{"id":15416,"date":"2015-11-05T13:49:50","date_gmt":"2015-11-05T18:49:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/?p=15416"},"modified":"2015-11-05T13:49:50","modified_gmt":"2015-11-05T18:49:50","slug":"misunderstanding-local-government","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/misunderstanding-local-government\/","title":{"rendered":"Misunderstanding Local Government"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

A recent editorial in the Collingwood Connection<\/a> underscores the need<\/strong> to have writers who understand the actual process of government, and not simply comment on politics from an ideological perspective. It also underscores that some of our council still don’t understand why they are at the table.<\/p>\n

The anonymous writer of that editorial has penned this bit of cunning misinformation:<\/p>\n

Council was not being asked to decide if residents should be able to raise chickens in their backyard or pass judgment on the merits of the idea. They were being asked to start a process of public input.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, we know that’s not quite correct. Although the standing committee recommended one option, council really had\u00a0a choice between the two options presented in the staff report. Here’s what the staff report actually recommended (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

THAT Council receive Staff Report P2015-34 for information purposes. OR
\n<\/strong>THAT Council authorize the initiation of an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law\u00a0amendments and the required public consultation process and allow a moratorium of\u00a0enforcement for existing properties with backyard chickens.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So council could\u00a0choose between two<\/em> actions (a standing committee can only recommend, not dictate to council).<\/p>\n

First choice: receiving the report and, after considering the cautions, concerns and costs identified\u00a0by staff in the report, then relegating it to the dustbin as an issue not to be brought forward.<\/p>\n

Second choice: start an unbudgeted, expensive, time- and resource-consuming, legal process to\u00a0change our Official Plan and bylaws to accommodate a small special interest group, while allowing those people who are currently breaking the law to continue doing so without penalty.<\/p>\n

Council wasn’t<\/em> being asked if residents could raise chickens because that is already illegal. Council could choose\u00a0to do nothing, or to start the process of changing the laws.<\/p>\n

But there was<\/em> public input already: advocates made a presentation to the standing committee, several people spoke to the issue, and presented a petition. Anyone could attend, could stand up and speak to it. Why would you need more<\/em>? Do you need\u00a0more<\/em> public meetings again and again on a single issue?<\/p>\n

Public input is part of the latter choice because it is required by the Planning Act and Municipal Act when OPs and bylaws are changed. It wasn’t necessary in the first choice (you don’t say ‘No, we’re not going ahead. Now let’s hear from the public…”.<\/p>\n

Frankly it’s a canard to make that\u00a0the focus, because in the end the decision still remains with council regardless of the public input.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Council chose the former option: receive and ignore. Regardless of whether you agree with that choice, it was the proper procedure.<\/p>\n

Decision-making is never easy and requires considerable thought and discussion to understand the complexities that surround every issue. I can’t say that all members of council adhere to that notion; perhaps\u00a0far too many bobbleheads\u00a0nod when they should be asking the tough questions.<\/p>\n

The first question<\/strong> any council member should ask of any issue presented is, “Cui bono<\/em>?”<\/p>\n

This is the Latin for: who benefits? Who is it good for?\u00a0It is in the best interests of the community at large, or just a special interest? Does it strengthen the greater good or just help a small group?*<\/span><\/p>\n

No matter what his or her\u00a0ideological or political stance, a council member is elected to serve all<\/em> the people, and do the best for the entire<\/em> community.<\/p>\n

The second<\/strong> is: “What does it cost?” Not just the cost to initiate it, but all the ongoing costs of implementation, enforcement, monitoring, training, inspection, printing and so on. As the news story in the Connection<\/a> noted,<\/p>\n

Deputy Mayor Brian Saunderson asked for the cost to initiate this process. Director of Planning Nancy Farrer said the cost billed by the town for a bylaw amendment public process attached to a private developer making application for changes is $12,000.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That’s just one<\/em> part of the equation. Good on him for asking, but had Saunderson\u00a0been more savvy or experienced, he should have asked the rest. He should have dug deeper, should have exposed the ongoing costs, not just the tip of this financial iceberg. This isn’t a one-time capital expense like buying a car. It has ongoing operational costs that will affect our bottom line for many, many more years.<\/p>\n

How much staff time is involved? What are the costs to bylaw to create a new law, get legal opinion on it, and enforce it later? Do we need more staff to enforce it? Are there costs to other agencies such as the Simcoe Muskoka Health Unit (funded by taxpayers)? Is our\u00a0animal shelter prepared to take in the inevitable unwanted chickens (and who pays for the additional upgrades, space and staff training)? Are there liabilities or insurance costs that will affect us? Does the NVCA have concerns about proximity of chicken coops to waterways and wetlands?<\/p>\n

Where the public was let down was that none of this important information was brought to light.<\/p>\n

This also reaches across departments – which means budgets – and even jurisdictions (some of which are outside our municipal authority). Was every agency and authority contacted and asked for comment?**<\/span><\/p>\n

The third<\/strong> is: “Who pays?”<\/p>\n

Is the money already budgeted? If not, where will it come from? Do taxpayers have to shoulder additional taxes or can the operational costs be contained within existing budgets? Are there user fees or licences involved? Must\u00a0we deplete reserves to pay for it? Will it be at the cost to other services?<\/p>\n

And finally<\/strong>, “Do the benefits outweigh the costs?”<\/p>\n

Some initiatives have greater benefits than their costs because they promote the community’s well-being, such as non-smoking and anti-idling bylaws should\u00a0the town ever bother to enforce ours…). Laws to control speeding\u00a0and\u00a0drunk driving are similar: expenses that contribute to\u00a0a greater good.<\/p>\n

When a special interest’s pet project – like this one – is presented, the answer to this question\u00a0helps determine whether the community at large will benefit in the long run, if not necessarily immediately.<\/p>\n

Do the benefits of a select few people eating\u00a0free-range eggs from their own hens outweigh all the potential problems, diseases, costs, nuisance, noise, pollution and effort that will burden the many?<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that council asked these questions of staff (and only one did at the standing committee). Perhaps they were convinced by the staff report alone, but someone should have asked, so the public could hear the answers.<\/p>\n

The editorial goes on to say:<\/p>\n

\n

The thrust of Saunderson’s campaign was the previous council didn’t listen to the public. Councillors Deb Doherty and Kathy Jeffery, who both voted in favour of the motion, also campaigned on the idea of engaging with the public on issues before council.
\nOn Monday, Doherty stated, \u201cIt is important to have public discussion and get input from both sides.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Claptrap. You got it already – you did<\/em> attend the standing committee meeting to listen to it, didn’t you?<\/p>\n

During election campaigns there’s always a platform about “openness, accountability and transparency.”\u00a0Candidates rail\u00a0and froth\u00a0that former councils don’t listen “to the people” and newcomers\u00a0promise they will\u00a0change\u00a0the culture\u00a0and become the ear to public input.<\/p>\n

It’s all\u00a0ideological bullshit aimed at arousing an emotional, rather than an intellectual, response. Pointing fingers and claiming the incumbents are corrupt, or acting in bad faith, or are doing backroom deals, or aren’t listening to the people have\u00a0always been good\u00a0for\u00a0garnering votes among those easily swayed by flimsy rhetoric, regardless of the truth of such claims.<\/p>\n

In the last campaign many candidates made egregiously untrue or unfair statements about the former council. Some of these candidates got elected. The thrust of these campaigns was not to bring more openness and public input to the council table – it was merely to discredit the former council. The media people should know\u00a0this, if they paid attention.<\/p>\n

Municipal councils are already constrained by a bevy of legislation that set the legal terms by which councils operate in and out of the public eye. These include:<\/p>\n