|
Cameron Ells
- 'The division of the municipality into two units with smaller councils to better serve the rural and urban communities more effectively and efficiently.' Select 'Yes' if you support dividing the municipality in this manner, or 'No' if you oppose the division.
No. At least “No” if it relates to an administrative break up of HRM staff executing their activities. Some adjustments to the geographic boundaries for particular internal administrative units may be useful, but within HRM (ie. Where does a relatively rural eastern district start and stop). With respect to more effective decision making for the rural, urban, and suburban parts of HRM, I find it preferable to first seek the potential benefits of a smaller HRM council. If that does not adequately address the current concerns, seek the increased use of double majorities or community council committees within a regional council. If those do not bring satisfactory results, and if there is a consistent level of support for the break up of HRM expressed by a clear majority, in a clear vote, on a clear question, well we do live in a democratic society. I would argue against a formal break up, but would accept a democratic verdict to do so. Conceptually, or in principle, I support the eventual reduction in size of the HRM Council from 23 to about 12 - 14 people. On peninsular Halifax, presumably District 12 (Downtown Halifax) could effectively merge with either District 11 (North End) or District 13 (Northwest Arm - South End). An alternative that might not greatly reduce the number of districts, could be to use the same geographical areas for municipal council districts and for seats in the provincial legislature. An incentive for better cooperation might exist between provincial and municipal representatives for essentially the same district or group of voters. Conceptually, or in principle, I support keeping HRM intact administratively. There is a useful staff consistency in areas such as engineering, planning, and infrastructure. Perhaps a smaller council would address concerns on the quality of political decision making at HRM Council. If dissatisfaction continues to exist, I could then support having the municipal council decision making process making more use of something like a double majority or parliamentary committee system. If a specific question is supported or approved by the local “community council,” it would go to the full council for a vote.
- 'Tax reform that more closely aligns taxes with the actual cost of services delivered.'Select 'Yes' if you support reforming taxes in this manner, or select 'No' if you oppose.
Yes. We each pay the same rate for a loaf of bread from the corner store. We each pay the same rate for a glass of water from Halifax Water. We pay the same residential electricity rate from Nova Scotia Power. We each pay the same rate for a parking meter space from HRM. We each pay the same rate of tax to the provincial and federal governments for a litre of gasoline. Where one lives could be considered to be a “total package deal” of sorts with benefits and costs. Part of the package for living on relatively cheap abundant land in the suburbs could be to spread the premium costs associated with many roads and pipe over relatively few people who live there. Alternatively, part of the package for living on relatively high priced land in Downtown Halifax, could be to spread the relatively economic costs associated with a small quantity of roads and pipe over the many people who live there. Conceptually, or in principle, I support basing a greater portion of the municipal taxes we pay, on the HRM services we have an opportunity to benefit from or receive. All people who live in those areas of relatively high property assessments, are impacted by the payments of relatively high municipal taxes. They are being paid for by those living in apartments as part of their rent, and by those living in homes as part of their property taxes. People choosing to live in denser urban arrangements, should receive the benefits for their relatively more efficient and economical use of energy, road, pipe, and other resources. There may not be sufficient political support among others in HRM to make this happen, but we can try and seek the greatest possible, politically acceptable reforms.
- 'More aggressive development of the Arts and Culture sector by committing a minimum of 1% of the annual municipal budget to this sector.' Select 'Yes' if you support committing a minimum of 1% of the annual municipal budget to the Arts and Culture sector, or 'No' if you oppose.
Yes. The HRM community of creative people is far broader than just the “Arts and Culture” sector, although that sector is the focus of this survey question. An increase in spending from 0.1% to 1.0% is ten times (10 x) the current level, or 1000%. The current Council has not voted to support this scale of an increase. This “Yes” on my part may be more of a commitment to seek additional, sustainable political support from other Councillors, for additional, sustainable funding to the 1% level. I can be a low key but effective advocate among other Councillors. I can appreciate a variety of perspectives, and have successfully sensed potential common ground with others, where it may not be have been initially apparent. There may also be creative alternatives to achieving the same functional result such as activities with multiple purposes, activities incorporated into redevelopment and other projects, and activities that are a catalyst for the involvement of others. The short term result may not be the achievement of the “more aggressive” goal, but the approach could be to aim high with this goal, improve things where possible, understand where any why the most progress is being made, revise the approach where appropriate, and repeat the cycle.
- 'The creation of the position of Chief Sustainability Officer with the necessary authority and budget to ensure Halifax becomes the most sustainable city in Canada by 2020.' Select 'Yes' if you support creating the position of Chief Sustainability Officer as described in this statement, or 'No' if you oppose.
Yes. “Applying Public Sector Resources to Climate Change Adaptation in Canada” is the title of my 2006 Discussion Paper available in PDF at the website www.CameronConsulting.ca.. For the federal and provincial levels of government, it suggested the creation of a coordinating office not an officer. The “Office” would have an executive mandate, authority, budget, an auditing capacity, and accountability requirements. The office would be a coordinating catalyst for incorporating climate change adaptation into the regular decision making of the various government departments. Something similar could be used by HRM with respect to sustainability. The intent would be that sustainability becomes another component of regular decision making, while maintaining existing lines of authority and responsibility for HRM staff activities. Staff should be clear and accountable in terms of what they are trying to achieve, and should not be confused with potentially conflicting direction from multiple authority figures. The Nova Scotia provincial government seems to be using a committee approach, including regular Deputy Minister representation, in trying to execute their Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act. Time will tell how effectively this will work. Yes to the goal of sustainable HRM activities. Yes to having a clear executive mandate (ie. Council resolution, budget item, and CAO direction), with an appropriate level of resources, performance goals, and methods of accountability. It is suggested that a coordinating office hosted by HRM Infrastructure and Asset Management, but involving all departments, as opposed to a stand alone authoritative Officer, could be a useful way of making progress in the achievement of HRM sustainability goals. Perhaps at the scale of HRM activities, a “Coordinator” and an “Officer” might be a similar person. My perception is that now retired HRM staff member Stephen King accomplished quite a bit through the SEMO office. He did this, not by authority but by personal persuasion, well researched
information, creative interpretations, pragmatic methods, and a network of good will.
- 'The development of an integrated intercultural strategy to attract and retain immigrants and to better support disadvantaged groups within our community.' Select 'Yes' if you support developing an integrated intercultural strategy to attract and retain immigrants, and to better support disadvantaged groups within our community, or select 'No' if you oppose.
Yes. The phrase “integrated intercultural strategy” is new to me, and when I googled it in “quotation marks,” two of the three hits are from the Citizens for Halifax website. I have met some immigrant entrepreneurs and others who have done well here. I have also met some for whom a better integration would have been more positive for them and for our community. Our community benefits from its integration with immigrants and those influenced by unemployment, poverty, education levels, some drug use, and some medical health conditions. In mother nature and in our everyday experiences, variety not “purity” provides a stronger long term adaptive capacity. We can see this in our communities, our sports teams, our ecosystems, our organizations, and more. I am unsure that municipal government is the natural lead on this topic, but perhaps it can be a useful coordinator. There can be benefits to all involved when municipal governments make useful contributions to community integration. Such actions should be encouraged and coordinated - which I think is the intent of this question topic.
- 'The creation of a transportation authority to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive transportation strategy that integrates all modes of transportation.' Select 'Yes' if you support creating a transportation authority as described in this statement, or 'No' if you oppose.
Yes. A “Regional Authority” approach has worked well in the past through Halifax Water (Regional Water Commission) for potable water. Halifax Water has recently become responsible for the HRM sanitary and storm sewer systems in the future. This long term thinking, in the form of an HRM owned utility, is effective. Similar long term thinking and activity in the form of a Transportation Authority should be useful in the future for HRM.
- 'The adoption of a more transparent and streamlined development process as proposed by the HRM by Design initiative.' Do you support or oppose adopting a more transparent and streamlined development process in this manner?
Yes. Yes to improvements that result in a less politicized and more predictable development process. We have already done this for our water and wastewater utilities, and we are better off for it (even if we should not be surprised but we will be, when we start paying the real replacement costs of the very old sewer pipe system). Be it engineering design, environmental clean up projects, or climate change - infrastructure vulnerability evaluations, the use of performance goals is very useful in the decision making. There might be a variety of ways of achieving a certain goal, and for different people, different approaches make the most sense. Flexibility can exist. Perhaps it is not critical what the exact route is that one is taking, so long as what is achieved is the desired performance goal. This approach results in creative opportunities for those closest to a project, to work out the details. They can then achieve the overall community performance goals, while making the best use of available resources - materials, financial, human, opportunity, and more. Criticisms can easily be made of the HRM by Design initiative. There is room for improvement from the DRAFT documents that have been produced. My workshop experience left the feeling that there were sometimes answers they knew that they wanted to hear, and so the talk and “the table” or tactical process, seemed a little tilted. The time frame for public review and comment of the DRAFT 1 documents was frustratingly brief. Some of the text in the documents has a “boiler plate” feel to it, that for some reason could better have taken into account local knowledge. Still, overall, there is more to be positive about than negative. It is an imperfect improvement on the currently applied and flawed process. In a simple Yes / No vote, I would vote yes - a qualified yes as described here, but a yes. I would also see it as a work in progress and one that already merits revisions. There are lessons to be learned about applying this HRM by Design initiative process to the next part of the regional municipality. My understanding is that Downtown Halifax was intended to be the first, and not the last area in HRM to go through this process. Compared to today, a Downtown Halifax where there are more people living and working and playing, and within an easy public transit system, is both a reflection of the past and an image of a promising and attainable future.
|