Vote Bender November 13 2006 the All Candidates Debate

All Candidates Debate October 30 2006

DEBATE: Municipal council candidates listen as the speaking order is decided prior to Monday night's debate at Goff Hall. Photo by Elliot Ferguson Woodstock Sentinel Review.

Fight for Woodstock

Ordinary people doing extraordinary things

Thank You for VOTING BENDER

The Woodstock Sentinel Review Tuesday October 31 2006

By Hugo Rodrigues – Politics Reporter
Tuesday October 31, 2006

The county was lambasted during Monday night’s city and city/county all-candidates’ meeting held at Goff Hall.
Throughout the night, candidates took a stab at Woodstock’s upper-tier municipal government, fingering the over-budget Woodingford Lodge project, the new administration building or costly services to rural municipalities as suspect in some of the city’s biggest challenges.
Candidates spent the debate answering both prepared and audience questions, which centered on the three candidates vying for two city/county seats and 11 vying for four city council seats. Criticizing the county was one topic several candidates kept coming back to throughout the debate.
Chief among these was city/county candidate Paul Plant, who bluntly took the offensive right from his opening remarks.
“Down the line, we will continue to see that our current form of government is not working well,” Plant said in his opening. “I believe it is broken.”
Three candidates got a direct opportunity to respond to the question of whether Woodstock should become a single-tier government, led by city council candidate Ed Wiseman, who said he’s worried by the city not being able to move quickly enough to address its needs.
That question also allowed opportunities for the county’s defenders to make themselves known.

“One government would scare the living daylights out of me,” city council candidate Nelson Simard said. “But Woodstock needs to retain the power to make our own decisions here in Woodstock.”
City/county candidate Pat Sobeski slammed the county for edging into responsibilities such as waste and recycling collection and water/wastewater services that are shared responsibilities. As a result, he said, the senior staff of Oxford and Woodstock are not speaking to each other.
“But Woodstock is not an island and we’re all in this together,” Sobeski said.
Another firm critic of the county was city council hopeful Linda Shank, who indicated in one of her responses that Woodstock taxpayers shouldn’t shoulder the burden of providing sewer services to the villages of Embro and Innerkip - an item agreed to by fellow candidate Deb Tait.
“Woodstock shouldn’t be paying $1.4 million to pump their sewage into our wastewater treatment plant,” Tait said.
Others were in favour of supporting Oxford’s neighbours through such projects, within reason.
“If my neighbour came over and asked for a cup of sugar, I’d be more than happy to oblige,” city council candidate Scott MacDonald said. “We struggle with our own tax base, and I don’t think we should fund development in other communities.”
Several candidates used the opportunity to criticize the cost overruns on the Woodingford Lodge project or administration building, including Plant, Shank and city council candidate Jim Bender.
Others, such as incumbent city/county candidate Sandra Talbot were hesitant to criticize these decisions, pledging to continue to work with Oxford’s government while representing Woodstock’s interests.
The debate also included city council candidates Daren Doyle and Ross Gerrie.
These issues were far from an exhaustive list of what was considered Monday night, and voters have the opportunity to view the entire debate, which will be broadcast several times by Rogers Television starting Tuesday morning.
The next all-candidates’ meeting comes Nov. 7, where the mayoral candidates Trevor Birtch, Brian Currah, Michael Harding and David Nadalin will be stage centre at Goff Hall beginning at 7 p.m.

Thank You for Voting Bender