posting
05-05-2010, 03:05 PM
Kingston City Council meeting May 4, 2010
Jason here. Well, the big debate on the 3rd crossing has come and unfortunately, not gone. 11pm was reached and the required majority to continue was not gained so the debate was shut down. The ‘debate’ occurred surrounding the briefing regarding stage 1 of the Environmental Assessment of the 3rd crossing.
I have to give the engineering company credit. They never lost their cool in the face of ‘questions’ that were really policy statements from most members of Council. I have wondered previously how this debate could have been held without acrimony. Could the briefing have been held in a public forum? The problem with that idea is that traditionally the ‘anti’ groups dominate public meetings. Attempts to vary the public participation part of a consultation (the café?) and ‘information sessions’ are now the preferred way of avoiding the heated public meeting. I find that the trouble with the ‘information session’ is that one does not benefit from the cross-fertilisation of ideas. There really may be people attending an information session to gain information!
The question before Council is “ Is the 3rd crossing necessary?” and if so, “How can the City pay for it?”
There was some frustration shown surrounding the need for the bridge. Many questions tried to get at solutions to the problem without a bridge. None mentioned ‘demand reduction’ so prominent in the Transportation Master Plan. I don’t think the bridge is going to go forward. My suspicion is that the vote on the new administrative centre in the former S&R building was a bellwether vote. That failed, and the 3rd crossing will probably fail as well. However that does not mean that the next phase of the Environmental Assessment will not go forward. A completed Environmental Assessment is good for 10 years. It could be argued that the $1million for the next phase is a good investment for the future. On the other hand, if you don’t want a bridge, why spend another cent? Stay turned for the next instalment.
By the way, Last night’s meeting demonstrated the necessity of good preparation in making a presentation to Council. Bruce Todd, the perennial transportation critic, made a presentation last night and some of his statements were questioned. His responses lacked precision. Not good! If you are going to make a presentation, make sure your footnotes are in shape.
Jason here. Well, the big debate on the 3rd crossing has come and unfortunately, not gone. 11pm was reached and the required majority to continue was not gained so the debate was shut down. The ‘debate’ occurred surrounding the briefing regarding stage 1 of the Environmental Assessment of the 3rd crossing.
I have to give the engineering company credit. They never lost their cool in the face of ‘questions’ that were really policy statements from most members of Council. I have wondered previously how this debate could have been held without acrimony. Could the briefing have been held in a public forum? The problem with that idea is that traditionally the ‘anti’ groups dominate public meetings. Attempts to vary the public participation part of a consultation (the café?) and ‘information sessions’ are now the preferred way of avoiding the heated public meeting. I find that the trouble with the ‘information session’ is that one does not benefit from the cross-fertilisation of ideas. There really may be people attending an information session to gain information!
The question before Council is “ Is the 3rd crossing necessary?” and if so, “How can the City pay for it?”
There was some frustration shown surrounding the need for the bridge. Many questions tried to get at solutions to the problem without a bridge. None mentioned ‘demand reduction’ so prominent in the Transportation Master Plan. I don’t think the bridge is going to go forward. My suspicion is that the vote on the new administrative centre in the former S&R building was a bellwether vote. That failed, and the 3rd crossing will probably fail as well. However that does not mean that the next phase of the Environmental Assessment will not go forward. A completed Environmental Assessment is good for 10 years. It could be argued that the $1million for the next phase is a good investment for the future. On the other hand, if you don’t want a bridge, why spend another cent? Stay turned for the next instalment.
By the way, Last night’s meeting demonstrated the necessity of good preparation in making a presentation to Council. Bruce Todd, the perennial transportation critic, made a presentation last night and some of his statements were questioned. His responses lacked precision. Not good! If you are going to make a presentation, make sure your footnotes are in shape.