The PUBLIC TROUGH and RM Councils

[oneoff]

Show up before the 7:00 p.m. monthly council meeting tonight and the doors will be locked. Don't worry there is a catered meal being served as is "customary". I guess its one of the entitlements that the council members have bestowed upon themselves.
Any thoughts as to whether these council members should eat at home; or pay for their own food and drink; or is it really OK to dine on other people's dime?

And it has really become an eating habit; and might the tiny room might even be where the real decisions for the council meeting are decided.
Oh!! last month there was a stern that these comments on agriville "must stop". And that was followed by a rant about a certain "coward", the "childish" behavior of another ratepayer who was not present to defend herself; and on and on.

Well the laptop will be fired up again tonight; and comments will come straight from council chambers; barring the slightest chance that some jamming technique has been devised.
You should have witnessed the ovations and then dead silence surrounded the council table last month.. No hint of any calming effect of a reeve-chairman; or from the rest of the silent councillors who did not appear in shock. Pretty sorry scene; but any other response would have been suprising.
Remember that all citizens do have some democratic rights; and that sometimes "cowards" do have to be the ones to fight to preserve those rights for everyone else.

[oneoff]

Show up before the 7:00 p.m. monthly council meeting tonight and the doors will be locked. Don't worry there is a catered meal being served as is "customary". I guess its one of the entitlements that the council members have bestowed upon themselves.
Any thoughts as to whether these council members should eat at home; or pay for their own food and drink; or is it really OK to dine on other people's dime?

And it has really become an eating habit; and the tiny eating room might even be where the real decisions for the council meeting are decided.
Oh!! for those who have missed it; last month there was a stern warning that these comments on agriville "must stop". And that was followed by a rant about a certain "coward", also the "childish" behavior of another ratepayer who was not present to defend herself; and how unhappy a certain councillor was about an article considered "misleading" and on and on.

Well the laptop will be fired up again tonight; and comments will come straight from council chambers; barring the slightest chance that some jamming technique has been devised.


But everyone should have had the opportunity to witness the ovations and then dead silence surrounded the council table last month.. No hint of any calming effect of a reeve-chairman; or from the rest of the silent councillors who did not appear in shock. Pretty sorry scene; but any other response would have been suprising.
Remember that all citizens do have some democratic rights; and that sometimes those labelled as "cowards" do have to be the ones to fight to preserve those rights for everyone else.

[oneoff]

OK so maybe the first post is too esoteric for your liking.

This thought isn't. More than two decades ago there were not so subtle changes to bylaws to keep certain groups (and one in particular) from spreading. Attempting to keep a maximum of one residence per quarter section was one frequently used tactic.

For unknown reasons the RM Enniskillen has seen fit to give three readings and pass a bylaw that would allow up to 4 residential sites with a minimum size of 2.5 acres and a maximum of 40 acres each on each quarter section. There were no written submissions (for or against); no oral presentations at last months meeting (either for or against); no comments relayed to the meeting by any councillor; and the comments the administrator presented to council were all greeted with the famous "that is so so dumb that it isn't even a question"

Well apparently council really missed some valid question(s). You see; Community Planning and Zoning in Regina has to approve such bylaws or ammendments before they come into force. Apparently that didn't go as planned.

So it looks like starting over from scatch; readvertising whatever they propose; and again tokenly inviting comment from the public. Maybe this time the arrogant attitude of refusing to comment on input; or outright rejection of ideas will be a little more subdued. And maybe not.

The process starts again tonight.

P.S. This would open up residential sites within your RM if the idea were to spread. And for those who think personal descretion as a council member will promise "doing whatever you want to do"; please consider that a council may permit "discretionary uses".
However; some may be confusing "discretionry uses" with the more popular "personal discretion".

[oneoff]

ZONING BYLAW TO BE RECINDED AND TAKE TIME TO WORK ON IT.

Hopefully get more input from ratepayers. To check with other RM's; but they are all qquite old; except Coalfields according to one councillor. "Do it right comment"
S

[oneoff]

Occupation Health ans Safety Requirements.... Doesn't look like anyone is up to speed..... yet. New committee setup for safety meetings.

[oneoff]

Considerably more information required for development permits ... extra page of questions to be answered for building inspector

[oneoff]

SAMA REQUISITION $12,181 RM'S PAY 35% AND PROVINCE PAYS 65%

Highways can contract with RM's to mow highway ditches, one pass according to foreman (15 foot). Don't want to be involved

[oneoff]

Can't get any road construction contractors for RM work..

[oneoff]

My comment; On the west side of an RM the road and road allowance is within the juridiction of the RM to the East. Apparently some councils feel that a ratepayer in the adjoining RM has to abide by the setback distances for tress (and presumably building bylaws etc) of an RM in which those ratepayers don't even live.
More evidence to me that there is a total lack of consultation and agreement amongst too many RM's.

[oneoff]

My comment; On the west side of an RM the road and road allowance is within the juridiction of the RM to the East. Apparently some councils feel that a ratepayer in the adjoining RM has to abide by the setback distances for tress (and presumably building bylaws etc) of an RM in which those ratepayers don't even live.
More evidence to me that there is a total lack of consultation and agreement amongst too many RM's.

[sumdumguy]

From my direct experience, i have been
instructed by the neighbouring RM to take out
trees along their road. I complied, begrudgingly.

They were just planted 100 feet back from the
road allowance. They didnt like it at all.

[oneoff]

From my direct experience; it appears we will be doomed to be forced to comply with every whim of Occupational Health, Building Inspector, County Mountie, councillor, provincially appointed representative, environmental watchdog, neighbors pet peeve, fire, safety and protection regulation that can be dreamed up to potentially protect everyone till eternity from any conceivable hazard.

Those appointed and hired inspectors and regulators will come and go. There will be times when they are insufferable. During those times only those who can protect themselves using their "discretion" will be approaching a comfortable level of life enjoyment.

We will have gained little that common sense could have not provided.

[oneoff]

sumdum....... There is such a thing as acting without authority when outside your jurisdiction. The proper process would have been for the adjoining RM's to get on the same page; and then for your RM to impose their new policy on all their own ratepayers.
The democratic problem with what actually happenened to you was that the demand was basically flawed in that you theoretically should have remedies for "appeal" and redress in your own RM; but theoretically have many less avenues for an adjoining RM's who apparently doesn't realize they crossed the "county line" at the edge of the municipal road allowance.
There should be no such descretion or latitude given to any outsider; since if anything must be done; it should be done properly by your own RM.

[oneoff]

The zoning bylaw ammendment was not rejected by Community and Planning. It was withdrawn at the request of the RM of Enniskillen.
There was absolutely no explanation at the open council meeting that Council has provided as to why the bylaw ammendment was recinded?
So there had to be some reason. Someone (and preferably council) please make that explanation public.

Or is that just another piece of public information that will be kept a secret to the few.
C'mon council and cotton et al. Give the rest of us what should be public knowledge.

[hobbyfrmr]

Oneoff, I just experienced a community plan it
involved an RM, and the town and village that
belong to the rm. each municipality keeps the
characteristics and culture unique unto
themselves but collaborate for large projects that
affect the larger area. One example is, a
municipal water well for spraying and oilfield
demands.
We had 3 public meetings. First one was for the
taxpayers insight and expectations . They had an
opportunity to participate in planning and mapping
and zoning. Second meeting was to show the
summary/rough draft from the first meeting. Third
meeting was second draft moving towards the
3readings and approval.
Very few ratepayers showed at these meetings.
Some had been primed by an instigator councillor
so they came in looking to spar with the group.
Once they understood the meeting was the
municipality hosting the meeting to ask for their
insight and give them the opportunity to contribute
it was a fairly positive experience.
There were 3 public meetings open door s for 3
hours for people to participate, observe and
contribute. There were very few who bothered.
The facilitator was Prairie Wild Consulting out of
Saskatoon. The initial representative was Lenore
Swystun. They are doing many of these
community plans.