|
I suppose one of a columnist's abiding aims is to be provocative, getting people to talk about his ideas and viewpoints.
Jeff Rezansoff in his April 26 column "Are Christians still crusading?" certainly struck a provocative note. There he made thinly veiled suggestions that 21st century Christians are undertaking a new worldwide mission to spread ... well, he doesn't quite say what. Democracy? Free market capitalism? He observes that since the Vatican seems to have lost its bloodlust — and Pope Benedict XVI is calling for such quaint things as freedom, hope and the protection of human life — other world leaders have stepped into the role of aggressively expanding the borders of Christendom. Provocative he might be, but a little more even-handedness would lend Rezansoff's thesis some needed plausibility. The leaps of logic are astonishing; he implies that, because of 700-year-old events like the Crusades, Christians today have lost the right to speak on moral issues; or, because other religions and sects get publicity for various reasons, Christians today feel marginalized. Rezansoff ends with a claim that has no ostensible connection to the foregoing: that many Christians speculate on and question the motivations of other faiths. In response I say let's focus the discussion. We don't need sweeping and unproven statements about the various ills of Christendom. Since this is apparently what ignited the column in the first place, let's just talk about the message that Pope Benedict brought to America: When does human life begin? How can we as humans deal with our past mistakes? And how can we move forward in hope?
Reuben Bredenhof, St. Albert
City council operating Servus Place poorly
Since moving to St. Albert over 11 years ago, our family has grown to love the lifestyle and amenities of our new hometown. One thing that we haven’t enjoyed is the near-sighted political leadership of the city council of one of the richest areas in Alberta. Case in point is the Servus Credit Union Place debacle.
If I have my facts straight a new recreation complex for the St. Albert region was proposed many years ago. But because all the political powers of the day couldn’t play nicely with each other, St. Albert decided to go it alone and build its own complex.
A vote was held as to whether we needed to spend millions of St. Albert taxpayer dollars on the new facility. The vote passed by the slimmest of margins and construction began. Cost over-runs ensued and a facility with serious growing pains was born. This facility added close to two hundred dollars to my already hefty annual tax bill for a decade to come.
The city began to run Servus Place promising that it would soon break even or at worst incur a small deficit. Only a year into its life this council and taxpayers are now faced with millions of additional dollars of debt with no promise of breaking even — ever!
Once again city council voted in favour of saddling the residents of St. Albert with those millions of dollars of debt in the form of another property tax increase. In effect council has mandated I pay more for something I voted against in the first place. But those folks living outside St. Albert have access to Servus Place without paying for it via two property tax assessments.
Perhaps Servus Place should not have been built and operated by our civic leaders. If a private company had operated the facility in such a manner, the company would be out of business by now. But here in St. Albert the leadership can just take out an ad in the local papers — no doubt paid for by the city coffers — to apologize and then go back to the public’s pockets for continued bail-outs. What a poor way to operate a multi-million dollar corporation. No wonder new families find St. Albert too costly to move into.
I can’t decide whether it is shame on city council for its short-sighted naiveté or shame on me for rolling over and taking it.
Fools abound
St. Albert need not tolerate its fools lightly. ‘Your Views’ demonstrates that with the fools who think those who find the Servus Place a travesty of planning and management should leave.
However, maybe the fools should be the ones to move. It is evidenced by letter writers such as Abe Preisinger, who admits in his opening statement to the Gazette that he doesn’t know enough "to make intelligent comments." Gazette readers would benefit by the absence of his ritual foolishness.
According to Preisinger, you take on about $45 million debt to pay for a facility that returns you a loss of over $2 million annually with few, if any, prospects of that balance changing to the plus side. In addition, the facility he now calls our asset has no readily determined market value or future benefit.
Current and past council members and city planners join him in his ignorance. We have those like Coun. Len Bracko bemoaning the fact that there is little entry, low-cost and seniors’ housing. His answer is to have those who occupy any affordable housing that does exist subsidize Servus Place.
Who should move? Obviously our finances would be better if we had never been blessed with the ignorance, personal ambition and casual indifference of some executives of the city, much of the current and past council and the illogical, arrogant and prejudicial Preisinger.
Daily rate at Servus Place is too high for most people
Regarding the fees at the leisure centre. The fee, whether it be the daily or monthly, allows a user access to the whole facility.
My three children use the leisure centre quite frequently, especially during the winter months. I usually buy them a monthly pass and in late December there was an option of buying three months and getting a fourth month for free. This was a great deal and needless to say I took advantage of it. The monthly fees are a good deal because it only takes going to the leisure centre three to five times in a month and it is paid for. The children will typically go twice a week so it really pays for itself even if they only use one part of the facility.
The fee that I consider to be too expensive is the daily fee. I believe the average user only uses one part of the facility on any given visit; be it the pool, gym or exercise room. I understand that the concept of the facility is to encourage health and wellness through frequent visits, thus the great price on the monthly or even the yearly fees.
However, if a person is not a member and occasionally wants to take their youngster swimming or if the children have the passes and occasionally the parent wants to swim with the child, or if you have relatives/friends come from out of town and you would like to take them for a swim, then the daily fee is much too high. To pay $9 for an adult swim, $6 for a teen and $4 for a child is too expensive to only be there for maybe an hour and a half.
The wrist bands that the facility has incorporated is a good idea but I wonder if they couldn't have a different colour band to indicate single use, single area access. I'm sure that there have been lots of people who have been discouraged, including myself, from using the facility occasionally because of the high cost involved. I will not pay $9 to occasionally go swimming.
As a whole, I am in favour of the leisure centre for this community. We really needed it and personal health and wellness should be a high priority for everyone, especially the children. We really need to get them away from the TV, computers and video games and force them to get fresh air and/or exercise. The schools can only do so much. The rest of it is up to the parents.
St. Albert lacks a credible community league soccer program
This letter is in response to that written by Travis Richardson, "Public needs to lighten up on volunteer-run SASA."
The St. Albert Soccer Association (SASA) is hardly a volunteer-run organization. It is run by paid employees (five at last count), for which we pay dearly. Our community soccer players (U12 to U18) now pay the highest fees in Alberta. Much larger soccer associations in the Edmonton area run their programs with fewer employees because they encourage or even require a greater level of volunteer participation. SASA chooses not to implement such a program. In the numerous seasons that I have coached community soccer, volunteers have been requested in only two areas: help at registration and coaching (each coach retains up to 18 registrations).
Perhaps the reason that the Impact program is so refreshing is that it is well-organized, well run and encourages consistency in team structure and player participation from season to season. Perks, like paid mentor coaches and Riel fields that community players pay for, but cannot access, must help. All of this probably allows for a greater sense of accomplishment, player development and a more rewarding volunteer experience. None of this, however, is available to players in the community system. This organization does not fulfil basic league requirements such as rescheduling rainouts, keeping standings up to date or addressing questions and concerns from its membership, so I don’t see how anyone could suggest that the community program is its main focus. In fact, if we were to judge SASA by its vision and mission statements alone, this organization has been failing the vast majority of its members for a considerable time.
I was at the annual general meeting, and a parent that attempted to provide his input — a legitimate concern about the deficits this organization runs despite high registration fees and considerable savings — was drummed out of the place followed by a shameful display of contempt. I also joined the board with the hope of providing input to improve community soccer. It took nearly three months to receive basic contact information for parents in that program. Ironically, the information was necessary to find those much-maligned volunteers, but it came too late in the season to be of use. Coincidence?
Volunteerism is not the reason St. Albert lacks a credible community soccer program; it is because SASA does not offer one. It is unfortunate that we have lost sight of the fact that in non-profit volunteer organizations the board is required to take its direction from the membership. Essentially there is power in numbers, and the only way we are going to get a meaningful community soccer program in St. Albert is if we parents find a means to communicate and work together to make the necessary changes. I would like to take the first step by inviting parents to contact me at kelvinlien@shaw.ca so that we can work together to make this organization work for all soccer players.
Dr. Kelvin Lien, coach: U16 Girls
Orange, St. Albert
Voters stuck with their mistake
Excellent. A good number of citizens have responded to my thoughts on the ongoing debacle.
Ted Durham, Shanelle Fairburn — outstanding comments and insights. Jared Milne: wonderful. That letter was well thought out and well written. Keep in mind Mr. Milne, contrary to the manner in which real companies are managed, where the shareholders can opt out at any time, the poor souls on this floundering ship can't easily bail out. We do not erode the democratic process by putting the most competent management in place. Quite conversely, we enhance it. We could in fact choose from a goodly number of contractors, the successful one being awarded a one-year review period. If we're unhappy, out they go. Unfortunately, in our so-called democratic environs, we are stuck with the mistake the voters made for four years, watching our savings and the welfare of our families slowly circling the bowl.
These city council members need to take a serious look at the damage they are causing. An economics course or two would not be amiss. Instead of continually reaching into someone else's pocket, they need to manage the resources at hand. Start cutting costs rather than simply hammering the taxpayers year after year.
As for Abe Preisinger's letter, his first paragraph said it all. He doesn’t have sufficient knowledge to offer an intelligent opinion. Saying people should simply get a second job or find ways to better themselves? How ridiculous. When does he propose they then have the time or energy to enjoy living in this so-called city? If you can't afford to live here, move? That's some serious insight, Abe. Perhaps you should sit on council — that is apparently their attitude as well.
Joe Obermeyer, St. Albert
Mayor is a strong leader
Every institution in the world is flawed. St. Albert city council is flawed, so is the Canadian Senate and the United Nations. Every institution will always be flawed.
Past council was flawed in its uncritical thinking surrounding data supplied by consultants and others on financial projections for Servus Place. Council members failed to equip themselves to thoroughly question the financial data presented to them. Big mistake.
The remedy to correcting this flaw is to have a leader who is willing to make insider members feel uncomfortable. He must disturb them. He must allow them to be criticized from all angles and then help them to interpret that criticism.
Some residents have called for the resignation of members of council and the mayor, but these critics have failed to recognize the traits of a great leader. One of these traits is knowing how to build legitimacy. Mayor Nolan Crouse has been elected into this position with the formidable task of building legitimacy from scratch with low to no levels of trust remaining between council and the public.
He has opened council up to criticism from all angles. He has shown sensitivity to the deliverers of that criticism and has helped council to interpret the results.
Great leaders understand the important aspect of countervailing power, those who offer criticism. This force is a necessary precondition for any highly functioning organization. Great leaders welcome it because they realize everyone should be heard — both insiders and outsiders.
Crouse ordered a full and open review of Servus Place, held public input meetings and maintained order in a heated council meeting.
He has promised continued transparency, openness and honesty — all designed to make council feel uncomfortable on an ongoing basis and to uphold the power of the formidable countervailing forces.
Like most great leaders, Crouse admits to taking it hard. So did Moses, by the way.
After all is said and done, citizens of St. Albert have a much more finely tuned council, one that is held more accountable, open for criticism and void of too much power concentrated in one person’s hands. Hopefully, we can recognize the makings of a rare phenomenon — an optimally effective democratic institution.
Servus Place needs a referendum
Let’s face it, Servus Place is a disease that is slowly starting to poison all aspects of St.Albert.
It is saddening to watch city council members try to carry out damage control on something they have made such a huge mess of. Now the municipal taxes of the last affordable neighbourhoods for young families are set to rise at unbelievable rates. I say unbelievable because who would believe that a city council would deem it acceptable to hike someone’s taxes by 10 to 15 per cent, in part to save Servus Place?
When, as a city, do we step back and say council got this recreation centre concept so wrong that we need to cut our losses and move on? I know that what I am recommending is hard to fathom, but perhaps we should demolish Servus Place and wait until we can get the planning stage right and start over again, or not rebuild at all.
Let the public decide by holding a referendum on whether to tear it down or not. We cannot afford to keep throwing money at something that will never be right.
Council had better act quickly
I can’t help but notice the number of letters in your paper recently from over-taxed and tired citizens calling for a plebiscite on the future of Servus Place.
I have lived in St. Albert since 1960 and have never seen anything like this groundswell of public anger directed toward a city council — ever.
If one thought the people of St. Albert were mad as hell over the west regional road (WRR) when I was on council in 2001, Servus Place and the related property tax increases make the road issue look like a Sunday school picnic.
If council thinks this issue is going away any time soon, it is sadly mistaken. The public protests are growing louder and louder every day and council hasn't seen anything yet. If council members do not relent and give citizens an opportunity to select their own destiny via a proper plebiscite, they do so at their peril.
And, they had better do it fast. With new housing assessments and taxation rates in the mail to voters this week, just watch the crap hit the fan.
Note to council: The vast majority of taxpayers in St. Albert are sick to death of Servus Place.
|
