Editor: Stephen Legault of Y2Y sparked a good debate in suggesting that the Town of Canmore establish a mandatory levy to fund a new conservation initiative.
In Mr. Legault’s March 16 letter defending his steering committee’s work in having community conversations about the idea, he appeals to reason by speaking of the “community’s interest” in creating the fund, and that it would be “shaped by the community.” Finally, he says, “if the community doesn’t want to make this investment, then so it shall be.”
This begs the question: who, specifically, is the community? Is it appropriate here to view a community as a single entity, or should we view it as a collection of individuals?
While some Canmorites believe the worthiness of the conservation fund justifies a mandatory levy, others believe that although the cause is noble, it falls outside the scope of the municipality’s business and therefore any monies given to the proposed fund should be optional.
Evidently, the community consists of individuals like Kat Wiebe (letter writer in favour of the proposal), and it also includes Pat Sullivan, Keith Thompson, Gloria Phillips and Marvin Phillips (letter writers against).
This is a binary decision with no middle ground; the proposed plebiscite would determine that either a levy be imposed or not. It would be better if both sides recognize that the final decision will represent the views of a portion, not the entirety, of the community.
In every debate, it is essential that your opponent’s sense of belonging remains intact. Western democracy insists upon this principle. It is best that we pay attention to it.
Michelle Eve,
Exshaw
