The headline read: "Tie vote at council leaves townhouse plan in limbo." I found that quite puzzling.
Usually, there are no tie votes, which is one reason it caught my attention. Unfortunately, a tie happened this time due to the absence of Coun. Robert Campbell due to illness. That's not news anyone likes to hear.
The townhouse plan in question is in what could be considered the heart of Ladner, close to the village, parks and the dike. A previous incarnation of the proposal, a 47-unit condo development, was loudly opposed when it came before the public initially. The revised plan, down to 23 larger units, was now being considered.
The vote ended in a tie. We don't even allow a tie in hockey anymore, there's always overtime and a shootout. I was intrigued.
I went online and watched the Delta council meeting where the proposal was brought forward.
There was the usual public hearing, much smaller than those that make the papers like the Southlands and Marina Gardens. Neighbours and others came out and supported or opposed the proposal for various reasons. In total, there was little more than a half-dozen that spoke this time.
Then I listened to council members give their reasons for approving or denying the proposal. It was a little tough to follow - the motion was to deny, so you either supported or denied the denial. Sounds a little like a Quebec referendum question before the Clarity Act.
What I found interesting was the way each councillor approached the proposal. They had good reasons for their vote, which I'm sure had been discussed behind closed doors prior to the public eye of a council meeting. In the end, it was three for denial, three opposed to the denial. I think. However they got there, it was three yes, three no. And many seemed to be on the edge of going the other way.
So what's so great about a tie vote? It was the diversity of who voted which way. People that ran with each other during the election voted differently. There was no horse-trading to secure a vote one
way or the other, no following the lead, no toeing the party line. Each councillor made their own decision based on the information at hand.
The usual news we hear day in and day out, even in other municipalities, is X party voted for, Y party voted against. Granted, there may be good reasons they vote that way, but it's refreshing on occasion to see someone break party ranks and vote for what they believe in. Free votes are all too uncommon. Except in Delta.
I like the fact this council disagrees. I like the fact there is debate and discussion, and ultimately a tie. While it's not great for the developer, a variance shouldn't be a slam-dunk, no matter how many times it comes forward.
What it does show is we have the closest thing to a perfect democracy around - people we elect making decisions freely, for the good of the community.
This time, a tie sounds good. Council meetings are long enough, so overtime never works. And a shootout just doesn't sound right.
Get well soon, Robert.
Brad Sherwin, MBA has over 25 years experience in marketing, public relations and business strategy. He is currently the director of marketing for a national non-profit organization.
