Last week’s column on how community members often feel shut out of political decision-making hit a nerve. Many of you are telling me: “Been there; seen that.”

Heck, even some politicians are feeling shut out — witness the “raucous caucus” Premier Dalton McGuinty faced over his plans to harmonize the provincial sales tax and the federal GST.

When elected officials feel disenfranchised, imagine what the rest of us must be going through.

Although, “imagine” is the wrong word. Too many of us have lived it. It’s more like “it’s about time you walked in our shoes; maybe those insights will help you govern.”

And what are those insights? To reiterate, here’s the short list of how to lose citizens and alienate communities:

Invite people to public “consultations” to tell them what you’re doing, rather than involve them in true decision-making.

Tell people about public meetings after they’ve occurred, or only a few days before, leaving citizens to scramble to get there.

Pass the buck. Any scapegoat will do: Blame other governments (the province made me do it), local bylaws (the Official Plan made me do it), other agencies (the Ontario Municipal Board made me do it), the developers (their lawyers made me do it), even residents themselves (why didn’t you come to all the meetings?).

I’ve seen and heard it all, and so have you.

Last week, it was the fine residents of Burlington who had had enough (although the scenario I’ll describe here has happened many times in communities across Ontario).

At a neighbourhood meeting ostensibly called to gather “community input” on a new medical centre and 17-storey high-rise in an area where two storeys is now the norm, person after person stood up not so much to object to the project (there are certain merits) but the process.

Residents complained there was no overall “vision” for the downtown neighborhood — namely, what mix of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings, residential, retail, commercial and parkland uses do we want to see? And how can we proactively go after that?

Instead, decisions are made on a reactive basis when a developer presents a plan — with the underlying carrot of tax dollars and the underlying stick of an appeal to the OMB if the plan isn’t approved.

We have a vision, countered a city staffer — it’s in the Official Plan. But the plan isn’t being followed, pointed out several residents — the height of half-a-dozen recent and planned buildings is twice the height limit in the “plan.” It also isn’t being followed in many other ways.

Finally, the proposed development is just plain ugly, which adds insult to injury.

Why build something so hideous, I asked the developer after the meeting? Have you no artistic pride? He said the city’s “urban design guidelines” made him do it.

DON’T HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED

Which is nonsense. I was at another meeting days earlier (the subject of last week’s column) at which the community was presented a lovely array of options for high-rise buildings that are permitted, even encouraged, in the design guidelines. The trouble is they don’t have to be followed and it looks like they won’t.

So who’s really calling the shots here, aside from the almighty dollar? Lord knows, but it’s not the community who should be. There are thoughtful, reasonable and educated people attending these meetings who don’t oppose development. They oppose bad development that generations to come will have to live with, like a permanent hangover from a lack of vision, poor planning and no meaningful community engagement.

So how do we fix this? For starters, we can send every elected official and city bureaucrat to community engagement training. A good place to start is the Waterloo-based Tamarack Institute.

Its website, tamarackcommunity.ca, features many resources, links and events.

Tamarack’s goal? To “build vibrant and engaged communities … where committed citizens work together to build a community that is caring, prosperous and sustainable.”

If the residents of my city — and probably yours, too — were truly engaged, I know we could do it.

 Email This Article  Print This Article