Tim The Enchanter Again

Tim the Enchanter has left a new comment on your post "I have to be fair":

Re: Only 29 residents at Joint Operation Centre Open House

"Possibly this is typical but one has to wonder when watching the heart-wrenching events these past few days in Kiev how seriously do we take our democratic form of government?"

As you noted - none of the 29 attendees filled out the questionnaire but according to the same report:

"The feedback from the 29 plus attendees was positive with no significant concerns raised that have not already been addressed through the planning and stakeholder consultation process."

So which of these statements is true?

1. This poorly attended event typifies the apathy of the average voter.
2. The fact that only 29 Voters showed up is proof that most people were not interested.
3. The favourable reaction of the attendees is a clear indication the residents are pleased with the project.
4. Low attendance simply indicates that residents are happy to leave these decisions in the capable hands of the duly elected council.
5. The open house is an example of how Town Hall is committed to engaging the input of Aurora residents in the town's affairs.

They are ALL true of course.
Such is the subjective nature of 'democracy'.

Is it council's intent that such public input shall carry weight in the decision-making process?
They've already decided on the JOC.
Was the open house simply a weak attempt to pay lip service to the importance of public input and voter participation?

If I voted for the new JOC, 29 approvals simply validate my decision.
If I voted against the JOC, 29 approvals are hardly proof that I subscribe to the minority view.

What if the 29 attendees were unanimous in disapproval?
Is that all the public input required to send council and staff back to the drawing board?
If I voted for the JOC won't I simply say that maybe these 29 folks don't like it but I've heard from other residents that do support the project so I see no reason to make changes?

And what about the Heritage Park proposal?
Will approval hinge simply on a pushy special interest group and five agreeable members of council?
What about public consultation and input?
Will that be just more "Come out to the open house and see what we've decided to spend your taxpayer dollars on"?

Or will our council, mindful of the financial commitment they are asking taxpayers to make, present the plan to us and base their decision on our reaction?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with council getting excited about the Heritage Park.
But what if we aren't?

What participation level would convince council that the residents endorse or reject the Heritage Park?
29?
290?
2900?
29000?

So the question was:
"how seriously do we take our democratic form of government?"

To which I ask - how seriously does council take their responsibility as our democratically elected government?

Decisions born of favourtism and shaped by subjective whim to suit trending popularity only represent an illusionary bubble of faux democracy, strictly within the rules but happily unfettered by moral or ethical limits.
Can councils not see the difference between "Yes we could - but it wouldn't be right" and "We are doing it - unless you can show us where it says we can't".

If councillors only value my opinion once every four years then why would I bother offering it at any other time?

Only 29 residents went to the open house?
Shame on us for failing to participate?
No.
Shame on council for failing to convince us that our participation matters

Posted by Tim the Enchanter to Our Town and Its Business at 24 February 2014 12:41