"Please make sure you inform yourself on the purpose of the borrowing bylaw"

In an earlier post on Jul13 The Gang who Couldn't Shoot Straight strikes again I stated:
The legal ads that are required are correct in that they do not refer to anything other than the long term financing option. The website has been corrected re the 'short term financing option' that is not available to the City in any meaningful form. However in an advertisement that is not legally required and is a mere reiteration of their old website explanation of June 15 the City once again mistakenly uses the argument about short term financing. This ad appeared today July 13 in the Morning Star.If the City's stated aim is to ignore the results of any counter petition, then to spend money on this type of advertising is asinine. If this ad with its 'inaccuracy' as to 'short term financing' is the City's error then there should be a correction. If it is the paper's fault then the taxpayers shouldn't pay for it.Either way this type of advertising trying to influence a counter petition opportunity MUST not be allowed with the taxpayer's money

Todays Update:

In today's Morningstar the legal ad that was required was once again run on page 30 and this Notice of Alternative Approval Process Opportunity completed the final legal notice required. Once again the City decided to run another ad on Page A14 which stated "Before signing a petition against the borrowing under the Alternate Approval Process, please make sure you inform yourself on the purpose of the borrowing bylaw".

This ad which has the Logo of the City of Vernon and the Okanagan Regional Library and the RCMP on it attempts to give a brief description of the financing option etc. At least this time they changed the wording from the alternate to long term financing of $38/ year over 25 years being short term financing to the more correct 'from existing reserves and surpluses over 4 years costing $160 per average household"

Hopefully as we enter the 30 day petition period we have seen the last of advertisements paid for by the taxpayer (as either a City, Library or Policing contributor) that in effect advises that the counter petition should not be signed.

There are numerous reasons to sign this petition and equally valid reasons why one could support this plan if taken to a referendum but the arrogance of the Council in shortchanging the public in this manner by saying that a successful counter petition will be ignored and this complex will be built irregardless is fighting words and I will sign it and call their bluff.