In the October 17 election, an important issue to consider is how well you’re seen, heard and understood by your municipal government.
Does it decide before it consults? Or does it inform before it engages?
Can you see in its decision any trace of how the public sentiments influenced the outcome?
I released a video Tuesday on the debacle involving The Boathouse at Horseshoe Bay. Last year the mayor and council approved a $2.7 million purchase of the lease–not the purchase of the land, not the purchase of the building, but the lease on the building–and announced the creation of an art museum there.
Problem was, it didn’t consult the artistic community whose work might be featured there. They were shocked by the choice–a less-than-ideal locale, too much light, not enough parking, and utterly no advance discussion. The idea flopped, the mayor and council retreated, but taxpayers are still holding the bag.
Another example is how the pay parking fiasco keeps getting walked back: first an exemption from paying for West Vancouverites, then a lowered hourly price, then carve-outs for certain groups, then more carve-outs, then 90 minutes free parking at Ambleside Park, to the point of making the money-seeking initiative practically a money-losing one. Certainly the businesses in Ambleside, particularly the ones on Bellevue and Marine, see it as money-losing–for themselves.
Consultation should shape decisions, not decorate decisions already made.
As mayor, I would introduce a new process:
- It starts before minds are made up.
Residents would be invited in when their advice can still shape the options, before municipal staff prepare their report for council and the public to consider, not after the preferred answer has quietly hardened. So it would mean an earlier notice than we have today. - It gives people the truth, not a brochure.
Every issue would come with plain-language facts: costs, trade-offs, legal limits, risks, and what is actually open to change. So it would mean more information than we have today. - It meets people where they are.
Not everyone can attend a 5 p.m. meeting at municipal hall. A serious process uses afternoon and evening sessions, online input, written submissions, neighbourhood pop-ups, and targeted outreach. So it would mean more open and accessible discussion than we have today. - It turns complaint into constructive choice.
Residents are asked what they would prioritize, what trade-offs they would accept, and what safeguards would make a proposal fair. So it would mean more engagement by mayor and council of interested parties than we have today. - It closes the loop.
Before council votes, the public sees what was heard, what changed, what didn’t, and why. That way, even people who disagree can see the process was honest. So it would mean more accountability and transparency than we have today.
In short: residents advise, staff analyzes, council takes responsibility.
Ask yourself: Is this anything like the mayor’s current administration?