Send in the Clowns and the 'Smpathetic Developer '

If you get a chance to watch the Council Replay on Shaw Cable on Tuesday (following Council meeting) at 11:00 a.m. Saturday at 11:00 a.m. Sunday evening at 7:00 p.m, tape it, for it will become a Council Classic. Whether it becomes known as 'Send in the Clowns' or 'They all flew over the Cuckoo's Nest' will be the subject of the only real debate heard at yesterdays meeting.

The council had received a report from the New Long Range Planner Kim Flick at the morning's Cow Meeting and had voted 6-1 to accept no major OCP amendments that were not at least at the public hearing stage until the OCP was substantially completed. It was probably the most impressive presentation of an inaugural report from a new Staff member that these old eyes have witnessed and her grasp of her subject and knowledge of the Provincial legislation were educational and enlightening. She even turned aside Coun. Beardsell's few technical questions as though they were slow pitches and actually left him wordless. (This item was not on the original agenda but was added as new item 4.c and was noted as 'Policy regarding OCP amendment applications during the review of the OCP. (previously distributed).)

In the afternoon meeting this motion was reintroduced as is the custom and the vote after a brief debate from Coun. Cochrane who was consistent in voting against it again passed 6-1. Within 30 minutes an application for an OCP amendment and rezoning for 9609 and 9650 Eastside Road hit the councillor's desk and the shit hit the fan. The staff explained the merits of the project and gave their recommendation to proceed in their usual competent and thorough manner as they are required to do for any item that is presented on the Agenda. A brief debate and a resolution from Coun. Beardsell to turn down the application at this time was offered, seconded by either Coun. Cunningham or Baumbrough and the vote was called. Watch the vote closely and watch the stunned look on the Councillors who voted in the affirmative as they realize that they had just been defeated as the vote was 4-3 against them. The vote was then reintroduced to support the OCP amendment and passed by the same 4-3 vote. (Cochrane, Nichol, Gilroy and Lippert in majority.)

And the session deteriorated into name calling and accusations and counter accusations that made me wonder if I had stumbled into the Canadian Parliament during Question Period. The justifications for the perceived inconsistency in voting were proffered but rejected by Cunningham, Beardsell and Baumbrough. In turn they spoke of supporting the application as a vast improvement in use but not at this time and place and the application was 'premature' and not in keeping with the just passed OCP policy.

The applicant was caught in the crossfire and though this application will proceed to public input stage it was not agreed to in principal and passed to Public hearing stage. I thought I was told by staff that an OCP amendment ultimately required a 2/3 0r 3/4 majority , i.e a 5-2 vote and unless the two opposing groups changed this would become an exercise in futility for the applicant. (a Phyrric victory). HOWEVER, I scoured the community charter and the City's website and could find NO confirmation that such a super majority is actually required.

It is not often that a developer comes across as a sympathetic figure but the actions of this council have in the passing of two seemingly inconsistent resolutions made it happen. Personally I like the project and if it can be built so the existing taxpayers are not burdened with any of the infrastructure costs for an 'out of time and out of place' project' I would give it my vote. (for what that is worth). At the same time I would not have voted for the OCP amendment moratorium if I was then going to change my mind a half hour later.