The issue being discussed here serves as an excellent example for those on the outside looking in on how it can be damn difficult to both govern and provide public service in our modern environment of "transparency" and "democracy". It's a rare day anymore when one can get 10 randomly selected people in a room and unanimously agree on anything, yet this sort of process is becoming more and more commonplace in the process of governance, and concurrently less and less is getting done as a result.
50 years ago, the publicly elected representatives set policy and made high-level decisions. Staff then took that direction and converted it into action. If you didn't like it, you voted for someone else in the next election who would set different policy that was closer to your liking. Today, we have multiple public input sessions, environmental assessment processes for just about anything, a media process that can give a voice that is far disproportionate to the size of the opinion holders, and a political class that thinks astoundingly short-term and is cripplingly risk-adverse. First result: any group who is against anything can now hold up or kill an initiative because
in their opinion it's a bad thing. Second result: things that need to happen get delayed, end up costing more, or just don't happen at all. Expert opinion and product is disregarded in favor of the wants of local know-it-alls and NIMBYS. What was referred to earlier as those "busy body cluckers" now have a voice - and a bigger one than they ought to. Third result: decision makers spend inordinate time on and become bogged down in relatively small matters such a garbage collection cycles or whether a tree should be cut down on some street instead of focusing on truly important strategic development and decision making. This little issue with sidewalks is a representative microcosm of a much larger problem: if staff and council spend more than 5 minutes on this matter instead of trying to grow and improve a city, it's too much effort. Yet that's what is going to happen with this and hundreds of other issues that would have been considered small stuff not worth sweating in the past.
Big issues such as rapid transit, intensification, what sort of public amenities should be provided, environmental issues, limiting urban sprawl, urban design standards, etc. rapidly become mired in discord and strife these days because everyone, and I mean
everyone must have a voice in the process. Many such initiatives die a slow stillborn death as a result, or are watered down to the point of being ineffectual. To give but one quick example: can anyone imagine trying to get highway 401 constructed in today's environment?
Other countries don't have such processes, and things move at a relatively astounding speed as a result. New rapid system for our city? Decided and constructed. Need a new downtown? Decided and constructed. Want a dam for tourist and recreational use? Decided and constructed. Sidewalks on both sides of the street everywhere? Decided and constructed.
Most of those countries however are far less transparent, democratic, or sensitive to the wants and needs of the minority. They're also outpacing us at an alarming rate - in part because of that. So, in the end, it begs the question: can there be too much transparency? Too much democracy? Too much public input and control of the process?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manny_santos
Now that is definitely a common problem, people are woefully ignorant about future plans for their neighbourhood. Just recently a bunch of trees were taken down on the south side of Byron near Boler Road, and some neighbours on Longview Court were shocked there was development happening there and were getting angry at Vito Frijia's company. Even though that area has been targeted for residential development pretty much since the 1993 annexation.
Citizens need to get more involved in Official Plan processes and zoning amendments. That is when decisions are made about what might go in what places, not the day before the bulldozers show up. We had a similar situation in Kingston a couple years ago where an area shown as low-density residential on that city's Official Plan became the site of a new greenfield development of single-family homes, and nearby neighbours were up in arms claiming they didn't know houses would "ever" go in that location.
I do seriously wonder if real estate agents that sell homes even bother talking about the Official Plan as it relates to the area surrounding the homes they sell.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
