SHELTERS: Bureaucracy Wins, Democracy Loses
Furthermore, severing issues from their original plans (in this case the Official Plan) also sets a dangerous precedent? If this goes ahead, any time that a hefty piece of legislation is before council, our elected representatives will be looking for things they can carve out of the whole so that they can be dealt with as one-offs without regard to the effect on either the smaller piece or the whole.
One of the reasons that the Official Plan and similar documents come to council as a package is that the contents often affect one another and need to be dealt with together. Splitting it up can mean that council does not see the entire picture when it is considering what’s left of the package. Plus the bit that was pulled out of the package might have to be reviewed to reflect changes made to the package meaning council will have to do a second round of consideration of that piece.
Another reason is that such documents have a review schedule that brings it back to council at fixed intervals so that its continued relevance can be checked and it can be amended to reflect changing circumstances. If the shelter issue is dealt with now for this round, when would its review be due? If reviews are on a five-year cycle, would it be reviewed five years from now or as part of the review process for the original package of which it formed part? It’s hard enough for staff and the community to keep on track with the schedule of major, sometimes-interlocking documents that now churn through the process at Ottawa City Hall.
If a chunk can be carved out of a larger plan at will, how long will it be before a ‘good’ reason can be found to shred to pieces all the major documents that now make their way through the design, consultation, re-design. consultation, re-design and approval process?
While it may seem expedient to hack out bits and pieces for immediate consideration, it makes the whole process inefficient since discussions wouldn’t reflect the entire breadth of the issue or its interconnectedness with other components of the same large document.
It is also an unconscionable waste of time and staff resources since many things would have to be replicated in the split process with no gain in efficiency or prudent outcomes.
The Voter is a respected community activist and long-time Bulldog commenter who prefers to keep her identity private.
For You:
SHELTERS: Public Consultations Demanded By Law: BENN
SHELTERS: A Homelessness Emergency: TROSTER
Big Media Dodge Huge Shelter Story
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
Does it occur to the mighty minds around the Ottawa City Council table that the lack of consultation surrounding the issue of shelters in every neighbourhood will set a precedent for future?
Short answer … No.
Donna:
It probably sets a precedent council wants.
Some councillors, some not very bright, think they know best and they certainly know what they want.
The record of the last 10 years with disaster after disaster shows staff and council had best listen to the public because at least the public knows what it is doing.
City hall certainly doesn’t.
cheers
kgray
An interesting comment from above “Splitting it up can mean that council does not see the entire picture when it is considering what’s left of the package”. I surmise that in many instances councilors spend too much time getting mired in the details rather than focusing on the big picture. Every councilor has a personal staff to whom they can delegate the detail work. The benefits to councilors, if capable staff are hired, are more time to read through and digest the contents of the 3-inch thick documents that land on their desks, the opportunity to hear different points of view on topics of importance from people they trust, i.e. their staff, more time to receive feedback from the public in town hall meetings, etc. The key in all this is hiring staff and encouraging them to speak freely rather than simply employing sycophants.
In 2024 City planners were delegated power to approve a group home (not defined) anywhere in the city without community engagement, The Councillor has one week to respond if citizens have concerns. It then goes to Planning and Housing Committee and we know how often then turn anything down.
Within the last year, about 5 group homes and shelters were approved with no notice to the neighbourhood.
In City’s where the residents are not seem as the enemy, residents are informed and the City offers to mediate a “good neighborhood agreement.” (google Calgary’s Good Neighborhood Areement. Note that Calgary is rated in the top ten of most livable cities…in the world. Why is this important? Because neighbors get to speak to the home’s sponsor about things they worry about ..garbage, noise, parties, violence etc and form agreements for respectful living together and they have people they can call when they have concerns, And they just might end of being supportive. Two organizations in the city do this on their own. But the majority do not and the city cares not about the effects of their decisions on society.