Potato Patches And Petunias Could Be Quagmire Issue Of 2020

It is a question I have personally asked myself, and more than a few around town have been asking as well, ‘what do I think is going to be the biggest issue for Council to deal with in 2020?’

There are so many issues out there and it is very hard to decide.

Some of the issues are very positive for those on Council seeking re-election.

These are the ones they would most definitely like to see the number one issue, while there are others they would very much like to see swept under the now very lumpy rug called closed door, in-camera or for many, if you are looking for the local slang to describe them ‘secret meetings’ out-of-sight and out-of-mind, just a small bump or pothole on the road to the final destination.

The positives have to be the announcements of the $700 million SaskPower generating plant, the Carpere deal if it indeed is approved and it actually delivers, Canadian Tire’s new retail development, the new combined school up on South Hill as well as I am told from a confidential source within City Hall, a new hotel development up on Thatcher Drive West that is yet to be announced.

On the construction front and the much-needed jobs it all looks positive, bright and rosy in the long term for the city. These are the things politicians dream about in Technicolor all tucked in on a cold Winter’s night - the numerous sod turnings and the accompanying photos and stories in the Press.

But with that said, look for this to be the September of sod-turnings as both the provincial, civic and school divisions’ politicians gear-up for their re-election bids. I am personally expecting there to be a bit of a mad rush to be front row centre.

Now which one of the big four construction projects will take centre stage is yet to be determined with so many politicians vying to show off their records of the last four years.

But with that said, there is a lot of quicksand out there for the City and those who want to be re-elected.

It is hard to determine what issue might be the quagmire which breaks the back of incumbents, but in my opinion and my own personal guesstimation, it has to be the upcoming crackdown on encroachment on City owned lands by what is said to be “hundreds” (thousands in the words of some insiders at City Hall) of property owners. Briefly stated, the City has shifted from a complaints driven system to an active enforcement policy when it comes to encroaching on City-owned land. The City is set through its Bylaw Enforcement Office to enforce Section 17 of the Miscellaneous Bylaw which states “No person shall cultivate, plow or cut or do anything to any street or public place in the City without permission of the Council of the City.”

Offenders found guilty could face fines of up to $2,000 if an individual or $5,000 if a corporation.

This could well be the motherhood issue of fighting change much like the two ill-fated attempts to move to a curbside garbage collection system.

You remember the ill-fated effort to move all waste to front lane collection that after 14 months and many iterations the City ended up right back where they started. The change in policy in enforcing the encroachment on City-owned land could become a major headache and political nightmare for Council, if there is a deluge of residents who follow the bylaw and appear before Council to ask the City to exempt their petunia, potatoes, trees and even fences from the enforcement action.

It is something they are legally entitled to do, and I am personally hoping the powers-to-be inform residents and businesses of their rights either through the planned education or letter writing phase of their self compliance campaign.

Additionally in my opinion, there is a bit of a hand-off here, when it comes to the public blaming for the change because it was Council, and not Administration, who ultimately made the final decision. Technically, it could have been done internally through the Bylaw Enforcement Office but this issue went on to Council.

For those of you who do not remember the Encroachment issue, it is where the City wanted to change its policy from complaint-driven to a pro-active enforcement approach when it comes to people and businesses using City-owned lands without permission. It was an issue that came before Council seemingly out of nowhere and then was passed in a single evening.

During the brief public discussion at Council, it appears the City is taking a velvet glove approach to solving this massive problem. They are set to first roll out an education campaign, then send out letters asking property owners to voluntarily comply, while at the same time the Bylaw Enforcement people have the axe handle out prepared to lay down the law on those who do not readily and voluntarily comply.

You can read more about it in our December 10th, 2019 story City To Get Tough On Encroachment Issues. You might be asking, ‘where did this entire issue come up on the City’s radar?’ What has seemingly set-off another time-consuming controversy to sweep across the city in, of all things, an election year? Where was the discussion? Where was the call for public input and consultation before moving to a shift in policy? In documents obtained through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from the City of Moose Jaw by MJ Independent, the issue of encroaching on City owned properties has been discussed in no less than two strategic planning sessions since September 17th, 2018 (see photo above). Strategic Planning Sessions are meetings where Council and Administration meet in-camera (behind closed doors) where no minutes are kept nor any of the issues discussed be made public.

From the brief public discussions, as well as a written report to Council, it all seems to have to do with people who are doing some major damage to City owned property in such areas as parks, and with that, the hammer is coming down on everyone. But there has to be more to it than that, isn’t there? What could have set all of this off? Is there a lot more to this than what is being said publicly? And if so, what is it?

The problem is the four examples given to Council as part of the package they received from Administration in preparation for the public Council meeting, and what they may have based their approval in the shift in enforcement policy, were never made public. They were exempted because they contained information about a certain property or properties and were not generic. Similarly, six pages were redacted in the FOI request from the September 17th, 2018 and four pages were redacted from the October 15th, 2018 Strategic Planning

Sessions.

But is the City actually thinking about, let alone going after, people who may have planted gardens or trees in the back alley? Is there an impending crackdown coming on pensioners whose potato or petunia patches are growing on City-owned property adjacent to their own? And did they actually talk about such stuff at a Strategic Planning Session behind closed doors? And if so, did they actually work on this for over a year? Although there is no definitive proof the issue of potato and petunia patches were discussed secretly at any in-camera Strategic Planning Session, there is evidence as the policy was being formulated where city manager Jim Puffalt asked Administration to look at how other centres dealt with the encroachment issue and did in fact mention gardens as one issue.

“This pertains to the encroachment issue with people utilizing City land. Some have planted gardens or trees behind their fence, some built sheds, some store trailers or have built gravel pads for parking, built fences etc. The City Manager thought it would be good to contact other Cities to see if they have any policies or procedures in place that they follow in order to deal with these types of situations,” Marnie Loney wrote to bylaw enforcement officer Brian Simmer in the October 22nd, 2018 email. (see photo of email below)

The request from the city manager Puffalt lead to a series of emails written to other centres in the province including the City of Prince Albert (see photo of email below).

The return emails from all of the communities set up a later time to speak on the telephone to discuss the issue. Now remember, this is an opinion column and, as such, I am expressing my opinion and that is, ‘did the City spend a year to go after people with gardens, trees or sheds that are all or partially on City-owned land or is there something out there much more egregious that has fueled this enforcement policy change for over a year?’

My own personal thoughts are it all lies in the four attachments exempted from public circulation when Council made the enforcement policy change. Hopefully they are significant in scope as there is likely to be a public pushback when people are told to quit growing a garden in their back lane.

If that pushback becomes large and public enough, it could become a political quagmire and on the minds of voters come November 9th, 2020.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are THOSE OF THE AUTHOR, AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REflECT THE position of this publication.