Nov 23rd meeting of the NVCAA

Highlights of the 3rd meeting of the NVCAA in the gym at Larson School:

In spite of a venue that was difficult to get to, 45 to 50 people attended. Multiple speakers took on different topics. Attached is a copy of the presentation updated to reflect discussions. (This is a link to the presentation pdf)

A hat was passed and an impressive (considering it was unexpected and few people carry cash) $245 was collected to go to the Association’s new bank account and cover costs of future activities.

Discussions/decisions since the meeting:

Our tech advisers believe we need a Facebook page as the primary place for blogging and discussion. Website will remain the place where sign-ups are done and other resources kept.

Since posting and replying on Facebook is a single chronological stream, content will be copied to the respective ‘Issue’ page on the website where we hope to be able to accumulate a useful reference by issue.

Please visit the new Facebook page.Here is a link to it. We are going to put the initial blog posts on each issue on the Association’s Facebook page. When a discussion is more or less finished it will be copied to the website and new posts related the issue will be made in the Facebook feed first.

Next steps: 1. Work with issue moderators to create first posts. 2. Organize next meeting January 25th, location tbd. 3. Outreach for new supporters & members, particularly in demographic groups not represented. 4. Update website and initiate Facebook page

Thank you to everyone who helped out at this last meeting and afterwards.

Guy Heywood on behalf of the NVCAA

Showing 3 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • A pretty high stake gamble wouldn’t you say? Considering the trauma that the community is now faced to endure for years to come, plus the already congested main roads and side streets that are about to become even more of a parking lot…. I would have thought you being directly involved in Council would have shown you the lopsided slate of the Mayor and his side of council towards constant development and allowing as much density as possible in the Third Street corridor.. I disagree in your comment about voter apathy, I thought the election was much closer than expected because of the “contributions” by developers to the Mayor and his underlings, and the efforts to get voters out to unseat the constant 4 to 3 votes.
  • Mr. Effex: Here is my explanation of the way that I voted. It was the last meeting of my term. I was not running for election. The OCP document is not binding on future Councils. I did not like the staff & developer priority process that had led up to a document that overall was not a Community Plan as much as it was a Developer Blueprint. I thought (mistakenly as it turned out) that having the OCP document ‘in play’ during the election would galvanize the electorate to turn out in larger numbers than usual and vote for independent candidates. Unfortunately, the $200K war chest that the Mayors Slate was able to spend combined with voter apathy carried the election so the gambit was in vain. Do I think it made on whit of difference to the development that was approved in the next term – no I don’t. There was, mind you, one vote during my last term of council that would have made a difference had it gone the other way – and that was to have a restructuring feasibility study into the potential for saving taxpayers money by combining (not necessarily ammalgamating) a number of duplicated functions in the City and District bureaucracies. Regrettably, the frantic efforts of the City Manager – including his use of deliberate of misleading and defamatory information – persuaded one gullible Councillor to vote against the motion and deny the citizens access to the information.
  • Mr Heywood,
    I don’t see anything on the site about your previous last minute change of your vote while on City Council to allow major densification in the East 3rd street area. For a group saying there’s too much density, I’m surprised with your involvement. I believe your comments were we needed more consultation with the district? Is this group pushing amalgamation?