No Barking in Dog Park

What an absurd tale!

Cobble Hill Director and CVRD [Cowichan Valley Regional District] Chair Gerry Giles summonsed dog owners to a meeting in Cobble Hill recently.

The get together was held to scold those who allowed their dogs to bark while visiting the Cobble Hill Village Dog Park.

Ms Giles was supported by her Alternate Director John Krug and CVRD Parks Manager Brian Farquar, and South Cowichan Parks Chair guy, Ian somebody.

This is a very serious matter. The assembled were instructed to sign in; name, address and so on and so forth.

The Cobble Hill Director and Board Chair meant business. After all she had personally installed anti-barking signs and that should have been sufficent, but the dogs apparently were not buying into it for a minute.

Read the whole thing. It gets worse.

What the hell do people expect when they create a dog park? I am sick of the pettiness, in-fighting and inefficiency of the CVRD. It's long past time we got rid of the damn thing and the municipalities of the Cowichan Valley formed into one.

Recommend this post

On Obesity and Poverty

A new study done in the US predicts that obesity rates there will peak at 42 percent, not the 34 percent previously predicted.

My immediate reaction: a shrug of the shoulders.

If you live in the poverty well, you know more than most of the 'experts' about the chief cause of certain illnesses. You know more than the health professionals, political advisers or policy makers. To whit, you know that obesity rates will peak at 42 percent in the US because more USians are poor.

With poverty comes poor nutrition and a helluva lot of bad carbs.

Consider the dilemma for parents whose household incomes have their families living in the bargain basement. It's 1) feed your children nutritionally, but exceedingly sparingly, and then ignore your children's cries due to the pains in their bellies from starvation; or 2) feed your children pasta, bread, rice, cookies, donuts, snack food, etc. to fill their bellies and stave off their hunger; the result of which, of course, is malnourishment. And don't forget to feed yourself, although not the good stuff.

Should be obvious, eh? So why don't governments do something about it? Especially governments in countries with a universal healthcare system?

It costs not just lives but MONEY to keep people in poverty, folks!

Far better for the federal government in cooperation with the provinces to implement a guaranteed income for all (GAIA). Far better for municipalities to ensure a robust local food infrastructure and to have inclusive property laws to allow truly affordable housing. Far better these than to pay the enormous financial cost of serving a large swath of the population whose poor health due to poverty drains the healthcare system of crucial resources.

[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]

Recommend this post

BC Municipality Enacts Canada's First Living Wage Bylaw

It's New Westminster, which has been at the forefront of other poverty-reduction campaigns.

Living wage bylaws set a wage 'floor' above the minimum wage for workers who work directly for the city, for firms that receive contracts from the city, and firms that receive economic development money from the city.

"Once the policy is implemented, all direct and indirect workers (contract workers, etc.) performing work on City premises will earn a wage no lower than $16.74," [Dave] Tate [of BC ACORN] said in an email.

How about other BC municipalities and the province following New West's example? Heck, why not municipalities and provinces/territories throughout Canada?

Recommend this post

City of Victoria vs. the City's Homeless

Victoria's homeless win.

"The City of Victoria is on the hook to pay Appeal Court costs, as well as the October 2008 court costs. How high that bill will be is not known."

Tee hee.

Recommend this post

UBCM Passes Affordable Housing Resolutions

Both resolutions of the Union of BC Municipalities call for action - on the part of the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada.

The first ... will see the UBCM lobby the provincial government to develop a strategy [for] the use of pine beetle affected timber in the construction of homes throughout BC, and demands that BC mills be utilized as part of the strategy to reduce BC's housing shortage.

....

The second resolution was put forward by the City of Vancouver, and also submitted and endorsed by Coquitlam, Surrey, Richmond Port Moody, and New Westminster. It called for the UBCM to urge the provincial and federal government to develop a National Affordable Housing Strategy that provides necessary long-term funding to support the construction of affordable housing across the province.

Now, here's the thing. The COSTS or MATERIALS to build housing are not the issue. It can take a mere few thousand dollars - and some have done it for NOTHING - to build structures that will provide permanent, adequate shelter. The problem is the willingness of existing property owners and municipal office-holders to enable land to be used in innovative, inexpensive ways.

The UBCM might begin not by telling other governments what they should do in support of 'affordable' housing, but by committing its members to reforming their own by-laws to allow housing alternatives that require little land, and even less in building materials and labour.

Until this happens, I question the sincerity or concern behind such UBCM resolutions.

Recommend this post