This has been a very disappointing week when it comes to local governance and political leadership in Guelph. Lately, it’s seemed like there are no good weeks, but there were a trio of incidents in the last seven days that have really made me really disappointed with the efficacy and openness of our government representatives and whether they’re truly dedicated to serving the will of the people.
On the long weekend, GuelphToday published an article that shook our normally progressive positive constituency in town. It turns out the three highest elected officials in Guelph – Mayor Cam Guthrie, MPP Mike Schreiner and MP Lloyd Longfield – are united in their opposition to a grassroots effort to make Ontario Reformatory Lands into a national park.
Guthrie said that he wants to wait and get more information, which is one of those rare times that the mayor is waiting for more information before acting. Perhaps if part of the national park plan was to have space for a regular swap meet you might get the mayor’s attention, but for now Guthrie thinks we need yet another report.
Longfield’s reticence is even more surprising because he’s vocally supported the project in the past, but the most surprising of all was Schreiner who seemed to hedge his support based on other unnamed potential public needs. It’s so weird for the Green Party of Ontario leader, who I fully expect to see one day standing in front of a concrete mixer on the Highway 413 construction site, take a pass on protecting green space, but that seems to be where we are now.
While elected government officials do serve an important role in tempering the public’s will with an examination of what’s possible and permissible through legislation and regulation, there are times when an issue has such great momentum that the coolers in government start looking like barriers, not administrators.
I’m a big fan of the OR Lands and making them a national park makes a lot of sense if the goal is to preserve their unique character. Now, I’m used to being on the minority side of a lot of debates, but when I’m out and about I’m seeing a lot of signs in support of the national urban park proposal, and not just in the usual (suspect) neighbourhoods like the Ward or the Exhibition Park area. I’ve seen them all over the south end too.
Next, let’s go to city council this week, which had an off-week workshop meeting about downtown streetscaping and infrastructure renewal. I was in front of my computer at 6 p.m. sharp on Wednesday, and as I was waiting for the live-stream to begin I caught something on the agenda that I hadn’t seen until that moment, “Please note this meeting is in-person only.”
Okay, so my reading comprehension sucks apparently, but I have two excuses. First, the last time there was a workshop meeting in one of the committee rooms, I went down to city hall to cover it in-person, but the media was not allowed to be in the room with council and staff. It was, however, still live-streamed. I guess I assumed that it was just going be the same, which leads me to my second point.
Why is a public council meeting being held in an entirely different room that limits public access when there’s a giant room in the open public area of city hall specifically designed and staged for that purpose? The only time a council meeting should not take place in the council chambers is when it’s in-camera for one of the prescribed justifications outlined in the Municipal Act.
You want to promote mistrust and conspiracy when it comes to council business? Keep changing the format and location of council meetings at random and then block public access. If 12 councillors and the mayor are in a room, that’s a meeting, and a meeting is a matter of public business. Why do I have to type this out in black and white, and aren’t there any members of council that call out these moves to reduce transparency when they happen?
That may be rhetorical, but what’s not rhetorical is this question: how many times do you have to try and sell the Drill Hall? A Committee of the Whole report published on Thursday is recommending that the building on the corner on Wyndham and Farquhar go back out to find a buyer, which they’re not going to find because City staff already discovered in 2021 that there was “no private market interest to acquire and re-purpose the building.”
Meanwhile, there’s a community effort to use the building as the Guelph Centre for Visual Arts, which staff have seemingly dismissed because they’re in business to make money. Or something.
I can’t say if such a centre is feasible, and I’ve played a part in the ongoing Quixotic quest to have a grassroots arts hub in Guelph of some description in the past, but it seems weird to undermine the effort as it’s underway. It’s one of the reasons that a number of Guelph arts orgs are feeling abandoned by city hall even as it initiates an effort to build tourism and cultural spaces. Talking about “surplus assets” sounds like the business slang of robber barons more than people interested in placemaking.
I was at the Ward 2 Town Hall this week where one of the councillors continually asked the 30-some people there to be kind with their feedback, but one of the things driving anger at governments and government workers is the feeling that no one’s listening. Diplomacy is an act of trust, both parties have to believe that the other is putting their best foot forward, but find me 10 people that believe in government anymore and I will show you 100 conspiracists that believe the worst.
We live in a time when democracy is under consistent attack, and that’s because there’s an utter and complete breakdown in the meaning behind the word. “Democracy” is the combination of the Greek words for “people” and “power”, but there’s a widening gulf between the former and the latter. If our government wants to start winning over the people, they’re going to have to start giving up a little power.
