REASONS YOU SHOULD GET INVOLVED IN THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION, AS EITHER A CANDIDATE BUT DEFINITELY AS A VOTER
CONSTITUENTS NEED TO KNOW HOW MUCH POWER A MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HAS, TO IMPACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES WITH IT!
When I had my first interview, circa 1977, for a reporting job with the local media, I met with an editor, who was moving on in the industry, who told me, without the slightest evidence of a smirk, that there were only two key issues, to highlight in the pages of our publication. Taxes and sewage treatment. I looked at him with some disdain, as it seemed, even for an outsider, ridiculous to think these were the main issues to build-upon, or that these were the only items the readers wanted to know about. What I found instead, was that our readership, really wanted to know what was going on at town hall. They wanted the skinny on personal habits and scandals in the making. They did want to know why their taxes were high, and sewage treatment was so expensive, but they also had suspicions, local councillors were gad-abouts, and when actually on the job, sat with their feet up on the council table, making decisions that impacted us, chortling to themselves about the joys of public office, and being all-powerful. Several years later, when I did land a job with The Herald-Gazette, I did develop a fascination about local governance, at both levels; town and district. Now I'm going to let you in, on a little secret, I have never told another soul. Of course, those involved knew the game, but we held our cards close.
The press corp in those days, back in the late 1970's, and early 1980's, were pretty bored with both councils, and because some of the councillors weren't very co-operative with us, or were too arrogant and self important to bother answering our questions, blowing us off regularly, we would spend downtime, at the media table, catching off-hand comments, for our black book, and photos of in-chair slumbering. First of all, we got some perverse pleasure, in taking photos of councillors, sleeping on the job, with audible snoring. Some falling right out of their chairs. Others reading pocket books, and some tending to matters of personal hygiene that made for some great spot-news portraits. They weren't used for any of our publications, but I suppose we kept them, just in case we needed to remind these councillors, one day, they should be a tad more humble, and eager to talk with us about council news. By the way, we had every right to record what was going on, as it was a public meeting. If they wanted to go into the committee of the whole, we were asked to leave. Otherwise, it was open game to exploit, but doing so legally.
There were some councillors who believed they were invincible. They would make off-hand comments to us, that came without the advisory, "Off the record." So the other revelation, is that the press gang could have sunk a lot of councillors back then, because we had no obligation to protect them, after they had said something stupid or inappropriate. We saw it as our responsibility, as warped as it seems today, to protect these naive councillors, because we didn't feel then, it would have served any purpose to use off-hand comments, to force them to resign. We used our discretion, and they should have been pleased we didn't expose, or exploit some of their philosophies, which were definitely sexist, and generally controversial. We knew when to place our pens down, and set the cameras back into the bag. But they had weaknesses, I suppose, the constituents should have known about, but we were reporters in a small town, in a rural region of Ontario. We could have done the same with almost any councillor elected, by the stealth of being good at our jobs. I confess we could have bagged a dozen or so elected officials, who spoke with the understanding, it would be off the record, yet it had never been mutually agreed upon. But whenever we were privileged in this fashion, they knew how important it was to keep our trust. We did get leverage from that point on, and they always returned phone calls thereafter. Sometimes they just needed to vent, and we happened to be handy at the time. I like to think they knew how much we kept them out of the headlines, and away from situations that could have led them to resign.
I've had many occasions, since, when I've questioned our confidential arrangement, forged with these elected officials, off the record. Did we do the right thing, protecting them from themselves? It still comes up. And I still can't betray a trust, even without any declaration. It's the problem, that a great many councillors have no idea these days, how, even an innocent, off-hand comment, said as a joke, can end their political ambitions. Did I mention causing tremendous embarrassment in the community they serve? As I've noted previously, I have always preferred the insight, versus the exploitation factor, because by hearing these confessionals, and honest appraisals, I get valuable inside information. There have been times when some regional politicians have thought of me, as being weak on background, and out of the loop, as far as this inside scoop. I don't really care about this, because I'm not looking for validation as a regional historian, and political watcher. Yet, when it is assumed, I can't see through the fog they like to drift in my direction, I allow them the privilege of their naive point of view. I wouldn't dream of trying to change their minds. Insight is by far more important, and always a useful tool for an historian. Thus, when I offer these observations, about councils past and present, I am not as far fetched with my ideas, as my critics might argue.
I beg for constituents, the more enlightened the better, to challenge for council seats, in this next municipal election. Candidates who are willing to listen to all points of view, and understand that critics inspire enquiry, and foster self improvement. It is probably assumed, from the above confessional, that reporters are all devious and skunk-like, when it comes to reporting on public figures. Think what you want. Truth is, we were far more compassionate than we should have been, back then. Our job, as we came to see it, was to make local governance better, not tear it apart with scandal. Make no mistake, it had an element of that, and sometimes we couldn't save them from falling into the abyss. It is evidence, on our part, that we didn't use our positions of media privilege, to inflict hurt, just for a front pager, to further our careers. We could have. Arguably, to media purists, and freedom of the press advocates, we should have. This now, is history. But there's a present tense to worry about. So here we go.
How much power is too much?
My background in local history, comes in handy at times like this, as we approach October's municipal elections in Ontario. And giving me proportional background, to offer some warnings about not participating, either as a candidate or as a voter. You may be destining your community to a rough, unresponsive four year term, that could change history rather drastically. The first reality, is that it has happened before in Muskoka, and can happen again, that a pro-development council winds up in office, and then, well, say goodbye to the hinterland. From an historical perspective, electing certain municipal councillors, to a four year term of office, could be catastrophic. It has happened before, and in this region, and it has changed the course of local history for a lot of people, to satisfy a few.
In Gravenhurst, as an example, the last all-candidates meeting, prior to the municipal election, four years ago, the Chamber of Commerce decided that a public forum, for constituents to ask questions of candidates, could not be, let's say, "free-wheeling," and democratic. Instead, the Chamber, asked the public to submit questions in advance, and they would, by whatever selection process was put in place, determine which ones would be asked of participating councillors. It's hard not to have the word "censorship" pop up, when I think back. The point is, the public could not ask questions from the floor, as they should have been allowed, and the Chamber held tight control of the night, so it, I suppose, didn't get out of hand. Who knows what might have happened if democracy had been allowed to run unabated, through the crowded Opera House.
Here's what's wrong with this censorship deal. There were a lot of candidates that needed to be grilled. Councillors, re-running for office, who needed to be held accountable, for some of the follies of the previous term of office. They helped shape a lot of the present design of urban situations in our town, yet when this all-candidates meeting was held, they were insulated from any significant questions, that might have actually, forced these individuals to fess-up, about their role in previous council initiatives; some which were not supported by a majority of constituents. The tightly framed all-candidates meeting was a farce, and did not give those in attendance any real foundation, to know whether the candidates had any exceptional capabilities, and useful qualities, to help shape the town for the future. I left the meeting as I arrived. I hadn't learned a thing about the candidates, that I didn't already know from my own investigations, and that's what happens when you allow censorship into the mix.
I expect the Chamber will come up with a similar situation for this fall's election, and as I did previously, I will complain and write blogs of objection. The only way it would be thwarted from this tight control obsession, is to have candidates boycott the event, because it is fundamentally an undemocratic pre-election gathering, heralding the ultimate democratic exercise....the right to vote for candidates of choice. On that previous all-candidates' evening, the crowd could have simply risen from their chairs, and left the Opera House, when the organizers wouldn't agree, to allow a question and answer period in front of the full house.
Now when you consider what a town council can get up to, over a four year period, gads, you'd think we would want to scrutinize these candidates all over the place. If I ran for council, I would expect the same, and in fact, welcome it, because I am what I am. I'm not going to deceive any one, trying to convince constituents that I'm a better choice than any one else on the ticket. It's up to the voters, to investigate me, by first of all, insisting that I answer their questions. Not just questions that have been approved by the censor. Questions that each constituent feels is important to them, involving community governance issues they deem to be of critical importance. If I can't come up with answers they approve, and policies they can endorse, I'm not going to change my opinion, based on the fact, they might not vote for me. I would never think it a good idea, to lie to get a vote, and then betray these same people later, who have shown their trust, by supporting my bid for election.
A public forum, where members of the audience can ask questions, without being censored, or having to be pre-approved, opens up what might even be considered a half decent debate. No fisticuffs. No brawl. Just old fashioned democracy doing what it is supposed to do! In Gravenhurst, debate apparently is a bad thing, and causes people to get too aggressive for their own good. Well, the reality is, debate shows just how capable our candidates are, at presenting, validating, and defending their opinions, about the town's future. The whole point of random questioning, and candidate counterpoint, is that constituents in the audience, get to judge performance, and competence of those seeking their support on the ballot. The answers to submitted questions, were predictably conservative, and non-aggressive, because each candidate was trying to polish what should have been spontaneous, and for gosh sakes, open and honest. That's what happens when you tightly frame such an event, so that there is no wiggle room for democratic privilege. The real problem, however, is that none of the candidates complained, or in any visible way protested this love-in, "good time was had by all," format; such that it will undoubtedly be the same protocol this coming election season. If I happened to be a candidate, I would refuse to participate. It's that simple. Not out of disrespect for the constituents, but in retaliation for any act of censorship or vetting of questions, which defeats the whole democratic function. I have many complaints about the present town council, and they all are rooted in how this all-candidates meeting, became the template for all that came immediately after. Control? Yup, the more you control, the better it is for everyone. Right? If you were to run a public poll, to see how many constituents give a rat's ass about the format of all-candidates meetings, like the one I have just referred, it's likely the response would show, "ah, it's okay the way it is." It's one of the Homer Simpson "doah," moments, when you just wonder how it could have become this apathetic to what our country is supposed to stand for, as guardians of democracy.
I have an annoying habit, other than writing too much. I ask people I know, and trust, if they have any interest in running for political office. I have only had one tell me that they would run, if they didn't have so much baggage in their lives, to carry forward. You hear a lot about that, these days, but what is most important, is the present and future, baggage aside. I run into people, including members of my own family, who are appalled that I would even consider them, even partly willing to dedicate four years of their lives, by trying to make this a better place to live. I understand them, but I hate the reality, because it means there are a lot of well educated, well travelled, experienced folks, living amongst us, who are so down on politics, and its own baggage, that they disadvantage the home town, by denying us, their expertise to govern, and govern well. We need them, and sometimes I've resorted to begging. This year, for example, I began asking readers of this blog, early in the year, if they had any interest in running for municipal office, or if they knew anybody else, who might make a good council contributor. I even offered to act as an advisor, or local history tutor, to bring them up to speed, and all for free. I couldn't find anyone willing to, as they say, throw their hat into the ring, and seek a place on the new council. By this time, we should have at least two candidates for mayor, because it's a damn important position. There should be dozens of council-seat candidates, not a trickle, including those present councillors seeking re-election. What else do you call it, than straight up, garden variety apathy? The consequences of limited competition for these council seats? You have to appreciate just what a municipal council can impose on quality of life, and neighborhood, with their intrusions of choice. We nearly lost a significant wetland in our neighborhood, because councillors, at the time, felt like it! Most of them had never walked through what they intended to sell off, as urban residential lots. The only reason they backed off, was because of public backlash, and that was largely the due to the fact, our family knew every media trick in the book, to get publicity for our cause, to preserve the sanctuary green belt.
In Bracebridge. When it was decided by the Town of Bracebridge, a number of years back, to sell off the historic Jubilee Park, on Wellington Street, for future use as a university and college campus, what struck me most, was that it was a unified, unanimous council that voted to proceed. It has troubled me greatly ever since, because it was such an important and historic decision, that created a lot of animosity from the neighborhood, and other areas of own, yet there was no sensitivity on that elected council, for these constituents. They decided, that to get the campus project signed, sealed and delivered, just in case Gravenhurst could come up with a better offer, that solidarity would send a message to the public, that this was a perfect fit for the future. Enough said. One of the most contentious issues in town history, the selling-off of urban parkland, the result of a donation dating back to the late 1800's, was being compromised from public stewardship, and constituent ownership. There were doubts, and second guesses, but it became so imperative to show solidarity, that these issues never made it to the council table, as they should have, for the common good. If there had been councillors who expressed their doubts, about selling off the parkland, it would have at the very least, shown constituents the democratic process had allowed all sides to be aired. The "done deal," side of it, angers me to this day. Just because there had been dissenting councillors, unsure of the project, and its impact on the neighborhood, didn't mean the project wouldn't have gone ahead with a majority vote of council. While they may have believed that being unanimous was a good thing, to cut into the project faster, what it did, for a few of us naysayers, was to make council watchers abundantly aware, how any municipal politicians can move ahead quickly with projects, by being like-minded and agenda driven. There were enough constituents pissed off about the sale of Jubilee Park, to more than warrant special meetings, held by ward representatives, to hear their side of the story. What it came down to, was that these people had to pay for the professional services of planners and lawyers, to be officially recognized, when what they needed, was the common courtesy, of face to face discussion, to present their grievances. Having just one councillor, stand up and object, would have been a brief shining moment of democratic spirit.
I had one moment, when I did want to lash out at a Bracebridge Councillor, who, with out of place hubris, stood up and blurted, at the end of a public meeting, for all to hear, that "there will be a university campus built here; you can count on it". It was an antagonistic blurt, at a time when a final decision, had not yet been made by the Ontario Municipal Board. I looked this guy in the eyes, and I thought about the way he had just given the proverbial finger, to every one of the dissenting Bracebridge citizens, who he was also representing as an elected official. He had a total lack of sensitivity to the feelings and concerns of those constituents, who had every right to object to the sacrifice of parkland in their urban neighborhood, to accommodate a college and university, that by the way, had other locations they could have opted for instead. I looked the councillor in the eye, and thought to myself, well sir, you have just made history, and I am the historian.
Recently, in Gravenhurst, town council, in its wisdom, decided that we should have new "stop" signs, at an intersection that has been free flowing, and accident free, as far as I know, for many, many years. It is the intersection at Lakeview Cemetery, and while it is one of those unions of streets, that makes for interesting driving, generally, like many other intersections in this town, they become well known and safely travelled. A Gravenhurst councillor, who lived near the intersection, for several years, weighed-in that this was a precarious traffic situation, and the new stop signs were a reasonable safety measure to protect the motoring public. I have lived in this area, and travelled through the intersection, multiple times daily, for the past 25 years, and never once, have I seen an accident, or any debris at roadside, including chrome and glass, the result of an accident. Yet it became the busy work of this council, to impose its values on us, regardless of our opinion on the matter. There was protest to the installation, but I didn't sign the petition because I knew, even if it had two thousand names, council would never retreat once a decision had been made. Now every time I stop at the intersection, and feel ridiculous for doing so, I think about how we elect councillors, without knowing in advance, what they can impose upon us, at their discretion; and folly. What's next for these folks? Well hopefully, they will sense it's time to relax their agenda, and impositions, until a new council is elected, to actually represent some pressing constituent values at the council table.
I have heard, and read, so many critiques of this present council, that it seems absurd, that there aren't more candidates stepping forward to challenge for council seats. Based on what I have heard, and jotted down, the fact that there is currently only one mayoral candidate, is, in my way of thinking, a clear sign that most critics are comfortable in their arm chairs, and sitting on a fence, offering advice; but refusing to jump into action to defend their rights. The real problem here, is that a rogue council, can change a community in many adverse ways, and once firmly in office, can fundamentally ignore constituent complaints for an entire term, and still remain in office. There are a lot of highly significant issues upcoming in the next council term, that will make for big headlines, and lots of spots on the nightly news; the sale of the Muskoka Centre property will be one of the biggest. There is always a possibility of a town / cottager association conflict over property uses, and development, and for this, we want the best and the brightest, having the most experience. I have been up close and personal, to some huge stand-offs with the Muskoka Lakes Association, and lakeshore developments concerns, in the past, including the former Roseneath Property in Milford Bay, on Lake Muskoka. It heralded a period of time, (early 1980's) when the MLA actually began fielding candidates for a municipal election, which evolved into one of the township's most historic eras, because for the first time, it pitted seasonal residents (who became known as second home owners) and the permanent population, who depend on the seasonal boost in economy, to survive financially. The cottagers, as major stakeholders in the region, with their annual tax contribution, wanted to have a say in the running of local government. This reality goes back to the late 1800's, but the Roseneath re-development project changed what had been a good working relationship for more than a century.
It all worked out eventually, and what had been seen by some, as a deep and wide chasm between the partners in the township, actually came to foster a better and more responsive relationship. It's not to say it's perfect, but the sky didn't fall, as some insiders predicted. The future of the Muskoka Centre property has the potential of being a tough one, in order to keep everyone happy, because of its size and potential for large scale development. It has some elements of the Roseneath dilemma, attached, and it's why a council should be elected, with experience to deal with such a volatile eventuality. At some point, the province will unload the land, by placing it for sale, and then watch-out. The recent waste of time, trying to work as a public partnership, to find suitable uses for the property, was one of those "we'll let you feel part of the game," situations, with a very predictable outcome. The property, unless the province decides to make into a provincial park, will be sold, and we will have to wait for the good or bad news, about what will be located on site. It could generate a period of instability, and the only solution, is to have a leadership on town council, that can handle the inquiries of the national media; because that is what happened with Roseneath when the poop hit the fan, and a war of words broke out between supporters and objectors of the project. You see, I like being pro-active, which should be the course of action most obvious to an incoming council. Even if there is no action required, immediately, it is going to be necessary to be bridge builders instead of chasm excavators.
Do you have an interest in running for council? Advice is free!
FROM THE ARCHIVES
ACID RAIN AND THE CHALLENGE OF A MAYOR TO HIS COUNCIL
IT ENDED IN RESIGNATION IN THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES
I REMEMBER THIS PERIOD WELL. I WAS A ROOKIE REPORTER, FOR THE MUSKOKA LAKES-GEORGIAN BAY BEACON, COVERING THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES. THERE WERE MEETINGS HELD EVERY SECOND MONDAY, AT THE TOWNSHIP HALL IN PORT CARLING.
MAYOR BOB BENNETT WAS NEVER ONCE, IMPATIENT WITH ME, AS I LEARNED THE PROTOCOL OF MUNICIPAL REPORTING. HE COULD APPEAR STERN AND UNAPPROACHABLE, BUT MANY TIMES, HE WOULD TAKE ME INTO HIS OFFICE, FOR AN INTERVIEW……THAT HE WOULD ONLY GIVE TO ME. I GOT QUITE A FEW EXCLUSIVES BACK THEN, AND TIPS ON OTHER MUNICIPAL NEWS OF THE WEEK. MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THIS, BUT HE DID ANYWAY. I FOUND HIM A KINDLY CHAP, WHO WAS SINCERE AND UP-FRONT WHEN OTHER LOCAL POLITICIANS WERE EVASIVE AND RELUCTANT TO GO ON THE RECORD, DURING INTERVIEWS. I KNOW WHY BOB GOT FRUSTRATED WITH THE COUNCIL, DURING THIS PERIOD. I UNDERSTOOD WHY HE FOUND HIMSELF OUTDATED AND REDUNDANT, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD JUST WON RE-ELECTION. HE HAD A COMPANY (COUNCIL) OF FENCE-SITTERS, AND THEY HAD NO WILL TO PUT THEMSELVES IN DANGER, BY STEPPING BEYOND THE SAFETY OF THEIR OWN STATUS QUO. THIS WOULD EVENTUALLY BE THEIR UNDOING, WHEN THE ROSENEATH CONTROVERSY ERUPTED, AND THEY FOUND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO STAY NEUTRAL AND KEEP THEIR JOBS. WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS A SAFE DECISION, ON A RE-ZONING, NEARLY COLLAPSED THEIR COUNCIL WITH RIGOROUS PROTEST FROM THE MUSKOKA LAKES ASSOCIATION.
"THE MAYOR , IN THE PAST, HAD ALWAYS BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO HEADING COUNCILS WHICH HAD PUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE FOREFRONT AND HE WAS BITTERLY OPPOSED TO HIS PRESENT COUNCIL'S ATTITUDE. HE EVEN MENTIONED TO THE PRESS THAT COUNCIL HAD AN ATTITUDE OF SELF-HELP, AND THE PUBLIC BE DAMNED."
THE QUOTATION ABOVE WAS WRITTEN BY FORMER MAYOR, BOB BENNETT, OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES, IN HIS BIOGRAPHICAL WORK, ENTITLED "BINDLE STIFF." I REMEMBER BEING PART OF THE PRESS GANG BACK THEN, WITH LOU SPECHT, BILL COLE AND GAR LEWIS, FROM CKCO NEWS, AND WE KNEW BOB WAS GETTING RESTLESS, AND HIGHLY AGITATED ABOUT THE LACK OF CO-OPERATION REGARDING THE PRESSING ISSUE OF ACID RAID.
"IN AN IDLE MOMENT THE MAYOR HAD WRITTEN UP A FORM OF RESIGNATION. IN HIS LETTER OF RESIGNATION, HE HAD OUTLINED MOST OF HIS COUNCIL'S FAULTS AND HE WAS NOW CONTEMPLATING SERVING THE RESIGNATION ON HIS COUNCIL. HE HAD HELD OFF BECAUSE OF HIS RECENT INVOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, WHICH HE WAS HOPEFUL IN CHANGING," WROTE BOB BENNETT, REFERRING TO HIMSELF AS "THE MAYOR."
"HE WANTED TO ESPECIALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ACID RAIN FALLOUT PROBLEM. HE HAD A SENSE OF THE TERRIBLE DISASTER SUCH ACID FALLOUT WAS HAVING ON HIS AREA. HE COULD SEE THAT THE LAKES WERE DYING, THE CRAYFISH WERE ALMOST NON-EXISTENT IN THE LAKES. HE HAD USED THEM FOR BAIT TO CATCH THE LOVELY LAKE TROUT FOR WHICH HIS AREA HAD ONCE BEEN FAMOUS. NOW THERE WERE VERY FEW LAKE TROUT AND THE GOVERNMENT HAD POSTED WARNINGS ABOUT EATING THOSE FEW PEOPLE MIGHT NOW CATCH. THEY WERE BEING REPLACED BY OTHER COARSER AND MORE RESISTANT FISH, SUCH AS PIKE AND OTHERS NOT NEARLY AS EDIBLE."
HE WRITES, "THE MAYOR HAD GIVEN A SPEECH ONCE TO A SMALL GATHERING OF LOCAL BUSINESSMEN, AND WHEN HE FINISHED THERE HAD BEEN A STONY SILENCE. HE HAD BEEN OUTLINING SOME OF HIS VIEWS ON ACID RAID PROBLEMS IN THAT AREA (TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES). SOME OF THEM HAD COME UP TO HIM LATER AND CHIDED HIM FOR TRYING TO SCARE AWAY THE TOURISTS SO BADLY NEEDED IN THEIR AREA. THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THE MAYOR HAD BEEN TAKING RAIN SAMPLES, AND HE HAD A CONFLICTING OPINION WITH THE HIGHER LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH CLAIMED MOST OF THE ACID RAIN, FALLING IN HIS AREA, CAME FROM THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ARE TO THE SOUTH (UNITED STATES - OHIO VALLEY). HIS OWN SAMPLE INDICATED A MORE LOCAL SOURCE TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF HIS AREA, WHERE A HUGE SMELTER WAS LOCATED. AGAIN THE BUREAUCRATS HAD POINTED UP HIS LACK OF PROFESSIONAL TRAINING, AND SAID HE WAS MISTAKEN. HOWEVER, THERE WERE SOME OUTSIDE OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHO HAD VERY GOOD ACADEMIC TRAINING IN RELATED SUBJECTS AND AGREED WITH HIM. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT MOST OF THESE PEOPLE WERE EITHER EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR FIRMS WHICH DEPENDED ON THE GOVERNMENT FOR CONTRACTS. THE MAYOR HAD SPENT A CONSIDERABLE SUM OF HIS OWN MONEY ON TESTS OF THE ACID AND THE RELATED PROBLEM OF MERCURY WHICH WAS NOW FOUND TO BE LEACHING OUT OF THE ROCKS AND KILLING THE FISH AND OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS IN THE LAEKS AND RIVER."
"PROBABLY THE MAYOR BELONGED TO A GENERATION WHO TOOK THEIR PROMISES MORE SERIOUSLY, ALTHOUGH HE DID THINK THAT SOME OF THE OTHER COUNCILS IN THE SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES DID HAVE MORE CONSCIENTIOUS MEMBERS THAN THOSE ON HIS COUNCIL." BOB BENNETT FROM HIS BOOK, "BINDLE STIFF." (PUBLISHED IN 1985)
THE BOOK IS ACTUALLY ABOUT MR. BENNETT'S YEARS AS A YOUNG ADULT, SPENT LIVING AS A HOBO, AND TRAVELLING ALL OVER NORTH AMERICA ON BOX CARS. IT IS ONE OF THE MOST FASCINATING BOOKS ON HOBOS I'VE EVER READ, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME, BECAUSE I SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH BOB, AS A REPORTER, AND LATER AS A FRIEND, WHEN WE'D MEET-UP AROUND THE DISTRICT. THE LAST TIME I TALKED TO HIM WAS AT AN ART CAMPBELL AUCTION SALE, IN THE EARLY 1990'S, ON BEAUMONT DRIVE IN BRACEBRIDGE. HE WAS STILL BITTER ABOUT HIS FIGHT WITH INCO, OVER THE MATTER OF ACID RAIN, AND ABOUT THE COUNCIL HE FELT LET HIM DOWN, AS MAYOR, WHEN THE FIGHT GOT UNDERWAY. WHAT HE IMAGINED AS THE TOWNSHIP FIGHTING INCO, TURNED OUT INSTEAD, TO BEING A CITIZEN ACTION, AND IT DID NOT GO IN HIS FAVOR. BUT WHAT BOB BENNETT DID, REGARDLESS, WAS SET DOWN THE PLATFORM, FOR RECOGNITION OF THE ACIDIFICATION OF OUR LAKES, WHICH SO MANY OTHERS CLIMBED ATOP, TO MAKE THEIR RIGHTEOUS CLAIMS ABOUT PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. MP, FOR MUSKOKA-PARRY SOUND, STAN DARLING, WAS A POLITICAL DYNAMO WHEN IT CAME TO REPRESENTING THE ISSUE ON PARLIAMENT HILL, AND WHETHER OR NOT HE EVER REFERENCED THE DOGGED WORK OF BOB BENNETT OR NOT, HAVING KNOWN BOTH MEN AT THE SAME TIME, I KNOW FOR FACT, THAT THE SABRE RATTLING OF THE MUSKOKA LAKES MAYOR HAD A PROFOUND IMPACT IN MUSKOKA GENERALLY, AND ON MR. DARLING, AS OUR REPRESENTATIVE IN OTTAWA.
BOB WAS AN INTELLIGENT, AMBITIOUS, COMPETENT MAYOR, WHO FOUND HIMSELF MERGING INTO AN ERA THAT WAS BRINGING ABOUT TOO MUCH CHANGE, TOO QUICKLY, MOVING A SMALL REGION INTO SOMETHING MUCH LARGER IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT. IT'S TRUE WHAT HE FELT, ABOUT BEING OUT OF PLACE…..AN OLD TIME POLITICIAN IN A MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE PERIOD OF CHANGEOVER……PARTICULARLY IN ATTITUDE. BUT BOB KNEW WHAT WAS COMING DOWN THE PIKE, AND IT WASN'T LONG, BEFORE, AND FROM THE SIDELINES, HE WATCHED THE TERRIBLE YEARS OF POLITICAL TURMOIL, WHICH BEGAN IN EARNEST WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS MADE, TO RE-ESTABLISH A MAJOR RESORT ON THE FORMER ROSENEATH PROPERTY ON LAKE MUSKOKA, WHICH PITTED LOCAL COUNCIL, AND TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS, AGAINST COTTAGER ASSOCIATIONS……SOMETHING THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY LEAD TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF SEASONAL RESIDENTS RUNNING FOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SEATS BACK IN THE 1980'S…..TO ENFORCE THEIR PRIVILEGE OF INPUT, IN REGIONAL GOVERNANCE. I THINK BOB MAY HAVE FELT OKAY ABOUT HAVING RESIGNED JUST PRIOR TO THIS DIVISIVE PERIOD IN TOWNSHIP HISTORY.
I HAVE OFFERED THIS LITTLE EDITORIAL RETROSPECTIVE, NOT BECAUSE IT MIRRORS THE PRESENT DEBACLE IN THE VILLAGE OF BALA, REGARDING THE NEW HYDRO-ELECTRIC INSTALLATION, APPROVED FOR THE FALLS…..BUT BECAUSE IT CLEARLY ILLUSTRATES WHAT PASSION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT CAN DO TO A POLITICAL CAREER. IT'S ROUGH OUT THERE, BEING DEDICATED TO THE WELL-BEING OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS, BUT FACING THE REALITY, THAT THE ODDS CAN BE STAGGERING TO THE CONTRARY…….AND IN THE CASE OF THE DIVIDE IN THIS CHARMING LITTLE WATERSIDE COMMUNITY, IT IS MILDLY REMINISCENT OF WHAT PERSONAL SACRIFICES HAPPENED IN THE EARLY 1980'S. BOB KNEW HE HAD RUN OUT OF THE WILL TO BATTLE COUNCILLORS ON THE ISSUE OF ACID RAIN, AND STANDING AS A COMMITTED COUNCIL, TO CHALLENGE INCO. I HOPE IT DOESN'T END THE SAME WAY, AS IT DID BACK THEN, BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD SERVE ANYONE'S BEST INTEREST. I DO SEE A LOT OF SIMILARITIES TO THE DAYS I WAS SITTING IN THAT COUNCIL CHAMBER WITH MY COLLEAGUES, WATCHING HISTORY IMPRINT IN THE MOST PROFOUND WAY. I WAS THERE ON ELECTION NIGHT, THAT FIRST YEAR COTTAGERS TOOK THEIR PLACE IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE, AND THERE WAS AN UNMISTAKABLE PALL. YET IT TURNED OUT TO BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TOWNSHIP, AND ACTUALLY CREATED BETTER RELATIONS BETWEEN PERMANENT AND SEASONAL RESIDENTS, AND MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. WHAT HAD SEEMED LIKE A RIFT THAT WOULD LAST FOREVER, AN ORDEAL BY FIRE, ACTUALLY FOSTERED A NEW AND IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ALL THE STAKE-HOLDERS.
I WOULD STILL RATHER LIVE AMONGST PASSIONATE FOLKS, THAN BE MIRED IN THE COMPLACENCY OF THOSE CELEBRANTS OF STATUS QUO, AS THEIR MANTRA; ESPECIALLY DURING THOSE PERIODS OF UPHEAVAL, WHEN THERE IS A GREAT NECESSITY TO CHALLENGE WHAT APPEARS, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, TO BE BEYOND CHALLENGE. I HAVE BEEN IN THESE POSITIONS MANY TIMES IN MY LIFE, AS BOTH A REPORTER AND PROTESTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, AND I SHALL NEVER FORGET THOSE WHO STEPPED BACK, WHEN THE GOING GOT TOUGH……BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FEEL SAFE AND SECURE, STANDING UP FOR THEIR PRINCIPLES…..STANDING BY THEIR NEIGHBORS, WHEN THE SHOW OF SOLIDARITY WAS NEEDED THE MOST.
IN BALA, I HOPE THERE IS AN EVENTUAL RESOLVE, THAT WORKS TO HEAL THE FEELINGS OF THOSE FIGHTING WHOLE-HEARTEDLY, ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DAM ISSUE. IT WILL TAKE MANY DECADES, I'M SURE.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME TODAY.
No comments:
Post a Comment