By DALE BASS Aug 17 2007 http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/
There’s a reason I don’t like to cover city council meetings for news stories. It’s quite simple, actually. There are times when I just want to stand up, get their attention and ask them what they think they’re doing. But, of course, as a reporter that’s not a good thing for many reasons, not the least of which is that it breaks that rule of objectivity, to which we try to adhere. And that’s why, after filling in for my colleague Mark Macdonald this week and covering council, I can’t write a story about one of their decisions — because much of the debate bordered on the ridiculous.
The discussion centred around a property in Valleyview that is supposed to be no more than a four-plex but which, through the years, has been turned into a 12-unit apartment building. After neighbours complained, the city sent inspectors out, and they determined it is an illegal conversion that violates the building and fire codes. In fact, according to a report the city’s development and engineering services department gave to councillors this week, “the residents are exposed to unsafe living conditions.” The owners were told they should convert the building back to a four-plex, an idea they rejected. Then they were told they could convert it to an eight-unit building and apply for rezoning, which had a good chance of being passed if they brought the structure up to code. The owners rejected that as well, and applied for rezoning for the 12 units, which the city’s experts, in their wisdom, advised council in their report to turn down.
And this is where some councillors seemed to lose their common sense and adopt the belief that it’s okay to ask for forgiveness, rather than permission. Coun. Arjun Singh suggested it wouldn’t be good to deny this because the tenants would have to find another place to live “and if we put these people out, it’s hard to find rental accommodation.” He suggested council needs to hear from the owners and the tenants. Coun. Pat Wallace continued along the same lines, noting that she’s heard the units are always full and expressed the hope that the people aren’t living in an unsafe place. After all, “these people have to live somewhere,” she said. Coun. Peter Milobar hopped on the can-we-get-them-to-agree-to-eight bandwagon, which he could see taking to a public hearing and perhaps approving, once those other little issues — like the lack of enough parking, no smoke detectors, no legal firewall separations and the like — were addressed. It was at this point that the overwhelming need to stand up and ask that question started to overcome me. The owners ignored all the laws. They created living spaces city officials have deemed unsafe. They have violated the fire code. And they don’t seem to care. They won’t work with the city to come up with a viable solution. Nope — this is what they have created and they want it approved.
And, as Coun. John O’Fee noted, many of his colleagues on Tuesday were “falling over ourselves to get him to go to eight units . . . You pay your money, you take your chances.” In other words, just say no. The units are unsafe. The tenants are living in danger. The city knows this. Instead, Wallace moved that a decision be put off for a couple of weeks so the city could talk to the owners again. The vote on that tied, and was therefore defeated. Then the motion to deny the rezoning application was voted on. Another tie — another defeat. So what’s next, they wondered? They hadn’t really accomplished anything. O’Fee, in an effort to resolve it — and in a move that certainly violated any rules of order I’ve ever followed — announced he would change his vote on the deferral so Wallace’s motion would pass. Okeydokey, they all agreed. Let’s give ourselves a couple more weeks to talk to these lawbreakers who feel it’s OK to ask forgiveness rather than permission, who don’t appear to care one bit about the safety of their tenants. This is your council at work. And now, I can ask: What were you thinking?
No comments:
Post a Comment