Dear Editor,
In a recent letter (June 19), I ventured to comment on the OCP and one or two other topics. This provoked a letter of sustained disapproval from Dave Witty (June 26) and a much shorter, gentler letter from John Sbragia (July 3). A number of the remarks in those letters had only a remote connection to what I had actually said. No matter. I’d like to concentrate now on what I think is the one significant point at issue - even though it will likely not have any immediate application.
First of all, none of what follows detracts from the process that was mainly designed and managed by Mr.Witty for the preparation of the draft of the present OCP. Indeed, I believe that much the same process should be used for any future new (or substantially revised) OCPs. What I am proposing would take place only after the process was largely complete and the draft OCP was under consideration by the municipal council.
In Mr. Witty’s own words, an OCP is a “road map for a community to manage itself into the future” (June 12). Fair enough, but if the OCP is to play such an important quasi-constitutional role in Bowen’s governance, it must surely have the support of a majority of the electorate. Indeed, the larger the majority, the better. Otherwise, attempts to implement the OCP will seriously polarize the Bowen community. Thus, before making its decision on the draft of a new OCP, the municipal council must know what the level of electorate support for it is.
I believe there are only two ways to reliably find that out: (1) a public vote open to the total electorate, or (2) a survey of a representative sample of the total electorate. In either case, the question would be on the following lines: “Do you support the proposed OCP that is now being considered by the municipal council, Yes or No?”.
(A few footnotes: A vote would be preferable to a survey. This is because it would be much more effective in focusing public attention on the arguments for and against the plan’s major provisions. Also, regardless of whether the method is a vote or a survey, its results would be non-binding: they would only inform, not restrict, the council’s decision-making authority. The cost? Assuming a ten year life for an OCP, probably less than one Loonie per year per taxpayer for either the vote or the survey. End of footnotes.)
Anyone is of course free to object to a public vote/survey. But such an objection implies either (a) that the municipal council does not need to know the level of electorate support for a draft OCP, or (b) that there are ways other than a vote/survey of obtaining such information.
At first glance, it looked like Mr Witty had perhaps found another such way. There was no public vote/survey on the present OCP, but nonetheless, he was able to “confirm” that the document had “widespread support” (June 26). But that is an enormously vague phrase. What does it mean in the only terms that are meaningful, that is, the number of voters who support the OCP and the number who oppose it? If these numbers exist, the next question would be on what data and reasoning were they based?
Mr. Witty also argues that the “intent” of the provincial legislation governing the preparation of an OCP is that there be no public vote. I believe he’s mistaken. True, that legislation doesn’t require a public vote - but neither does it prohibit one. We should recall here a fundamental principle of our legal system: “what is not expressly forbidden is allowed”. Further, section 83 of a key BC statute, the Community Charter, authorizes a municipal council to “seek community opinion” by means of a non-binding vote on any “question the council believes affects the municipality”. In any case, Mr Witty fears that the provincial government would “frown” on a public vote. I can’t imagine that the province would even notice, let alone care, that a tiny municipality had done something that was manifestly legal and that affected only itself.
Messrs Sbragia and Witty may have the last word (at least for now).
Bud Long
