Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
From what I've been reading here, it sounds like you are on the money. There must be a more functional way to do this then some random sample of residents complaining for it not to go through. Perhaps it needs to be set up more like a legal case, where each team pleads its case and an impartial judge and jury makes a decision.
|
I think you are right, OD Mark. Your comments suggest a quasi-judicial process like that followed by the NS Utility and Review Board, for example in its approach to the recent applications for dissolution by Springhill, Bridgetown and Hantsport.
In each of those cases -- well, with the possible exception of Bridgetown, which everyone agreed was a basket case -- the initial reaction to the proposed dissolutions was emotional and negative.
> Our community will lose its identity. (This doesn't fit our neighbourhood!)
> The new municipality will be too big. (It's too tall!)
> What will we leave for future generations? (Think of the children!!)
The UARB process strips the emotion away because it is very much evidence-based. You can gnash your teeth all you want, but the decision will be based on facts so better come to the hearing prepared.
Ironically, council decisions may end up challenged before the UARB. Why not transition the municipal first-level approval process away from lobbyists, politicians and staff toward a more arm's-length body? The reasons are entirely political and have very little to do with sound decision making.
In my opinion.