Comment 91830

By Ward 2 resident (anonymous) | Posted September 06, 2013 at 18:17:56

As a resident of ward two, I first want to commend all involved in taking on the bold Ward 2 Participatory Budget process challenge. That being said, I do agree with Ryan and others who have provided comments related to the compromise list.
I attended all Wednesday night sessions except the first one and was on the listserv. To my surprise, I did not realize there was a group meeting to develop this compromise list. I thought there was going to be a large group meeting of ward 2 residents to discuss the proposals after the city staff review. Once I saw the voting form, I knew the compromise list would win. It was not clear at the time (Nicholas has explained it above) the process for deciding this list. In addition to the compromise list, I was surprised to see projects on the list that did not meet the criteria outlined at the various Wednesday night meetings. I thought the project had to be a one-time funded item and that hiring staff did not meet the criteria. Also, a recreation centre/community centre was not on the table. These items went forward on the list of 56 proposals that were posted on the website. I assumed that after city staff reviewed the projects that these projects would be eliminated from the options. This was not the case. Several projects are not one time funding items nor are shown to be effective strategies for improving neighbourhoods. One example of funding for a short-term solution to a problem was the development of food banks. Now we find ourselves in 2013 with some members of the community very committed to continuing funding of food banks.
For the 2nd go around, I would like
- criteria for funding projects is clear and consistent
- people voting for each items or items can be grouped into categories
- best and promising practices for the improving the neighbourhoods being considered

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds