<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: End doesn&#8217;t justify means	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://grumpytaxpayers.com/2022/12/end-doesnt-justify-means/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://grumpytaxpayers.com/2022/12/end-doesnt-justify-means/</link>
	<description>Almost the Best Place on Earth </description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2023 16:41:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Sean Kahil		</title>
		<link>https://grumpytaxpayers.com/2022/12/end-doesnt-justify-means/#comment-1700</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sean Kahil]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2022 23:04:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://grumpytaxpayers.com/?p=8270#comment-1700</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[You think this is bad?  Last council Victoria council passed a motion to give a private for profit company a stranglehold on a full block of inner city greenspace.  It did this in the dying days of it&#039;s mandate and the term of the contract will last for two full council mandates.  The direct cost to the taxpayer is a bit shy of half a million dollars a year.  There has never been any business plan here or public rationale for this decision.  This was done entirely in camera with zero public input or even awareness as a last minute addition to the agenda when all the councillors apposed to the contract were not in attendance.
How is it that this example of gross bad governance, to say nothing of the gifting of public assets and tax dollars raises nary a mention from your publication?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You think this is bad?  Last council Victoria council passed a motion to give a private for profit company a stranglehold on a full block of inner city greenspace.  It did this in the dying days of it&#8217;s mandate and the term of the contract will last for two full council mandates.  The direct cost to the taxpayer is a bit shy of half a million dollars a year.  There has never been any business plan here or public rationale for this decision.  This was done entirely in camera with zero public input or even awareness as a last minute addition to the agenda when all the councillors apposed to the contract were not in attendance.<br />
How is it that this example of gross bad governance, to say nothing of the gifting of public assets and tax dollars raises nary a mention from your publication?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Stan Bartlett		</title>
		<link>https://grumpytaxpayers.com/2022/12/end-doesnt-justify-means/#comment-1694</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stan Bartlett]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2022 16:47:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://grumpytaxpayers.com/?p=8270#comment-1694</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://grumpytaxpayers.com/2022/12/end-doesnt-justify-means/#comment-1692&quot;&gt;Didi&lt;/a&gt;.

Good morning Didi, The story as you know was a commentary, and in fact, paragraph 8 references the bylaw as a temporary bylaw, Cheers]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://grumpytaxpayers.com/2022/12/end-doesnt-justify-means/#comment-1692">Didi</a>.</p>
<p>Good morning Didi, The story as you know was a commentary, and in fact, paragraph 8 references the bylaw as a temporary bylaw, Cheers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Didi		</title>
		<link>https://grumpytaxpayers.com/2022/12/end-doesnt-justify-means/#comment-1692</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Didi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2022 03:17:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://grumpytaxpayers.com/?p=8270#comment-1692</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Langford council brought in a tree-protection bylaw with immediate effect for good reason. You neglected to say that it is temporary (six-months) while a permanent bylaw is developed. The experience of other municipalities is of unbridled tree cutting in the consultation period before enactment in anticipation of a restrictive bylaw. The temporary bylaw prevents the destruction of trees that would be protected with a tree-protection bylaw. The permanent bylaw will take public input into account. You have made a mountain out of a mole hill on this one. You also neglect to point out the significance of maintaining and increasing our tree canopy. Trees are one of our main hedges against climate change, providing us with services for free: cleaning the air, cooling, water management to prevent flooding, habitat and biodiversity, just for a start. Tree loss is a serious threat to our future welfare.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Langford council brought in a tree-protection bylaw with immediate effect for good reason. You neglected to say that it is temporary (six-months) while a permanent bylaw is developed. The experience of other municipalities is of unbridled tree cutting in the consultation period before enactment in anticipation of a restrictive bylaw. The temporary bylaw prevents the destruction of trees that would be protected with a tree-protection bylaw. The permanent bylaw will take public input into account. You have made a mountain out of a mole hill on this one. You also neglect to point out the significance of maintaining and increasing our tree canopy. Trees are one of our main hedges against climate change, providing us with services for free: cleaning the air, cooling, water management to prevent flooding, habitat and biodiversity, just for a start. Tree loss is a serious threat to our future welfare.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
