<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>John (& GREN),</div><div><br></div>Thanks for your nice comments but reality is different. The WR Record apparently has re-started its attack on Ken by taking away from his victory via stating that he got only 61% of the vote when he actually got around 71% (according to the Regional Deputy Clerk), Here is what I said to Ken last night assuming that my 26% of the Kitchener vote (received 29 updating <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; ">Unofficial Election Results </span>for Kitchener last night) was a ballpark indication of the Regional vote. But had the media, especially the Record, given a fairer and more complete representation of myself and my IDEAS, then probably the vote would have been closer to 39% -- or we might even have seen a Calgary-type miracle:<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 1.0px 56.0px; text-indent: -56.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><b> "Congratulations on Your Victory</b></p></div><div><br></div><div>As most expected -- including myself -- you had an easy victory. But with many citizens very concerned especially about <b>your positions on the LRT</b> and on tax reductions necessitating service reductions, I felt that an opportunity to express their views directly to you was necessary. But more, because I have unique IDEAS that could help deal with both Regional issues -- and others -- I felt that I needed to be part of the more media-focused public discourse that running for election allows. However, my effectiveness in this regard was partly twarted by the media (<b>mediated democracy?</b>) who mis-represented both myself and my IDEAS. As I have a very strong value of fair play, this media mal-functioning disturbed me much as some of Jeff Outhit's writing over the years has disturbed you. At least this election has further developed my empathy in this regard, And thanks for generally being a good sport and super-worthy opponent."</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,</div><div>Robert</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size: 15px; "><b>ADDENDUM: Our Great LRT Dilemma</b></div><div><br></div><div>I was a strong critic of the inherent bias in the formulation of the rapid transit survey conducted by the pro-bus group Citizens for Sustainable Transit (a group initiated by Jan Narveson in his Mini Concert Hall Accelerator Centre). But one survey result was very useful to those of us who see the need for an LRT -- but not the Region's present LRT plan (or LRT system design as I prefer to describe it). Here<b> 95% of candidates surveyed said they did not support the Region's <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; ">CURRENT</span> LRT plan</b>. Candidates appear to see the need for an LRT but a much more cost-effective one. So the big question is, "Does Chair Ken Seiling have the adaptive potential to be able to set in motion an expedited or fast-track (sorry for the pun) process to seek out proven IDEAS from transportation technology -- and possibly from renewable energy technology -- that can be used to enhance the current LRT system design so that it will be optimally cost-effective?</div><div><br></div><div>Certainly Ken's almost intuitive ability to see the need for an LRT and his loyalty to the process that produced the current LRT plan are commendable. But great leaders -- unlike the captain of the Titanic -- have to be willing to make the necessary wise course corrections especially for very unique situations such as for rapid transit in our Tri-Cities.</div><div><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><b>I have previously made specific suggestions in regard to a fast-track process:</b></div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><b><br></b></div><div><br></div><div><b>1. On my website (<a href="http://www.RobertMilligan.com">www.RobertMilligan.com</a>) --</b></div><div><br></div><div>"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; ">But I am worried because <span style="font-weight: bold; ">the curent LRT plan (or system design) will do little to decrease road congestion<span style="font-weight: normal; "> <span style="font-weight: bold; ">and intensification will be less than hoped for if: <span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0); "><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; ">1) Ken Seiling continues to say that he is satisfied with the Region's current LRT plan and will not consider NEW IDEAS to make it more cost-effective</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">;</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; "> OR 2) Ken decides to consider such NEW IDEAS, but the Regional staff don't create a sufficiently knowledgeable "New IDEAS Evaluation Team" including appropriate LRT consultants and citizens.</span></span></span></span></span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; "><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0px; "><span style="font-size: medium; "><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold; "><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; "><font color="#0000FF"><strong><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; "><span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0); font-weight: bold; "><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; "><span style="font-weight: bold; "><span style="font-weight: normal; "><span style="font-weight: bold; "><span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0); "><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; ">(A necessary selection criteria for the consultants should be a track record of designing successful LRT systems including significant use of IDEAS from "outside the traditional LRT box". Any citizen who has made significant contributions to constructively analyze and use NEW IDEAS to enhance the Region's LRT system design -- or LRT systems elsewhere -- would be a welcome Team member even if at a distance via internet.)<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; ">"</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></strong></font></span></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica"><br></font></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica"><b>2. To CAO Mike Murray (with copy to Ken) --</b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><div> (<b>Mike's response</b>, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 9px; ">"</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; ">Thanks for your observations and suggestions - thought-provoking as always.</span></div><div style="font-size: 9px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; ">Other than to reinforce that we have excellent people working on the rapid transit project, it would probably be inappropriate for me to comment on your suggestions - at least until after the municipal election.</span>")</div><div><br></div><div>(<b>Then my response to Mike</b>, "There is no doubt that you have excellent people and they are generally doing a good job. However, my point was that you don't have the right excellent people with the most appropriate specific rail/bus knowledge in place (one is, the other has other transportation responibilities) for the extraordinary purpose of evaluating very innovative IDEAS that could help make the current LRT system design sufficiently cost-effective. And, with time available to enhance the current LRT system design in short supply, you should IDEALLY be taking action now to remedy the situation. If the choice is between bruising two egos slightly and <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; ">"</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', fantasy; font-size: 13px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; ">the Region's Innovative Reputation, Ken's legacy, your reputation, Thomas's reputation, Rob's reputation, Nancy's reputation, and even Darshpreet's reputation ("I was only following orders")</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 9px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; ">",</span> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; ">then a wise CAO should make the obvious choice at his earliest convenience!<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; ">"</span></span></span></span></div><div><br></div></span></b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica"><b><br></b></font></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica"><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 1.0px 56.0px; text-indent: -56.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><b> Evaluation of Very Innovative LRT System Design IDEAS</b></p></font></p><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica">I welcome your comments. Please keep in mind that my thoughts are based on long discussions with all parties involved. And I want a response from your heart!<br><div><br></div><div>From my website:</div><div>"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; ">If the issue is too technologically complex (e.g. the LRT) for that political leader, he/she may not be able to support the citizen-suggested IDEAS with a knowledgeable confidence so that this leader will rely solely on staff advice. </span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Verdana" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; "><br></span></font></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; ">But what if the organizational culture -- of Regional government for example -- is currently not sufficiently innovative? And what if on a major project like the LRT, oversight managers lack sufficient in depth knowledge of the design of integrated LRT and bus systems making them very innovation averse? </span></div><div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Verdana" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; "><br></span></font></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; ">In this knowledge-lack oversight situation, will the knowledgeable project engineer likely find the time to give serious consideration to any very innovative IDEA? Unlikely, because he knows his managers likely won't be able to adequately determine the IDEA's innovative potential -- and will likely inflate the risk. Why put in the evaluation effort when rejection by management is almost certain?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">"</span></span></div><div><div><br></div><div>The Rapid Transit Initiative team set-up for evaluating any very innovative IDEAS for dramatically improving cost-effectiveness is doomed to failure! This is because your one civil engineer who is very experienced in rail and bus transit system design has to report to a Director and Commissioner -- even a CAO -- who are very much less knowledgeable and experienced in the design of integrated LRT/bus systems. When any person is lacking in knowledge about a subject, they are much less able to make confident and competent decisions about both the risk and the potential of very innovative technological IDEAS. So in this situation they tend to become very risk-averse and innovation-averse.</div><div><br></div><div>And "<b>because of the gross lack of needed highly innovative IDEAS -- that are both <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><b>very cost-effective and proven -- </b> <b>the current LRT system design simply will not be successful!"</b></span></b></div><div><br></div><div>Mike, the Region's Innovative Reputation, Ken's legacy, your reputation, Thomas's reputation, Rob's reputation, Nancy's reputation, and even Darshpreet's reputation ("I was only following orders") are all on the line here. You need a special "NEW LRT IDEAS Evaluation Team". </div><div><br></div><div>I would -- for such evaluation purposes only -- recommend that:</div><div><br></div><div>1) Darshpreet report to Transportation Planning Director (and rail/bus engineering expert) Graham Vincent;</div><div>2) Graham report to you not Thomas:</div><div>3) That a very successful LRT engineering consultant known for his very successful "outside-the-box" project design be sought out to work with the evaluation team (mostly at a distance thru electronic visual communication).</div><div><br></div><div>Note: Al Fazio (currently<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; "> General Manager, Services, Bombardier Transportation North America)<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; "> said, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 13px; ">"... <b>think outside the traditional light rail box</b>. ... . (NJ's River LINE is) not only an alternative to the automobile, but is also helping to re-energize the historic communities it links together" seems to have the courage and knowledge required to advise on such LRT innovative IDEAS. His job at Bombardier would disqualify him. But p</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; ">erhaps he could recommend some possible candidates?</span></span></span></span></span></div><div><br></div></div></div></font></p></span><div><br></div><div><br><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>On 26-Oct-10, at 10:01 AM, John Jackson wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div> <font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">Congratulations to all our members who worked so hard during the municipal election to further our goals.<br> <br> Hurrah to those who eked out a victory to stop the fluoridation of water in Waterloo, St.Jacobs and Elmira. This is an amazing victory considering how stacked the media coverage was against the anti-fluoridation forces and the pro-fluoridation full page ads from the Ontario Dental Association. This included a full-page ad on election day – a day that is seen by all candidates as a day on which you don’t advertise. <br> <br> How wonderful to have GREN member Yvonne Fernandes win with 47% of the vote in a four-way contest. She will be a bright new light on Kitchener council.<br> <br> And congratulations to those who conducted such amazing campaigns even if they didn’t win. Jan Liggett got 43% of the vote in the ward she ran in in Cambridge against an incumbent. Susan Koswan obtained 15% of the vote in a field of four strong candidates. And Robert Milligan obtained an amazing 39% of the vote against Waterloo Regional Chair Ken Seiling. This is a major achievement in a region-wide campaign started at the last minute. In the previous two campaigns Ken won by over 70% instead of the 61% that he won by in this election.<br> <br> Congratulations not only to all the candidates but to all those who supported them in their campaigns.<br> <br> Now it is time for GREN to determine how best to work with councils across the Grand River watershed to achieve our goals. We will meet shortly to discuss this.<br> <br> John<br> <br> <br> <br> -- <br> John Jackson<br> 17 Major Street<br> Kitchener, Ontario N2H 4R1<br> 519-744-7503<br> <br> </span></font> </div> _______________________________________________<br>All mailing list<br><a href="mailto:All@gren.ca">All@gren.ca</a><br>http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>