Editor: Where has the spirit of public engagement and consultation in Canmore gone?
The Mining the Future – a Vision for Canmore document states with great pride that the Canmore Vision was created from the ground up and it was an exemplary demonstration of grass –roots democracy.
The input residents are being asked to give on the draft MDP via a survey is more a tool to divide our population than to seek constructive comments.
We are being asked to rush (less than eight weeks) to provide input to the draft MDP, which will have its first reading on Oct. 20. If the input is to be seriously considered, and in the spirit of transparency be made public, eight weeks is not a reasonable period of time. The present MDP took two years of public consultation before it was finalized. The Vision in Mining the Future took 10 months. Why, after using our current MDP for 17 years, are we now in such a rush?
We are being asked to answer a survey on the draft MDP that seems to focus on analysing the answers by age, neighbourhood, and full-time versus part-time residency. Why are these qualifiers important to the Town for any responses or comments provided in the survey?
Are some of our residents’ views more important than others? Are seniors more important? Are 20- 30 year olds more important? Are full-time residents more important than part-time residents? Last time I looked, we wanted to have an inclusive community.
The demographic questions in the survey are offensive and irrelevant. Age group, neighbourhood and residency status should have no bearing on the MDP whatsoever. The survey is not a census. We all pay taxes and we all contribute regardless of age, neighbourhood, residency status, etc.
If these demographic questions are relevant, the survey should also include questions such as:
1. Are you a developer?
2. Are you a member of a developer’s family?
3. Do you work for a developer?
4. Does a member of your family work for a developer? etc.
The mechanism for joining the mailing list for information on the MDP process is totally flawed, i.e., provide your email address. This is a clumsy way to ensure you can be identified as the source of your comments, rather than a direct question of do you wish to be identified.
These questions in the MDP survey are divisive and not necessary for the collection of input on the content of the draft MDP. This rushed consultation process and intrusive survey create a heavy-handed atmosphere. Right now our community is divided enough, only to be more divided if this draft MDP is stampeded to decision. We do not need to be more divided by the implications in these survey questions.
Blanca Cervi,
Canmore
