Let's move on from Starbucks-gate

It's been several weeks since so-called 'Starbucks-gate,' St. Albert city council's decision to construct and operate a premium coffee shop in Servus Credit Union Place.

The move, which puts the city in direct competition with private-sector businesses — including those inside Servus Place like Booster Juice — has created quite the buzz in some coffee-klatch circles.

Some can't get past the business competition or the $280,000 price tag (albeit coming from reserve funds specific to Servus Place) to retrofit the space, others applaud the move because it will generate a net $90,000 that can be put toward Servus Place's deficit, while some only want a good cup of coffee and couldn't care less who's serving it.

In addition to numerous media reports, the brewhaha has given rise to an online petition calling for the resignation of Mayor Nolan Crouse and Coun. Cathy Heron for being "the most vocal supporters of this decision and consequently they have eroded [public] trust."

As of this writing, 75 'people' have supported this exercise. I refrain from calling it a petition due to its obvious flawed nature that essentially allows anyone with an email to make up a name and attach it to the petition.

For example, it's just as implausible for Coun. Roger Lemieux, who was not present to vote on the Starbucks licence, to call for the heads of his two council colleagues in an obscure online poll as it for Tom Cruise to monitor St. Albert headlines and lend his support. Other questionable signees include former Saint City News publisher Donald Sinclair (twice), who's been pretty candid about his views on his website, and Second Rate N.I.M.B.Y Town.

With a petition that poorly thought out, one has to wonder if the circulator and signees — the legitimate ones, if I can use the term — actually believe it has a snowball's chance in hell of reaching the end goal.

For starters, there is no recall legislation in Alberta. The only way a councillor can be disqualified is by breaking the Local Authorities Election Act, missing a pile of regular council meetings, using his or her position for financial gain or going to prison.

The use of this particular online avenue and its complete lack of credibility makes it a joke, and not much of a political statement. I'd lose more trust in Crouse or Heron if they actually felt the need to resign over this forum than any decision they might make in council chambers.

The only saving grace for this poll is that it wasn't written on a piece of paper, saving a tree in the process.

If the signees do want to make a political statement, take Starbucks-gate up with council. Register to speak at an upcoming council meeting (you'll have to wait a while since they're on break until Aug. 15). Be respectful and make logical arguments backing up your case. Engage your friends and neighbours. Support candidates who represent your beliefs and values during the next election and hold the current ones to account. And then be prepared to respect the majority wishes in a representative democracy.

The only problem with the above is it's not achievable with the click of a mouse. It's hard work to engage people, get them to see your point of view and build relationships. But hey, that's politics.

The online petition is just noise, and judging by the early lukewarm response, it's not generating much.

If past councils that committed far greater sins, like say, providing atrocious oversight on Servus Place's cost-neutral mandate, managed to go through the political fires unscathed then this lot has little to worry about. The next election is years away and voters have short memories. Besides, council will make far more important — and potentially controversial — decisions between now and then.

I wasn't happy about the Starbucks vote either, but the decision has been made, the contracts signed. It's time to move on and hope this enterprise fares better than other aspects of Servus Place operations. If you still don't like it, take it up with council — or better yet, take it up with your friends and neighbours.

Hey, St. Albert council — get a whiff of this! Buy up unwanted businesses

We don't take kindly to strangers, especially ones with '4:20' painted on the window and a shelf full of bongs.

St. Albert council's habit of wearing a moral-police hat raised to new levels recently with a motion that targets businesses that sell items used in the consumption of illegal drugs. The goal is to either send the businesses packing or make it very, very onerous for new ones to open shop.

It's not the first time a council has taken on law-abiding, property taxpaying businesses that don't mesh with St. Albert's insular utopia.

Mayor Nolan Crouse tried it in the past with a move to ban strip clubs, adult video stores and swingers' clubs — an idea sparked because he learned of a small swingers' group operating discreetly in our suburban backyard. He dropped it when advised a ban could open the city up to lawsuits.

The most recent hit of morality on bong shops has had its share of critics, myself included.  I'm no dope fiend, I just believe business owners that have a legal right to do business should be allowed to do just that. And like the Gazette's editorial states, city council has bigger and more pressing business than moral bylaws.

The notion that barring smoke/bong shops from opening would protect St. Albert's youth is absurd in its naivety. Illegal drugs will always be an issue in every city, suburb, town or village, regardless of availability of custom bongs. And keep in mind, the two offending St. Albert shops are relatively new to town — drug use is not.

But if city council really is headstrong about cultivating St. Albert's crime-free suburban image, take a tip from Fredericton, whose city council just bought an eyesore of problem in the city's one and only strip club.

Council could get rid of the druggies and bring in a church or something. It would create a property tax loss, but that loss of revenue I'm sure would pay dividends for the city's image.

Besides, if council doesn't act what would the neighbours think?

St. Albert council scorched by bitter latte

There's nothing like hot, fresh coffee to perk up the senses, dilate the pupils and propel the neck toward twitchy anticipation. I am a fiend. I love the bean. Love it.

So when the notion of a Starbucks coming to Servus Credit Union Place first appeared on St. Albert city council's (public) agenda, I was abuzz.

While Starbucks isn't my caffeine of choice (I'm not a Timmy Ho guy either — tastes like coffee that was spilled onto the floor and squeegeed up with a dirty mop before being wrung into a cup ... yes I've been called a coffee snob many, many times), it's certainly a step up from the current offerings from the Skybox kiosk at Servus Place. (See my thoughts on Tim's coffee but top up the brew with spittoon leftovers ... I mean I've had better coffee from gas stations in the middle of the Prairies. Charred coffee pot and all).

Starbucks doesn't carry the same cache it had before the economic downturn, but it's a well established brand that serves popular coffee and milk-based beverages and dessert-like drinks. People like personalizing their triple grande lattes and in the summer heat it's hard to turn down a frap.

So, back to council ... I like the idea of another quality food and beverage vendor in Servus Place, I like it bringing in $90,000 a year to reduce the operating deficit. But I hate that it's going to be run by the city, and really, really dislike how it went down.

First, the process. It's perfectly normal for a council to go in camera to hash out early dealings for a potential business partnership with a third party like Starbucks. But to make a snap decision like they did without even talking to other businesses at Servus Place like the franchisee for the Booster Juice? The guy, and other affected businesses have a right to be angry.

It's not like a third-party Starbucks  franchisee is moving into Servus Place. City council has taken up the mantle of competitor, ready to eat into the Booster Juice's profit margins. This is a franchise that's been in Servus Place since the beginning and now that loyalty is being tossed aside like spent espresso beans.

The real crazy part is how some on council seem surprised by the ferocity of the backlash. Did they expect citizens to slurp back their lattes and not bat an eyelash about the city suddenly throwing its hat in the coffee biz?

What's especially galling is the insultingly low amount of detail made public about the cost and revenue projections. The agenda report only covers 2011 budget numbers, outlining how the startup costs, staff training, etc. will be covered by extra sponsorship dollars for Servus Place (and no details provided about that either.)

We're told the Starbucks will net the city $90,000 a year thereafter, but that's not stated anywhere in the public portion of the report. That's transparency for you.

Nor does the report outline potential threats from new competition, like the Tim Hortons currently under construction a block away. My personal feelings aside, Tims is kind of a big deal in this country and they have a lot more to offer food and beverage wise than Starbucks' over-roasted coffee, mediocre lattes and factory-made cookies. Not even mentioned.

I guess we're supposed to trust city council and administration and take them at their word that this will all work out in the end. Given the track record at Servus Place, we all have a right to be worried.

I just hope they don't scorch my latte, too.

St. Albert city council wearing blinders on remuneration file … again

From the June 29 issue of the St. Albert Gazette:

That thud you heard was the sound of city councillors walking into a wall at St. Albert Place. They’re not the easiest corridors to navigate, with the sweeping Doug Cardinal-designed curves, but it’s even harder to get around with blinders on.

Such was the case — again — when council appointed five citizens at large to a committee that will review council pay and perks. On the surface, all the appointees sound like reasonable candidates to walk into the politically sticky web that is council remuneration. But a closer look at the names and, more specifically, their friendly histories with city council and administration shows this council doesn’t seem to understand that optics are everything on the remuneration file.

The committee consists of Rick Sloan, Ken MacKay, Nancy Bochard, Neil Korotash and Bruce Garriock, whose respective professional backgrounds include experience in the public sector, police service, human resources, education and legal system. 

In other words, this is a quality group of individuals who are quite capable of grasping the subtleties of a job like mayor and city councillor. But when three of the five have either sat on and even chaired a committee of council or even city council itself, the perception of the selections are poor at best. Council has opened the door to criticism that it appointed friends and colleagues to a committee tasked with doling out raises.

That’s not to say any of the five would act in anything but an impartial manner, especially when we’re talking about someone like a judge (Garriock). All five should be commended for putting their names forward in the name of public service. 

As a former city councillor, Korotash certainly knows the job, but he also sat alongside two of the people whose salaries he’s being asked to review, and worked on the political campaigns to elect Mayor Nolan Crouse and Coun. Cathy Heron.

I covered city council during two of Korotash’s three terms and think he did a pretty darned good job; he always did his homework, made logical, well reasoned arguments and wasn’t overly reactionary like some of his present-day colleagues. Were I a city councillor, I wouldn’t hesitate to seek his political advice. But I would not ask him to review my salary. 

The same goes for Garriock, who sat on the former municipal planning commission and affordable housing advisory board, or MacKay, the former chair of both the community services advisory board and the Servus Place citizen task force. Both are more than capable, but they’re also too close to council and call too many senior city administrators by their first names.

Appointing a group that could almost be called the Society of Friends of City Council proves this bunch of elected officials doesn’t get it on the pay and perks file. It started last term, when councillors tried to include their pay as part of a wider review of remuneration at city hall — with minimal public involvement — a move that showed spectacularly poor understanding of the importance of transparency. 

Council reacted by calling for a public committee, but balked at the idea of members with backgrounds in organized labour or the chamber on grounds that both lobby government for money. Fair point, but by cutting out people with private sector backgrounds in favour of friendly public servants and those with direct knowledge of council business, don’t be surprised when people criticize council for counting the cards. 

If councillors took the blinders off they too would see just how bad it looks.

New beginnings

This is my first post as a former journalist.

It's still weird to see those words on a screen, but I've left my second home of five years, the St. Albert Gazette, for something completely different in the world of communications.

It's a time of profound change as my wife and I eagerly expect our first child this fall.

Some things don't change, like this on-and-off-again blog that has been home to my musings and columns on St. Albert civic politics. I never got paid to blog before, so I might as well keep the streak alive.

It's back again, though obviously I won't have as much time to devote to it (not that I've had much in the last couple of years). But unlike years gone by, I can't justify taking off work early at 2:30 p.m. to catch a city council meeting live and in person to keep myself informed. If only council meetings were streamed online like many other progressive Alberta cities …

What I can do is continue to post my columns as they appear in the Gazette.

I'm still in the paper's columnist roster and plan to remain there as long as they want me. In between I'll post wonderfully insightful observations and witty comments on the latest city council wins and folly. Hopefully there's more of the former, but given the track record of some councillors … Just kidding! Sort of.

St. Albert faces an uphill industrial climb

St. Albert Place might be a fine example of Douglas Cardinal’s nature-inspired architecture, but lately it’s resembled a punching bag. City hall has taken it in the teeth over issues like the hiccups with the waste pickup scheme, dog parks and the mayor’s value-for-taxes message — ill-timed to coincide with the arrival of property tax notices, the City of Edmonton’s annual property tax survey and a plan to hike transit fares by 10 per cent.

Added to that mix is a damning industrial land needs study that not only reinforces St. Albert’s bad rap for being unfriendly toward businesses, it notes the city is in tough against regional competitors and even raises the spectre of our long-term viability if left as a mostly residential suburb with little in the way of local employment. 

If that wasn’t bad enough, the study puts a public spotlight on an internal tug-of-war between two departments — business and tourism development and planning and development — which are giving city council conflicting advice on how much industrial land St. Albert needs. Planning and development, in reviewing historic development trends, has previously argued the city already has enough industrial land. 

Meanwhile, business and tourism, which works closely with businesses that want to set up shop in St. Albert, has always underscored a dearth of lot sizes — particularly large industrial lots. The result is a report that suggests St. Albert needs a whopping 362 hectares of industrial land over the next 25 years.

Just how bleak is St. Albert’s image? Well, after consulting with industry representatives the study quoted Marshall McLuhan, who once said “perception is reality.” 

The perception from the real estate and business community is the city’s reputation is as dirty as a smokestack on refinery row, with too little political will and too much bureaucracy standing in the way of development. 

“Before looking for corrective mechanisms, there must first be an attitude change that industrial development is important to the community’s sustainability,” the report states. So much for the business friendly claims in those glossy annual reports.

Even if city council makes economic development a true priority instead of giving it lip service, St. Albert faces an uphill battle — stuck in the starting blocks while other communities like Parkland County, Edmonton, Leduc and Leduc County have much more to offer the industrial sector — in the case of Parkland, almost 12 times the amount of shovel-ready industrial. 

St. Albert missed the last boom while reviewing where to put the roads and pipes in the ground in the annexed lands, and council has done very little to allay fears the city will be ready for the next wave. 

The previous council rejected a plan to create a new industrial park in the northwest, while the current group faces pressure from developers to build anything — in the northwest (residential), in South Campbell (urban village) and South Riel (commercial).

Meanwhile, the industrial supply study will gather dust on a shelf until year’s end as planning and development comes up with possible locations for industrial, tasks already completed for the municipal development plan review and last year’s industrial fiasco. 

It’s a curious delay given what’s at stake and the most likely outcome is that industrial makes most sense along Ray Gibbon Drive — within striking distance of the ring road, Yellowhead Trail, the CN intermodal yards and resource development to the north. 

When studies show industrial sites create jobs and actually result in profits for cities as opposed to an operating drain like residential, St. Albert needs to get serious about opening the doors to industry. If we don’t, the consequences for homeowners are just as predictable and angry letters to the editor will be the least of council’s worries.

St. Albert Gazette wins big

It was a good showing for the St. Albert Gazette, which won 19 awards and honourable mentions at the Suburban Newspapers of America's editorial contest.

Leading the way was reporter Cory Hare with four awards followed by Kevin Ma, who took three, including two first place nods.

Hare won second place for Best Feature for a story he wrote about paddling down the Sturgeon River. He also took more second place awards for Best Continuing Coverage for his reporting on the Habitat for Humanity project at 70 Arlington Dr., and Best In-depth Reporting for stories about St. Albert's family doctor shortage. Hare also won an honourable mention for a series of features on backyard hockey rinks.

Ma took first and third place for Best Environmental Coverage for a feature story about greenhouse gases, and a news story about fish kill in St. Albert. Ma also won first for Best Continuing Coverage for his work chronicling the Syncrude dead duck trial in St. Albert.

Scott Hayes won first place for Best Feature Series for his work shedding light on poverty and nutrition by living off hampers from the food bank.

Ryan Tumilty won second for Best Coverage of Investigative Reporting for a story about lack of heat at the Youville Home.

Anna Borowiecki won third place for Best Feature for a story she wrote about boudoir photography.

Yours truly took third place for Best Opinion Column for a selection of entries, many of which can be found on this site.

The Gazette's photo department earned six awards, including second for Best Photojournalism for a spread on the Rainmaker Rodeo (kudos to April Bartlett and Ben Lemphers) and third place for a picture story on a rodeo clown (April Bartlett).

If that wasn't enough the Gazette once again is in the running for Best All Around Newspaper from the Canadian Community Newspapers Association. The winner will be announced next month.