How do you rate this city council with the previous one? : Thunderbay IMC

Present council tends to make decisions based on what administration tells them, rather than use administration to provide information as a basis of making a sound decision. Also, our present council has a block of seven to ten councillors, voting the same way on every issue. There were two factions in previous city council with about five councilors somewhere in the middle. Which scenario provides a better setting for democracy to work? A like-minded council? Or one that is on opposite ends of the spectrum? Is in fighting a bad thing?
Present council has a STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN. I looked at how it was progressing and tried to find any tangibles to what they are planning to how it affects what I actually see around me. What I see are more ongoing plans, implementations and studies, with no physical results as of yet. For instance, the “Economic Development Plan & Implementation Strategy” just has “Implementation ongoing”. Has there been additional employment created as a result of this? Do any of these things tie into whether or not the elections issues were addressed? Will this PLAN make a difference for the better or worse?

among other issues is our politically ambitious mayor who feels maintaining the status quo will be her ticket into a liberal leadership position.
you are correct in you assessment. i am incensed that our economic picture was lost on the 4th page of our paper while meaningless information made the front page. how apathetic are we. we have a mayor with an agenda, we have a newspaper with an agenda. our savoir could and i use the word 'could' be allowing cogeneration plants to be built at the local mills to help reduce costs. where is our mayor to help sort out if this is an opportunity and who could be best suited to fulfill this role. where is our media who love to promote any thing with christy radbourne and forsake the economic well being of the populace.

We can make a difference>

Everything eats, or at least wants to, so why does hunger exist? It is a simple question, but a not so simple answer. In Thunder Bay, hunger takes on another aspect. The local economic conditions hold little promise of prosperity and the plans being offered by City Council offer more of the same, rather than an innovative response.

Background:

Thunder Bay is facing a fate that many towns have faced before, are facing now and could face again, the symptoms of which include youth out-migration declining population, indefinite layoffs, and companies closing, going bankrupt or packing up and leaving town.

All these symptoms are indicators that a community’s carrying capacity, which measures the community’s ability to support all the life that inhabits that community, is decreasing.

The infrastructure that creates the carrying capacity, in the first place, is beginning to fail. Picture a ghost town with a tumbleweed blowing down the middle of main street. The situation is not that extreme yet, but if the community does not act now the deserted streets may be closer than you think.

Resource extraction industries, like those that have dominated Thunder Bay’s development take out more than they return from the ecosystems they act upon. This causes an imbalance that precipitates the decline.

The limits of the land to support the community’s population have been surpassed and decay has set in. Thunder Bay as a community needs to find the transitional strategies that will take us from where we are (economic decline) to where we want to be (a sustainable community).

The threat that is approaching the City is our failure to develop a plan to stop the outward flow of resources and people in order to stabilize the City’s ability to support its population. In others words, build the City’s capacity to maintain its current population level..."

ANY HOPE for the emergence of sustainable cultures must be based upon the development of sustainable agricultural systems.

No matter how just our relationships with each other; regardless of the quality of our educational experiences; and despite our spiritual pursuits and freedoms, the sustainability of our culture is at its root, fundamentally dependent upon our relationship to the land.

We all must eat and this fact gives us a common ground upon which we can build a strong and vibrant community.

It is not a secret that along with our economic decline is our population decline. At the same time the migration off the reserves into Thunder Bay is ever increasing. So, are the natives taking our jobs?

What, exactly, do you mean by "our" jobs?

I have a difficult time understanding why city council would agree to continue spending money on Chippewa Park. In the past there has been controversy regarding money that has been spent for upgrades and double invoices. I do not understand why we would encourage first time tourists to Thunder Bay to drive through our industrial area (and possible future site of a polluting pet-coke power plant) to get to a park. I picture tourists heading straight to the marina to take in the majestic priceless view of the Sleeping Giant. We can't afford to head them in the wrong direction. It's interesting that Ian Angus supports both Chippewa Park and Synfuel! Maybe he fell and bumped his head.

what are you hiding. you are against chippewa park and for the harbour. it is curious because i go to the park weekly and other than the homes and businesses along the road it is mostly treed. yes, you do see the businesses including the coal fired generating station. you come across here more as someone against economic recovery and more as a self serving individual.

I think that most of the councilors, including our mayor are "BRAIN DEAD"

Surely you jest! When is the last time you walked into a Wal-Mart, Zellers, HMV, A+P. Safeway, Superstore, a restaurant, or any other local place of business and been served or waited on by a native???? I've never seen a native working in any job dealing with the public in this city in my life, and I don't see any sign at all of that trend changing to reflect the changes in our population which is becoming more racially diverse and includes many more natives than it once did. Some natives manage to get a decent job in the woodlands and construction industry, or jobs that anyone else might turn their noses up at,but any local business that deal with the public is very reluctant to be seen with natives on their staff. Sad but true. Racism is alive and well in Thunder Bay, and anyone who claims that natives are taking our jobs away lives in some Bizarro dream world of their own and should wake up and take a look at the real world around them someday.
As for the current city council. With the exception of a few select members - they suck big time!!!!1

Here's my grading of this new council:

Mayor Peterson, B
Lawrence Timko, C-
Joe Vander Wees, C+
Bill Scollie, F
Robert Tuchenhagen, B-
Allan Laakkonen, D-
Dick Waddington, D
Iain Angus, A-
Lynda Rydholm, B+
Mark Bentz, B-
Joe Virdiramo, C+
Trevor Giertuga, B+ (also voted most improved)
Rebecca Johnson, F (also voted biggest disappointment)

Just my opinion. Would appreciate comments.

Granted Chipewa is a beautiful venue for community events ie Women's Festival, Shelter House Relay etc., community picnics etc. For overnight tourist this is questionable. As a gate keeper last year at the Thundering Women's Festival we turned away more that a dozen RV's (from the States) at Chipewa Park because there was no room for them. If it is to be deemed a tourist site, then let's put the money where our mouth is and be able to accommodate those who go to the site. It was very disappointing for those U.S.A. tourist who came up for the concert to learn that they either had to park at Walmart, in Trowbridge on the North side of town, or Sibley provincial park.
I would like to see Marina Park (old elevator empty space) waterfront cleaned up and get the community down there in Open Market sales, seasonal coastal transportation to small communities along the shoreline and limited RV parking for visiting guests. Not for the sake of our economy but for the sake of our community.

The reason there are no jobs is that everyone there does shop at Wal-Mart, Safeway, Home Depot, and other places where the prices are low, because they don't pay high salaries. The salary of the employees is the main source of income for the city.

Most of the money given to Wal-Mart and thier ilk goes to the States.

The reason the Thunder Bay economy is going down the tubes, is because everyone is concerned with price, and ignores cost.

EXCELLENT IDEAS ON THE OPEN MARKETS DOWN AT THE MARINA AND THE TRAIN TRAVEL ALONG THE SHORE. HOW ABOUT ADDING A MINI-PUT, WATER SLIDE/WATER PARK, BOUTIQUES, FACILITIES FOR TOURISTS THAT SAIL INTO THUNDER BAY (LAUNDRY, OTHERS). WE NEED TO START INVESTING WHERE IT COUNTS. WE NEED EVERY SINGLE TOURSIST THAT COMES INTO TOWN TO LEAVE WITH A LASTING IMPRESSION OF THE VIEW OF LAKE SUPERIOR FROM THE MARINA (NOT CHIPPEWA PARK/INDUSTRIAL AREA) SUDBURY MADE IT INTO THE GLOBE AND MAIL BECAUSE OF IT'S ENVIRONMENTAL INIATIVES IN REGARDS TO IT'S TRANSIT SYSTEM (BUSES THAT WILL RUN ON PART VEGETABLE OILS) LET'S NOT LAG BEHIND ON ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE WE WILL BE LEFT BEHIND ECONOMICALLY.

is there still room for industry? and yes, whole heartedly we need to go for tourism and we need to be enviromentaly responsible and proactive.

In my eyes, that's THE essential question!

One of the main problems driving the so called "youth out migration" is a lack of jobs for young people in our community. The whole Northwest is in the bust part of the boom and bust economy. The region is rife with bust. If we want to reindustrialize, we'll have to put massive resources into tax cuts for multinationals who can make more elsewhere and into power generation (whether it be hydro dams, pet coke, co-generation, wind).

What we have to determine (and in my eyes, the major point that everyone has missed in the Synfuel dabate) (PLEASE don't turn this thread into another synfuel debate!) is if we are going to try this massive reindustrialization, are those the jobs that the people of Thunder Bay want? Will our youth stay here for the glamourous life of industrial labourers? Has it worked elsewhere where the bust has occurred without sufficient power generation? Is the environmental impact a cost that our citizens are willing to pay?

Concerned, you hit the nail right on the head and if we should be doing one more study, it's one that includes the aims of our citizens and the goals of our youth.

Another question is how many youth have returned or would like to return. A city great distances away from larger centres does not appeal to the masses. You either enjoy living in Northwestern Ontario or not.
A positive thing about youth (leaders of tomorrow) leaving and returning is that they bring ideas back into the city about what they've noticed in various parts of the world that work.
The first step towards a viable community needs to be figuring out the voting practices that are currently in place. Do we choose to have a democratic city or are we okay with their being serious concern regarding members of council being appointed rather than voted in.
Is it okay for a councillor to consult with administration about changing the number of councillors or would the public want their say?
Next lets get everybody on board that this is Thunder Bay not Port Arthur/Fort William. Development and hoards of money spent on the marina will not take away from Fort William folks, it will benefit every Thunder Bay citizen.
It would probably be a good idea to relocate City Hall to the waterfront so that administration and council will have lots of time to gaze out the windows and come up with the inspiration for ideas.
I will agree that there is room for industry but the environment has to be the first priority. There is enough poison being dumped into Lake Superior presently with little restrictions.(due to government cut-backs of the previous Conservative government.)

i could not wait to find a site here to add a comment on our Ms 'Narcisse' Radbourne. (Narcissus loved himself so much he died looking at himself). Does she not know that 9 out of 10 business people in town despise her. Does she not know that every person who has lost or is losing their job depises her. Does she not know that the Environmental Agencies exist without her.
Her letter today attempts to portray her greatness, yet continues to show sarcasm, lack of intelligence, lack of substantiating information, true narcissitic tendencies.
What is her motive. She is trying to get 'funding' for herself in any possible manner. She is trying to get funding as an intervener against Synfuel, she is trying to get funding to be our 'clean water lady' she is trying to get onto the school union commitees to get free funding. The lady is out for herself and nobody else.
If she were back in her beloved US. (Minn in particular) she would not be allowed to comment negatively on any project unless she identified her motives. Had substantialing evidence and could back up her claims. Maybe that is why she moved here.

It takes great courage to stick your name out into the public and bring awareness to a potentially dangerous situation. Radbourne has dealt with petroleum coke in the past and knew the questions to ask having to do with public and environmental safety. Her questions were barely answered at Synfuel's public meeting in Feb. 2004. If Synfuel proponents chose to be transparent in their approach with the public they would have gained a sense of trust with Thunder Bay residents. Instead they have attempted to do everything they can to keep public consultation out of the Environmental Assessment process. The business community does not speak for all of Thunder Bay. Business is business. An energy project that will affect our water and air quality needs to be studied carefully, not lobbied to death and pushed through. That isn't the type of Environmental Assessment that the community of Thunder Bay requested and fought for!

Obviously you have not taken the effort to learn of Synfuel or of the impacts enviromentally or economically. If you had you would not make such a statement. You would also know Ms Radbourne was out for gov't funding 'looking for an income'. When it was refused she has taken on a different target.

This thread has been incredible up until now with great suggestions for sustainable development and criticisms of Thunder Bay's city council.

But can we keep the Synfuel stuff off this thread?

Just a suggestion.

If Synfuel wasn't so supported by city council and the Liberal leadership in Thunder Bay then yes, we wouldn't have to discuss the poisonous energy project that's on the table presently. But until it's a non-issue for Thunder Bay then we can get on with renewable clean energy development that we will be able to rely on for many years into the future. The Synfuel project is similar to the nuclear energy plants in Southern Ontario with respect to the lack of thought or responsibility put towards protection of the environment. Personally I do not wish to live in a city that chooses to go the industrial route instead of it's focus being more on tourism. The discussion of youth out migration is ongoing and neverending. Maybe with the new direction the city is choosing to go (industrialization) the new discussion will be the outgoing of families that are moving to areas that are taking the environment more seriously.

Synfuel is a bad idea that needs to be put to rest.

We do not need it. It will not improve teh local economy. If we want more energy, then lets look at the renewable alternatives.
The discussion on enregy is vital to any dialogue on community economic development.

You're one of the anti-business people opposed to Synfuel that Rebecca Johnson has been talking about.

Yeah, let's giet 'im!

Were they elected??? Or was it fixed????? Check the link !!!

Instead of manually counting the ballots (as the judge suggested) the city destroyed the ballots. It does make one wonder.

With the majority of people in Thunder Bay being pawns to the media, any decent person trying to make a change through city council is destroyed by those around them. From what I have seen, any city councillors who has attempted to expose the corruption and "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" mentality in this city has been killed by those pig-headed, 'let's listen to what the local media wants to tell us', idiots from this city. I hate to say it, but as much as I love this city, the average person is highly uneducated and content to live their life taking what they are told to believe as the truth. These are the same idiots who call into the local radio 'joke talk shows' to trash councillors when they know nothing at all. If Joe Blow at Robins Donuts says that they heard that councillor X caused trouble at council the night before they must be bad. The vast majority of people in this city would rather have councillors who sleep through meetings but vote the way that they are told than those who research the issues and vote in a way that they believe is right. If one only knew the corruption that is "The City Of Thunder Bay" they would want to leave it very quickly, or give up on this city. Your choice. Many people who have tried to change this city for the better have run into brick walls over and over.

There are ways of playing the game and there are ways of how not to play. Although Santa in the last council may have noticed strange goings on, he caused too much craziness within the group that the general public seen him as a loon.
The first time I heard about the voting (or non-voting) that we have in the city I waited to hear more on the subject and tuned in to the Monday night meetings. I thought that having Santa going forward to make a deputation was a bad idea. He's lost his credibility with a number of citizens who grew tired of the bafoonery of the previous council.
In the future I will vote for council (2006 ?)and school trustees and wait to see what happens with the voting. If there are more court proceedings afterward I will support the venture.

Ask yourself what was THE REAL cause of the craziness and buffoonnery within city council. Perhaps it was Ken Boschoff crying like a baby that things weren’t going his way. No longer was council blindly listening to administration or special interest groups. The media as always blows these things way out of proportion. As you well know, the media in this town is a joke. Now that we elected a “civilized” council you don’t hear anything incompetent that they did. We’re $100 million dollars in debt and council NEVER questions administration about all the wastes incurred. I also did a presentation in front of city council about the electronic tabulators. My focus was that they cost more than manual counting votes. Based on financial statements that I obtained from city hall. I proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it costs more to run electronic count elections than manual-count elections. Was I crazy to go before council and do this? Despite elctionic elections being less reliable, honest, more expensive, etc., this city council voted 10 to 1 to keep this joke of an election system. Aside from a few concillors like Mark Bentaz and Lawrence Timko, this city council consist of crooks, cowards and buffoons. This is THE WORST CITY COUNCIL in the history of Thunder Bay. They just don’t get IT.

What hundred million dollars. The hundred million that whoever has spent on the new single source water system. Is that the dollars that you are speaking of? Don't worry you're pretty little head. the city will make plenty back from selling our drinking water to industry we'll be rolling in it. to burn petroleum coke you need lots and lots and lots of water.

Here’s how I rate the coucillors from best to worst:
MARK BENTZ
He always has regular ward meetings. Allows people to speak their mind at the ward meetings, unlike certain coucillors. Votes with more common sense than the rest of council. Before making decisions, he relies more on fact, than what administration tells him. His only down fall is that he tries to maintain a balance between doing what is right and political correctness.
LAWRENCE TIMKO
Although some may consider him to be apart of the old boys club, myself included, I’ve grown to respect a lot of his viewpoints. For instance, he wanted to bring back manual-count elections to Thunder Bay. It was proven our present electronic-system was less democratic, more expensive, and possibly in contradiction to the Municipal Act. He always makes an effort to attend ALL the ward meetings.
TREVOR GIERTUGA
Like Mark, he has regular ward meetings. He has a lot of potential to be a good coucillor, but sometimes tends to lean towards administration advice over facts that regular people bring forward.
DICK WADDINGTON
He’s not healthy, doesn’t say much in council meetings, it appears he sleeps at council meetings and has virtually no ward meetings. Yet, if he was the worst councilor we had, it wouldn’t a bad city council. It’s pretty scary this guy was rated #4 on my list. It gets far worse after this.
ALLAN LAAKKONEN/JOE VANDERWEES
These guys are old, stodgy, and don’t want things to change in anyway.
REBECCA JOHNSON/LINDA RYDHOLM/LYNN PETERSON
Three words describe this bunch. Clueless, clueless, clueless.
ROBERT TUCHENHAGEN
I don’t know much about this guy. All that I can say is he votes for most of the things I’m against.
JOE VIRDERAMO
Like Robert Tuchenhagen, he’s a part of that “block of seven” that votes for bad things such as, Eye In The Sky, settling out of court with Brian McCrae, electronic-count tabulators, etc
BILL SCOLLIE
Always has something stupid to say. I honestly believe he is trying to use his position on council to serve himself. The only nice thing I got to say about this guy is that at least you know where he stands right from the get go, unlike our last councilor.
IAN ANGUS
The biggest disappointment Thunder Bay has ever had. He’s still a card carry member of the NDP. The NDP is supposed to be the party of the people. Yet, he has supported everything that contradicts that. He has a very pig-headed attitude!

Yes, I'd have to agree with the commments made about Mark Bentz. I hope he is able to come back to the council table soon and I wish him and his family the best. He is a valuable asset to have within the council members.
But I disagree with the comments made about Johnson and Rydholm. If one were to look into what Lynda Rydholm has accomplished during her tenures with city council then your thoughts would differ. She's a person that likes to get things done.
I consider Johnson to be in the top three. I would also like to ask Andy if he has anything against women being in leadership positions. Are you some 60 plus old fart that thinks women have nothing interesting to say.

I also don't think Lynda Rydholm is that bad, in fact she's fairly good. But I think Rebecca the Clueless Councillor is an appropriate way to describe her.

If I had something against women in leadership positions, I would've put them at the bottom of my list. I objectively evaluated their performance on how they voted and what arguements they presented to support thoses arguements. They are a part of that "wonderful block of seven" that voted for the following things:
To settle with Brian McCrae instead of finding out the truth in court
Eye In The Sky
A single source water system that's a $100,000,000 boondoggle.
Maintaining our Electronic-scan voting system that has less democracy and cost over $200,000 more.
All the above were things I was dead set against. I have yet to hear a good arguement, any arguement from these councillors, supporting these issues. Give me one good reason why I should support these councillors. When I did two presentations in front of city council, one on the budget and the other on voting machine costs, not one of these women asked me any questions, they just gave me blank stares like they were lost. I can show you some of their sample email responses to my inquiries if you like.
I welcome you "curious" to share with us what Linda Rydholm did on City Council, I haven't seen anything.

By Joe
by Scollie ... doesn't return calls Tuesday, Jul. 26, 2005 at 9:13 AM

The Clueless Councillor (R. Johnson) is clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but Bill Scollie is certainly the biggest deadweight on council. He's totally unresponsive to voters ... just ask anyone who has called him hoping for a response ... he doesn't return calls!

Glad to hear that you have an objectiveness towards women in leadership positions. And yes I would like to view the e-mails you received from the councillors having to do with the non-voting we have in this city. That would be very interesting.
Well I guess we won't be seeing any action at the marina this year. It sounds like it will be in the 2006 budget. Tick tock tick tock. I wonder if the city has painted that one and only park bench I mentioned previously. I'll have to swing by and check it out.
Maybe I'll bring a can of paint out and do it myself.
Actually the residents are so frustrated with the pace in development at the marina that if the call was put out residents would show up and volunteer to remove the rubble and sod where the elevator was levelled.
Well I guess "good things come to those who wait".

EYE IN THE SKY
My name is Andy Wolff and I have certain points I'd like to address, with regards to this EYE IN THE SKY being implemented within our municipality. I'm concerned that recent council decisions regarding the closure of Churchill Pool, closure of the Women's Shelter, the cancellation of some bus routes, the Installation of traffic lights on Water Street, etc., were never issues that were EVER brought up during the election campaign. Now we have the recent implementation of EYE IN THE SKY, which is supposed to
reduce the crime rate in our downtown core areas. As a citizen, I'm concerned for the well being and safety of my family and friends. As a taxpayer, I'm concerned whether or not my tax dollars going towards the installation of these cameras, will be effective in stopping more crimes occurring all over our city. In this letter, I'm not arguing whether or not it was a good decision by city council. I'm interested if certain factors were considered before this was implemented. I would appreciate your response to the following questions below:

1. Is this part of the LIVING STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN?
2. Are there any statistics from other cities that would validate that crime dropped a certain percentage, after these cameras were installed?
3. Was there discussion on this matter in prior city council meetings to implement this project?
4. What was your rational?
i) If you supported EYE IN THE SKY.
ii) If you didn't support EYE IN THE SKY.
5. Will there be an assessment of whether or not this project is successful?
i) If so, will there be amendments to it, depending on whether it's a success or failure?
ii) What kind of amendments will be made?
6. In light of other budget cuts, what was the initiative that some deemed this necessary?

If you have additional input in this matter, your comments would be greatly appreciated. I hope to hear from you soon.

I sent city council this email on May 8th, 2004
ALL THEIR RESPONSES I PUT IN UPPERCASE

MARK BENTZ RESPONDED May 9th, 2004
Is this part of the Living Strategic Development Plan?
NOT REALLY, ALTHOUGH SUPPORTERS WILL PUT THE "QUALITY OF LIFE" AND "PUBLIC SAFETY" SPIN ON IT.
Are there any statistics from other cities that would validate that crime dropped a certain percentage, after these cameras were installed?
FOR EVERY STATISTIC THAT SAYS THERE IS A BENEFIT THERE IS ANOTHER TO DISCREDIT IT. IN THE END YOU JUST HAVE TO GO WITH YOUR GUT FEELING ON THE MATTER. CITIES IN CANADA WHERE THEY ARE INSTALLED ARE HAPPY WITH THEM - BUT THEN AGAIN WHAT CITY WOULD TELL THE TAXPAYER THAT THEY WASTED MONEY ON CAMERAS THAT HAVE NOT HELPED TO ACHIEVE THE POLITICIAN'S OBJECTIVE. I HAVE STATISTICS FROM LONDON ENGLAND, A CITY THAT HAS OVER 150,000 SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS. IN 2002, STREET CRIME INCREASED 40% IN THAT CITY. I THINK THAT WE ALL INHERENTLY KNOW THAT PEOPLE PREVENT CRIME, NOT CAMERAS. IF WE WANT TO REDUCE CRIME I BELIEVE WE SHOULD PUT THE MONEY FOR THE CAMERAS TOWARDS MORE POLICE OFFICERS.
Was there discussion on this matter in prior city council meetings to implement this project?
VERY LITTLE, IN FACT, AS A CORPORATION WE DO NOT EVEN HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY IN PLACE FOR THE LEGAL USE OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN OUR PUBLIC STREETS. AT THIS POINT, I AM NOT EVEN SURE WHO WILL BE OPERATING THE CAMERAS, WHO WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE VIDEO RECORDS ETC. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT OUR POLICE FORCE WILL NOT BE INVOLVED IN THIS PROGRAM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
4.What was your rational?
i) If you supported EYE IN THE SKY.
ii) If you didn’t support EYE IN THE SKY.
I THINK THAT TO SPY ON CITIZENS GOING ABOUT THEIR LAWFUL BUSINESS IN THE PUBLIC FORUMS IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF PRIVACY. WE HAVE ALL HEARD OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT IF YOU ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR. I AGREE BUT ONLY IF THE SYSTEM IS NOT ABUSED. I HAVE READ OF INSTANCES OF EXTORTION IN THE UK WHEREBY A WEALTHY MAN WAS RECORDED WITH A WOMAN OTHER THAN HIS WIFE - HE WAS APPROACHED BY AN OPERATOR OF THE CAMERAS AND WAS BLACKMAILED FOR MONEY. THIS IS ONLY ONE OF THE ADVERSE RESULTS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS TYPE OF CONCEPT IN THE NAME OF CRIME PREVENTION - I AM SURE WE CAN ALL THINK OF OTHER WAYS SUCH A SYSTEM WILL BE ABUSED.
THE INSTALLATION OF CAMERAS WILL NOT REFORM CRIMINALS - IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT THE CAMERAS JUST DISPLACE THESE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES TO OTHER AREAS. THE CAMERAS COULD IN FACT MAKE CRIME WORSE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ABUTTING THE CORES. SINCE THESE RESIDENTIAL AREAS DO NOT HAVE AS GREAT A POLICE COVERAGE AS THE CORES AN ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT WE ARE IN SOME WAY ENDANGERING THESE CITIZENS.
THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO INSTALLING THE FIRST 16 CAMERAS IS THAT WE WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE HUNDREDS OF THEM WATCHING ANY BUSINESS DISTRICT THAT COMES TO COUNCIL ASKING FOR THEM. I SUSPECT WE WILL HEAR FROM BAY ST., WESTFORT, CURRENT RIVER AND MOST LIKELY SOME PROBLEMATIC RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT WANT THEM TOO. WE COULD EVENTUALLY BE SPENDING MILLIONS ON THIS FORM OF CRIME PREVENTION - I'D RATHER SEE THESE MILLIONS GO TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PUT MORE OFFICERS ON THE STREET WHO CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR RESULTS.
5. Will there be an assessment of whether or not this project is successful?
THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO TALK OF HOW WE PLAN TO MEASURE THE SUCCESS OF SUCH A PROGRAM. THERE HAS BEEN NO DETAILED TALK OF HOW SUCCESSFUL THE CAMERAS HAVE BEEN IN OTHER CITIES.
i) If so, will there be amendments to it, depending on whether it’s a success or failure?
ii) What kind of amendments will be made?
6. In light of other budget cuts, what was the initiative that some deemed this necessary? THERE WAS A GENERAL ACCEPTANCE BY THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL THAT THIS WILL REDUCE CRIME. COUNCIL HAS BEEN GIVEN NO SOLID REPORTS TO THIS EFFECT. IN FACT, ADMINISTRATION IS NOT RECOMMENDING THAT WE PROCEED WITH THIS PROJECT AT THIS TIME.

If you have additional input in this matter, your comments would be greatly appreciated. I hope to hear from you soon.
PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS WERE DEEMED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY A PREVIOUS PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA AS WELL AS A SUPREME COURT JUDGE. WHILE THEIR OPINIONS ARE NOT LEGALLY BINDING, THEY DO SUGGEST THAT IF PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS ARE CHALLENGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, A RULING COULD BE HANDED DOWN THAT ALL SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN CANADA ARE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PRIVACY ACT AND SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER. IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, WE COULD FIND OURSELVES TAKING DOWN THE CAMERAS THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO INSTALL - THIS WOULD WASTE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. IF COUNCIL DOES WANT CAMERAS, I THINK WE NEED TO PROCEED WITH CAUTION - LETS DEVELOP A POLICY FOR THEIR LEGAL USE, DETERMINE WHO IS GOING TO OPERATE THEM, AND WAIT TO SEE WHAT LEGAL CHALLENGES MAY BE LAUNCHED AGAINST THE CAMERA SYSTEMS IN OTHER CANADIAN CITIES OF WHICH I KNOW ONLY 3 (KELOWNA, SUDBURY AND LONDON, ON).

THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST IN THIS MATTER. IF YOU REQUIRE ANY CLARIFICATIONS ON MY THOUGHTS, PLEASE CALL ME AT 628-6910.

MARK BENTZ

DICK WADDINGTON RESPONDED May 9th, 2004
My name is Andy Wolff and I have certain points I’d like to address, with regards to this EYE IN THE SKY being implemented within our municipality. I’m concerned that recent council decisions regarding the closure of Churchill Pool, ON MY PART, THE DECISION WAS STRICTLY FINANCIAL. WE ARE FACED WITH A BUSINESS BUSTING TAX INCREASE AND I, FOR ONE DON'T BELIEVE THAT A MASSIVE TAX INCREASE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO OUR COMMUNITY. closure of the Women’s Shelter, THE CLOSURE OF THE SHELTER WAS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PREMIER MCGUINTY'S NEW PROVINCIAL ORDER. IT WAS NOT THIS CITY COUNCIL THAT CUT OFF THE FUNDING BUT IT WAS THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT AT QUEEN'S PARK. YOUR LOCAL CITY COUNCIL PROTESTED VEHEMENTLY BUT WERE MET BY DEAF EARS.the cancellation of some bus routes, I BELIEVE ONLY ONE NEEBING BUS WAS CANCELLED. THAT WAS THE ONE THE RESIDENTS, IN THE AREA SERVED, ARE NOT TAXED FOR, AS ARE THE REST OF US. the installation of traffic lights on Water Street, I ARGUED AGAINST THOSE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND NOW, DUE TO FINANCIAL RESTRAINTS, THEY HAVE BEEN POSTPONED A YEAR.etc., were never issues that were EVER brought up during the election campaign. CERTAINLY I NEVER MENTIONED THEM DURING THE TIME PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE RECENT MUNICIPAL ELECTION, I ONLY STATED THAT "I WOULD DEVOTE ALL THE TIME AND ENERGY NECESSARY TO BE THE BEST COUNCILLOR I COULD BE. I DEAL WITH EACH ISSUE AS IT ARISES. I HOPE I'M SEEN AS CONSISTENT. Now we have the recent implementation of EYE IN THE SKY, which is supposed to reduce the crime rate in our downtown core areas. A FEW YEARS AGO, I ATTENDED AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION CONFERENCE. ONE OF THE SUBJECTS WAS THE "EYE IN THE SKY" REPRESENTATIVES, FROM A CITY IN GREAT BRITAIN, PRESENTED A LECTURE ABOUT THE "EYE". THEY HAD EXPERIENCED GREAT SUCCESS WITH THE PROGRAMME EVEN HAVING SPOTTED A FIRE BREAKING OUT IN A COMMERCIAL AREA. I, FOR ONE WAS SOLD ON THE MERITS OF CAMERAS AS YET ANOTHER "TOOL" TO BE USED IN THE STRUGGLE WE RAGE AGAINST CRIME. I STILL BELIEVE THAT THE "EYE" PROGRAMME HAS MERIT BUT WHEN THE REQUEST WAS BEFORE COUNCIL LAST WEEK, I SPOKE AND VOTED AGAINST IT. AGAIN, BASED ON THE FINANCIAL MESS THIS COUNCIL INHERITED. As a citizen, I’m concerned for the well being and safety of my family and friends. As a taxpayer, I’m concerned whether or not my tax dollars going towards the installation of these cameras, will be effective in stoppi ng more crimes occurring all over our city. THE "EYE", OF COURSE, IS ONLY DESIGNED TO HELP COMBAT CRIME IN THE AREAS WHERE THE CAMERAS ARE LOCATED. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT EVEN THE MOST ZEALOUS ADVOCATE HAS STATED THAT IT WOULD STOP "MORE CRIMES OCCURING ALL OVER OUR CITY." In this letter, I’m not arguing whether or not it was a good decision by city council. I’m interested if certain factors were considered before this was implemented. I would appreciate your response to the following questions below:
1. Is this part of the Living Strategic Development Plan?
I DON'T THINK IT IS SPECIFICALLY COVERED BUT, NO DOUBT YOU MIGHT JUSTIFY IT UNDER ONE CLAUSE OR ANOTHER.
2. Are there any statistics from other cities that would validate that crime dropped a certain percentage, after these cameras were installed?
I BELIEVE WE HAVE SEEN STATISTICS THAT DEMONSTRATE SUCH A DROPPAGE.
3. Was there discussion on this matter in prior city council meetings to implement this project?
YES, THE "EYE" PROJECT HAS BEEN BEFORE VARIOUS CITY COUNCILS OFF AND ON FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS, NOW.
4. What was your rational?
As stated above. In the end, no matter what the merit, we should, I say MUST, get this City's finances under control.
i) If you supported Eye In The Sky
YES, AS ANOTHER CRIME FIGHTING "TOOL.".
ii) If you didn’t support Eye In The Sky.
VOTED NO, MAINLY FOR FINACIAL REASONS.
5. Will there be an assessment of whether or not this project is successful?
I DON"T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY FORMAL ASSESSMENT SCHEDULED. HOWEVER, THE "EYE" WILL NEED YEARLY OPERATING FUNDING AND I BELIEVE THAT THE CRIME STATIUSTICS WILL PLAY A PART IN THOSE DEBATES.
i) If so, will there be amendments to it, depending on whether it’s a success or failure?
I CAN ONLY SUPPOSE THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. I CERTAINLY CAN'T ANSWER FOR CERTAIN.
ii) What kind of amendments will be made?
I IMAGINE CIRCUMSTANCE WILL DICTATE.
6. In light of other budget cuts, what was the initiative that some deemed this necessary?
I CAN'T IMPUTE MOTIVE TO OTHERS. MY DECISION WAS BASED ON THE FINANCIAL MESS THIS COUNCIL WAS LEFT WITH.

TREVOR GIERTUGA RESPONDED May 10th, 2004
HI ANDY, I VOTED AGAINST THE EYE IN THE SKY PROJECT, CALL ME IF YOU REQUIRE MY RATIONAL.

REBECCA JOHNSON RESPONDED May 25th, 2004
THANK YOU FOR YOUR EMAIL, MR. WOLFF RE: EYE IN THE SKY. I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO PROVIDE ME WITH YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS ON THE PROGRAM. YOUR INPUT IS VALUED. I TOOK YOUR COMMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING MY DECISION ON THE FUTURE OF THE PROGRAM FOR THE CORE AREAS.

The following councillors voted FOR Eye In The Sky:
Lynn Peterson
Rebecca Johnson
Ian Angus
Bill Scollie
Joe Virdiramo
Robert Tuchenhagen
Linda Rydholm

The following councillors voted AGAINST Eye In The Sky:
Mark Bentz
Trevor Guiertuga
Lawrence Timko
Dick Waddington
Joe Vanderwees
Al Laakkonen

Eye In The Sky was voted in 7-6

THE BRIAN McRAE AFFAIR

The following was an email I sent to the Editor of both the Chronicle Journal and TBSource. Given the media bias they didn’t have to guts to even print this letter. I also attached a copy of this to all of the Council members.

Dear Editor:
> As a municipal taxpayer, I believe the truth must be brought to
> light. This city council will no doubt do everything it can to
> settle with Brian MacRae, as it already is on the road to making
> questionable decisions. (i.e. tax hike, various building closures,
> Eye In The Sky). I will gladly have my tax money be put forward
> towards finding the truth with regards to this matter. In my
> opinion Brian McRae has already displayed his disregard for the
> municipality of Thunder Bay by suing the city to further his
> self-serving needs. Remember, the taxpayers will be footing the
> bill, if Mr. McRae's settles out of court. We had elected
> officials that voted 6 to 2 in favour of dismissing Brian McRae.
> The main argument isn't whether Mr. McRae did anything wrong
> (borrowing money without council approval), but rather in the way
> it was done. Mr. McRae did have a chance to resign quietly, but
> refused. If we settle with Mr. McRae, then we will be setting an
> ugly precedent in where anyone in a position of high authority
> within our municipal infrastructure, can do whatever he or she
> wants without ramifications from individuals we the taxpayers
> elected. Let's do the right thing and drag him through the courts
> and then we can see Mr. McRae for what he really is! If we're
> going to get through this, I think we should go with a bang, NOT a
> pathetic wimper! Andy Wolff

Only Joe Virdiramo responded.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS . OUR LAWYER IS WORKING ON THE CASE

Well needless to say Our City Council settled with Brian McRae, instead of doing the right thing and finding out the truth in court. This leads me to believe either these councilors who voted to settle are clueless, have ulterior motives or simply cowards.

Here are the councillors that voted to settle for $650,000, rather than find out the truth of the matter for far less. By the way, the O.P.P. have still not concluded the criminal investigation of Mr. McRae on the matter of Portside.

Here’s an email I sent to city council on Mar 2, 2005

To all City Council Members:
I recently attended a council meeting where a deputation was made with regards to returning to paper ballots in the next municipal election. I have a few concerns regarding this and want to know what is your insight on the matter.

1. Does it not bother you that for the last few elections, NO human eyes have seen any ballot?

2. If a HIGHER COST is a valid reason for NOT returning to the paper ballots, then why would you feel a HIGHER COST NOT a valid reason for questioning our tax dollars supporting institutions like THE COMMUNITY AUDITORIUM, THE GAMES COMPLEX or EYE IN THE SKY?

3. It’s my understanding the public gets less involved in electronic scanned ballots. No scrutinizers are allowed to examine the ballots to see if they’re valid. Does this not exclude an important part of the democratic process?

Once again, I would appreciate any input on this matter.

All councillors’ responses are in UPPERCASE

DICK WADDINGTON RESPONDED Mar3, 2005
1. Does it not bother you that for the last few elections, no human eyes have seen any ballot?
THE BEAUTY BEING, OF COURSE, THAT ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL VOTER SEES HIS OR HERS ACTUAL BALLOT THEREBY PRESERVING THE SACRED SECRET VOTE. NO OTHER PERSON CAN NOW INFLUENCE, WITH ANY CERTAINTY, HOW AN INDIVIDUAL MAY CHOOSE TO VOTE.

2. if a higher cost is a valid reason for not returning to the paper ballots, then why would you feel a higher cost not a valid reason for questioning our tax dollars supporting institutions like the Community Auditorium, The Games Complex or Eye In The Sky?
WHILE I DID NOT VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE EYE NOR THE RECENT MASSIVE REPAIRS TO THE COMPLEX SWIMMING POOL, I HAVE LESS OF A PROBLEM MAINTAING SERVICES SUCH AS THE GARDENS, THE AUDITORIUM, THE FORT WILLIAM AND PORT ARTHUR STADIUMS (SOCCER AND BASEBALL) AND SO MANY OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES WHICH SERVE BOTH THE MIND AND/OR THE BODY.

3. It’s my understanding the public gets less involved in electronic scanned ballots. No scrutinizers are allowed to examine the ballots to see if they’re valid. Does this not exclude an important part of the democratic process?
THE SCRUTINER, OF COURSE, HAS NEVER SEEN A MARKED BALLOT PRIOR TO IT BEING PLACED IN THE BALLOT BOX OR, AS IS THE CASE NOW, RUN THROUGH THE SCANNER.

Once again, I would appreciate any input on this matter.

PERSONALLY, I HAVE WON AND LOST ELECTIONS WHILE BOTH SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN IN OPERATION. I CREDIT NEITHER MY WINS NOR MY LOSSES TO ANY MACHINE. I FIND IT MORE THAN PASSING STRANGE THAT MANY OF THOSE WHO ARE NOW CRYING FOUL, ABOUT THE MOST RECENT ELECTION, HAD NO QUALMS ABOUT ACCEPTING THE RESULTS OF THE MOST PREVIOUS ELECTION TO THIS ONE. SO, ONE IS LEFT WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PROCESS IS ONLY WRONG OR POSSIBILY FRAUDULENT WHEN ONE IS NOT ABLE TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS.

MARK BENTZ ALSO RESPONDED Mar3, 2005
I WOULD SUPPORT PERFORMING RANDOM AUDITS ON THE ELECTRONIC COUNTING SYSTEM IN THE FUTURE. AT THE VERY LEAST THE PUBLIC SHOULD FEEL CONFIDENT IN THE SYSTEM THAT IS USED IN ELECTIONS. IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC DID NOT TRUST THE ELECTRONIC METHOD, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS THE CASE, I WOULD HAVE NO ISSUE WITH RETURNING TO THE MANUAL METHOD EVEN IF IT DID COST SLIGHTLY MORE.

REBECCA JOHNSON RESPONDED Mar 6, 2005
THANK YOU ANDY FOR YOUR EMAIL. HAVE FORWARDED TO CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR A RESPONSE RE THE SPECIFICS YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT.

LINDA RYDHOLM RESPONDED Mar 8, 2005
THERE WILL BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT COMING TO COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE. YOUR QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME.

After all that was said and done, council voted 10-1 in favour of keep the electronic-count system.
This was despite:
1. Reliability and honesty being in question
2. The cost being over $200,000 more to operate
3. Conflicting with the Municipal Act Section 55 which states, before any ballot box can be moved, the ballots must be counted at that station. 21 of the 55 polling stations didn’t have electronic scanners, so they had to be moved to a polling station that did.
4. The privatization of a public institution
a. Administration has total control over the ballot counting
b. Scrutinizers aren’t allowed to examine the ballots in any way
c. Citizens become become less involved in the democratic process
d. Most of the cost goes to a private company in the U.S., as opposed to people of our city, who would put a portion of the money back into the local economy.
All these points were presented to city council by a number of citizens and numerous letters were written to our local publications.

Aside, from Lawrence Timko and possibly Mark Bentz (he wasn’t there for the vote due to personal reasons), no one on our present city council has any regard for what the people of our city think. They would rather base their decisions on the wild speculations of Administration.

There were a few well thought out responses both in favour and opposed to your thoughts. But councillor Johnson's responses were lacking any depth or intelligence at all. No wonder you referred to her as the Clueless Councillor.

I do believe I heard that there will be audits performed during the next city election post voting. Personally I wasn't surprised that city council didn't scrap the voting tabulators, which doesn't mean that I wasn't disappointed.
In this day and age I strongly sense that our democractic rights are slipping away.
It's the corporate world running the show not the government that is elected by the public. What percentage of the public is aware of this?
But with awareness comes change. We just need to wake up!
I'm still surprised at how Rebecca Johnson is nailed on this site, maybe she's just a little too vocal for some. What's wrong with asking where our taxpayer money is being spent. Which is a common question of hers.
And what's with Angus spouting off that the public needs to view slide shows in September concerning "green energy"? The same councillor that didn't think petroleum coke gasification plants needed environmental assessments. Give it a rest Angus and stick your slide shows up your ass!

Here and at work I hear negative things about counc. johnson. But i'll say the same thing here as I do at work ... Scollie is the deadweight. He's known for never returning calls. He says the dummest things at council ... and I mean some really stupid things. He royally screwed up the Portside Project ... which we should never gotten into in the first place. Johnson may not add much to council but Scollie is just one big negative!

So at yesterday's meeting they talked about more studies for the waterfront, put off discussing a study for tourism ... has anyone noticed that all this council does is study things. This is not a council of action. There are only two or three worth keeping ... we need to throw the rest of them out. I promise you that come next year they will have the results from all of these studies and talk about all the action that is going to result ... then they will get elected and go back to doing nothing but studies.

THIS IS THE NO-ACTION COUNCIL

Bing and Bong
by Or is it Ren and Stimpy Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2005 at 8:06 PM

Well this should be entertaining. Can't wait until Monday to see Angus and Scollie present whatever on tourism. This should be good for a laugh. It's off to a great start with Angus not showing up for the meeting.
Recently went out to Chippewa Park and I'm just wondering if anyone knows how the poor caribou is doing? The thing looked half dead. It's situated out in the open with zero trees around for shade. At least the wolves and deer could sit in cooler places alloted for them.
Just wondering as well where the (4.2 million dollars?) has gone from the government on this park. Looking around the place one would not think that the money was spent there. The city is still committed to spending money out there and I'm wondering if anyone has any details on this.

Don't Expect Much
by Tourism Doesn't Trust This Council Thursday, Aug. 11, 2005 at 9:26 AM

My brother-in-law works in tourism. He said the tourism businesses won't be responding to council's request for a new plan. Said there's too many hidden agenda's with this council. They're going to sit out of any city marketing plans until there is a new council. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Well another trip to the marina to see how it looks. Since negative comments travel quicker and broader than positive I'll mention those first.
Park benches and garbage containers remain in poor condition with most of the paint missing off of them. The paint that is left is a putrid colour. If we are serious about tourism and have spent money on advertising bringing in tourists from the states and other areas the little things are a must. Spring is when touch ups need to be done such as eroded paint jobs. So thumbs down for lack of attention to these jobs that didn't get done. It sent the message to me that we don't value the marina and we have it at the bottom of the list of areas in the city that get attention.
There is still a lack of seating and rest stops at the section of the marina closest to the demolished elevator. It is where the boat service building is located. The area has high traffic with people out with their children, friends, family and pets. Although the area is well connected to the rest of the marina there is a serious lack of seating for anyone to take a rest and sit down and view the majestic scenery. The two park benches are connected to each other, in serious need of a paint job and are facing the parking lot side of the path. More seating is needed in various spots going around the pathway area.
Tick! Tock! Tick! Tock!
So visitors to the area have come and gone and will pass on stories of their vacation to their friends, family and coworkers possibly describing the area. One wonders what they will be saying.
Although the landscaping around the marina including a serious lack of grass is in poor condition, the bagpiper playing today was worth catching and the war monuments were interesting.
We enjoyed the homemade ice cream as well!
I'll give the experience a 5 out of 10.

Did anyone watch last Monday's council meeting? Ya gotta hear this. They couldn't allocated funding for the marina park development because the study they are doing for it ... yes another darn study ... won't be done until December ... which isn't in time for the budget process. It's not as if these guys were elected last week. This is their LAST budget before the election and they didn't start their marina park study until three weeks ago so it won't make it in time for this budget. I hope Shaw 10 doesn't get broadcast outside of Thunder Bay because that type of buffoonery is just embarrassing. This is the do nothing council. But watch, next year they'll have all these pretty plans just like they did for Portside. The question will be whether we end up being the real idiots by voting most of those clowns back in.

If you didn't vote for any of the city councillors or the Mayor, you should only complain about youself.

Still doesn't change the fact that the people serving on city council are a bunch of incompetent boobs. One of the stupidest saying I ever heard was, "If you don't vote, don't complain".
I like to say two things in regards to that statement:
1. Who's goona stop me? (complaining)
2. The person that came up with that saying, doesn't want to be told how stupid they were for making such a bad choice. A lot of bad choices were made picking this city council.

I hear ya Uncle, but I think those who say that are frustrated because if those who didn't vote would come out and vote for the good choices then we'd have better government. Just my 2 cents.

I'm not sure how many citizens of Thunder Bay are aware of the court case that occurred after the last city council vote. It was noticed that there was irregularities during the voting process. The city was taken to court and in the end the judge decided not to cost the citizens taxpayer's money in doing a manual count. The city was recommended to manually count a few of the polling stations to help ease citizens minds on the matter. Instead of manually counting the ballots the city destroyed the ballots.
City council has decided to audit various polling stations in the future to ensure a democratic voting process instead of getting rid of computer tabulators.
The fact that the ballots were destroyed is very suspicious and unsettling. Who, in this day and age, would think that undemocratic voting occurs in Canada. Apparently it exists quite a bit in municipal voting. Provincial and Federal voting consists of manual counts. So what are these computer voting tabulators all about? Apparently they can be programmed ahead of the vote. Which isn't surprising when the average person knows little about how a computer works and what they are capable of.
So when you talk about who has been voted in you might want to ask who was appointed and WHY. What benefit does this have? What's the agenda?

I think the noise law is geting a little over done all that yous want is fucking money you fucking basters!!!!! and thats the only way you can fined it. STOP turning are city into a oldfogey town !

Following an earlier poster's lead, I will grade each member of council and add some comments.

Mayor Peterson
D-
Mayor Peterson is asleep a the wheel. and how does someone ever get elected by saying put me into office and 120 days later I'll tell you my plan?

Lawrence Timko
B+
Councillor Timko doesn't vote based on anyone's hidden agenda or interests. He's not always on the ball but he does what he thinks is right. Furthermore, Timko gets big points from me for making the effort to have our elections held on manually counted ballots. Also answers his phone.

Joe Vander Wees
F
I have no idea what this guy is doing. He is clueless, useless and doesn't give a damn about anyone. Also has no trouble getting zoning permits for his greenhouse, while Emerald Greens had their building permit revoked by the City whil Bruno was launching his new course.

Bill Scollie
F
Bill Scollie is the most arrogant, misinformed, useless individual to ever sit in our Council. Hey Bill, next time....don't argue with a Water Supply Engineer (Mr. Van Fleet) and speak diminutively about his qualifications.....you're an ICE CREAM VENDOR!!

Robert Tuchenhagen
C-
Not much to say about Tuchenhagen, doesn't do any good, not bright enough to do too much harm.

Allan Laakkonen
D
Again, not a very bright guy, has been helpful a few times....a crybaby at ward meetings.

Dick Waddington
C-
Perhaps Mr. Waddington could think of solutions to the problems faced by our city, rather than continue to blame Mr. Santa.

Iain Angus
D
What's he going to be running for?

Lynda Rydholm
F-F-F-F-
I have no idea how this woman supposedly got elected. She is entirely useless, if you disagree with her she tells you that she is supposedly very intelligent and is a doctor. Well let me tell you, Lynda Rydholm has the IQ of a handball!

Mark Bentz
A-
Bentz is the superstar of this Council. He takes calls, addresses concerns, asks questions of Council and Admin and will stand up for his constituents.

Joe Virdiramo
C-
Again, not much to say about this one but he's defiitely looking for a Liberal nomination.

Trevor Giertuga
D-
Aside from all the other poor qualities possessed by this councillor, his Dad will try to escort you out of ward meetings if you ask a tough quesion. Grow up you baby!

Rebecca Johnson
F-
Will tell a citizen how outraged she is by something, but keeps her votes quiet and kisses up to other councillors and admin. A complete two-faced hypocrit, has further political ambitions.

I have some disagreements with the posting above, but mostly I agree. You have Rebecca Johnson in second last place, I would put her in last place ... but for the same reasons. I think you hit it right on, she's only positioning herself for climbing the political ladder. Plus, call her and ask her to explain something to you ... anything ... she is the dumbest person on this council ... and that is saying a heck of a lot!

I provided a link to an article, I wrote in a publication circulated to senior citizens living in Thunder Bay.

http://www.angelfire.com/on/andyland/SeniorsArticle092005.htm

This city has got a socialist, cradle to grave mentality. Thank goodness we have a few councillors like Rebecca Johnson. She was quoted in the CJ a couple of weeks ago saying the city shouldn't provide any homes for the aged. Right on! Why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize your apartment. If you can't afford it live in a smaller place or move in with family. But quit looking to my money for your living. If we had a few more sensible people like Rebecca Johnson we could cut all this socialist nonsense right out of our city. I sure hope she runs for mayor.

I would agree 100% with the previous post on the following conditions...

* We no longer continue to subsidize the Community Auditorium/Games Complex
* Fund Eye-In-The-Sky for privite business owners
* Pay a U.S company to run our elections (Electronic Voting)
* Give special preference to contractors like Tom Jones
* Re-hire Doug Scott as a city manager, let him stayed retired we don't need him
These examples of Corporate welfare are far worse. These are things Rebecca and many other councillors support. It's deplorable and shameful!

I'm sure there are many others. Remember, many of these Senior Citizens fought in WWII for democracy. They were your teachers
They were your parents.
They were your providers.
They were your protectors.
They were the ones that paid our property taxes, before many of you were born. Just because the minimum requirement is to have one home by provincial standards, it doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Will you be running for council and what ideas do you have that would bring about a stronger economy? What ideas do you have for the waterfront?

ON RUNNING FOR COUNCIL:
Others have suggested I run for council; however, many things will have to happen. So far, things are falling into place; but, there are many issues to consider such as time involved, the cost of running and whether or not council would be ready for someone like me.

ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
Keep in mind, this is one small idea, if combined with many others could lead to economic growth. Bill Scollie, of all councilors suggested, the City get rid of the Economic Development and Tourism Department. Apparently, this department hasn’t done anything for economic development or tourism; yet, it costs over a million/year to run. Of course, I would look into this first to verify this as fact. If this were true, we could use the money to hire additional staff to clean our streets and parks, thus creating jobs covering ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT and having a nice clean city that would be welcome to tourists, thus improving TOURISM. So instead of planning how we’re going to do something, WE WILL BE ACTUALLY DOING IT. If I do run for council, I will list more ideas improving the economy.

ON THE WATERFRONT:
To be honest, I haven’t given it too much thought. I’m going to take my Yellow Lab pup, Jasper for a walk sometime this week. I do my best thinking that way. I’ll take a look and let you know.

Maybe you'll get as many votes as Orville Santa, though probably not.

City council continues to chase buinesses away. When will they realize enough is enough. Remeber, there is an election in 2007. Let's throw the bums out and open the city for buisness.

As bad as the last council was, and it was bad, this one is worse when it comes to economic development. I asked them what their forestry plan was. They don't have one. I asked them what their business attraction plan was. They don't have one. I asked them who the new manager of economic development was. They don't have one. I would have asked them if they had a clue, but you can guess what the answer would have been to that.

I provided another link to an article, I wrote in a publication circulated to senior citizens living in Thunder Bay.
http://www.angelfire.com/on/andyland/SeniorsArticle200511.html

Here’s the proper link to THIS CITY IS CRYING OUT FOR LEADERSHIP
http://www.angelfire.com/on/andyland/SeniorsArticle200509.html

Andy Wolff
by Thunder Bay has a giant heart Saturday, Feb. 11, 2006 at 6:43 AM

Run Andy Run,for city council! We need new thinkers making decisons for this city.

Thunder Bay is a beautiful city located on the largest fresh water lake in the world, tucked away in the protection of a bay, and guarded by a massive Sleeping Giant. There is a mystery behind the local legends and scenery that provide people with an undeniable awe, and passion for the surrounding landscape. From canyons speckled with amethyst, to great, legendary, giant masses of belowing land layed to rest millions of years ago, nested by the largest fresh water lake in the world. Shale cliffs and water falls provide beautiful scenery, as well as sport attractions (best ice climbing in North America). Many rivers flow through the city that could provide other sport activities, (kayak, canoe, ice-skating, skiing... ) all of which have benefit other cities with the same advantage... Rideau Canal. With all of these many attractions and potentials, why is Thunder Bay struggling? Our sister city south of us (Duluth) realised their local natural beauty as highly attractive to people who live there, as well as visitors. They have beautified their lakefront property, and proved it to be exactly what people want to experience and cherish as their home or getaway. Thunder Bay has that same potential. Many visitors appreciate our fresh air and landscape, and would like to fully experience all it has to offer. The university and college are the main attractions that bring people in to experience what we have to offer. What better way to fully experience and participate in local attractions and venues then to live here and expereince it. What keeps them here? What makes them leave? Why isn't anyone paying attention? Most of all, who is making the decisions around here? I expect my city council to make the best decisions for the betterment of growth, and potential, the city they represent has to offer. It is clear that the decisions made are based on personal gain and greed, rather than the improvement of Thunder Bay. If you don't beleive me, take a look at the landswap going on at Lakehead University.... or the decision of building houses on a rare swamp that will only lead to cracked basements, driveways, and raods... (Williams Bog).... let's not forget the land sale that took place while the government took their sweet time, leaving an american to take advantage of the opportinity.... just to mention a few dergrading decisions... what a shame! Why is our council letting these things happen? Do they not have the power to protect our city and surrounding land from ruin? Who voted for these people! Do they really care about our city?

Just wait until you get old and all of your family has left you and your friends are dead. What will you do then, where will you live, and who will look after you? How selfish!

Very well written. Love your firey enthusiasm.

Thunder Bay is a great city, and the area deserves protection. I miss it very much.

Take care Melanie.

My wife and I are seriously thinking of moving to Thunder Bay with our baby girl (my wife was born and raised there). But your discussions on this board are VERY discouraging. I have always been struck on my visits to Thunder Bay by how much I like the people I've met, and the potential your city has, and was optimistic that it would be a great place to live and raise a family. Does anyone who lives there actually believe that there is hope for Thunder Bay???

Thunder Bay is a nice place to live, just no work there to make money to raise your family.

This is a response to the person who is thinking of moving up to Thunder Bay.

If you got connections to get a good paying jobs, great!
Thunder Bay is a good place to live.

However, if you are looking for something in hopes of finding something, you may find it a hell of a time to get a job, unless your profession is in high demand.

For instance, a doctor would find work here no problem.

To answer your question:
"Does anyone who lives there actually believe that there is hope for Thunder Bay"???

I believe there is hope for Thunder Bay, I just don't believe our municipal, provincial and federal representatives will provide that hope.

The council before this City Council had a chance, but definitely not this council.

Do we have a brain-dead city council? Possible.

Do we have local developers willing to take on a project that isn't a strip-mall? Possibly not.

Any visitor to Thunder Bay taking our much-hyped "tourist routes" is greeted by standard rust-belt fare. The "Bayview tourist route" alone offers much in the way of graffitti-covered railroad cars, not so much bay view. A route into town down Oliver Road, up High St and down Red River Road would give a tourist-worthy entrance to town, but doesn't run by any Wally World SuperMarts.

I ran into an American couple last summer, while walking my dog at the mouth of the McIntyre river. They wanted to know how if there was anywhere else they could reach the waterfront. I directed them to Marina Park, saying it was all we had. They wondered why.

Thunder Bay is entering its post-industrial era, and as usual, the elected councils and many of the people, to be honest, haven't seen it yet.
Thunder Bay is entering a rebirth as a service hub for the entire surrounding area. Yes, it will probably shrink. The nurses and service people and administrators will make up more of our population, and the migration of people from the northern reserves will probably increase.Is there a plan to avoid the city becoming increasingly polarized along racial and socio-economic lines?
The heavy industry is going; some will remain, but with energy as the big cost, will the light industrial medical industry will become a high point? The heavy industrial electricity users will make a run for the sunset.

So what's up? Why is Thunder Bay in such a quagmire, decaying before our eyes?

I can only assume that the movers and/or shakers in Thunder Bay are not in any position to profit from any development that would actually beautify the town, nor do they want to be. Simpson Street is ripe for a business version of Habitat for Humanity; there are isolated diamonds in the rough like downtown May Street:downtown Port Arthur has equal potential, but no, let's develop the volume businesses and strip-malls first, that's where the money is.
If that's the case, then our municipal politicians are brain-dead because they want to be. Not a visionary amongst them.

"..........PAVED DOWN THE MIDDLE
BY A GOVERNMENT THAT HAD NO PRIDE"....a line from The Pretenders' "My City Was Gone"

Firewood

Thunder Bay - safe, easy commute, great people.

If your have work, a skill or a job, its the best place in the work to live. Don't let the fear mongers (andy , Hank) lead u wrong. If it was up to them, Orville would be in power, and Betty would be queen. (If she already isn't one)

Thanks for responding to my questions.
We've handed in our leave notices and are moving west. (northwest!)

To "Moving" I'd like to say welcome to our city.

To the person who's so down on me I just like to say this...
If I had my way, I'd want people on City Council that decide on matters supported by fact, rather than blindly follow Administration's advice. Otherwise why bother having a City Council? We'll just let Administration "take care" of us all, cause they know best.

Dick Waddington gets an F.

Dick should also stop blaming skateboarders. It is a fun and healthy sport. This police should be more worried about the teens that are getting into ecstacy and crack instead of giving kids tickets for riding a piece of wood with urithane wheels.

The way I see it we elect a City Council not to blindly follow Administration but not to badger, harass and belittle either.

They work as a team. Council, like any other Board of Directors provides the strategic direction. The CEO reports to them. Administration in turn reports to the CEO. If they don't like the direction the CEO is going, they fire him. Seems to me it was the previous Council that hired the current CEO. So....

If, as you believe, the current Administration is so inept, perhaps you can review their performance on the province wide report card system. I believe you'll find they rate quite well.

Do you consider it badgering, harassing or belittling someone, when all you want them to do is provide information, so you can make a more informed decision?

Since the following is a topic I know well, I’ll use it.
Last year, a number of us wanted to bring back manual-count elections to our City.

When I did my presentation to City Council, I focused on cost only.
Based on the information I obtained, Electronic-Count elections cost over $200,000 more than Manual-Count elections. Yet, the City Clerk maintained that Manual-Count elections were more expensive. The last Manual-Count election took about 3000 man-hours to count the votes; however, the City Clerk speculated that it would take 8000 man-hours to count the votes if we had a Manual-Count election today.
What do you say to someone like this?
Lawrence Timko said these estimates were nuts.
Even if you were to look at the City Clerk’s numbers as skewed as are, the Electronic-Count election is still $30,000 more than the Manual-Count Election.

Lawrence Timko continually asked for information regarding costs of both types of elections and Senior Administration used every tactic to block this motion. One of the tactics was that it would cost $64,000 to obtain this info.
Does this sound like a co-operative Administration?

With one phone call to someone in City Hall, we got the information we needed.

Before I did my presentation, I provided all the information I had to each Councilor and member of Senior Administration. None of the questions councilors asked, challenged any of my claims. Now you would think, if I was wrong, this highly paid Administration Staff would advise council to ask me questions that would crush my claims. It never happened.

Remember, doesn’t have the RIGHT to be respected, they have to earn it.

In this instance they didn’t.

For working as a team.

Teamwork isn’t about taking Administration’s advice without questioning it, it’s about having them back up that advise with facts.

I am very concerned in the way the City Council runs this city. All they are doing is driving the city to the ground. They have to act fast. Start attracting other industries to the city and grow the economy of the north,and put us on the map. Do not think about lining their pockets at this moment. Think for the future of this great city. Struggling city that is. Keep the youth interested in staying. Unless of course all they want is a huge retirement town! This city has alot of potential. Their is a great oppurtunity for the energy sector. If the City Council stays the way it is,that makes me very concerned.