By Plain Rhetoric

Don’t we want city councillors to express their opinions?

Aug 21, 2018 | 5:00 AM

IT LOOKS LIKE SILLY SEASON is officially underway as one city councillor feels the Kamloops Official Community Plan (OCP) would better serve the public if called the ‘Official Community Guidelines.’ Or at least so it would appear, according to recent comments by Councillor Arjun Singh.

In a recent piece by CFJC’s, James Peters, he writes that Councillor Singh sees the OCP as simply a guideline. Not a plan but just a guideline and I’m curious to know why Singh feels the downgrade is required.

According to the city’s own website, the OCP states, “…all bylaws and works undertaken by Council must be consistent with the OCP.” There is no ‘should’ or ‘maybe’ about it.

The recently revised OCP is single-minded in its direction when it comes to densification. Urban sprawl must, according to the plan, come to an end. Urban transit, infrastructure spending, city services and residential/commercial development are all tied into a package that is dependent upon a policy of increased densification.

The plan and council’s agreement to accept it should be no mystery to Singh as he spent years working on the development of the OCP. But now, as he battles with fellow councillor Denis Walsh over redevelopment of the city-owned Royal Avenue lots, Councillor Singh has suddenly decided the OCP is nothing more than a guideline.

Boogie The Bridge

Boogie The Bridge Event Information

Apr 19, 2024

Two and Out

PETERS: Try as he might, Allan Schoenborn will never be forgotten

9h ago

One Man's Opinion

COLLINS: Sorry - did you say, 'Take your old guns to the post office?'

15h ago

Mr Singh then doubles down, suggesting Walsh recuse himself from the public hearing because Walsh suggested the proposed rezoning is contrary to the OCP and therefore should not go to a public hearing.

Singh feels Mr. Walsh’s statements — made during a debate on a motion — are tantamount to expressing an opinion, something Mr. Singh believes is contrary to the public’s best interests.

This begs a rather obvious question about those who voted in favour of the public hearing motion. Using Singh’s logic of your vote being an indicator of intention, would suggest those voting yes are already predisposed to vote in favour of the rezoning application and so must recuse themselves as well.

And another head-scratcher for me: How can a councillor’s willingness to let the public know how one feels about a motion and where one stands not be in the best interests of the public?

Personally, I truly appreciate it when those we elect actually explain where they currently are on an issue. Whether you agree or disagree with their position, you at least know where they stand and that alone shows respect for the voter and is a very refreshing and needed characteristic that others in office should follow.

Regarding Councillor Singh’s chameleon-like definition of what the Official Community Plan is, I ask for some consistency and clarification. Is it a plan to take us forward and into the future or just a guideline to be morphed and redefined as the winds of public opinion shift?

And last but not least, the suggestion that Mr. Walsh recuse himself opens a Pandora’s box of political posturing. As a councillor, if you or your family own investment property on the North Shore, should you recuse yourself on development matters in that area of Kamloops? If you are associated in any way to related businesses on the North Shore, should you recuse yourself? If at any time in the past, you have expressed an opinion about residential and multi-family developments, should you recuse yourself?

The perception of conflicts of interest rightfully requires one to step away from the table during relevant discussions.

However, I have never heard of a councillor having to recuse himself because he stated a fact about an official city document (the OCP) during a public debate on a motion that may, in his opinion, contravene the purpose and intent of that document.

At no time did Councillor Walsh indicate that he would not listen to comments and suggestions during a public hearing. At no time did he say those opinions and comments would not be seriously considered. And at no time did Walsh say he would not reconsider his position based on those comments.

Councillor Walsh’s supposed sin was to explain what he thought and why he would vote against a motion. Councillor Singh feels this kind of up front and factual discussion of one’s position requires the recusal exile and a redefining of the purpose and intent of the Kamloops OCP.

I may not always agree with him but I admire those rare politicians like Walsh who will take an informed position that is not dependent on or based upon the shifting winds of public opinion. It’s called principled leadership and needs to be encouraged as opposed to censured.