🚀 go-pugleaf

You seem to have a political problem.

On 2/23/2013 8:29 AM, tatarewicz@gmail.com wrote:
> Only a few days left to petition against sidewalk improvement in
> Grovenor if your walk is in good condition and you feel monies could
> be better spent on building dozens of grade separations on high
> volume routes for safer, more expeditious traffic flows. Street
> lighting refurbishment is also unnecessary since most are working
> fine.
>
> To petition against an improvement in your designated block a person
> needs to identify owners by his driver's license and witness the
> signature (on the forms provided).  Then the witness needs to go to a
> Commissioner for Oaths and swear he "knows" each signatory and saw
> him sign the petition.  Smaller financial institutions usually have a
> Commissioner who will take an oath at no charge if you have an
> account.  Or there may even be a commissioner at the Chancery Place
> address.Check with melinda.durand@edmonton.ca.  Big bank
> commissioners only take an oath related to bank documents (because
> some shyster got a commissioner in trouble with a false swearing).
>
> This bureaucratic red tape is not so much the City's doing but due to
> laws and regulations of the vastly bureaucratized Tory government so
> it's something a Wild Rose administration might undo.  It would be
> far more efficient for the City to get the opinion of property owners
> by including a questionnaire with the annual property tax invoice (to
> be sent in with the tax payment).

On 2/23/2013 6:42 PM, Slap wrote:
> You seem to have a political problem.

He touched a very important aspect of the process
of the citizens' input into decisions that affect them
and their valet.
It only seems that the City gives them a voice and
"wants to hear it" but because those who want to
say "NO" to the City's proposed WASTE of public
(meaning yours, and mine) money and because
some of us don't want to/can't afford over many
years pay THOUSANDS of dollars each - they
are required to get their voice "validated" by the
Commissioner for Oaths (which not only costs
money but also is a big inconvenience).
This is nothing less than a way to make it almost
impossible to have a say for those who oppose
this reckless and stupid plan.

If this is a "political problem" and not a resolute
voice of a concerned citizen then I have this
problem too.

Good post, thank you Paul for writing about this.

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:17:51 PM UTC-7, Rob wrote:
 
> He touched a very important aspect of the process
> 
> of the citizens' input into decisions that affect them
> 
> and their wallet.

The problem is political in sense City Council does not give top priority to traffic improvements like grade separations on high volume routes which would save lives, avoid injuries from T-boners but also expedite traffic flow to reduce fuel consumption and exhaust pollution as well as avoid lengthy holdups at accident sites.  Note that the Local Improvements planners don't ask for reasons for opposition (which would help in future planning). Seems that the sole reason for the official petition process for involving an Oath's Commissioner is to discourage someone from "faking" opposition by signing a bunch of names of property owners without their consent or knowledge.  As I indicated it would be much simpler for the City to plan ahead and get an indication of preferences on the annual tax bill and have it accompany payment. Or ask on the tax invoice what local improvements are desired. Would save on extra mailing costs and having a bank of bureaucrats or lawyers scrutinize petition signatures.

The current process looks so formidable and mystifying.  It says the witness must know them petitioner but a City official (Durand) clarified this to: "or, has proof (i.e. driver's license) of the petitioner; the Petitioner does not have to be present with the witness to complete the Affidavit."

In my case, on a 33-foot lot, annual payments for sidewalk and street lighting would add up to just under 
$2,000 over 15-20 years, apparently with no guarantee that reconstruction could not be proposed within that period.