On the face of it, given the town has now signed a deal to buy two structures – one to cover Centennial Pool, one for a new rink at Central Park – yesterday’s rally in front of town hall is unlikely to change the course of council’s direction.
Does it set things up for the municipal elections in 2014? Possibly – it depends whether those opposed to the process of how council made the decision are able to keep up the heat, much in the same way VOTE Collingwood kept the heat on the council of 2004-2006 for 18 months into the campaign.
Of course, VOTE had the advantage of a couple of council decisions they were able to use in order to capitalize on their message – the purchase of the Tremont and former peeler bar for a parking lot, and the approvals for Admiral Collingwood. VOTE also had the advantage of a relationship with the Collingwood Condo Ratepayers Association, which had their own issues with taxes and garbage collection. Together, they were able to generate enough ‘smoke’ to make voters think there was a ‘fire’.
There’s some pretty fundamental issues at play, here. A big contract – probably the biggest ‘buy’ council has made in my memory, at $10.6 million – signed without going through a tendering process; while permitted under the municipality’s procurement policy, as I’ve previously detailed, highly unusual.
And the haste to which council approved the deal, essentially six weeks from asking municipal staff to prepare a report to OKing the purchase, without any opportunity for the public to provide input.
(I note, with some irony, Councillor Ian Chadwick’s cautionary tale of being a municipal councillor; while I have no doubt Ian – and all council members – work exceptionally hard for the betterment of the municipality. But this: “The media will dredge out old comments, old quotes, old votes and remind people of your foolishness long after you had forgotten it.” It was only two weeks previous to the Aug. 27 vote that you stated “sole-sourcing anything makes me nervous,” to voting a fortnight later to approve a $10.6 million sole-sourced deal. Believe me, that can’t be considered an ‘old comment, old quote, old vote’.)
I’m disappointed with a couple of red herrings that continue to be tossed out there: one is the haste, and that it has been repeatedly stated about the ‘urgency’ to get this done. And, I can totally understand the anxiousness of the Clippers and minor hockey to see a facility – any facility – because, quite frankly, they’ve been waiting a long time. But… but… for the sake of two months to get more input before making that final decision? Minor hockey parents will still be driving to Feversham this winter so their kids can get on the ice, there will be no room for a girls’ hockey program, because the new rink won’t be done until May. The pool won’t be ready until February. The urgency was not there.
And the ‘$35 million’. I don’t know how many times it needs to be said that the Central Park Steering Committee recommended council fully explore government funding opportunities and private partnerships so that the project didn’t cost taxpayers $35 million. And if that money wasn’t there, if those partnerships couldn’t be forged, then fine, explore the alternatives. Council could have approved that recommendation back in May or June, along with a concurrent process to examine the option of ‘fabric’ structures.
Then the public would have the numbers, understand what either option would cost them in taxes, not only from a capital expense, but also ongoing operating costs. Council may very well have made the best decision, in terms of costs, in terms of addressing the community’s needs, on Aug. 27. Or there could have been another option out there that was better, one that we’ll never know about, if only we’d paused for two months.
Council could have saved itself considerable aggro had they only taken a couple of very easy steps. Instead, it appears to have embarked on a process that has spurred at least one rally in front of town hall, and maybe a second one this coming Monday. There were 225 people in front of town hall this past Monday (according to organizers); if fewer turn out next Monday, council may find it’s over the hump, that any angry sentiment against the decision has fallen away, and councillors can then move onto other issues. And I will buy council a round of beer at the Huron Club so they can point out how misguided I’ve been.
If even more people turn out? Then council has a problem. The rec facilities will get built, regardless, but the lack of input will be impressed into the public’s consciousness, it will start to define how people perceive this council and it’s ability to make a decision. And, as Chadwick said in 2007 in reference to another petition that was summarily dismissed by council, “a vote of non-confidence in the council as a whole… I think this is a comment on council as a whole.”
Or another issue, on downtown patios. Three councillors were summarily tossed from the table in the last election, and two other incumbents were hammered in the races for mayor and deputy-mayor, because of the patios – not so much because people didn’t like the idea of restaurant patios moving from one side of the sidewalk to the other, but because the public perceived their concerns weren’t being listened to.
So there’s the challenge: if there are fewer people next week, councillors drink for free on me. But if more turn out, suddenly it will be shades of the previous council…
