Editor:
I've been trying to wrap my head around the upcoming Southlands public hearing.
Administratively, I understand it is a legal requirement (per the Local Government Act) as well as a key pit stop in the municipality's planning process. Theoretically, I can appreciate its symbolic value. It is, after all, the citizens' one chance to publicly vet their feelings about the project to the sitting council of decision-makers.
In practice, however, I wonder about its effect.
Will facts be checked? No. Will positions be explored? Unlikely. Will fear and exaggeration be used to gain impact? Absolutely.
In a way, the hearing feels more like a Dragon's Den pitch: you've got one chance to impress (your opinion), so go for it.
So what do we end up with? It's difficult to say. I suppose it's a little like the Dragon's Den, in that the decision-makers will have their pre-established preferences, which will be swayed or reinforced by the presentations.
If the presentations reflect the general population - then fine.
But what if they only represent the extremes? In that case, a lot of deference will be given to the municipal council (which, technically, only 33 per cent of us voted to elect).
But maybe council has an accurate pulse of the community. If so, that's fine, right? One question still lingers: If council had an accurate pulse of the community, why didn't it intervene earlier to set a direction - to lead, as it were - and avoid the acrimony that has attached itself like deadweight to this proposal. To me, that's what leadership is all about: looking at the bigger picture, and evaluating what is - and will be - most critical to the constituency.
If it's taxes, say so and explain why. If it's agricultural viability, communicate the stress points, and how you plan to tackle them. If it's "no growth," then reconcile the demographic hiccups that lie on the horizon. Please.
The public hearing is one promising part of the machinery of local government. It's just too bad it sits at the end of the line, like South Delta, guided by reactive fission rather than pro-active vision.
Patrick Thompson
