The following press release was sent in Response to an ad placed by Wayne Wright in the Royal City Record and the News Leader.

The recent ad from Wayne Wright, Mayor of New Westminster [The Record, November 12, 2005] makes damning accusations of previous City Councils and, by implication, civic staff members, concerning the budgeting process followed by the City and the application of funds from gaming activities.

These accusations are serious as they target the very heart of public accountability, political integrity and administrative competence in the City of New Westminster. They call into question the foundations of our city government, particularly when it comes to matters of financial accountability.

Our purpose here is to set the record straight on the accusations made by Mayor Wright.

• Mayor Wright states that there "was no public process or public input whatsoever"... concerning the use of casino dollars in the operating budget.

  Nothing could be further from the truth. Under the Community Charter, and previously under the Local Government Act, the municipality is required to undertake a public consultation process each year prior to approval of its Financial Plan.

  Information on the City’s web site indicates that public input is required by legislation as part of the budget planning and approval cycle. During the course of those public hearings, City Council carefully considers the views of the citizens of this city on the use of funds such as revenues from gaming.

  This process was established prior to Mayor Wright’s election in 2002, and is a matter of public record. More importantly, Mayor Wright himself has presided over such a process every year since being elected.

  How can Mayor Wright complain about lack of public input into the budget process, when it is clearly on the record as happening on an annual basis? In proposing a new public process to replace one that is required by provincial legislation, he demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of how the city is run. This calls into question his ability to lead our city.

• Mayor Wright criticizes previous City Councils for using casino dollars to offset operating costs and bring in "zero" budgets to make "them look good at election time."

  We know that vigorous public debate took place when gaming funds were first made available to the municipality in 1998. At that time, City Council was faced with making a decision on how to allocate gaming money. In response to public process, Council determined that it was prudent to attempt to position the city so that it would be competitive within the region in terms of property taxation levels. Therefore, Council decided to allocate part of the revenues from gaming to capital expenditures and the rest to operating. The result of this was that tax increases were held in check. This strategy was adopted in an open and public manner. There was no "sleight of hand", there was no "deception" and no casino dollars were "quietly siphoned" into operating budgets.

  Mayor Wright is entitled to criticize the political judgment of his peers and predecessors on Council. However, he is duty bound to recognize that the budgetary process has been beyond reproach and in conformity with provincial requirements.

  Mayor Wright has presided over a City Council, which, with the notable exception of Councillor Cook, has continued to vote on the division of casino funds in much the same manner as in previous years. During the past three budget cycles he himself voted to use those funds for operating purposes. Why, all of a sudden, is he “dismayed” about the use of casino funds for such uses?

• Mayor Wright uses strong and inappropriate words and phrases such as "quietly siphoned", "sleight of hand" and "kind of deception." His language contains an allegation of dishonesty on the part of public officials. However, the facts show that open, accountable, public budgeting is the norm in New Westminster.

The Mayor would be well advised to issue an immediate fulsome retraction of his statements and to offer a public apology to the many civil servants and elected officials who have been, or still are, involved in the City’s budgeting process. Failure to do so will call into question the Mayor’s suitability to lead our city.

From the Casey Cook Campaign
New Westminster, BC

I am very pleased to support the campaign to elect Casey Cook as Mayor of New Westminster. I have known Casey for at least twenty-five years and have worked closely with him during that time on many occasions, including those involving heritage, lacrosse, the Fraser River Discovery Centre, and community events. Casey has always been good to work with. He works hard, is very supportive of the efforts of others, and takes the time to fully understand a situation – no games, no double talk, no hypocrisy – he listens, he learns, he questions – and then, if appropriate, he acts.

In all my years of knowing Casey I have always found him to be fully encouraging of efforts to preserve and explore our town’s history and heritage. New Westminster’s history is very alive and deserves to be presented fully and honestly in all its glorious colour, excitement, and character. I am confident that Casey supports this and that he would always ask that the City’s story be accurately and truthfully portrayed in all situations – not altered as part of a promotional ploy or current objective.

New Westminster’s heritage, a powerful part of the City’s image, has at times been put at risk in the past three years, and great care must be taken to ensure that valued reminders of our past do not vanish under the wave of development that is sweeping over parts of the Royal City. I am confident that Casey will pay particular attention to all aspects of our growing city including reminders of the way things used to be.

If you enjoy this City, if you enjoy this City’s history and heritage that keep residents in the community and have drawn others to move here, then I encourage you to vote Casey Cook for Mayor. We need strong, compassionate, and understanding leadership – a firm but open hand in charge - over the next years, and I believe that Casey is the one to provide this.

Archie Miller
Historian, historical/heritage consultant
Former New Westminster City Curator

I thought it was time to weigh in on the discussions on development in the downtown from the perspective of an actual resident and community volunteer in the neighbourhood.

I welcome development but I’m choosy, just like residents in Steveston, White Rock, Port Moody and many other cities and villages across the province; I want attractive designs that combine the new with the old, enhance our riverfront setting, and speak to our unique place in the history of British Columbia.

Developers are interested in our city for many reasons - cheaper land, attractive views, and proximity to transportation. It’s not necessary, as our Mayor and some of our councillor’s believe, to go to developers “cap in hand” and sell the farm leaving all of us to pay the tab for lack of services and infrastructure.

A member of the BIA recently said in an article that development will resuscitate the downtown business community, “build it and they will come” he said; however, thousands of units were built on the Quay and they came and they refused to shop, the public market boosts business after business that has gone bankrupt and many that are barely hanging on.

It is also suggested by some that we can develop our way out of trouble because development will drive crime away. We have a relatively new development in the downtown called the New Westminster Police Station and it is part of the highest crime area in the City. Development itself is not the answer to lowering the crime rate, an attractive downtown with regular garbage pick-up other than at election time, adequate police resources, addiction and mental health services and the same accountability from building owners that leave their buildings vacant and in need of repair that is expected from homeowners.  Nothing less will rebuild the business community in the downtown.

To accomplish these goals we need a leader that has the stature and the skill to step up to the plate and lead negotiations with developers so we end up with a city that is the envy of the lower mainland. I can tell you as a former Federal NDP candidate and a director of the New Westminster Downtown Residents Association I will be urging all New Democrats and indeed, people of all political stripes to set aside partisanship for the sake of our city and vote Casey Cook for Mayor.

Steve McClurg
NDP candidate for New Westminster-Coquitlam in the 2004 Federal election

I will be voting for Casey Cook for mayor in the upcoming municipal election.

During the effort to keep Saint Mary's Hospital open, Casey demonstrated the ability to roll up his sleeves and work with the diverse interests who were supporting the hospital. He was a Director on the Saint Mary's Hospital Board up until the time that it was dismissed.

We now take it for granted that we can go to a shopping mall, a restaurant, or a pub without being involuntarily exposed to tobacco smoke. It wasn't so long ago that this wasn't the case. New Westminster was ahead of most B.C. municipalities in this area, and Casey (along with former mayor Helen Sparkes) deserves a share of the credit for this.

Remember all the promises we heard when the proponents of the Royal City Star were trying to get approval from City Hall? That New Westminster would become a tourist destination for gamblers throughout the northwest who wanted to go for rides on the riverboat? And Columbia Street would be revitalized with money brought here by these tourists? Well, we got the Burr Theatre, and, as predicted by gambling opponents, we got a municipal government dependent on gambling revenue. Casey deserves credit for being able to foresee this outcome. I believe he is the best person to trust with the responsibility of coming up with other sources of revenue.

Robert Broughton
Former President, Airspace Action on Smoking and Health
Former President, Vancouver Bicycle Club

October 7, 2005

Editor, The Record;

What is it they say? The first step to recovery is acknowledging there is a problem... Earlier this year I was requested by a city official I not bring these concerns to the media. I commend Casey Cook for having the courage to bring to the forefront the urgent concerns many business owners and residents of New Westminster have been expressing for months. It is refreshing to feel someone in civic government is listening and wants to make positive change to some of the real problems that are plaguing New Westminster, and in particular the downtown core. While some may feel it is a stretch to suggest New Westminster's Downtown would become "the next" Downtown Eastside, I urge people to not become complacent. It is not the suggestion from Casey Cook that will drive business away, it is the real problems of escalating open drug use and drug dealing, and the criminal activities that are associated with these behaviors that will negatively impact on business.

As an owner of a small business in New Westminster's Downtown for nearly 11 years, in the past year I have witnessed the escalation in open drug use, nuisance behavior, and complete and utter lawlessness. While I acknowledge the police came down hard on drug dealing in 98-99, it is not sufficient to ride on their successes of the past. I also acknowledge, some strategies have been implemented to address some of our concerns, including a bike patrol in the area, but to date the changes are not adequate. The reality is, in 11 years I have never experienced the level of unpredictable behavior associated with this influx of drug trade and drug use that we are now seeing. Until this year, my staff had never expressed real concerns for their safety.

My greatest frustration is feeling there is not an adequate method of reporting the problems on an ongoing basis. The open drug trade is not isolated to the downtown core. One only needs to walk up to the library or Dairy Queen to find more activity. It is distressing as a law-abiding citizen, as a small business owner, as parent in this community that I have chosen as my home, I do not feel my concerns are being taken completely seriously.

Sincerely,

It is interesting to read Pete McMartin’s articles in the Vancouver Sun regarding the Sea Vancouver Tall Ships Festival. In Wednesday’s edition he outlines the staggering losses incurred by the City of Richmond in their tall ships festival. I had earlier reported those numbers to City Council in New Westminster as they became available. All totaled, the numbers of the losses exceed $1.2 million. The numbers for Sea Vancouver, that city’s tall ship festival, are starting to become clear, and the picture is not pretty. The losses exceed $1.3 million.

Why do I mention this? The answer is that there was a process that occurred in the Royal City in 2001/02 which brought tremendous pressure on the council of the day, to have the city’s own tall ship festival.

New Westminster, in its process of due diligence engaged consultants to study and report on the possible event. The cost benefit analysis results were not encouraging. Nevertheless, the city still under considerable pressure from groups who stood to benefit directly, soldiered on. Could the numbers be modified to get a better bottom line?

After much examination, staff reported to Council, that under ideal conditions, the best the city could expect was an $800,000 deficit. Under certain conditions, the city could expect to lose $1.8 to $2.5 . The pressure continued. Facing those numbers, and examining all of the risks, the city finally pulled out, offering the event to any interested party. The city offered to underwrite the project with $400,000. Of course, no group stepped forward, because obviously those who were interested would become involved only if it was city money that was put forward.

The whole thing became an election issue, and soon after died down.

The headline in today’s paper reads Sea Vancouver blind to the red flags.

 In retrospect, New Westminster Council in 2002 did read the red flags, but the same thought process that pressured for that event in those times still seems to be much in evidence in New Westminster City Hall today.

The downtown of New Westminster has been facing some incredible challenges in the last few decades. With the movement of commerce to the uptown, the introduction of shopping malls, and the emergence of big box retail, the downtown is facing a daunting challenge in re-establishing itself as a viable business district.

There are many reasons for this.

• costly seismic requirements for upgrading existing buildings
• the challenge of a street and area that were designed before the advent of the car:
  • postage stamp size properties, which could benefit from consolidation for redevelopment
  • lack of off-street parking, the parking ramp, while providing additional spaces, has also brought many negatives to the area
  • the absence of alleys in many of the areas - lack of service access
• separation from the waterfront by the train tracks and a heavily congested truck route (Front St.)
• high water table, which precludes underground parking
• heritage aspects of buildings - create great appeal, costly to work with
• very high traffic volume (both a positive and a negative)
• zoning of C-8, which carries extremely high density (5.2). Everyone, for financial reasons, wants to develop to the max, which is very difficult to achieve on many of the land parcels
• New Westminster’s comparatively high tax rates
• capital cost allowance load on many of the land parcels

Over the years there have been, by best estimate, 33 plans to revitalize the area. These are now sitting on shelves and gathering dust in various offices.

In the midst of all of this, the Business Improvement Area (BIA) was born. It is an association funded by a frontage tax on included parcels of land, and operates under rules set up by the provincial government. While the argument exists in almost every BIA of whether or not the special levy is better left in the hands of owners and tenants, this is a particularly opportune time for the BIA to establish itself as a dynamic force in the revitalization of the downtown core.

First, there are some committed longer term members who have been joined by some bright, creative and energetic new people in the association. Second, there is an opportunity to engage in some creative urban development agreements. These are contracts and arrangements based on the Vancouver Agreement. The city needs to look seriously at stepping up to the plate and participating in these initiatives and also in an economic development strategy. Third, the Downtown Residents Association has gained in leadership and experience and is ready to get involved in a more substantive way.

When I declared my candidacy, I stated the downtown was out of control in terms of crime/drugs and homelessness issues. Since that time the situation has worsened. It also has in other parts of the city, but I will address that in a later entry.

I also stated that every part of the city had a reasonable expectation to be safe and clean. As a city, we have failed in that regard. We need to develop a well thought out, comprehensive strategy to deal with all of these issues. The notion that we can develop our way out of our challenges is, at best, naive. Leadership, along the lines of what was provided in cleaning up the area in 1999/2000 and in forming working partnerships in the downtown area is what the situation calls for. This approach will enable us to attract other funding sources to step up and join us, and greatly enhance our prospects for success.

I look forward to working with the BIA and the Downtown Residents Association and tackling these issues.

Also, I look forward to your comments.

"Just another brick in the wall"

The past few years have witnessed an increasingly fractious relationship between the community and the New Westminster School Board, particularly around issues like the location of the new middle school, redevelopment of the secondary school, the future of Massey Theatre and the proposed arts facility.

At the outset, let me say that the proposal currently on the table is a very positive one, with a vast array of benefits for the community. There are however, many unresolved issues which the community needs to be aware of.

First and foremost is that the determination of the location of a third middle school is no further ahead than it was three years ago. An opportunity to learn more about the genesis of this predicament presented itself when I booked an appointment with the then Minister of Children and family Development, Christy Clark, to discuss some issues relevant to that ministry. When we concluded that piece of business, we moved to issues in her previous ministry, Education.

I asked her some questions about the High School development and the possibility for site acquisition money for a third middle school. Her reply? Her exact words were: "The New Westminster School Board application leap-frogged ahead of other applications that were more worthy because there was no need for site acquisition money for the high school nor for the middle school."

I ask you to think about that statement. Certainly, in light of it, many things become more clear.

The residential towers, the proposal for a west side middle school to be built on the high school site, the virtual absence of meaningful consultation, the way the entire process played out, all fit into a pattern.

It was thought by many, including me, that with the injection of new provincial funds, the City and the Board having reached agreement on the ownership and operations model for the theatre, that the Board would get on with the business of delivering education services and retire from the development game. Not so, we find. Recently I attended a presentation of the conceptual design for the new Arts Center (more later), at which the City was presented with an updated model of the entire development. As I said earlier, there are a lot of positives in this proposal, as well as some areas of concern. One key feature of this new plan is a large surface parking lot west of the Massey Theatre, and stretching from Eighth Ave north to Dublin St. - about half of that block. This parking lot is bounded by the west wall of the school complex and runs for over 100 meters ( 330 ft.) and is up to 30 feet in height. Most important though is the fact that the wall is windowless (i.e. blank) and built to the lot line so that, at some future point, the School Board can re-apply to build the three towers that were resoundingly rejected by the community a few months ago. This is not conjecture on my part, the point was candidly stated by the architect for the project. Either the board has learned little from its previous attempt, or it has a complete disregard for the civic planning process and the values expressed clearly by the citizens of New Westminster when the proposal was considered and rejected.

When almost every school site in New Westminster is undersized for their current enrollment and future projections, it is difficult to understand that in a growing community there would be thought of selling school property. It is time to reconsider, and apply to the Province for site acquisition money for a third middle school.

Who knows what the face of public education will be like in the decades to come? Will it include child care and family literacy centers? Early childhood programming? What will be the space requirements in future years? In New Westminster land is already scarce - let’s not exacerbate the problem. For me, taking green space out of the public domain is just not on.

These issues will be important in the upcoming election. Voters will be well served to ask school board, council and mayoralty candidates where they stand on these and other related issues.

Where do they stand on the sale of school land? On the siting of the middle school? In 1999 I made, and council passed, a motion to preserve Moody Park for parks and recreation purposes only. Where do the candidates stand on this issue?

I think I have made it abundantly clear where I stand.