Get Off Your Soapboxes!

On Pink Shirt Day 2025, Councillor Katie Neustaeter publicly attacks citizens who opposed recent AAPs. This comes on the heels of Neustaeter’s attempt to bully and humiliate Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson the day before. 

Neustater’s Castanet Article

As Deputy Mayor for the month of February, Neustater contributed an opinion article to Castanet entitled “New facilities will help make Kamloops a can’t-miss destination” Feb, 26, 2025. By signing her article with “Coun. Katie Neustaeter, Kamloops deputy mayor for February.”, one can surmise that this is a Council sanctioned statement, and Council shares accountability for its content.

Neustaeter starts her article by describing a concert she and her “banker husband” attended in Kelowna. It’s a great way to alienate the public as many of us struggle from paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford gas, dining out, concert tickets, and a hotel stay.

Paint It Plaid

Neustaeter describes lots of Kamloopsians she encountered during her getaway with “all wore plaid shirts”. Seriously? What is she trying to say? I feel a little insulted, as when I go to Kelowna, I don’t wear plaid. Sure I wore a green and black mack jacket to school but those days are long gone. The mental image of everyone in Kamloops wearing plaid doesn’t resonate with me.

Can Neustaeter Read a Map?

I understand paper maps are out of style and everyone uses an app these days. But it’s still helpful to be aware of where you are on the map. Claiming “… artists who must physically travel through Kamloops on their way to concert destinations …” is simply not true.

As fires and floods continue to be ever increasing dangers, it would be helpful for  Neustaeter to become more familiar with the many travel routes available to us.

Blaming the Minority

Neustaeter comments on someone who opposes the performing arts center asking her how Council plans to generate revenue. She claims that person “vocally opposed any healthy growth in Kamloops”. That’s quite an assumption, and likely an unfair assessment.

Sharing that the PAC and Build Kamloops is part of Council’s plan for revenue generation, Neustaeter states:

You want new revenue streams to offset property taxes, … although they are irrefutably the minority, the negative voices who don’t believe we should have the things we need to thrive… have dominated the direction of our city …

I’m not sure if Neustaeter understood the irony of that juxtaposition, but I hope you do. How can the minority dominate the direction of the city?

Let’s take a closer look at those negative voices; those believing we shouldn’t have “the things we need to thrive”. While I don’t think I know anyone who doesn’t want the things they “need”, I’d agree it’s probably a minority. But “irrefutably” the minority? Was that an evidence based statement?

If Neustaeter is basing this on the number of citizens who opposed the AAPs, she is attempting to mislead us. The AAP opposition results were from those who were properly notified and informed about the AAPs. Credit for informing the public goes more to the local Kamloops Citizens United (KCU) group than to the city. 

As per data supplied by the city in their court battle with local resident Kathrine Wunderlich, KCU was responsible for significantly increasing the number of visits to the city website. Prior to this, the city website has seen a limited number of visitors, and the Let’s Talk site has seen very poor engagement. 

A better gauge of whether opposers were the irrefutable minority was the Facebook polls that were conducted and submitted to Council during the AAP process.

These polls didn’t make it clear that either camp was the minority. What it did suggest was that more than 10% of informed citizens opposed the use of the AAP. 

Had the Mayor made a statement like “irrefutably the minority”, he might be looking at another Code of Conduct complaint of misleading the public.

Revenue Generation

When it comes to generating revenue, we should consider why we want to generate revenue, where it will come from, and who will benefit from it.

Typically generating revenue has a distinct purpose; to make a profit. While users of the facilities can certainly help pay for the maintenance of them, the City has already disclosed that the facilities are expected to run at a loss, and will need to be further supported by taxpayers. While city growth may help reduce the load on individual taxpayers, we haven’t been shown a business case to support an eventual profit and net revenue generating operation.

In attempting to demonstrate her fiscally responsible side, Neustaeter states “While it’s important to acknowledge there’s a lot of uncertainty in the world right now and we must proceed with caution while finding cost savings elsewhere in the budget, …”. 

It appears that cost saving will be done by budgeting for less than the recommended number of RCMP officers, and budgeting a half million dollars less than staff have recommended to support Council’s skyrocketing legal expenses. That doesn’t make me feel any safer.

Maybe Neustaeter should consult her “banker husband”. Hopefully he can give her an idea of how banks feel about proposals that do not have a business case and plan, and knowingly expect to lose money.

I agree this will provide jobs, and I appreciate that. On the other hand, I can’t afford to hire someone to mow my lawn. Why would I pay someone to build or operate a facility I am not likely to use. And if I do use the facility, I’ll have to pay for that. Shouldn’t I get an investor discount?

More Blame

Neustaeter continues with another attack on the public: “… we also cannot allow Kamloops to continue falling behind our peers and competitors because some people are angry with life and visionless for our city.”. This an absolutely unwarranted attack on taxpayers, whether a minority or not. Who votes for a councillor who behaves in this manner and treats their constituents like this?

Not all taxpayers support Council’s “buy now pay later” and “keeping up with the Jones” mentality. It seems Council has an obsession with comparing Kamloops to other communities, especially Kelowna. Is their direction guided by the citizens they represent, or by envy and jealousy?

Defending the AAP

Neustaeter points out “…the Alternative Approval Process was confirmed through the B.C. Supreme Court to have been both legal and democratic. Council and the city either followed, or went beyond, every single step required by the legislation.”.

Let’s expand on this just a bit. While the AAP may be a legal option, it does come with guidelines. Reasonable people taking the time to read the guidelines are likely to reach the conclusion that Council did not follow the spirit of the guidelines and ignored recommendations on when an AAP is or isn’t suitable for use.

There is also the issue of reasonable notification. While the judge felt the notice posted on the city website was a reasonable method of notifying the public, there are many who debate that. It also makes the judge’s finding worthy of appeal.

Many of us found out about the AAP through the local KCU group rather than through the poor effort made by the city. Without a doubt, there should have been a referendum, but at the very least, there should have been an informative mailout. When personally asking people I encountered, including seniors and employed people with or without families, I found that most of them hadn’t heard about the AAP.

Accepting Feedback

Neustaeter acknowledges “we have also received the feedback provided about the AAP. While I stand by our decision to employ the AAP for this specific borrowing, I’ve heard you loud and clear. I respect your opinions and will learn from this experience.”.

Did you hear an apology there? Me neither. She still stands by the decision to use an AAP. I interpret that as while she seemingly respects the public’s opinions, she will still continue to do as she pleases. So what will she learn from this experience?

Rallying the Troops

Neustaeter issues a call to action: “…it’s time to step off individual soapboxes … It’s time to put down the things that divide us … We have facilities to build, quirks to resolve…”.

About that “divide”. It’s not as simple as those that want facilities vs those that don’t. From what I’ve seen and read I believe the majority of us do want facilities, and a better categorization of the public might be:

• Some want the facilities for various reasons and/or with conditions, such as:
  • some at any cost (maybe because they can afford it, or stand to profit)
  • some don’t understand the financial impact (some who believe it is simply $25 a year)
  • some want the facilities after their NEEDS are met first
  • some want a better funding model and/or business case
  • some want them in a different location(s) 
  • some want a referendum rather than an AAP
• Some don’t want the facilities:
  • some because they don’t expect to use the facilities
  • some who think they are unnecessary
  • some who don’t want to pay for the things others want

And then there’s an even greater divide created by our elected city officials. Kamloops is regularly in the news as the Council vs Mayor war rages on. 

There are those believing the Mayor is in the right, primarily based on the media and their own observations. Others believe Council is in the right, primarily based on what councillors and media communicate.

What’s The Rush?

Adding a sense of urgency, Neustaeter states: “There’s a lot of work to do and little time to spare.”. The only “little time to spare” I see is that Council only has 20 months left in their 48 month term. The only risk of missed opportunity is for personal recognition. Costs will continue to fluctuate as they always have, and have not prevented builders from building.

And Even More Blame

Neustaeter’s examples of the “quirks to resolve” are:

• subpar promotions (shame on the promoters)
• a reputation for poor concert attendance (shame on those who don’t have the money or interest in the same things Neustaeter does)
• habitual last-minute ticket purchasing (shame on those who can’t pay immediately)

Trump Reference

As part of the “lot of work to do”, Neustaeter includes “an American “wannabe dictator” to oppose”.

So let’s get this straight. It’s ok to oppose Trump, but not AAPs or facilities without acceptable business cases or funding models?.

Nostalgia

Neustaeter finishes with “We need artists like those of our youth to know that Kamloops isn’t just a place you pass through, it’s a place that you can’t miss.”.

I get it. We all like to remember the glory days, when you were on a date at the drive-in, but that time has passed. Drive-ins haven’t been long-term successful here, and there’s a chance that the bands popular in your youth aren’t going to come here regardless of what you build. 

Perhaps nostalgia is the reason why Council continues to focus on perceived public priorities from 2019 rather than our priorities today.

I suggest Neustaeter saves us a ton of money and visits some of the concert events at Sun Peaks, or maybe catches Trooper at the Sagebrush Theater next month. Yes turnout might be low at $89 per ticket, but ticket prices shouldn’t be an issue if you have a “banker husband“.

Neustaeter’s Political Future

While Neustaeter may run for another term as a City Councillor, or confirm the whispers and pursue a run for Mayor, I doubt she has a political future after this term. Those supporting Council’s use of and administering of the AAP process should consider Council’s next moves. If current supporters oppose future decisions, will Neustaeter publicly attack them as well?

My Recommendation

Rather than using her deputy mayor role to bash the public, I suggest Neustaeter focus on her duties. Those duties include acknowledging and responding to the email received at citycouncil@kamloops.ca. 

As this is one of the limited ways for residents to express concerns and provide input, it is important that that duty is fulfilled. As per many of the previous emails I’ve sent, my Feb 27, 2025 email remains unacknowledged and unanswered.

Yes Councillor Neustaeter, Kamloops does deserve better. Blame oriented councillors is not better.