Delta, BC. A well known and respected name in civic politics has come out in support of Sylvia Bishop, candidate for Delta council in the September 18th by-election. Former Delta mayor, Beth Johnson is backing Bishop.
“I have known Sylvia for a long time. I know her to be hard working, dedicated and equipped to take on the responsibility as a delta councilor. She will serve Delta well.”
Johnson says when Bishop first contacted her to discuss her bid for council, Johnson was thrilled to hear it. Citing a proven ability to work across political boundaries on politically sensitive issues, Johnson said Bishop was the right person for the job as chair of her Mayor’s Youth Task Force. “She has the ability to work with people of differing points of view and still move forward to reach a common goal. That makes her perfect for the job of councilor. Sylvia is articulate and intelligent, perfect for the job.”
Johnson first served as a Delta councilor from 1981 – 1987. She was elected mayor in 1990 and served for three terms before stepping down in 1999.
NDP. NDP. NDP.
ReplyDeleteGood Lord! Beth Johnson! Our community is STILL paying off the debt that her administration racked-up during her tenure as Mayor! That's an endorsement? God help us if more of this type wind up running City Hall!
ReplyDeleteSanders,
ReplyDeleteYou are mistaken. As you and everybody knows municipal budgets are not allowed to incur debt and budgets must be balanced. The majority of property tax increases have occurred under this mayor (and by a long shot too). As a homeowner you wouldn't notice this so much as the majority of the property tax increases have been on the backs of commercial and industrial property owners.
Beth was a very popular councillor and even more popular as mayor. If she had so chosen she could have remained as Mayor in perspicuity.
I'm guessing that you and the rest of the Pro Southlands Development camp are trying very hard to get your candidate Peter Harms elected but why do you resort to commenting on a forum where your candidate won't participate.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOnce again the depth and breadth of ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Although it pains me to engage in a battle of wits with someone who's unarmed, I'll say this...Dear Anonymous (who ever you are) - YOU are simply wrong! Local government can borrow money anytime they wish...that doesn't mean that their books aren’t balanced. I urge you not to take my word for it - check the facts yourself. Delta was some $65M in debt in 1999...our debt is now down to roughly $23M. Go ahead my friend and support the NDP...see what it leads to - again. One last thing...it's 'perpetuity'
ReplyDeleteSylvia Bishop is the only Candidate who has come out against the development of the Southlands, period. The Southlands is excellent farmland and has been assessed by Wendy Holms, a trained agrologist as class A farmland.
ReplyDeleteSean Hodgins and the Century Group have done nothing but spread false information about the Southlands being poor farmland.
They have tryed to "Greenwash" their project from the start. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig!
Delta does not need another development friendly Councilor. We need balance and balanced development of our community. We need a community that is planned by us, not by developers.
Sanders,
ReplyDeleteyou win. I'm voting for Peter Harms too. You have changed my mind completely and I don't want to see any farmland left. Let's get this over. Maybe I can get a job building houses. Could you put in a good word for me Sanders?
Tell Sean I will send him my resume. The name will be:
"Reformed Environmentalist"
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSylvia Bishop, Kathleen Higgins, Sandeep Pandher and Ian Paton have all stated that they are against development on the Southlands.
ReplyDeleteIt is not true that Sandeep Pandher or Ian Paton stated that they are against the development of the Southlands. Ian Paton actually said he would look at any development proposal without bias.
ReplyDeleteI believe it was reported this way at the debate:
"Sylvia Bishop and Kathleen Higgins stated they want the Southlands to be preserved as farmland. Sandeep Pandher, Ian Paton and Maria DeVries said council needs to listen to the community..."
Where is the, "I won't support development of the Southlands quote?"
It's ridiculous political double speak. Listen to the community? Based on what? The Ipsos Reid poll? Sean Hodgins Mustel Poll? Or do we develop the Southlands if we vote in a developer friendly councillor? And for those of you just joining us Ian Paton has stated that Sean Hodgins of the Century Group is his friend.
(I'm not saying that in a negative way. It is good to have friends it makes life worthwhile.)
Don't quote me on this, but I believe the Delta Optimist called Ian Paton a "stalking horse" for developers.
The actual Delta Optimist Column Reads that Ian Paton:
"is running with, and endorsed by, politicians such as Scott Hamilton, Robert Campbell, Bruce McDonald and Jackson, who have raised taxes and removed land from the ALR. Paton's endorsers need to be replaced, not reinforced. I conclude that Paton is a stalking horse..."
What does that mean? To me? It means that if Ian Paton is elected the community has finally spoken and we can go ahead and start paving over the Southlands and any other piece of greenfield that puts forth a development proposal.
Be very careful with your vote on Saturday. If you vote for anyone except Sylvia Bishop or Kathleen Higgins you are in actuality voting for the destruction of farmland in Delta.
And once it's gone... It's gone forever.
Do you actually believe what you are writing??
ReplyDeleteIt was not the "Delta Optimist", it was Steve Graham that called Ian Paton a stalking horse. He is a columnist and this is his misguided interpretation. Has Steve Graham spoken to Ian Paton?
Did Steve Graham research this. I think not. He is trying to sway voters with his little stalking horse analogy.
Is it not the role of a councillor to look at all anything brought before without a predetermined answer? This is similar to any juror, judge or any other person who is an decision making position.
Show me the facts that back up that if you vote for Ian Paton you will be voting for the "destruction of farmland in Delta".
Do you people really think you are fooling anyone into belief this stuff???
From Anonymous at 1:40:
ReplyDeleteWhat does that mean? To me? It means that if Ian Paton is elected the community has finally spoken and we can go ahead and start paving over the Southlands and any other piece of greenfield that puts forth a development proposal.
Can you please provide back up to this that Ian Paton is pro-development on farmland?
From Anonymous at 1:40:
ReplyDelete"What does that mean? To me? It means that if Ian Paton is elected the community has finally spoken and we can go ahead and start paving over the Southlands and any other piece of greenfield that puts forth a development proposal.
Be very careful with your vote on Saturday. If you vote for anyone except Sylvia Bishop or Kathleen Higgins you are in actuality voting for the destruction of farmland in Delta."
Can you please provide back up to this that Ian Paton is pro-development on farmland and this will be the "destruction of farmland in Delta"?
Ridiculous scare tactics!
ReplyDeleteCouncil has a legal duty to consider any application with an open mind, to say you will absolutely not do something is statement that you have closed mind and are not capable of meeting your legal duty. It is clearly set out in the Local Government Act. It is ok to have an opinion but a councillor in consideration of any application must be capable of changing their mind. Ian Paton is the one who got it right by saying he would consider any application.
The quote in the Optimist is an opinion from an editorial it is not a fact and it does nothing but demonstrate the bias of the writer.
Choosing a candidate is a very personal and opinion based part of a democratic society. We do our best to get as much information about the candidates we choose to vote for and in the process we eliminate other candidates using the same information.
ReplyDeleteWhy do I feel that Ian Paton Jr. is pro-development? I 'feel' Ian Paton Jr. is pro-development because he showed up at a public hearing to testify for the exclusion of land from the ALR for the sole purpose of development. The same piece of land that his father, Ian Paton Sr., had said was viable agricultural land.
Regardless of the reasons Ian Paton Jr. gave, which I believe were flawed, he took time out of his hard day of "farming" to speak for exclusion of farmland from the ALR.
Therefore, in my mind, this makes Ian Paton pro-development. This is my opinion. It is based on factual information that I have researched and is the basis for my personal belief that if you vote for Ian Paton Jr. you are signaling to council that it is ok to develop farmland.
Now, because I hold the preservation of farmland and food security as the most important issue in my belief system I do not want to take a chance with any candidate who would dance around the issue with political double speak.
Therefore, I hold by the axiom:
"If you ain't for us, you're against us!"
I have yet to see Ian Paton Jr. stating clearly in any outlet that I trust that if you vote for him he would never look at a development plan for the Southlands and therefore by my flawed logic Ian Paton Jr. is in fact for the development of the Southlands.
You know, I guess the good thing is that it's only a dozen or so idiots like me who are actually taking (wasting) the time to logon to this rag and read the hysterical macerations of 11 or so other idiots. Thank God it doesn’t represent the masses. This will be that last time I wade into read this farcical diatribe...life’s too short to waste it on this garbage. And Boomy - you can either save your breathe wishing me good ridance, or be typical of many of the others on this blog. Tah-Tah and Good Luck Ian!
ReplyDeleteWarning from the Editor:
ReplyDeleteAlthough the comments are not moderated, they are monitored. Please review the Terms and Conditions of participating in this discussion. They can be found here:
Terms and Services
DeltaFreePress.com does not support nor endorse any comments that may be defamatory and/or libelous and will be deleted at the first opportunity.
This warning is targeted at the user using the handle 'boomy' and comments have been deleted.
Please do not let this warning discourage you from having healthy debate. It is encouraged. Having an opinion is one thing but if you intend on stating something as a fact please reference the source of the fact and be a little more polite to the candidates we are discussing.
Oh, I'm sorry folks - but I just read the previous blog post by Anonymous @ 2:45PM, and simply cannot resist this one. Quote: "I 'feel' Ian Paton Jr. is pro-development because he showed up at a public hearing to testify for the exclusion of land from the ALR for the sole purpose of development. The same piece of land that his father, Ian Paton Sr., had said was viable agricultural land". Ian Paton Sr passed away in 2006, yet miraculously he was able to speak-out at the Tsawwassen Springs (Toigo) development hearings that took place in 2007. Pretty neat trick, I'd say. Once again, some people will go to any length to play dirty and try to discredit other be pitching around lies! Shameful idiots!
ReplyDeleteC'mon Sanders you can do it. Just two more days and it's over. Ian Paton Sr. did in fact say the land north of the golf course was viable. It was back in the mid 80's though. You can look it up fairly easily.
ReplyDelete"Why do I feel that Ian Paton Jr. is pro-development? I 'feel' Ian Paton Jr. is pro-development because he showed up at a public hearing to testify for the exclusion of land from the ALR for the sole purpose of development. The same piece of land that his father, Ian Paton Sr., had said was viable agricultural land."
ReplyDeleteThis is the most outrageous and out of context bit of dribble I have seen yet. When Ian Paton Sr. spoke of this land it WAS farmable. When Ian Paton Jr. spoke of this land it WAS NOT farmable. How many decades of a gap were in between these two Paton's speaking? How very shameful of you to try to peg Sr. against Jr., insinuating that they think oppositley on farmland. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Have some class.
Why didn't some of you "armchair experts" in farming rally together and say..."we will rally together and spend the 2+ million dollars to make this land farmable again"?? Or we will find a farmer that will?? Even though EVERY farmer called to speak would not touch the property. Why didn't any of you find a farmer....from ANYWHERE??? This was a very special case and very different from Southlands. How rediculous for you to use this as an argument that Ian Paton is pro development.
Is that seriously the best you can come up with? This one and only excuse of an example just doesn't cut it. How about an example where the land was farmable that ANY farmer has spoken in favour of developing.
Oh...and the "Editor in Chief", I hope you get your assed sued for the amount of unfounded garbage you allow on this site. You are pathetic. Oh, is that libel, because I do have several examples to back that up.
ReplyDeleteJudging by the comments, Sylvia Bishop must be a real threat to those who are pro-Southlands development. To me, the message here is if you are against development of the Southlands, Sylvia Bishop is the person of integrity you will want on council.
ReplyDeleteI cannot agree enough with Bob Sanders with regards to the land removed from the ALR at the Tsawwassen golf course. The previous owners dumped tons of debris on the once viable farmland. True, at one time it was farmable, as was stated by the late Ian Paton Sr. However, two decades of this land being used as a garbage dump more or less destroyed it. I am always amused how the people who cry the loudest to protect farmland never have any solutions to the problems. They want the beautiful views and scenery, however, they are the first to complain about the manure smell and give a slow moving tractor the middle finger salute. Farming is a business, and despite what many wish to believe, farmers are first and foremost businessmen. There was not one farmer in Delta who was willing to tackle the land at the golf course. Farmers are not hanging around convenience stores waiting for work. If the land was workable, it would be in production today. I suspect those who think Ian Paton, along with other farmers, are pro development has never spent any time within the industry, and understood how much pride farmers take in their land, and the value they place in what they are doing. Ian Paton has lived on his family farm since birth. He, along with other farmers, are stewarts of the land, despite the increasing pressure which makes their job more difficult. Ian Paton will be strong voice for the protection of farmland. Do you know why? Simply because he understands the industry. Perhaps the "armchair farmers" can start their search for a farmer willing to put the Southlands back into production. Of course, they will have to raise the several million dollars for irrigation and fertilizer, not to mention find a solution to the many tractors that will be slowing down traffic on 56th street.
ReplyDeleteNobody is more in favor of protecting farmland than I. But, the best way to preserve this land is by making it productive, and ensuring that the farmers can make a living.It is no secret that the Southlands has not been in production for many years. It very well could be good farmland, but unless we have a farmer to work the land, it will just remain greenspace, which I suspect is what many people actually want. Ian Paton and his supporters are farmers. That is not a job, but a way of life. If you want to protect farmland, then put someone on counsel who knows what they are talking about.
Will "Ours to Preserve be replaced by a silent auction ?
ReplyDeleteThe Delta municipal mandate is stated as “Ours To Preserve By Hand And Heart”. It seems to me that Sylvia Bishop is the candidate that keeps directive, given by the people of Delta, close at heart.
My concern is that if we elect to council Ian Paton, who is an auctioneer, how much of Delta, and the lifestyle we all have enjoyed for many years, or even moved here for, will soon be on the block.
I would have to disagree with the Anonymous at 10:24 am that "the majority of the property tax increases have been on the backs of commercial and industrial property owners.
ReplyDeleteAttend some of the Court of Revisions that are held. A lot of the property tax increases have been put on the back of residential owners from certain commercial and industrial property owners, coming in with geological environmental assessments that though they have been assessed a value of, let's say, 5 million dollars,will have to pay 4 million dollars to clean up the junk (construction waste, etc.)dumped on their land. They win, because they proved their case. Never mind that they were paid ( by the dumpers)to allow people to dump their crap, in the first place.
What about the owners who have retail (some newly built) who are just as glad never to rent it. Then they can get a decrease for the amount they didn't make (but "expected to") or aren't ordered to fix it up,or if they are, do the very minimum
8:45....what a ridiculous comment.
ReplyDeleteYou speak of Delta and the lifestyle "you" have enjoyed for years. Do you know that 4 generations of Paton's have enjoyed the family farm they have? Do you know that they would do anything to protect this land?
How many generations has your family lived in Delta? Do you live in and cherich the same house and property that your grandparents, parents, and now your children do?
What are all you people talking about? Do you even have a clue? Obviously not.
I must say, that the tone of these commenters who support Ian Paton is beyond the pale. Is civil discourse a thing of the past or are these commenters just showing their true colours?
ReplyDeleteIf their tone is representative of the type of gov't they expect, God help us. Whatever happened to compassion and reason. Almost every one of these commenters are speaking at us like strict father figures do with their disobeying children. Not the kind of candidate I'll be voting for on saturday.
If these Paton supporters
Borach....what the hec are you talking about??
ReplyDeleteI think this is all very sad indeed and I agree that the tone of discourse from the Paton supporters is very immature. However if, as the Paton supporters say, the land which is now the Tsawwassen Golf Club development was great and viable land until it was dumped on and these wonderful land loving generations of farming families truly loved the land, why did not one of them step up to the plate and try to stop the dumping from happening? I've heard the "dumping" excuse used so often as a reason farmland can't be used anymore it makes one wonder if their wasn't some sort of conspiracy of silence among the farming families to let the land degrade. Why else would they not have spoken out as the Steves farming family did in Richmond? Maybe we need to go back into history, find out who owned the land while the dumping was taking place and require them or their estate to pay for the cleanup of this once viable farmland. Certainly as true farmers who care for the land and the history of the Delta farming families they would whole heartedly agree to such a plan. They could use their long history and knowledge of the land to be true saviors instead of only saying the land has been destroyed so the only option is to develop it. Also, they would have the knowledge as to owned the land when it was being degraded and they could help us find them and make them pay. Wouldn't that be a fair and equitable solution for all? The land could be put back into agriculture and the costs would be born by those who obviously didn't have the love or respect for the land that we are hearing about from the generations of Delta farmers. Win, win for all.
ReplyDeleteIda, yes that would be a great solution.
ReplyDeleteThe owner before the Toigo's is the one who dumped on the land. I believe they were foreign owners, but cannot confirm this.
I agree that they should have been severely fined and ordered to return the land to being made viable farmland.
In fact, it was Ian Paton that said (in the all candidates meeting), that he would like to put a stop on permits for dumping being issued on farmland.
I believe it was when Beth Johnson (Syliva Bishop's endorser) was mayor that this dumping was done on this particular piece of land. Go figure.
You people never miss a trick do you? The dumping was done during Mayor Doug Husband's and tenure as mayor. It was discovered and astop was put to it during mayor Johnson's time. As for permits... well the dumping was done on a number of farms and permits weren't required or used. Quit playing politics with what was a thoughtful letter.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Steves sell most of his farm to developers?
ReplyDelete...a little place call Terra Nova!
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it was Ian Paton that said (in the all candidates meeting), that he would like to put a stop on permits for dumping being issued on farmland.
ReplyDeleteWow, you guys sure like to make statemnts about things you know nothing about. It wasn't Steves that sold his farm for development, it was Illich. He thn had it removed fromthe ALR through the usual comments about not being good farmland, dumping, yada yada yada. Paton could say all he wants about permits, the facts ar this - the majority of dumping on Delta farmland was done without permits and with the permission of farmers. Revisionist history cannot take away the culpability of the past generations of farmers who were more interested in developing than farming. You guys need to reed that new article in the Free Press about farming called Food for Thought. You probably won't like it though because it speaks to the future of food
ReplyDeleteWhat is the future of food 4pm anonymous? I would sure like to know. Maybe some of the broad generalizations that are floated around by people who pretend that they know what they are talking about can be supported by some facts.
ReplyDeleteThat would certainly be a welcome change!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWell this will be interesting, we will see now if Ian Paton becomes just another one of Lois Jackson lap dogs, and yes men. He will either stand up for "farming Principles" or he will get in line just like the other councilors on the council and do as he is told and vote for Jackson's agenda.
ReplyDeleteIf he does vote at any time to remove any land in the ALR or any such farming land, including his own, based on the chat that he had this the developers over drinks, then he has betrayed the trust of those who voted for him and their hope that he would in fact vote to save our farmable land.
The only one's with lap dogs and yes men are you closet socialists! What an absolutely ignorant comment.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 10:25 am. Who are the developers that Ian Paton was having drinks with??? Back that up please.
ReplyDeleteMy goodness whoever Mike Scneider and Bob Sanders are, you should be ashamed of yourselves for your nastiness. I'm an older lady and I am shocked that your level of discourse, even when your favoured person won, is quite beyond the pale. One wonders if all of Mr. Paton's supporters are so nasty. I wasn't even going to bother voting until I starting reading this nonsense. It's no wonder we have a generation of young people who will give no consideration to social mores and civility. I will be watching carefully to see how Mr. Paton does his job as a councillor and I really do hope we will never see him vote to remove land from agriculture anywhere in Delta. I was brought up in England and I can tell you there was panic in Britain when we realized there wasn't enough food being grown to keep us from starving. It was the reason we dug up lawns and flower beds. Believe me, we learned our lesson and farmland is now sacred and anyone who owns it knows they won't be selling it to put up a shopping mall or housing plots. It's why there are still small villages and none of those dreadful stip shopping malls everywhere. Forgive me for going on so, but I have read your other comments on other stoies in this publication and I really don't understand why you Mr. Paton supporters get so nasty and get your knickers in a knot about things. Discussion is good but it does not need to be nasty. I would suggest you could even take a toastmasters course in debating. Civility nor chivalry should be dead. Now please be nice.
ReplyDelete