Posted in UBID

Wow – one of the shortest and most dysfunctional meetings to date – how could it be worse – the video will be a side splitter

Remember the motion missing from the June 21, 2018 meeting minutes?  Well, apparently it’s a hot button issue and those delicate individuals just can’t muster up an answer.  The minutes and the video proof are here:

Six minutes 24 seconds before the fools lose it.  Kaljur’s objects to the June 21, 2018 meeting minutes as there is no mention of the motion to have the water superintendent provide a report to the board at the next meeting. That didn’t happen – no report at the Sept. meeting  Kaljur wants to know where the report is.

First, the Chair takes the whole discussion off topic by arguing about how the water testing is done.  Second, the other goofs start to chime in with ‘point of order’ being used as ‘I want to butt in to prevent Kaljur from making a point’.  All singing the same stupid song about her being off topic when she’s asking why the motion isn’t in the minutes???

Pretty soon they’re all clutching their pearls and trying to kick Kaljur out because she still wants an answer to her question.

They gathered up their petticoats and declared the meeting adjourned.  Oh my lord!

Why do they refuse to address the concerns over the high turbidity readings with no boil water advisory?  Why isn’t the Water Superintendent providing a report the board requested in June 2018?  4 months ago.

Numerous landowners have asked about the turbidity in writing and have been ignored.

This is audio only – will have to wait for the goofs to publish the video – if they will post it since it is their best gong show to date.  Ye haw!

This cartoon character (Baby Huey) reminds of the big dumb goof at the meetings who tries to intimidate people (only women so far as I have seen).  No one is intimidated by this big dumb goof.

Posted in Government

All candidates meeting tonight for Area A Director, CVRD

7 pm at the Union Bay Community Hall tonight.

Snippet from questionnaire candidates responded to:

1) Would you be in favour of the RD appealing to the province for the immediate banning of any future licences to draw water from common aquifers, for the purpose of resale?

Daniel Arbour – NO – The BC Water Act allows the Province to issue water licenses. There may be situations in the future where regional resale could support farming or other desirable activities in unserviced areas. I would prefer to vote on the merit of each application, even if most/all of them end up turned down.

Jim Elliott – YES – Water for sale by private individuals is not something I support, particularly from aquifers that others rely on for their water source.

2) Are you in favour of increasing the number of settlement nodes within the Regional Growth Strategy, to facilitate future development in the Comox Valley?

Jim Elliott – NO – I believe the number of settlement nodes currently is adequate for development. Future nodes should be where servicing for water,sewer, hydro and roads can be easily accessed or where lot size is adequate for individual servicing i.e. wells and septic.

Daniel Arbour – NO – At this point, there are numerous and sizeable opportunities for development within the settlement nodes framework, including in my Area (A). I favour doing a great job of supporting these first.

3) Do you support the proposed amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy to facilitate the residential development near Stotan Falls?

Daniel Arbour – NO – The land is set aside as “Rural Area”, defined as working landscape in the Regional Growth Strategy. Neither a park or a high density subdivision support the primary goals for this section, and the onus is on the developer and community together to argue the merits of a change. It is important to protect designated working landscapes, otherwise we will end up with urban sprawl across the valley. This would undermine the character and appeal of the Comox Valley.

Jim Elliott – NO – Any amendment to the RGS requires careful consideration and public input. Again, ease of servicing should also be a consideration.

4) Are you in favour of stricter bylaw regulations to combat the pollution caused by the aquaculture industry?

Jim Elliott – YES – The amount of the debris that litters Baynes sound is unacceptable and somehow needs to be addressed by the industry.

Daniel Arbour – NO – Not yet. There are problems as with other sectors, but I am more in favour to work constructively with the businesses and communities to solve those problems. Shellfish aquaculture should be one of our greenest local industries: it produces local, healthy food; it relies on healthy watersheds and ocean ecology for its products; and for the little bivalves to survive it encourages us to address climate change. Let’s implement practical solutions to the plastic pollution issue. It is my understanding industry and community leaders want to solve the problem permanently, so let’s get to it before we have to enforce.

Posted in Government

Wow – does Daniel Arbour really want to hitch his horse to the cowardly, deceptive, and secretive Union Bay Improvement District Board of Trustees wagon?

The cowardly Union Bay Improvement District Trustees are out canvassing on behalf of Daniel Arbour (running against Jim Elliott for Area A Director) – suddenly you are no longer insignificant because they want you to vote a certain way.  Are people so dense that they’re going along without asking these guys questions?  Just letting them walk away when they can’t even provide accurate minutes of the few meetings the public witnesses.  They have time to go door to door and canvas on behalf of a candidate and yet they don’t have time to answer questions about the health and safety of the water they provide to Union Bay landowners?  What is their priority here?

They are stating they campaigned against Jim Elliott when he ran for another term in April 2018.  Stating they didn’t like his politics.  Do they mean the politics when Jim Elliott was very firm about being transparent and accountable to the landowners?  What politics exactly?  Perhaps because he wasn’t a boot licker to a developer and wanted to ensure we weren’t screwed again by a lousy agreement?  Because he was concerned about a neophyte board negotiating without professional assistance (the previous board hired an expert and these guys let him go so they could negotiate directly with KIP)?

This paragraph from Daniel Arbour’s website caught my eye.  Hmm, who do you think Daniel has been listening to?

I understand infrastructure issues have been divisive for some local residents, particularly in Union Bay. Proposed developments such as the Union Bay Estates, and eventually opportunities for the K’omoks First Nation treaty lands near Royston, are supported by the Comox Valley Regional Growth Plan. Some see risks and threats, and infrastructure choices each go with their pros and cons.

If Arbour is hitching his horse to these dysfunctional individuals – does he share their beliefs or does he believe in democracy and being accountable to those who give him their vote?  The Union Bay Improvement District is rotten to the core and I am suspect of their whole hearted endorsement and campaigning door to door on behalf of this guy they love so much.

This guy is like a slick commercial.  Selling how great he is.  He’s an unknown as far as Union Bay goes and I doubt he’s gone beyond what he’s been told by good ole KIP and his UBID trustee lackeys.

Jim Elliott lives here and has already proven to be open, honest, accountable, transparent.  Jim stated throughout his term on UBID how important it was to inform the landowners and respond to their concerns – not statements only made when he wanted your vote.

I’m sure the people on Hornby think Mr. Arbour is great and would want a director from their island, but I don’t see him interested in our problems because it would take him too long to catch up on why Union Bay has problems.