Quality of Life/ Community planning "Survey"

[grrrr]

oneoff-run for council

[oneoff]

Long ago I personally decided that council service should stem from substancial support and encouragement (or at least interest) that ratepayers showed to candidates they wished to represent themselves. Unfortunately; it is a sad fact that today few even know the issues at hand; and approximately all but 25% have tuned themselves completely out of any active involvement in democratic processes.
In short, my concerns don't appear to be widely shared; or even show on most people's radar screen.
Shouldn't one major component of governance be that people make their differing ideas and reasons known. There used to be ways to involve people in their public business; but maybe the traditional values and methods are just out of date. Its been so long that any method was tried; that we are probably testing new ground. There is zero percent chance of using internet for first hand live coverage of council business; and you can see how relatively little response even pretty shocking agriville posts have brought. It like trying but apparently very few care. All you do is make trouble for yourself; and the defensive measures keep getting more bold. The auditors; the municipal advisors, the press, the minister municipal affairs, the police and the common ratepayer all take the safest personal or business way out.
So the answer is that I'm waiting to be convinced by my peers. Also waiting for municipal boundaries to increase in size and municipal revenues to increase to larger than typical farm businesses. Then there is a better chance that ratepayers will be able to draw from a much larger pool of perhaps more qualified and understanding candidates who will see council service as coming first instead of coming unprepared for the meeting or baling some hay on meeting nights.

[checking]

Grrr.

You're repeating yourself, too soon. That's a sign.

Hasn't the angry councillor better things to do like throwing your weight against upstream ratepayers?

Personally, I want less governmental regulations and interference; the least, the better. Instead, there appears to be a desire for more and more.

I want less of those on the taxpayer payroll which includes community development officers, and especially the seven stuffed shirts that exist every 18 miles apart in every direction in Saskatchewan. This century old system is far too crowded.

I look forward to the day that indeed one farmer does control a township of land, and decides that he can and will look after himself.

[oneoff]

L....Sol: There was no intention to call any person on the RM payroll (officially as a Community Development Officer) as an "economic developer". Please direct me to the statement you claim I made which prompted your opening remark; and which you again repeated for emphasis.

[grrrr]

checking-run for council

[checking]

Grrr.

No thank you.

I'm a disengaged cynic. I'm also a mathematician, which is why I like the number guys on this site. They know that your six ratepaying relatives will out number my four ratepaying relatives in any election. You, being an economist, don't realize that concept is why you are on council.

I think we don't require the involvement of seven people in what amounts to spending a medium sized type farm budget looking after a few roads for the Queen?

My solution would be to contract a waste management business to haul all councils away.

[cottonpicken]

Had to look up and make sure the sky wasn't falling
because i agree with you checking,lol.

[oneoff]

It pains me to say it; but both preceding comments are probably 100% correct.

[oneoff]

Quote:The Town and RM have jointly contracted a certified Community Planner (not me) to work both Councils through the process

Reply: Missed that gem from a post above. You can attend every open council session and miss such supposed resolutions. And you can read the censored report in the local papers and such business never makes it to print. You could ask any ratepayer and they would never have heard of such a fact.
And it happens month after month. For instance the four rural residences per quarter section was given three readings and at the last meeting recinded. Few knew about the bylaw in the first place and the same number will ever know that for unexplained reasons it was withdrawn. But rest assured that it will again arise in one form or another..

It did seem like turning an RM into 40 acre acreages; and potentially having 16 residences on a 40 acre block if you owned 4 adjoining quarters.

[oneoff]

Come to think of it.... was there an advertised process for hiring the building inspector; or the pest control officer? Or was it a pretty low key selection.