Comment 65179

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted June 25, 2011 at 14:07:23

Referencing the 1996 plan is, sadly, another example of good ideas going to waste in this town.

We have current examples such as the Gore Master Plan. I was on the Citizen Advisory Committee and was greatly impressed with the quality, thoroughness, and professionalism of the process. It was hands on. We made real changes, not cosmetic ones. I communicated my positive feedback to those involved.

Then, Council moves the buses from Gore Park and rather than following through on a $200,000 pilot project related to the Master Plan, they pull the funding and install parking meters.

The same citizen engagement process, led by the same people, has begun on the John/Rebecca Park. The last step in the process states "Construction - pending Council approval."

Council approval should be the first step, not the last. We spend money on staff and consultants, engage citizens albeit in a well-designed process, and THEN we ask Council if they think we should move ahead? I understand it's difficult to put a final budget on something you have yet to design, but we're talking about working within an identified framework and with a stated purpose. In the case of John/Rebecca Park, it's going to be a park bounded by streets already defined. How about an approved budget that starts at +/- 50% and goes down from there as the details emerge? At least we would know the money has actually been allocated. This spin again approach to citizen engagement is as annoying in 2011 as I'm sure it was in 1996 (and well before that I suspect).

gcrawford

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds