ColevilleH2S posted Nov 18, 2012 10:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the fight between the RM of Sherwood and the City of Regina made national news last night. I don't see what has got everyone's panties in a knot. If the city wants a say in what development happens outside it's borders, it should pony up and buy the land for it's self. That said, there should be no expectation of city services leaving those borders either. Sherwood is collecting the taxes they should provide the fire,water,sewer,etc.
Seems simple to me.
IP: Logged
Edit?
SASKFARMER3 posted Nov 18, 2012 10:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some RMs are not only a anchor their a Dead
D10 cat trying to be pulled by a Prius!
The city of Regina is another problem. The lots
keep getting smaller and smaller now only a side
walk on one side and narrow streets. Cram in
English row houses. That's prosperity at 750,000
a house.
IP: Logged
Edit?
Rareearth posted Nov 18, 2012 11:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Regina has no control, or should it for
what happens in the RM. ownership is
everything. If the city wants to sell services
outside of if jurisdiction, they can, and hopefully
for the right reasons. Maybe Moose Jaw is to
close, getting provincial dollars Regina could use?
For the record I like Moosejaw.
IP: Logged
Edit?
wilagro posted Nov 18, 2012 12:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until you SaskatchewaNESE consolidate your RMs down to a reasonable workable number you will have nothing but trouble.
If you eliminated about 200 that would be a start.
Your Provincial Government is too damned CHICKEN to tackle this issue as have all previous governments. Divide and rule...that's the gist of it.
There!!!...how's that advice from a non-native observer?
None of my business?...yah...probably.
IP: Logged
Edit?
ColevilleH2S posted Nov 18, 2012 13:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think I like the idea of going to a county sized municipal system. Roughly a decade ago, both the local health district, and local school division were amalgamated into larger sized entities. Since then we have lost services. There also seems to be more pencil pushers strapped with less accountability in the new, larger systems too. Bureaucracy in the worst sense of the term.
Just for illustration, if I am in administration at a municipal service. Am I more accountable to the ratepayer, if I am the only person doing my job, and the ratepayer is my neighbour? Or if I am one of five people doing the job, and the ratepayer is three towns away?
IP: Logged
Edit?
blackpowder posted Nov 18, 2012 15:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bets on whether Kal Tire walks while everyone navel gazes??
IP: Logged
Edit?
bluefargo posted Nov 18, 2012 22:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am with Wilagro on this. These little
fiefdoms are ridiculas. But no
government has the guts to do anything
about it.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 18, 2012 22:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is such a thing as having ones family, friends and oneself as being over represented.
For instance; is it necessary to have the mayor and his councillor wife on the same town council. What about it becoming desirable to being councillor in one RM and running for reeve in the adjoing RM 6 miles away?
Just what legitimate fears are there of not being able for decent representation by even someone you personally don't know.
Cole's... concern are indicative of how you can look after oneself by persoally having power or having someone in your pocket.....but those same persons will never give a rats ass about the concerns and democratic rights of anyone but themselves and their close knit circle.
Sask desperately needs to get rid of the albatross of effectively unaccountable small minded despots.
The rot runs deep and even the provincial government secretly recognizes how small town and rural politics has no vision or long term planning.
Perhaps save for RM Sherwood type examples and Councils with good intentions but severely lacking in scale and resources.
The rest are run as personal power bases; and small time income sources; which do no real service to communities. They blunder throgh one financial catastrophy after another and avoid public meetings and involving the electorate. Some even hide their decisions and plans; and the mess of bylaws, repealed bylaws and policies that are not enforced, selectively enforced nor meant to be advertised.
Don't anyone ever hold up Sask Rural municipal politics as a shining example of anything other than a poorly run cesspool.
They are generally an affront to real democratic principles.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 18, 2012 23:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alberta realigned rural electoral boundaries in the 1950's through a much smaller number of counties.
Here in Sask, 50 years later; our elected officials and SARM cling to their 115 year old model. And the Provincial government plays pure politics by recently repeating their committment to never forcing a change; no matter what the circumstances. In that letter they ridiculed the Sask Chamber of Commerce and of course that really reprehensiable NDP party for daring to suggest that all isn't perfect; and some change is not only warranted; but essential.
Maybe Alberta should return to the Saskatchewan near perfect system where council positions are usually filled by acclamation; and election have been won by a vote count of 3 votes won over 2 votes cast for the other seeking the council position. The gene pool for candidates contains few who see anything worthwhile or challenging in the puny financial operation of a typical rural municipality.
I've got to go be sick again.
IP: Logged
Edit?
farmaholic posted Nov 19, 2012 0:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oneoff: Here on a local level there are
6 councilors in 6 divisions representing
12 townships. The same as it was when
the RM was first established. I once
suggested each councilor having 3
townships therefore reducing the number
of councilors to 4. They didn't seem to
like the idea. I told them no one has to
supervise their division with a horse
and buggy anymore and communication
shouldn't be an issue either. I know
you're talking much bigger changes like
amalgamating RMs. I can't see this
changing until change is forced upon
them. Some Municipalities are doing
quite well with revenue beyond
agriculture based assessments.
Pipelines, oil activity, commercial and
urban development make a big difference
to some while the neighboring RMs are
struggling with poorly assessed ag land
as their only tax base. No one wants to
amalgamate with the poor neighbor. No
RM wants to share their wealth or
resources with a less fortunate one.
Amalgamation would put an end to the Old
Boys Club and would give the electorate
a larger pool of prospective qualified
candidates to choose from. Remuneration
would likely have to increase to
compensate for the qualified people
willing to represent their divisions
because responsibilities would increase
with amalgamation. Also, in some cases
you would have a rural versus urban
battle, Good luck.
IP: Logged
Edit?
LEP posted Nov 19, 2012 8:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just broke into a cold sweat, as I am agreeing with
oneoff on most of what he says here.
Besides being a fiefdom, I do think the main the
main reason they haven't amalgamated is the have
don't want to join the have nots.
While they don't have to be the size of school
boards or health districts, six townships by six
townships should be more efficient and yet small
enough to be responsive.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 12:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with paying people very good remuneration; when their expertise and time pays good dividends to their "employer". Those competent people are the ones who we should entrust with conducting our public business.
The fact is that there is rapidly growing support for the necessary changes to adapt to differences between 2013 and the early 1900's. Too bad SARM and our local cronies haven't shown leadership and can't see todays real world. Its a case of exceeding one's of incompetence.
Those elected representatives are not assets to their communities and it will take forcing them out one way or another to get any meaningful change.
And the comment about sharing the wealth of luckier RM with poorer neighbors is well taken. And in just about every instance it would be safe to say that those millions of dollars came from the pure luck of industrial assessment and oil and resource based taxation.
Yet reeves and councillors openly talk about "their money"
With farms now approaching township size; we could simply let every landowner become a councillor. That solution would only leave little details like the fact that 85% plus of tan RM's revenues were coming from industrial assessment which would remain unrepresented; and the serious problem of a growing number of rural residents being put at the mercy of a new set of dictators.
LEAD, FOLLOW or GET OUT OF THE WAY
IP: Logged
Edit?
carebear300 posted Nov 19, 2012 13:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigger, economics of scale, all great slogans of the times. Health regions, pig barns and lots of the mega farms have yet to prove it to me by their performance. In fact as a rule the opposite has been true up until now. We have a neighbouring RM that has expanded it has turned into a real cluster ****. I know it has to come eventually but only when people have their shit together. Nowadays screw ups cost way too much money.
IP: Logged
Edit?
carebear300 posted Nov 19, 2012 13:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forgot my rant about poor hard done by Regina. They already have the legislature, a university, a technical school, two large hospitals and all the supporting staff for the operation of these facilities. Mostly funded by the rest of saskatchewan. So I don't think they have any right to bitch at some of the smaller neighbouring constituencies trying to get some small part of this large pie that they have been feasting upon and benefiting from for years. What's fair is fair for all not just the priviledged few!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 19:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have a neighbouring RM that has expanded it has turned into a real cluster ****."
Herinafter simply referred to as a "CF"
Please elaborate; and give comparisons to the situations in those RM's before expansion. Otherwise I have no idea if it just a case of finally revealing past problems; and maybe even expecting too much in cleaning the mess up immediately.
Similarly it is politically saafe to just talk about hypothetical "CF's" or potential "CF's" that might arise from making a change that even the writer admits are somewhat inevitable.
But what about existing real time "CF's"
Can anyone tolerate an RM council "appointing" and paying "security" to attend a vote held under "The Local Government Elections ACT". Well it has happened and not the council, the press, the police; the auditors; the municipal advisors; the Provincial government that oversees the RM"s nor the public dared to express their outrage. Does anyone even see the point that stares us all in the face?
. What about creating 10 additional housing units at Borderline Housing; and blowing the whole budget on water filled holes and unfinished prefabs rotting on a fairgrounds. Then the fiasco continued through months and months of failed funding initiatives and a plethoria of bylaws and repealed bylaws; levy increases, money injections; mediation proceedings and legal court battles that will continue until the hundreds of thousands are forgotten or written off. Just try to get your hands on the mediation reports in the hands of councils; and you could count the words in the rare public update report on almost two hands. Must be very little of the taxpayers business eh! Couldn't all get on the same page at same time. And lets not examine the planning and accountability.
Or what about RM's being in charge of building a provincial highway; when they certainly can't keep municicipal grid roads even passable. Maybe the "No Trucks" allowed signs are the way to handle road reconstruction.
Or how do you conduct a Community plan worth a ballpark "$60,000". It was determined to be a high priority and essential for planning growth; but the town and RM who are in the same building apparently don't/didn't know for some decades who owned more than a half mile of highway/airport frontage and acres of sought after property. Now there is an attempt at annexation so 25 year leases at a very few dollars/ year will tie up development to probably hanger storage uses.
Or how about fumbling the ball on housing and feeding and servicing the needs of literally hundreds of pipeline workers since last April in SE Sask. Towns such as Redvers out manouvered us so badly that its an embarrassment to even talk about it. But we don't have enough water infrastructure for existing residents, so I guess the reasoning is that it was all for the best.
And the Northgate land acquisition by a foreign company. I'm sure I'm the only person who has read the contract that was signed for this closely held secret land grab. You know we are committed to closing every road, street and lane that the RM has jurisdiction over; and further that the acres included in Her Majesties properties were included in the 60 acres; (more or less)that the RM Council enabled under the cloak of complete and utter secrecy. And the $500 per lot must now be lowered because the taxpayers got stuck with paying up back taxes to the school division when this agreement was concluded. And the contract agreement clearly states that road and street properties are freebee's thown in. They even got the land once set aside for school grounds, parks and recreation. And I again repeat that adjacent privately held lots fetched more than 100 times for the same acreage. Many doubt that the council has any idea about the real intentions of the purchasers; who have the full chunk ( of property from the US border to the DesLacs to the north and Number 9 Highway on the west. Thats how you can ask for roads to be closed because you have "all" the property that requires the previously surveyed roads, streets and lanes for access. I still wonder if Her Majesty has to sign off; and why this land shouldn't still be put up for public bid. There shouldn't be any argument that anyone would have access; if you are bidding on the roads that provide the access.
Now that was a coup for obtaining strategic property of one of three north-south rail connections in Western Canada.
Or a hundred thousand dollar rural municipal water well that I am sure the literally couple of persons who withdrew water probably wished they had dumped their load before mixing in their holding tank and previous water supply.
And the one I like best is year after year seeing an RM council decline to support the local high school yearbook. You know that a quater page ad costs around $45.00; but you should have personally seen the councillors; one after another bitterly making comments like "the amount that school cost us; we should have been given the whole yearbooks advertising"; "we don't have anything to advertise" and on around the table till the request was unanimously declined. Now that's a true CF"
How many "CF" examples (and theses are just a few in the past year or so from one area) till we admit that the cesspool should be drained and something else tried is run on a new attitude giving consideration to the residents the sytem professes to serve.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 20:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, of all the "outrageous" situations I have brought before a seemingly uncaring public; there is only one that I have been challenged on the facts.
That concerns whether a contracted employee of an RM/Town agreement for a community development officers (whatever that position entails) ; should be ever referred to as having anything to do with econonomic development.
However others have shared that confusion. When the local radio station interviewed the contracted employee; those economic development officer words were used. And every time there is an discussion about planning and goals; those pesky dollars and the word economics always creeps in.
But on second thought that is never in public meetings. Because, we don't even have them in local RM's. Afterall, it is argued there is no public demand for ratepayer gatherings; and of course someone could use that microphone to tear a strip off an arguably deserving council.
That also describes censorship; and deliberately destroying any forum to demand accountability.
And that is quite possibly why a whole council deliberated for long enough to ban all electronic devices from council and committee meetings. Do not be fooled by the "unsober" second thoughts at the following meeting where this policy was challenged.
Thogh recinded; it was made clear that "just because something is legal does not mean that you should be allowed to do it"
FUNNY ME; I ALWAYS THOUGHT (AND STILL DO THINK) THAT THE EXACT OPPOSITE SHOULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF ANY POLICY DECISION)
Remember that the days are numbered for every attempt at ruling a civilization.
Why should we care what replaces the present rulers. It will be quite possibly be an overall an improvement.
And the loudest wailing will come from those forced out.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 20, 2012 7:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also need to mention the private dining at the public trough every month. It preceeds the council meeting. Behind locked doors; council members regular attendees, taxpayer supported, not shown as a part of council remuneration, invitation only, suspected/obviously where real council decisions are made. Catered meal; tonights the night ....again.
Shop is so closed that there is no incentive for anyone to even consider sitting in gallery.
Democracy at it's best????Or Dark Ages in Sask????
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 20, 2012 8:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it strike anyone as being odd that the serious issues brought forward have not been refuted.
I'm convinced that the officials could care less what the facts are.....
Council's stance is exactly as the reeve said less than a couple of years ago...... "He could do anything that he wanted to do"
IP: Logged
Edit?
Reply to this Thread - Return to Topic List
ColevilleH2S posted Nov 18, 2012 10:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the fight between the RM of Sherwood and the City of Regina made national news last night. I don't see what has got everyone's panties in a knot. If the city wants a say in what development happens outside it's borders, it should pony up and buy the land for it's self. That said, there should be no expectation of city services leaving those borders either. Sherwood is collecting the taxes they should provide the fire,water,sewer,etc.
Seems simple to me.
IP: Logged
Edit?
SASKFARMER3 posted Nov 18, 2012 10:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some RMs are not only a anchor their a Dead
D10 cat trying to be pulled by a Prius!
The city of Regina is another problem. The lots
keep getting smaller and smaller now only a side
walk on one side and narrow streets. Cram in
English row houses. That's prosperity at 750,000
a house.
IP: Logged
Edit?
Rareearth posted Nov 18, 2012 11:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Regina has no control, or should it for
what happens in the RM. ownership is
everything. If the city wants to sell services
outside of if jurisdiction, they can, and hopefully
for the right reasons. Maybe Moose Jaw is to
close, getting provincial dollars Regina could use?
For the record I like Moosejaw.
IP: Logged
Edit?
wilagro posted Nov 18, 2012 12:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until you SaskatchewaNESE consolidate your RMs down to a reasonable workable number you will have nothing but trouble.
If you eliminated about 200 that would be a start.
Your Provincial Government is too damned CHICKEN to tackle this issue as have all previous governments. Divide and rule...that's the gist of it.
There!!!...how's that advice from a non-native observer?
None of my business?...yah...probably.
IP: Logged
Edit?
ColevilleH2S posted Nov 18, 2012 13:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think I like the idea of going to a county sized municipal system. Roughly a decade ago, both the local health district, and local school division were amalgamated into larger sized entities. Since then we have lost services. There also seems to be more pencil pushers strapped with less accountability in the new, larger systems too. Bureaucracy in the worst sense of the term.
Just for illustration, if I am in administration at a municipal service. Am I more accountable to the ratepayer, if I am the only person doing my job, and the ratepayer is my neighbour? Or if I am one of five people doing the job, and the ratepayer is three towns away?
IP: Logged
Edit?
blackpowder posted Nov 18, 2012 15:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bets on whether Kal Tire walks while everyone navel gazes??
IP: Logged
Edit?
bluefargo posted Nov 18, 2012 22:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am with Wilagro on this. These little
fiefdoms are ridiculas. But no
government has the guts to do anything
about it.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 18, 2012 22:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is such a thing as having ones family, friends and oneself as being over represented.
For instance; is it necessary to have the mayor and his councillor wife on the same town council. What about it becoming desirable to being councillor in one RM and running for reeve in the adjoing RM 6 miles away?
Just what legitimate fears are there of not being able for decent representation by even someone you personally don't know.
Cole's... concern are indicative of how you can look after oneself by persoally having power or having someone in your pocket.....but those same persons will never give a rats ass about the concerns and democratic rights of anyone but themselves and their close knit circle.
Sask desperately needs to get rid of the albatross of effectively unaccountable small minded despots.
The rot runs deep and even the provincial government secretly recognizes how small town and rural politics has no vision or long term planning.
Perhaps save for RM Sherwood type examples and Councils with good intentions but severely lacking in scale and resources.
The rest are run as personal power bases; and small time income sources; which do no real service to communities. They blunder throgh one financial catastrophy after another and avoid public meetings and involving the electorate. Some even hide their decisions and plans; and the mess of bylaws, repealed bylaws and policies that are not enforced, selectively enforced nor meant to be advertised.
Don't anyone ever hold up Sask Rural municipal politics as a shining example of anything other than a poorly run cesspool.
They are generally an affront to real democratic principles.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 18, 2012 23:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alberta realigned rural electoral boundaries in the 1950's through a much smaller number of counties.
Here in Sask, 50 years later; our elected officials and SARM cling to their 115 year old model. And the Provincial government plays pure politics by recently repeating their committment to never forcing a change; no matter what the circumstances. In that letter they ridiculed the Sask Chamber of Commerce and of course that really reprehensiable NDP party for daring to suggest that all isn't perfect; and some change is not only warranted; but essential.
Maybe Alberta should return to the Saskatchewan near perfect system where council positions are usually filled by acclamation; and election have been won by a vote count of 3 votes won over 2 votes cast for the other seeking the council position. The gene pool for candidates contains few who see anything worthwhile or challenging in the puny financial operation of a typical rural municipality.
I've got to go be sick again.
IP: Logged
Edit?
farmaholic posted Nov 19, 2012 0:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oneoff: Here on a local level there are
6 councilors in 6 divisions representing
12 townships. The same as it was when
the RM was first established. I once
suggested each councilor having 3
townships therefore reducing the number
of councilors to 4. They didn't seem to
like the idea. I told them no one has to
supervise their division with a horse
and buggy anymore and communication
shouldn't be an issue either. I know
you're talking much bigger changes like
amalgamating RMs. I can't see this
changing until change is forced upon
them. Some Municipalities are doing
quite well with revenue beyond
agriculture based assessments.
Pipelines, oil activity, commercial and
urban development make a big difference
to some while the neighboring RMs are
struggling with poorly assessed ag land
as their only tax base. No one wants to
amalgamate with the poor neighbor. No
RM wants to share their wealth or
resources with a less fortunate one.
Amalgamation would put an end to the Old
Boys Club and would give the electorate
a larger pool of prospective qualified
candidates to choose from. Remuneration
would likely have to increase to
compensate for the qualified people
willing to represent their divisions
because responsibilities would increase
with amalgamation. Also, in some cases
you would have a rural versus urban
battle, Good luck.
IP: Logged
Edit?
LEP posted Nov 19, 2012 8:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just broke into a cold sweat, as I am agreeing with
oneoff on most of what he says here.
Besides being a fiefdom, I do think the main the
main reason they haven't amalgamated is the have
don't want to join the have nots.
While they don't have to be the size of school
boards or health districts, six townships by six
townships should be more efficient and yet small
enough to be responsive.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 12:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with paying people very good remuneration; when their expertise and time pays good dividends to their "employer". Those competent people are the ones who we should entrust with conducting our public business.
The fact is that there is rapidly growing support for the necessary changes to adapt to differences between 2013 and the early 1900's. Too bad SARM and our local cronies haven't shown leadership and can't see todays real world. Its a case of exceeding one's of incompetence.
Those elected representatives are not assets to their communities and it will take forcing them out one way or another to get any meaningful change.
And the comment about sharing the wealth of luckier RM with poorer neighbors is well taken. And in just about every instance it would be safe to say that those millions of dollars came from the pure luck of industrial assessment and oil and resource based taxation.
Yet reeves and councillors openly talk about "their money"
With farms now approaching township size; we could simply let every landowner become a councillor. That solution would only leave little details like the fact that 85% plus of tan RM's revenues were coming from industrial assessment which would remain unrepresented; and the serious problem of a growing number of rural residents being put at the mercy of a new set of dictators.
LEAD, FOLLOW or GET OUT OF THE WAY
IP: Logged
Edit?
carebear300 posted Nov 19, 2012 13:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigger, economics of scale, all great slogans of the times. Health regions, pig barns and lots of the mega farms have yet to prove it to me by their performance. In fact as a rule the opposite has been true up until now. We have a neighbouring RM that has expanded it has turned into a real cluster ****. I know it has to come eventually but only when people have their shit together. Nowadays screw ups cost way too much money.
IP: Logged
Edit?
carebear300 posted Nov 19, 2012 13:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forgot my rant about poor hard done by Regina. They already have the legislature, a university, a technical school, two large hospitals and all the supporting staff for the operation of these facilities. Mostly funded by the rest of saskatchewan. So I don't think they have any right to bitch at some of the smaller neighbouring constituencies trying to get some small part of this large pie that they have been feasting upon and benefiting from for years. What's fair is fair for all not just the priviledged few!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 19:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have a neighbouring RM that has expanded it has turned into a real cluster ****."
Herinafter simply referred to as a "CF"
Please elaborate; and give comparisons to the situations in those RM's before expansion. Otherwise I have no idea if it just a case of finally revealing past problems; and maybe even expecting too much in cleaning the mess up immediately.
Similarly it is politically saafe to just talk about hypothetical "CF's" or potential "CF's" that might arise from making a change that even the writer admits are somewhat inevitable.
But what about existing real time "CF's"
Can anyone tolerate an RM council "appointing" and paying "security" to attend a vote held under "The Local Government Elections ACT". Well it has happened and not the council, the press, the police; the auditors; the municipal advisors; the Provincial government that oversees the RM"s nor the public dared to express their outrage. Does anyone even see the point that stares us all in the face?
. What about creating 10 additional housing units at Borderline Housing; and blowing the whole budget on water filled holes and unfinished prefabs rotting on a fairgrounds. Then the fiasco continued through months and months of failed funding initiatives and a plethoria of bylaws and repealed bylaws; levy increases, money injections; mediation proceedings and legal court battles that will continue until the hundreds of thousands are forgotten or written off. Just try to get your hands on the mediation reports in the hands of councils; and you could count the words in the rare public update report on almost two hands. Must be very little of the taxpayers business eh! Couldn't all get on the same page at same time. And lets not examine the planning and accountability.
Or what about RM's being in charge of building a provincial highway; when they certainly can't keep municicipal grid roads even passable. Maybe the "No Trucks" allowed signs are the way to handle road reconstruction.
Or how do you conduct a Community plan worth a ballpark "$60,000". It was determined to be a high priority and essential for planning growth; but the town and RM who are in the same building apparently don't/didn't know for some decades who owned more than a half mile of highway/airport frontage and acres of sought after property. Now there is an attempt at annexation so 25 year leases at a very few dollars/ year will tie up development to probably hanger storage uses.
Or how about fumbling the ball on housing and feeding and servicing the needs of literally hundreds of pipeline workers since last April in SE Sask. Towns such as Redvers out manouvered us so badly that its an embarrassment to even talk about it. But we don't have enough water infrastructure for existing residents, so I guess the reasoning is that it was all for the best.
And the Northgate land acquisition by a foreign company. I'm sure I'm the only person who has read the contract that was signed for this closely held secret land grab. You know we are committed to closing every road, street and lane that the RM has jurisdiction over; and further that the acres included in Her Majesties properties were included in the 60 acres; (more or less)that the RM Council enabled under the cloak of complete and utter secrecy. And the $500 per lot must now be lowered because the taxpayers got stuck with paying up back taxes to the school division when this agreement was concluded. And the contract agreement clearly states that road and street properties are freebee's thown in. They even got the land once set aside for school grounds, parks and recreation. And I again repeat that adjacent privately held lots fetched more than 100 times for the same acreage. Many doubt that the council has any idea about the real intentions of the purchasers; who have the full chunk ( of property from the US border to the DesLacs to the north and Number 9 Highway on the west. Thats how you can ask for roads to be closed because you have "all" the property that requires the previously surveyed roads, streets and lanes for access. I still wonder if Her Majesty has to sign off; and why this land shouldn't still be put up for public bid. There shouldn't be any argument that anyone would have access; if you are bidding on the roads that provide the access.
Now that was a coup for obtaining strategic property of one of three north-south rail connections in Western Canada.
Or a hundred thousand dollar rural municipal water well that I am sure the literally couple of persons who withdrew water probably wished they had dumped their load before mixing in their holding tank and previous water supply.
And the one I like best is year after year seeing an RM council decline to support the local high school yearbook. You know that a quater page ad costs around $45.00; but you should have personally seen the councillors; one after another bitterly making comments like "the amount that school cost us; we should have been given the whole yearbooks advertising"; "we don't have anything to advertise" and on around the table till the request was unanimously declined. Now that's a true CF"
How many "CF" examples (and theses are just a few in the past year or so from one area) till we admit that the cesspool should be drained and something else tried is run on a new attitude giving consideration to the residents the sytem professes to serve.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 20:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, of all the "outrageous" situations I have brought before a seemingly uncaring public; there is only one that I have been challenged on the facts.
That concerns whether a contracted employee of an RM/Town agreement for a community development officers (whatever that position entails) ; should be ever referred to as having anything to do with econonomic development.
However others have shared that confusion. When the local radio station interviewed the contracted employee; those economic development officer words were used. And every time there is an discussion about planning and goals; those pesky dollars and the word economics always creeps in.
But on second thought that is never in public meetings. Because, we don't even have them in local RM's. Afterall, it is argued there is no public demand for ratepayer gatherings; and of course someone could use that microphone to tear a strip off an arguably deserving council.
That also describes censorship; and deliberately destroying any forum to demand accountability.
And that is quite possibly why a whole council deliberated for long enough to ban all electronic devices from council and committee meetings. Do not be fooled by the "unsober" second thoughts at the following meeting where this policy was challenged.
Thogh recinded; it was made clear that "just because something is legal does not mean that you should be allowed to do it"
FUNNY ME; I ALWAYS THOUGHT (AND STILL DO THINK) THAT THE EXACT OPPOSITE SHOULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF ANY POLICY DECISION)
Remember that the days are numbered for every attempt at ruling a civilization.
Why should we care what replaces the present rulers. It will be quite possibly be an overall an improvement.
And the loudest wailing will come from those forced out.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 20, 2012 7:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also need to mention the private dining at the public trough every month. It preceeds the council meeting. Behind locked doors; council members regular attendees, taxpayer supported, not shown as a part of council remuneration, invitation only, suspected/obviously where real council decisions are made. Catered meal; tonights the night ....again.
Shop is so closed that there is no incentive for anyone to even consider sitting in gallery.
Democracy at it's best????Or Dark Ages in Sask????
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 20, 2012 8:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it strike anyone as being odd that the serious issues brought forward have not been refuted.
I'm convinced that the officials could care less what the facts are.....
Council's stance is exactly as the reeve said less than a couple of years ago...... "He could do anything that he wanted to do"
IP: Logged
Edit?
Reply to this Thread - Return to Topic List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the fight between the RM of Sherwood and the City of Regina made national news last night. I don't see what has got everyone's panties in a knot. If the city wants a say in what development happens outside it's borders, it should pony up and buy the land for it's self. That said, there should be no expectation of city services leaving those borders either. Sherwood is collecting the taxes they should provide the fire,water,sewer,etc.
Seems simple to me.
IP: Logged
Edit?
SASKFARMER3 posted Nov 18, 2012 10:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some RMs are not only a anchor their a Dead
D10 cat trying to be pulled by a Prius!
The city of Regina is another problem. The lots
keep getting smaller and smaller now only a side
walk on one side and narrow streets. Cram in
English row houses. That's prosperity at 750,000
a house.
IP: Logged
Edit?
Rareearth posted Nov 18, 2012 11:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Regina has no control, or should it for
what happens in the RM. ownership is
everything. If the city wants to sell services
outside of if jurisdiction, they can, and hopefully
for the right reasons. Maybe Moose Jaw is to
close, getting provincial dollars Regina could use?
For the record I like Moosejaw.
IP: Logged
Edit?
wilagro posted Nov 18, 2012 12:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until you SaskatchewaNESE consolidate your RMs down to a reasonable workable number you will have nothing but trouble.
If you eliminated about 200 that would be a start.
Your Provincial Government is too damned CHICKEN to tackle this issue as have all previous governments. Divide and rule...that's the gist of it.
There!!!...how's that advice from a non-native observer?
None of my business?...yah...probably.
IP: Logged
Edit?
ColevilleH2S posted Nov 18, 2012 13:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think I like the idea of going to a county sized municipal system. Roughly a decade ago, both the local health district, and local school division were amalgamated into larger sized entities. Since then we have lost services. There also seems to be more pencil pushers strapped with less accountability in the new, larger systems too. Bureaucracy in the worst sense of the term.
Just for illustration, if I am in administration at a municipal service. Am I more accountable to the ratepayer, if I am the only person doing my job, and the ratepayer is my neighbour? Or if I am one of five people doing the job, and the ratepayer is three towns away?
IP: Logged
Edit?
blackpowder posted Nov 18, 2012 15:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bets on whether Kal Tire walks while everyone navel gazes??
IP: Logged
Edit?
bluefargo posted Nov 18, 2012 22:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am with Wilagro on this. These little
fiefdoms are ridiculas. But no
government has the guts to do anything
about it.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 18, 2012 22:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is such a thing as having ones family, friends and oneself as being over represented.
For instance; is it necessary to have the mayor and his councillor wife on the same town council. What about it becoming desirable to being councillor in one RM and running for reeve in the adjoing RM 6 miles away?
Just what legitimate fears are there of not being able for decent representation by even someone you personally don't know.
Cole's... concern are indicative of how you can look after oneself by persoally having power or having someone in your pocket.....but those same persons will never give a rats ass about the concerns and democratic rights of anyone but themselves and their close knit circle.
Sask desperately needs to get rid of the albatross of effectively unaccountable small minded despots.
The rot runs deep and even the provincial government secretly recognizes how small town and rural politics has no vision or long term planning.
Perhaps save for RM Sherwood type examples and Councils with good intentions but severely lacking in scale and resources.
The rest are run as personal power bases; and small time income sources; which do no real service to communities. They blunder throgh one financial catastrophy after another and avoid public meetings and involving the electorate. Some even hide their decisions and plans; and the mess of bylaws, repealed bylaws and policies that are not enforced, selectively enforced nor meant to be advertised.
Don't anyone ever hold up Sask Rural municipal politics as a shining example of anything other than a poorly run cesspool.
They are generally an affront to real democratic principles.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 18, 2012 23:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alberta realigned rural electoral boundaries in the 1950's through a much smaller number of counties.
Here in Sask, 50 years later; our elected officials and SARM cling to their 115 year old model. And the Provincial government plays pure politics by recently repeating their committment to never forcing a change; no matter what the circumstances. In that letter they ridiculed the Sask Chamber of Commerce and of course that really reprehensiable NDP party for daring to suggest that all isn't perfect; and some change is not only warranted; but essential.
Maybe Alberta should return to the Saskatchewan near perfect system where council positions are usually filled by acclamation; and election have been won by a vote count of 3 votes won over 2 votes cast for the other seeking the council position. The gene pool for candidates contains few who see anything worthwhile or challenging in the puny financial operation of a typical rural municipality.
I've got to go be sick again.
IP: Logged
Edit?
farmaholic posted Nov 19, 2012 0:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oneoff: Here on a local level there are
6 councilors in 6 divisions representing
12 townships. The same as it was when
the RM was first established. I once
suggested each councilor having 3
townships therefore reducing the number
of councilors to 4. They didn't seem to
like the idea. I told them no one has to
supervise their division with a horse
and buggy anymore and communication
shouldn't be an issue either. I know
you're talking much bigger changes like
amalgamating RMs. I can't see this
changing until change is forced upon
them. Some Municipalities are doing
quite well with revenue beyond
agriculture based assessments.
Pipelines, oil activity, commercial and
urban development make a big difference
to some while the neighboring RMs are
struggling with poorly assessed ag land
as their only tax base. No one wants to
amalgamate with the poor neighbor. No
RM wants to share their wealth or
resources with a less fortunate one.
Amalgamation would put an end to the Old
Boys Club and would give the electorate
a larger pool of prospective qualified
candidates to choose from. Remuneration
would likely have to increase to
compensate for the qualified people
willing to represent their divisions
because responsibilities would increase
with amalgamation. Also, in some cases
you would have a rural versus urban
battle, Good luck.
IP: Logged
Edit?
LEP posted Nov 19, 2012 8:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just broke into a cold sweat, as I am agreeing with
oneoff on most of what he says here.
Besides being a fiefdom, I do think the main the
main reason they haven't amalgamated is the have
don't want to join the have nots.
While they don't have to be the size of school
boards or health districts, six townships by six
townships should be more efficient and yet small
enough to be responsive.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 12:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with paying people very good remuneration; when their expertise and time pays good dividends to their "employer". Those competent people are the ones who we should entrust with conducting our public business.
The fact is that there is rapidly growing support for the necessary changes to adapt to differences between 2013 and the early 1900's. Too bad SARM and our local cronies haven't shown leadership and can't see todays real world. Its a case of exceeding one's of incompetence.
Those elected representatives are not assets to their communities and it will take forcing them out one way or another to get any meaningful change.
And the comment about sharing the wealth of luckier RM with poorer neighbors is well taken. And in just about every instance it would be safe to say that those millions of dollars came from the pure luck of industrial assessment and oil and resource based taxation.
Yet reeves and councillors openly talk about "their money"
With farms now approaching township size; we could simply let every landowner become a councillor. That solution would only leave little details like the fact that 85% plus of tan RM's revenues were coming from industrial assessment which would remain unrepresented; and the serious problem of a growing number of rural residents being put at the mercy of a new set of dictators.
LEAD, FOLLOW or GET OUT OF THE WAY
IP: Logged
Edit?
carebear300 posted Nov 19, 2012 13:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigger, economics of scale, all great slogans of the times. Health regions, pig barns and lots of the mega farms have yet to prove it to me by their performance. In fact as a rule the opposite has been true up until now. We have a neighbouring RM that has expanded it has turned into a real cluster ****. I know it has to come eventually but only when people have their shit together. Nowadays screw ups cost way too much money.
IP: Logged
Edit?
carebear300 posted Nov 19, 2012 13:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forgot my rant about poor hard done by Regina. They already have the legislature, a university, a technical school, two large hospitals and all the supporting staff for the operation of these facilities. Mostly funded by the rest of saskatchewan. So I don't think they have any right to bitch at some of the smaller neighbouring constituencies trying to get some small part of this large pie that they have been feasting upon and benefiting from for years. What's fair is fair for all not just the priviledged few!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 19:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have a neighbouring RM that has expanded it has turned into a real cluster ****."
Herinafter simply referred to as a "CF"
Please elaborate; and give comparisons to the situations in those RM's before expansion. Otherwise I have no idea if it just a case of finally revealing past problems; and maybe even expecting too much in cleaning the mess up immediately.
Similarly it is politically saafe to just talk about hypothetical "CF's" or potential "CF's" that might arise from making a change that even the writer admits are somewhat inevitable.
But what about existing real time "CF's"
Can anyone tolerate an RM council "appointing" and paying "security" to attend a vote held under "The Local Government Elections ACT". Well it has happened and not the council, the press, the police; the auditors; the municipal advisors; the Provincial government that oversees the RM"s nor the public dared to express their outrage. Does anyone even see the point that stares us all in the face?
. What about creating 10 additional housing units at Borderline Housing; and blowing the whole budget on water filled holes and unfinished prefabs rotting on a fairgrounds. Then the fiasco continued through months and months of failed funding initiatives and a plethoria of bylaws and repealed bylaws; levy increases, money injections; mediation proceedings and legal court battles that will continue until the hundreds of thousands are forgotten or written off. Just try to get your hands on the mediation reports in the hands of councils; and you could count the words in the rare public update report on almost two hands. Must be very little of the taxpayers business eh! Couldn't all get on the same page at same time. And lets not examine the planning and accountability.
Or what about RM's being in charge of building a provincial highway; when they certainly can't keep municicipal grid roads even passable. Maybe the "No Trucks" allowed signs are the way to handle road reconstruction.
Or how do you conduct a Community plan worth a ballpark "$60,000". It was determined to be a high priority and essential for planning growth; but the town and RM who are in the same building apparently don't/didn't know for some decades who owned more than a half mile of highway/airport frontage and acres of sought after property. Now there is an attempt at annexation so 25 year leases at a very few dollars/ year will tie up development to probably hanger storage uses.
Or how about fumbling the ball on housing and feeding and servicing the needs of literally hundreds of pipeline workers since last April in SE Sask. Towns such as Redvers out manouvered us so badly that its an embarrassment to even talk about it. But we don't have enough water infrastructure for existing residents, so I guess the reasoning is that it was all for the best.
And the Northgate land acquisition by a foreign company. I'm sure I'm the only person who has read the contract that was signed for this closely held secret land grab. You know we are committed to closing every road, street and lane that the RM has jurisdiction over; and further that the acres included in Her Majesties properties were included in the 60 acres; (more or less)that the RM Council enabled under the cloak of complete and utter secrecy. And the $500 per lot must now be lowered because the taxpayers got stuck with paying up back taxes to the school division when this agreement was concluded. And the contract agreement clearly states that road and street properties are freebee's thown in. They even got the land once set aside for school grounds, parks and recreation. And I again repeat that adjacent privately held lots fetched more than 100 times for the same acreage. Many doubt that the council has any idea about the real intentions of the purchasers; who have the full chunk ( of property from the US border to the DesLacs to the north and Number 9 Highway on the west. Thats how you can ask for roads to be closed because you have "all" the property that requires the previously surveyed roads, streets and lanes for access. I still wonder if Her Majesty has to sign off; and why this land shouldn't still be put up for public bid. There shouldn't be any argument that anyone would have access; if you are bidding on the roads that provide the access.
Now that was a coup for obtaining strategic property of one of three north-south rail connections in Western Canada.
Or a hundred thousand dollar rural municipal water well that I am sure the literally couple of persons who withdrew water probably wished they had dumped their load before mixing in their holding tank and previous water supply.
And the one I like best is year after year seeing an RM council decline to support the local high school yearbook. You know that a quater page ad costs around $45.00; but you should have personally seen the councillors; one after another bitterly making comments like "the amount that school cost us; we should have been given the whole yearbooks advertising"; "we don't have anything to advertise" and on around the table till the request was unanimously declined. Now that's a true CF"
How many "CF" examples (and theses are just a few in the past year or so from one area) till we admit that the cesspool should be drained and something else tried is run on a new attitude giving consideration to the residents the sytem professes to serve.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 20:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, of all the "outrageous" situations I have brought before a seemingly uncaring public; there is only one that I have been challenged on the facts.
That concerns whether a contracted employee of an RM/Town agreement for a community development officers (whatever that position entails) ; should be ever referred to as having anything to do with econonomic development.
However others have shared that confusion. When the local radio station interviewed the contracted employee; those economic development officer words were used. And every time there is an discussion about planning and goals; those pesky dollars and the word economics always creeps in.
But on second thought that is never in public meetings. Because, we don't even have them in local RM's. Afterall, it is argued there is no public demand for ratepayer gatherings; and of course someone could use that microphone to tear a strip off an arguably deserving council.
That also describes censorship; and deliberately destroying any forum to demand accountability.
And that is quite possibly why a whole council deliberated for long enough to ban all electronic devices from council and committee meetings. Do not be fooled by the "unsober" second thoughts at the following meeting where this policy was challenged.
Thogh recinded; it was made clear that "just because something is legal does not mean that you should be allowed to do it"
FUNNY ME; I ALWAYS THOUGHT (AND STILL DO THINK) THAT THE EXACT OPPOSITE SHOULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF ANY POLICY DECISION)
Remember that the days are numbered for every attempt at ruling a civilization.
Why should we care what replaces the present rulers. It will be quite possibly be an overall an improvement.
And the loudest wailing will come from those forced out.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 20, 2012 7:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also need to mention the private dining at the public trough every month. It preceeds the council meeting. Behind locked doors; council members regular attendees, taxpayer supported, not shown as a part of council remuneration, invitation only, suspected/obviously where real council decisions are made. Catered meal; tonights the night ....again.
Shop is so closed that there is no incentive for anyone to even consider sitting in gallery.
Democracy at it's best????Or Dark Ages in Sask????
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 20, 2012 8:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it strike anyone as being odd that the serious issues brought forward have not been refuted.
I'm convinced that the officials could care less what the facts are.....
Council's stance is exactly as the reeve said less than a couple of years ago...... "He could do anything that he wanted to do"
IP: Logged
Edit?
Reply to this Thread - Return to Topic List
ColevilleH2S posted Nov 18, 2012 10:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the fight between the RM of Sherwood and the City of Regina made national news last night. I don't see what has got everyone's panties in a knot. If the city wants a say in what development happens outside it's borders, it should pony up and buy the land for it's self. That said, there should be no expectation of city services leaving those borders either. Sherwood is collecting the taxes they should provide the fire,water,sewer,etc.
Seems simple to me.
IP: Logged
Edit?
SASKFARMER3 posted Nov 18, 2012 10:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some RMs are not only a anchor their a Dead
D10 cat trying to be pulled by a Prius!
The city of Regina is another problem. The lots
keep getting smaller and smaller now only a side
walk on one side and narrow streets. Cram in
English row houses. That's prosperity at 750,000
a house.
IP: Logged
Edit?
Rareearth posted Nov 18, 2012 11:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Regina has no control, or should it for
what happens in the RM. ownership is
everything. If the city wants to sell services
outside of if jurisdiction, they can, and hopefully
for the right reasons. Maybe Moose Jaw is to
close, getting provincial dollars Regina could use?
For the record I like Moosejaw.
IP: Logged
Edit?
wilagro posted Nov 18, 2012 12:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until you SaskatchewaNESE consolidate your RMs down to a reasonable workable number you will have nothing but trouble.
If you eliminated about 200 that would be a start.
Your Provincial Government is too damned CHICKEN to tackle this issue as have all previous governments. Divide and rule...that's the gist of it.
There!!!...how's that advice from a non-native observer?
None of my business?...yah...probably.
IP: Logged
Edit?
ColevilleH2S posted Nov 18, 2012 13:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think I like the idea of going to a county sized municipal system. Roughly a decade ago, both the local health district, and local school division were amalgamated into larger sized entities. Since then we have lost services. There also seems to be more pencil pushers strapped with less accountability in the new, larger systems too. Bureaucracy in the worst sense of the term.
Just for illustration, if I am in administration at a municipal service. Am I more accountable to the ratepayer, if I am the only person doing my job, and the ratepayer is my neighbour? Or if I am one of five people doing the job, and the ratepayer is three towns away?
IP: Logged
Edit?
blackpowder posted Nov 18, 2012 15:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bets on whether Kal Tire walks while everyone navel gazes??
IP: Logged
Edit?
bluefargo posted Nov 18, 2012 22:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am with Wilagro on this. These little
fiefdoms are ridiculas. But no
government has the guts to do anything
about it.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 18, 2012 22:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is such a thing as having ones family, friends and oneself as being over represented.
For instance; is it necessary to have the mayor and his councillor wife on the same town council. What about it becoming desirable to being councillor in one RM and running for reeve in the adjoing RM 6 miles away?
Just what legitimate fears are there of not being able for decent representation by even someone you personally don't know.
Cole's... concern are indicative of how you can look after oneself by persoally having power or having someone in your pocket.....but those same persons will never give a rats ass about the concerns and democratic rights of anyone but themselves and their close knit circle.
Sask desperately needs to get rid of the albatross of effectively unaccountable small minded despots.
The rot runs deep and even the provincial government secretly recognizes how small town and rural politics has no vision or long term planning.
Perhaps save for RM Sherwood type examples and Councils with good intentions but severely lacking in scale and resources.
The rest are run as personal power bases; and small time income sources; which do no real service to communities. They blunder throgh one financial catastrophy after another and avoid public meetings and involving the electorate. Some even hide their decisions and plans; and the mess of bylaws, repealed bylaws and policies that are not enforced, selectively enforced nor meant to be advertised.
Don't anyone ever hold up Sask Rural municipal politics as a shining example of anything other than a poorly run cesspool.
They are generally an affront to real democratic principles.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 18, 2012 23:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alberta realigned rural electoral boundaries in the 1950's through a much smaller number of counties.
Here in Sask, 50 years later; our elected officials and SARM cling to their 115 year old model. And the Provincial government plays pure politics by recently repeating their committment to never forcing a change; no matter what the circumstances. In that letter they ridiculed the Sask Chamber of Commerce and of course that really reprehensiable NDP party for daring to suggest that all isn't perfect; and some change is not only warranted; but essential.
Maybe Alberta should return to the Saskatchewan near perfect system where council positions are usually filled by acclamation; and election have been won by a vote count of 3 votes won over 2 votes cast for the other seeking the council position. The gene pool for candidates contains few who see anything worthwhile or challenging in the puny financial operation of a typical rural municipality.
I've got to go be sick again.
IP: Logged
Edit?
farmaholic posted Nov 19, 2012 0:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oneoff: Here on a local level there are
6 councilors in 6 divisions representing
12 townships. The same as it was when
the RM was first established. I once
suggested each councilor having 3
townships therefore reducing the number
of councilors to 4. They didn't seem to
like the idea. I told them no one has to
supervise their division with a horse
and buggy anymore and communication
shouldn't be an issue either. I know
you're talking much bigger changes like
amalgamating RMs. I can't see this
changing until change is forced upon
them. Some Municipalities are doing
quite well with revenue beyond
agriculture based assessments.
Pipelines, oil activity, commercial and
urban development make a big difference
to some while the neighboring RMs are
struggling with poorly assessed ag land
as their only tax base. No one wants to
amalgamate with the poor neighbor. No
RM wants to share their wealth or
resources with a less fortunate one.
Amalgamation would put an end to the Old
Boys Club and would give the electorate
a larger pool of prospective qualified
candidates to choose from. Remuneration
would likely have to increase to
compensate for the qualified people
willing to represent their divisions
because responsibilities would increase
with amalgamation. Also, in some cases
you would have a rural versus urban
battle, Good luck.
IP: Logged
Edit?
LEP posted Nov 19, 2012 8:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just broke into a cold sweat, as I am agreeing with
oneoff on most of what he says here.
Besides being a fiefdom, I do think the main the
main reason they haven't amalgamated is the have
don't want to join the have nots.
While they don't have to be the size of school
boards or health districts, six townships by six
townships should be more efficient and yet small
enough to be responsive.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 12:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with paying people very good remuneration; when their expertise and time pays good dividends to their "employer". Those competent people are the ones who we should entrust with conducting our public business.
The fact is that there is rapidly growing support for the necessary changes to adapt to differences between 2013 and the early 1900's. Too bad SARM and our local cronies haven't shown leadership and can't see todays real world. Its a case of exceeding one's of incompetence.
Those elected representatives are not assets to their communities and it will take forcing them out one way or another to get any meaningful change.
And the comment about sharing the wealth of luckier RM with poorer neighbors is well taken. And in just about every instance it would be safe to say that those millions of dollars came from the pure luck of industrial assessment and oil and resource based taxation.
Yet reeves and councillors openly talk about "their money"
With farms now approaching township size; we could simply let every landowner become a councillor. That solution would only leave little details like the fact that 85% plus of tan RM's revenues were coming from industrial assessment which would remain unrepresented; and the serious problem of a growing number of rural residents being put at the mercy of a new set of dictators.
LEAD, FOLLOW or GET OUT OF THE WAY
IP: Logged
Edit?
carebear300 posted Nov 19, 2012 13:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigger, economics of scale, all great slogans of the times. Health regions, pig barns and lots of the mega farms have yet to prove it to me by their performance. In fact as a rule the opposite has been true up until now. We have a neighbouring RM that has expanded it has turned into a real cluster ****. I know it has to come eventually but only when people have their shit together. Nowadays screw ups cost way too much money.
IP: Logged
Edit?
carebear300 posted Nov 19, 2012 13:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forgot my rant about poor hard done by Regina. They already have the legislature, a university, a technical school, two large hospitals and all the supporting staff for the operation of these facilities. Mostly funded by the rest of saskatchewan. So I don't think they have any right to bitch at some of the smaller neighbouring constituencies trying to get some small part of this large pie that they have been feasting upon and benefiting from for years. What's fair is fair for all not just the priviledged few!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 19:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have a neighbouring RM that has expanded it has turned into a real cluster ****."
Herinafter simply referred to as a "CF"
Please elaborate; and give comparisons to the situations in those RM's before expansion. Otherwise I have no idea if it just a case of finally revealing past problems; and maybe even expecting too much in cleaning the mess up immediately.
Similarly it is politically saafe to just talk about hypothetical "CF's" or potential "CF's" that might arise from making a change that even the writer admits are somewhat inevitable.
But what about existing real time "CF's"
Can anyone tolerate an RM council "appointing" and paying "security" to attend a vote held under "The Local Government Elections ACT". Well it has happened and not the council, the press, the police; the auditors; the municipal advisors; the Provincial government that oversees the RM"s nor the public dared to express their outrage. Does anyone even see the point that stares us all in the face?
. What about creating 10 additional housing units at Borderline Housing; and blowing the whole budget on water filled holes and unfinished prefabs rotting on a fairgrounds. Then the fiasco continued through months and months of failed funding initiatives and a plethoria of bylaws and repealed bylaws; levy increases, money injections; mediation proceedings and legal court battles that will continue until the hundreds of thousands are forgotten or written off. Just try to get your hands on the mediation reports in the hands of councils; and you could count the words in the rare public update report on almost two hands. Must be very little of the taxpayers business eh! Couldn't all get on the same page at same time. And lets not examine the planning and accountability.
Or what about RM's being in charge of building a provincial highway; when they certainly can't keep municicipal grid roads even passable. Maybe the "No Trucks" allowed signs are the way to handle road reconstruction.
Or how do you conduct a Community plan worth a ballpark "$60,000". It was determined to be a high priority and essential for planning growth; but the town and RM who are in the same building apparently don't/didn't know for some decades who owned more than a half mile of highway/airport frontage and acres of sought after property. Now there is an attempt at annexation so 25 year leases at a very few dollars/ year will tie up development to probably hanger storage uses.
Or how about fumbling the ball on housing and feeding and servicing the needs of literally hundreds of pipeline workers since last April in SE Sask. Towns such as Redvers out manouvered us so badly that its an embarrassment to even talk about it. But we don't have enough water infrastructure for existing residents, so I guess the reasoning is that it was all for the best.
And the Northgate land acquisition by a foreign company. I'm sure I'm the only person who has read the contract that was signed for this closely held secret land grab. You know we are committed to closing every road, street and lane that the RM has jurisdiction over; and further that the acres included in Her Majesties properties were included in the 60 acres; (more or less)that the RM Council enabled under the cloak of complete and utter secrecy. And the $500 per lot must now be lowered because the taxpayers got stuck with paying up back taxes to the school division when this agreement was concluded. And the contract agreement clearly states that road and street properties are freebee's thown in. They even got the land once set aside for school grounds, parks and recreation. And I again repeat that adjacent privately held lots fetched more than 100 times for the same acreage. Many doubt that the council has any idea about the real intentions of the purchasers; who have the full chunk ( of property from the US border to the DesLacs to the north and Number 9 Highway on the west. Thats how you can ask for roads to be closed because you have "all" the property that requires the previously surveyed roads, streets and lanes for access. I still wonder if Her Majesty has to sign off; and why this land shouldn't still be put up for public bid. There shouldn't be any argument that anyone would have access; if you are bidding on the roads that provide the access.
Now that was a coup for obtaining strategic property of one of three north-south rail connections in Western Canada.
Or a hundred thousand dollar rural municipal water well that I am sure the literally couple of persons who withdrew water probably wished they had dumped their load before mixing in their holding tank and previous water supply.
And the one I like best is year after year seeing an RM council decline to support the local high school yearbook. You know that a quater page ad costs around $45.00; but you should have personally seen the councillors; one after another bitterly making comments like "the amount that school cost us; we should have been given the whole yearbooks advertising"; "we don't have anything to advertise" and on around the table till the request was unanimously declined. Now that's a true CF"
How many "CF" examples (and theses are just a few in the past year or so from one area) till we admit that the cesspool should be drained and something else tried is run on a new attitude giving consideration to the residents the sytem professes to serve.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 19, 2012 20:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, of all the "outrageous" situations I have brought before a seemingly uncaring public; there is only one that I have been challenged on the facts.
That concerns whether a contracted employee of an RM/Town agreement for a community development officers (whatever that position entails) ; should be ever referred to as having anything to do with econonomic development.
However others have shared that confusion. When the local radio station interviewed the contracted employee; those economic development officer words were used. And every time there is an discussion about planning and goals; those pesky dollars and the word economics always creeps in.
But on second thought that is never in public meetings. Because, we don't even have them in local RM's. Afterall, it is argued there is no public demand for ratepayer gatherings; and of course someone could use that microphone to tear a strip off an arguably deserving council.
That also describes censorship; and deliberately destroying any forum to demand accountability.
And that is quite possibly why a whole council deliberated for long enough to ban all electronic devices from council and committee meetings. Do not be fooled by the "unsober" second thoughts at the following meeting where this policy was challenged.
Thogh recinded; it was made clear that "just because something is legal does not mean that you should be allowed to do it"
FUNNY ME; I ALWAYS THOUGHT (AND STILL DO THINK) THAT THE EXACT OPPOSITE SHOULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF ANY POLICY DECISION)
Remember that the days are numbered for every attempt at ruling a civilization.
Why should we care what replaces the present rulers. It will be quite possibly be an overall an improvement.
And the loudest wailing will come from those forced out.
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 20, 2012 7:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also need to mention the private dining at the public trough every month. It preceeds the council meeting. Behind locked doors; council members regular attendees, taxpayer supported, not shown as a part of council remuneration, invitation only, suspected/obviously where real council decisions are made. Catered meal; tonights the night ....again.
Shop is so closed that there is no incentive for anyone to even consider sitting in gallery.
Democracy at it's best????Or Dark Ages in Sask????
IP: Logged
Edit?
oneoff posted Nov 20, 2012 8:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it strike anyone as being odd that the serious issues brought forward have not been refuted.
I'm convinced that the officials could care less what the facts are.....
Council's stance is exactly as the reeve said less than a couple of years ago...... "He could do anything that he wanted to do"
IP: Logged
Edit?
Reply to this Thread - Return to Topic List
Comment