Housing Task Force: Public? What Public?
No public representation. It has six members associated with the development industry, one person from city social housing and a representative from federal Canada Lands.
So where is the public? Furthermore why is the development industry on a city “task force” that will be dealing with problems associated with the development industry. Rather a glaring conflict-of-interest.
The development industry is efficient and knows what it wants. It likes things done yesterday and generally to the benefit of the development industry. Public consultation is democratic which, by design, is a dog’s breakfast. If people were to design “task force” representation for efficiency, you would shut the public out. Or if you were to design the “task force” to serve self-interest, you would shut the public out.
And guess what? The public has been shut out. Shut out on the creation of the task force or even determining its need. Shut out in representation on the task force. And even shut out of exerting any influence on it in the future. For the development industry, it didn’t just pitch a no-hitter. it threw a perfect game in the formation of the task force. These people are major league.
Municipal government has one driving idea. It must be the representative arm of the public and must serve the people’s interest in a democratic manner. And on this task force, there is no public representation. That’s a problem. You have a group of people designing initiatives that involve them and, in fact, benefit them.
As for the public, apparently it doesn’t matter. There aren’t even any city councillors on this task force. And god knows, there’s no difficulty finding councillors who are developer-pliant. Furthermore, no one knew about this operation until it was announced … well except for the non-public representatives of the task force.
The development industry is a small group of highly organized builders who lobby for themselves and construct homes. Nothing wrong with that. The residents of Ottawa are one million strong and live in homes. And yet no representation on the housing task force. Something wrong with that. No consultation on the housing task force. No voice in the future recommendations of the task force.
Maybe that’s the point … keep the public out. The public might want something that crosses the developers.
The City of Ottawa is way too tight with the development industry. The composition and events surrounding this new body reinforce that. Not a good look.
If the City of Ottawa doesn’t want democracy in this community, just say so and save everyone a bunch of time and bother. The staff and management of The Bulldog could just flop on a lounger at the end of the cottage dock for the summer.
Or the city could care. What a novel concept.
Ken Gray
For You:
Stop Patchwork Pothole Solution: CRERAR
Top 10 Clues Ottawa Has No Money
Plan Would Dump Train From Carling: LEIPER
New Bus Routes: Can You Say Chaos? THE VOTER
Time To Process Due Process: BENN
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
Excellent information and analysis! It is erosion of democracy, so many citizens have no sense of what is going on. Lets distract you with potholes, while the real work is done.
Processes are necessary for our society to run in an orderly and well-planned fashion. Whether you choose to follow Sheldon’s (he of The Big Bang Theory) approach of using flow charts, or prefer a list of steps executed in chronological order doesn’t matter. Processes are defined to ensure everyone plays by the same rules. Processes change periodically due to the introduction of new laws, the advent of new technology, etc. but not until a full review has been undertaken and agreed upon. The process(es) followed by city hall must always contain a line that states “Consult with public and pay attention to input before making final decisions”. It seems this step is considered optional when it should be cast in stone.
sisco, neither staff nor council really want to hear from the public.
From the perspective of staff, who for the most part are subject matter experts, having to explain their plans to the uninformed is perceived as a waste of their valuable time. When an uninformed member of the community has the audacity to point out that the solution does not appear to solve the problem, well that is just humiliating.
From the perspective of the councillor, having to explain to the community that their input was ignored, that the proposed solution will be implemented knowing full well that the problem will not be solved is frustrating.
Better for staff and council to just jump to the end of process and implement the solutions that do not solve problems, than having to go through the chronological steps while always intending to ignore the inputs from the uninformed public. Sigh.
It would be useful to have a list of all the projects each of the members of this task force has worked on within the city over the last five years. In addition, we need a list of every project owned by these firms that has applied for any city approvals that hasn’t yet been started. “Applied for any city approvals” would include, among others, such things as zoning changes, building permits and site plans.
These lists would need to be updated on a monthly basis during the term of the task force and for five years after it is no longer in existence. Any firm that leaves the task force would have to continue to comply with those reporting requirements until they are no longer in force.
One doesn’t have to be a genius to see clear conflicts of interest just by reading the membership list of the task force. The public has a reasonable expectation that those conflicts should be disclosed and that we be kept informed of the exact parameters of the precise areas of conflict of each task force member and their company or companies.
In the interests of transparency and accountability, the work of the task force needs to be conducted in public, not behind closed doors. Not only do its meetings need to be open but any material produced by or for the task force needs to be public. Why would they not want this if there’s nothing they want to be able to do without the light of day being shone on it? What acceptable reason could they possibly have for wanting to operate under cover of darkness? Other than, of course, self-benefit?
On the point about councillors not being on the task force, surely that’s a necessary step to maintaining plausible deniability? They can’t distance themselves very far from a body that they are members of which could lead to accusations of collusion and of being ‘in bed’ with the developers. They have enough trouble trying to explain that the fact they take generous campaign donations from developers doesn’t influence them in any way when they are called upon to cast a vote for or against said developers’ projects when they come to Committee and Council.