and better informed then just do it. Enough Talk.
Sampson group converts cash to shares in Harmac
A true Nanaimo success story and model that can be used elsewhere. Let’s hope the next time we hear that the employee-ownership model is still in place and hasn't been co-opted.
Philip Wolf: We can only hope for more from leaders
There are many reasons for poor voter turnout, the one I hear most often being that people just do not feel involved and that their voice means nothing even when they do try to get involved. This council must do more to reach out to the community and ensure people are given a chance to contribute. An ad or two in local papers does not constitute community engagement.
One open house info session on an issue like the Water Treatment Plant does not promote Community Engagement. Use of the Alternate Approval Process to steamroll the passing of certain things does not promote Community involvement. I sincerely hope that this council will do better when it comes to engaging the public, I know if they do not I will be there to remind them.
Debate over barn stirs up Harewood's agricultural past
If Nanaimo loses this building it will be yet another example of how little history is valued in the community. When the Convention Centre was announced we lost the Foundry which was one of the only such style of buildings left in the province. A few years prior the first School House in Nanaimo was torn down. Both were unnecessarily removed, the lots they sat on remain empty, and could have been preserved by the city. Gradually if we do not step up to save some of the more unique buildings Nanaimo’s historic value will be greatly diminished.
Editorial: Election laws uphold system
Well said.
Nov 23
North-end group set to keep up fight
Normally I would say getting people out to vote is a good thing and the CCN certainly got people out to vote. It is when it is done through spreading fear and mis-information, like the CCN did, that I question the rationale.
Perhaps some of those involved with the CCN would like to start up a Neighbouhood Group and get involved on a more positive note. Instead of spreading fear and misinformation look at inclusion and creating a welcoming neighbourhood. The South End Community Association is a good one to emulate.
Putting ideas into action at top of mayors agenda
"....that says to me Nanaimo is supportive of our projects in principal and want to see them continue." Do not take for granted that because you were re-elected the voters agree. Get out and ask them.
Friendship centre official lobbies for off-reserve plan
Nov 22
D/N
Five interesting oddities from the campaign trail
Crap and I thought sure my comment at Oliverwoods when they had the CCN'rs and vote panderers there would have made it into the strange and unusual. Not too often someone will step forward and tell an audience he is not going to kiss their ass for votes:).
That the CCN was able to get so many out by their message of fear and misinformation is but a sad postscript to the election of 2011.
Father questions VIHA on communications procedure
This is simply shameful on the part of VIHA. C’Dif is a highly contagious disease and relatively easy to transfer. “VIHA maintains children and their families were never put at risk.” Ludicrous and a potential disaster waiting to happen.
Its a bad idea to sell our water
This would have huge ramifications if done. As the population grows we will need more water not less.
Bulletin
BC wants teens signed up to vote
A good idea but will doing so increase voter turnout?
Improving communication with residents, establishing consensus key challenges for new council
This is a given but not simply for the North End but in communication throughout the city and on all issues. Currently the policy would seem to be to do the least possible to inform and invite community participation. This must change.
Shelter visits up as weather deteriorates
Unitl the new housing that has been proposed is built a shelter like the Unitarian is but a stop gap measure. It is important to understand that many of those using this shelter likely do not fit the criteria for your standard shelter in that they may be intoxicated or they may simply for whatever reason not choose to go to the Salvation Army or Samaritan House shelters. Yes they are primarily on the street during the day with many making use of the 7-10 Club until 10:00am or the library once it is open.
Editorial: Voters happy with council? Turn out didn't show it
Perhaps another reason for poor voter turnout is that we actually have three less poling stations since the 2005 election and of those we do have they keep changing some of the locations. If we really want to encourage voter turnout then we should have more places to vote and not less.
Nov 21
Ruttan prepares for the future after securing second term
Well said, HERE WE GO AGAIN and CHRIS. Even existing hoteliers are leery of the tax incentive and giving themselves a raise of 8+% per year for the next three years is ludicrous when compared to the raises, if any, for the average person. SHAME!
Our Mayor has mandate and experience
“So, John Ruttan has his mandate. He has the confidence of the electorate to stay the course on matters of taxation, economic development and social planning.”
I would really have to beg to differ with this statement, John Ruttan does not have a mandate at all. The pathetic turnout, no matter the reasons, of 26% of voters could just mean the exact opposite. It could simply mean that people are fed up and do not think their votes count for anything as they see council blindly moving forward with their own agenda and not one for the people.
So, why the poor showing? Perhaps the above is one reason but I would also hazard to guess that the continually moving, and eliminating of polling stations also has something to do with it. The removal of Bayview School in 2008 can be directly attributed to low voter turnout in that area. The distance to polling stations makes it extremely difficult for many seniors and others to make it out to vote.
Looking at the distance in many areas the only option for people is to take a bus, average of 1.5 hours round trip, or cab which many cannot afford. With the latter one would actually have to pay to vote and this is uncontainable. Instead of making it difficult the powers that be need to make voting accessible.
Low voter turnout sad epilogue
No doubt the CCN slate had an effect on the numbers of votes for all of the candidates they chose to support; the fortunate thing is that only two got elected.
Funny that I do not see the fact that there are 3 less polling stations, as compared to 2005, as a possible reason why the voter turnout was so bad. There should be more polling stations so as to make it walkable for the majority of voters.
Then again, like the communication process of the city, do the powers that be really want to encourage citizen participation?
Showing posts with label Water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Water. Show all posts
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Water Treatment Plant Borrowing Outcome
Below links to the result of the process for borrowing 22m for the water treatment plant. This was an A1 farce on nthe part of Council and the City.
Despite saying they would get the information to the public only one info session was held, approx 40 people showed up. I had asked at a council meeting if they would do a mail out and was told no. A couple of Councillors stated they would ensure that the community was well informed.
At the public meeting I asked the head of the legislative services why the Alternate Approval petition forms were not with the rest of the information and 3 times encouraged they be put there, they were not. The whole info session reminded me of the Conference Centre in that it was decidedly pro Water Treatment Facility.
It is no wonder that there were only 3 of us that signed the petition and the way the AAP is set up that means the balance of the population approx. 64,000, voting age, were in favour.
Sept. 3: 65 million dollar water treatment plant targeted for 2015 completion date
September 2: Only five opposed borrowing 22 M
Despite saying they would get the information to the public only one info session was held, approx 40 people showed up. I had asked at a council meeting if they would do a mail out and was told no. A couple of Councillors stated they would ensure that the community was well informed.
At the public meeting I asked the head of the legislative services why the Alternate Approval petition forms were not with the rest of the information and 3 times encouraged they be put there, they were not. The whole info session reminded me of the Conference Centre in that it was decidedly pro Water Treatment Facility.
It is no wonder that there were only 3 of us that signed the petition and the way the AAP is set up that means the balance of the population approx. 64,000, voting age, were in favour.
Sept. 3: 65 million dollar water treatment plant targeted for 2015 completion date
September 2: Only five opposed borrowing 22 M
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Non-Referendum
Another letter in the D/N today Offer residents choice in water treatment issue . This is really an issue people should latch on to but I am afraid that there is a lack of interest in pursuing the Alternate Approval requirement of gathering over 6 thousand signatures on petitions to defeat it.
The bulletin printed my last letter Referendum needed on water borrowing on Saturday and did a pretty good job with editing. Attaching link as well as text as for some reason, at least I believe it is still so, after a while the link no longer works. Text:
Re: No referendum on water borrowing, June 30.
OK, so it would appear the City of Nanaimo will likely be forced by VIHA and the province to move forward with a water treatment facility.
If, in fact, this is a given, and it is provincially mandated, then shouldn’t the province contribute at a minimum one-third of the costs?
A referendum on the long-term borrowing of more than $20 million by the taxpayers of Nanaimo is necessary and steamrolling borrowing through by the alternate approval process is not an option.
Why is a referendum necessary? For the simple fact that it gives all voting citizens the right to choose if borrowing is the best way to pay for the treatment plant.
Reserve funds in city coffers certainly exist and if also taken from other department streams should be able to pay for this without borrowing.
Instead of putting $16 million to a new City Hall annex, used by a few hundred employees, put that money toward the treatment plant which serves our more than 80,000 citizens.
Let the citizens decide through referendum whether we borrow.
If they say no, then look at other options and get it done. After all, 60,000 voters must carry some weight with the provincial and federal government and they would certainly carry weight municipally.
Here also are a couple of stories from the Bulletin
Council reverses water referendum plans, approves alternate approval process
Editorial: Referendum a better option
Letters July 5th:
Council has no trust in publics decision Jim Taylor
Referendum would allow for democracy Ron Bolin
Taxpayers deserve say on spending Gary Korpan Interesting seeing our former mayor writting about this. It was he who after all tried the same alternate approval process, which did fail, to acquire a parcel of land from the RDN to be brought into City limits for the Cable Bay project.
The bulletin printed my last letter Referendum needed on water borrowing on Saturday and did a pretty good job with editing. Attaching link as well as text as for some reason, at least I believe it is still so, after a while the link no longer works. Text:
Re: No referendum on water borrowing, June 30.
OK, so it would appear the City of Nanaimo will likely be forced by VIHA and the province to move forward with a water treatment facility.
If, in fact, this is a given, and it is provincially mandated, then shouldn’t the province contribute at a minimum one-third of the costs?
A referendum on the long-term borrowing of more than $20 million by the taxpayers of Nanaimo is necessary and steamrolling borrowing through by the alternate approval process is not an option.
Why is a referendum necessary? For the simple fact that it gives all voting citizens the right to choose if borrowing is the best way to pay for the treatment plant.
Reserve funds in city coffers certainly exist and if also taken from other department streams should be able to pay for this without borrowing.
Instead of putting $16 million to a new City Hall annex, used by a few hundred employees, put that money toward the treatment plant which serves our more than 80,000 citizens.
Let the citizens decide through referendum whether we borrow.
If they say no, then look at other options and get it done. After all, 60,000 voters must carry some weight with the provincial and federal government and they would certainly carry weight municipally.
Here also are a couple of stories from the Bulletin
Council reverses water referendum plans, approves alternate approval process
Editorial: Referendum a better option
Letters July 5th:
Council has no trust in publics decision Jim Taylor
Referendum would allow for democracy Ron Bolin
Taxpayers deserve say on spending Gary Korpan Interesting seeing our former mayor writting about this. It was he who after all tried the same alternate approval process, which did fail, to acquire a parcel of land from the RDN to be brought into City limits for the Cable Bay project.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Referendum reversal
Letter to editor below from Ron Bolin re the reversal of the referendum. Ron is well known for his letters which dig for and present the facts. Lately he has been getting a tad bit more descriptive, coming from the heart, and put out some pretty good stuff.
Reversing referendum sign of weak council
Reversing referendum sign of weak council
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Treatment Plant bullshit
In one of the most asinine decisions Nanaimo City council has made, the convention centre ranks right up there, a majority of council chose to reverse the decision for a referendum on borrowing millions for its proposed water treatment plant in favour of a process that is almost guaranteed to ensure their wish that the city go further in hock to money lenders than it already is.
For those who are unaware the process chosen is the Alternate Approval Process, a process where if you do not specifically vote no you are deemed to be voting yes. In order for a no vote to win 10% of voters, approx. 6600, must vote no. This is by means no easy task as it takes a huge commitment of time and energy and volunteers to collect that many signatures. A referendum on the other hand is won by a simple majority of those choosing to vote, those that don't so choose simply do not count.
Councillor Holdom and Mayor Ruttan keep reiterating that because we are being mandated to build the plant then we need to move forward with this. What they are not saying is that a referendum would in no way impact the building of the plant just how we go about accessing the money to do so.
After the news stories and letters below I have included a link to the council meeting. Unfortunately a fair part of my comment during question period was cut off when SHAW stopped recording. To hear my comment scroll to the end and then back a couple of minutes.
June 28, 2011
Daily News
Loan referendum on Nanaimo water plant reversed
Paul Walton: VIHAs the risk not our water
Letters
Let citizens decide on borrowing in referendum
Risks to life and limb are costing taxpayers a lot
Council meeting Video.
http://www.nanaimo.ca/CouncilMeetings/VideoArchive.aspx?clip=C110627V
For those who are unaware the process chosen is the Alternate Approval Process, a process where if you do not specifically vote no you are deemed to be voting yes. In order for a no vote to win 10% of voters, approx. 6600, must vote no. This is by means no easy task as it takes a huge commitment of time and energy and volunteers to collect that many signatures. A referendum on the other hand is won by a simple majority of those choosing to vote, those that don't so choose simply do not count.
Councillor Holdom and Mayor Ruttan keep reiterating that because we are being mandated to build the plant then we need to move forward with this. What they are not saying is that a referendum would in no way impact the building of the plant just how we go about accessing the money to do so.
After the news stories and letters below I have included a link to the council meeting. Unfortunately a fair part of my comment during question period was cut off when SHAW stopped recording. To hear my comment scroll to the end and then back a couple of minutes.
June 28, 2011
Daily News
Loan referendum on Nanaimo water plant reversed
Paul Walton: VIHAs the risk not our water
Letters
Let citizens decide on borrowing in referendum
Risks to life and limb are costing taxpayers a lot
Council meeting Video.
http://www.nanaimo.ca/CouncilMeetings/VideoArchive.aspx?clip=C110627V
Friday, June 24, 2011
More on Water Treatment in Nanaimo
More links to storys and letters below as well as to the City of Nanaimo's Water information page. Just sent the following letter to the editor in;
Okay, so it would appear that the City of Nanaimo will likely be forced by VIHA, a.k.a. the province, to move forward with a Water Treatment facility. If in fact this is a given, and it is provincially mandated, then shouldn't the Province contribute at a minimum one third of the costs?
Despite what Councillor Holdom and Mayor Ruttan say, a referendum on the long term borrowing of over 20 million dollars by the taxpayers of Nanaimo is necessary and steamrolling borrowing through by the Alternate Approval process is not an option. Why is a referendum necessary? For the simple fact that it gives all voting citizens the right to choose if borrowing is the best way to pay for the treatment plant.
Reserve funds in City coffers certainly exist and if also taken from other department streams should be able to pay for this without borrowing. Instead of putting 16 million to a new City Hall Annex, used by a few hundred employees, put that money towards the treatment plant which serves our over 80,000 citizens.
The point I am trying to make is let the citizens decide through referendum whether we borrow. If they say no then look at other options and get it done. After all 60,000 voters must carry some weight with the provincial and federal government and they would certainly carry weight municipally.
Letters D/N:
Dr. Murray Fyfe, The Daily News
Published: Friday, June 24, 2011
Water quality rules apply to entire province
By Dan Appell, The Daily News June 23, 2011
First save the money then build the plant
Editorial:
The Daily News
Published: Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Water project referendum is just absurd
News Storys:
Council must comply with regulations
Derek Spalding, The Daily News
Published: Friday, June 24, 2011
Nanaimo drinking water may not be as safe as people think
Pair absent from decision to approve public vote on borrowing $22.5 million want to reconsider decision
Derek Spalding, The Daily News
Published: Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Councillor condemns water referendum as nonsensical
Water treatment plant makes up biggest chunk of Nanaimo's construction costs
By Derek Spalding, The Daily News June 21, 2011
New buildings will cost city 85 million
This story seems to be inaccessible through the daily news website so any comments made cannot be seem.
City of Nanaimo – Water Treatment info
http://www.nanaimo.ca/EN/main/departments/Engineering-Public-Works/13038/WaterQualityTreatment.html
Okay, so it would appear that the City of Nanaimo will likely be forced by VIHA, a.k.a. the province, to move forward with a Water Treatment facility. If in fact this is a given, and it is provincially mandated, then shouldn't the Province contribute at a minimum one third of the costs?
Despite what Councillor Holdom and Mayor Ruttan say, a referendum on the long term borrowing of over 20 million dollars by the taxpayers of Nanaimo is necessary and steamrolling borrowing through by the Alternate Approval process is not an option. Why is a referendum necessary? For the simple fact that it gives all voting citizens the right to choose if borrowing is the best way to pay for the treatment plant.
Reserve funds in City coffers certainly exist and if also taken from other department streams should be able to pay for this without borrowing. Instead of putting 16 million to a new City Hall Annex, used by a few hundred employees, put that money towards the treatment plant which serves our over 80,000 citizens.
The point I am trying to make is let the citizens decide through referendum whether we borrow. If they say no then look at other options and get it done. After all 60,000 voters must carry some weight with the provincial and federal government and they would certainly carry weight municipally.
Letters D/N:
Dr. Murray Fyfe, The Daily News
Published: Friday, June 24, 2011
Water quality rules apply to entire province
By Dan Appell, The Daily News June 23, 2011
First save the money then build the plant
Editorial:
The Daily News
Published: Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Water project referendum is just absurd
News Storys:
Council must comply with regulations
Derek Spalding, The Daily News
Published: Friday, June 24, 2011
Nanaimo drinking water may not be as safe as people think
Pair absent from decision to approve public vote on borrowing $22.5 million want to reconsider decision
Derek Spalding, The Daily News
Published: Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Councillor condemns water referendum as nonsensical
Water treatment plant makes up biggest chunk of Nanaimo's construction costs
By Derek Spalding, The Daily News June 21, 2011
New buildings will cost city 85 million
This story seems to be inaccessible through the daily news website so any comments made cannot be seem.
City of Nanaimo – Water Treatment info
http://www.nanaimo.ca/EN/main/departments/Engineering-Public-Works/13038/WaterQualityTreatment.html
Monday, June 20, 2011
Water Treatment: To Be or Not To Be
Letters and newspaper storys regarding the Water Treatment Plant and upcoming referendum during the municipal election in November.
The biggest question is do we really need a 65 Million Dollar Water Treatment Plant? Also what would VIHA really do if the city decided not to build one? If VIHA revokes the city's water permit would that mean the City no longer can provide water to its citizens? I personally think not and council should have the cohones to say NO and accept the consequences.
Another pertinent issue in this is why did the Feds and Province not commit to a three way split on the costs and how can we get them to do so if we go forward with the project.
I belong to a group called Vancouver Island Water Watch Coalition and will endeavour to gather more information. www.vancouverislandwaterwatchcoalition.ca
Couple comments of mine below in red.
LETTERS
Ron Bolin, The Daily News
Published: Friday, June 17, 2011
Council was right to choose referendum
Gordon W. Fuller, The Daily News
Published: Saturday, June 18, 2011
People need answers about treatment plant
Gary Joseph Chandler, The Daily News
Published: Saturday, June 18, 2011
Pay for water plant now, not in future
Don’t really know what to make of this one. On the one hand it seems like he is for the borrowing and then states he will be voting no to the borrowing.
NEWS STORIES
Derek Spalding, The Daily News
Published: Thursday, June 16, 2011
Not borrowing for water plan will mean much higher rates
Derek Spalding, The Daily News
Published: Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Health authority is forcing the city to upgrade water treatment; council must decide how to pay for it
Voters will decide on $22.5million loan for new water plant
EDITORIAL
The Daily News
Published: Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Water project referendum not necessary
BULLETIN
By Toby Gorman - Nanaimo News BulletinPublished: June 14, 2011 5:00 PM
Nanaimo plans referendum on 22.5 million loan for water treatment facility
Toby Gorman - Nanaimo News BulletinPublished: June 18, 2011 6:00 AM
More expensive projects loom for Nanaimo
An interesting story considering Oliver Woods Community Centre, briefly mentioned, is just a couple years old. If I recall correctly it has already had to have some deficiencies with leaky windows dealt with.
Published: June 16, 2011 8:00 AM
Editorial: City spending need thought
The biggest question is do we really need a 65 Million Dollar Water Treatment Plant? Also what would VIHA really do if the city decided not to build one? If VIHA revokes the city's water permit would that mean the City no longer can provide water to its citizens? I personally think not and council should have the cohones to say NO and accept the consequences.
Another pertinent issue in this is why did the Feds and Province not commit to a three way split on the costs and how can we get them to do so if we go forward with the project.
I belong to a group called Vancouver Island Water Watch Coalition and will endeavour to gather more information. www.vancouverislandwaterwatchcoalition.ca
Couple comments of mine below in red.
LETTERS
Ron Bolin, The Daily News
Published: Friday, June 17, 2011
Council was right to choose referendum
Gordon W. Fuller, The Daily News
Published: Saturday, June 18, 2011
People need answers about treatment plant
Gary Joseph Chandler, The Daily News
Published: Saturday, June 18, 2011
Pay for water plant now, not in future
Don’t really know what to make of this one. On the one hand it seems like he is for the borrowing and then states he will be voting no to the borrowing.
NEWS STORIES
Derek Spalding, The Daily News
Published: Thursday, June 16, 2011
Not borrowing for water plan will mean much higher rates
Derek Spalding, The Daily News
Published: Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Health authority is forcing the city to upgrade water treatment; council must decide how to pay for it
Voters will decide on $22.5million loan for new water plant
EDITORIAL
The Daily News
Published: Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Water project referendum not necessary
BULLETIN
By Toby Gorman - Nanaimo News BulletinPublished: June 14, 2011 5:00 PM
Nanaimo plans referendum on 22.5 million loan for water treatment facility
Toby Gorman - Nanaimo News BulletinPublished: June 18, 2011 6:00 AM
More expensive projects loom for Nanaimo
An interesting story considering Oliver Woods Community Centre, briefly mentioned, is just a couple years old. If I recall correctly it has already had to have some deficiencies with leaky windows dealt with.
Published: June 16, 2011 8:00 AM
Editorial: City spending need thought
Friday, June 17, 2011
Referendum: Borrowing to build Water Treatment Facility
This issue just cropped up at a recent council meeting. Originally City Staff wanted to use the Alternative Approval Process; 10% of voters, over 6000, would have to vote against the borrowing in order for it to be defeated. This process sucks as even if one were not to vote either way it would be assumed as a vote for.
Fortunately council voted in favour of sending it to Referendum: simple majority of those voting on the issue determines whether the City borrows tyhe money or not.
Sent the following letter today:
I really have to question not only the rationale of borrowing money for but of the water treatment plant itself. Do we really need this plant; is a water treatment plant really the only option? Is it in fact a necessary piece of infrastructure? Is the city only proposing the building of a water treatment plant because the Vancouver Island Health Authority has told us we must?
How many other cities have been TOLD to build water treatment plants by VIHA and how many of these are complying? In the last 10 or 20 years how many water advisory notices have gone out to residents of the City of Nanaimo and how many of these have been boil water advisories?
If these plants are so necessary then why are higher levels of government not funding the total package instead of expecting the citizens of Nanaimo to come up with 73% of the cost? What is the penalty if we do not follow the mandate of VIHA?
I will readily admit to being an activist but ‘Cranky’ I think not. I believe there are many questions that need answers. I also believe the taxpayers of Nanaimo deserve straight answers to these questions and not the bafflegab we are used to getting from the powers that be.
Fortunately council voted in favour of sending it to Referendum: simple majority of those voting on the issue determines whether the City borrows tyhe money or not.
Sent the following letter today:
I really have to question not only the rationale of borrowing money for but of the water treatment plant itself. Do we really need this plant; is a water treatment plant really the only option? Is it in fact a necessary piece of infrastructure? Is the city only proposing the building of a water treatment plant because the Vancouver Island Health Authority has told us we must?
How many other cities have been TOLD to build water treatment plants by VIHA and how many of these are complying? In the last 10 or 20 years how many water advisory notices have gone out to residents of the City of Nanaimo and how many of these have been boil water advisories?
If these plants are so necessary then why are higher levels of government not funding the total package instead of expecting the citizens of Nanaimo to come up with 73% of the cost? What is the penalty if we do not follow the mandate of VIHA?
I will readily admit to being an activist but ‘Cranky’ I think not. I believe there are many questions that need answers. I also believe the taxpayers of Nanaimo deserve straight answers to these questions and not the bafflegab we are used to getting from the powers that be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)