It seems to us that the natural conclusion of a mature democracy is a system that eventually confounds itself, locked in a labyrinth of rules and regulation. Some refer to it as red tape while others might dismiss it as “the system.”
If early legislators thought for a moment their work would end up as it has, we are sure they would be horrified. No one likes complications or inflexibility, but generations of rule-making very rarely ends up streamlining a process, despite periodic revamps.
This, we think, is where residents opposed to the “hidden quarry” proposal near Rockwood find themselves today.
For many months now the group known as the Concerned Residents Coalition (CRC), has attempted to let their views be heard even though the process has a long road ahead.
Like any coalition, there have been ups and downs for the group. Some spokespeople have done an admirable job of stating points and sticking to the issue – chiefly, the effort to safeguard neighbours near and far that may be impacted should the proposed quarry move forward. Others have engaged in the hyperbole often associated with activism. The former approach of presenting facts will win the day, if the day is to be won.
The CRC’s plight mirrors that of many other coalitions that have fought against gravel pits or even the poor souls that fought against wind power conglomerates that have sprouted up across Ontario in recent years.
The common bond between these groups is that most often, the proponents and final decision makers reside nowhere near the area of impact, leaving residents alone to suffer adverse changes to their quality of life. It hardly seems fair.
Very often, because of this adversarial climate, local councillors face the brunt of criticism. Local decision-makers have the ominous task of hearing the applicant and judging the merits of the proposal, while at the same time honouring the trust placed in them by local voters. It is not a stretch to believe council could easily be of three minds under these circumstances.
Certainly, in the public realm council must remain and be seen to be impartial. This is not to say they aren’t developing some strong feelings on the issue. The system however, dictates that they must follow the process and make their final choice based on the facts presented by both sides.
To date Guelph-Eramosa council has handled the issue with as much grace as possible under the circumstances. They continue to insist on decorum from all parties – including taking offence to some very poorly chosen words last week by an agent of the applicant. Other letter writers this week agree.
Name calling should have no place in this process, however frustrating it is.
