The Alternate Approval Process

[CRCP]

There has been an outpouring of public discontent lately concerning Kelowna city council's use of the Alternate Approval Process in giving public assent to the Mission Aquatic Centre. In the Capital News on Sept. 8, 2006 there were none fewer than five letters to the editor opposing the use of the AAP on the grounds that it is undemocratic and unfairly puts the onus exclusively on the "no" side to make their case. Even well-respected columnist Shelly Nicholl joined the critics of the AAP saying that the cards are stacked against the opponents of the pool as it would be extremely difficult for them to get the required signtures of 10% of the electorate (8,209) . Nicholl pointed out that two sitting city councillors didn't even garner 10% of the vote in getting elected to council last November and suggests that maybe the tables should have be turned and that a referendum on the pool be held unless 8,209 voters say they don't want to.

I just hope that the public remembers that using the AAP was a unanimous decision on the part of city council by removing them all from office in 2008 and starting with a new slate of people who are more in tune with public sentiment and the need for participatory democracy.

Print off your own copy of the AAP response form:

www.missionrecreationpark.ca/images/pdf/ElectorResponse.pdf

[CRCP]

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY PLANNING

NEWS RELEASE
September 11, 2006

Citizens for Responsible Community Planning (CRCP) wishes to announce that it is supporting the effort to bring the issue of the Mission Aquatic Centre to a public referendum.

Citizens for Responsible Community Planning (CRCP) is not in principle against a future 50 metre pool in Kelowna but rather is opposed to the Alternative Approval Process (AAP) as the method of getting public assent for the current proposal. CRCP feels that the AAP is a violation of the democratic rights of the electorate to participate in a decision on a matter that will result in a significant increase in property taxes. We feel that it would have been more appropriate for city council to have sent this matter to a public referendum and are urging residents to sign the AAP forms in order to allow a fair and democratic process to occur. By using the AAP city council has put a tremendous onus on one side of this argument to advance their objective which is neither fair nor democratic.

CRCP is mindful of the fact that in September 2004 when this project initially came before council there was a feeling on council that if the project should exceed the costs estimated then resulting in a tax increase in excess of four percent on assessed property values at that time then council would send the matter to a public referendum. As the cost of the project has exceed this amount and council chose instead to use the AAP, we feel that council has reneged on its word.

Although most of CRCP's objections are with the process, we also have some concerns about the project. One of these is the wave pool component of the pool which we feel is redundant as the area has sufficient natural water features. We are also concerned about the fiscal situation that the city finds itself in as the entire source of funds to pay for the Central Okanagan Connector has not yet been found.

CRCP is offering its resources to provide an organizational structure for those who are interested in seeing the Mission Aquatic Centre issue brought to a public referendum. Persons who are in agreement and who would like to help are invited to an organizational meeting to be held on Thurs., Sept. 14 at 7pm in the second floor meeting room of the Rotary Centre for the Arts, or to contact CRCP by e-mail at [e-mail] .
_________________

[Rick Shea]

The following letter was sent to Minister Ida Chong earlier today.


Ida Chong,
Minister of Community Services,
PO Box 9056, STN PROV GOVT,
Victoria, BC
V8W 9E2

November 29, 2006

Dear Ms. Chong:

When the Community Charter came into force in 2004, it included a significant change to the Alternative Approval Process. Where this process had previously required a threshold of 5 percent of eligible voters, the new requirement is a threshold of 10 percent. This quantitative leap makes it practically impossible for the A.A.P. to succeed, for the reasons described below.

The decline in voter participation in Canada and the U.S. since the 1960s is well-documented. The reasons given for this decline are much more complex than simple contentment or apathy. The further reasons include cultural and demographic factors, feelings of disenfranchisement, lack of education, and more. As a compounding factor, Kelowna in particular has a relatively large elderly population, many of whom have significant mobility issues. Getting to polling places is just too difficult for many, yet these people are typically included in the list of eligible voters.

One of the foundations of democratic process is an informed and involved electorate. Clearly, with only approximately 30 percent of eligible voters participating in the last local election, the current situation has strayed far from the ideals of democracy.

With that in mind, we propose a change to the Alternative Approval Process in order to make it more democratic. Specifically, we propose that the legislation change to a model currently in use in some jurisdictions in the U.S., where the threshold is set at 10 percent of the actual number of voters who participated in the previous local election. Although other possible models exist, this proposal is an efficient and achievable way to level the playing field between areas with high voter participation and those with low voter participation. In an ideal democratic world, this leveling would not be necessary, but clearly this is not an ideal world.

As a numeric example of how this might work, suppose that a city has 100000 eligible voters, but only 30 percent, or 30000, voted in the previous election. The Alternative Approval Process threshold would then be set at 10 percent of 30000, or at approximately 3000 required signatures. The data for these calculations are already easily available to electoral officers, and no additional cost would be incurred with this change.

We believe that any process which is subject to the whims of demographics and cultural differences is inherently undemocratic. We are convinced that this change would help to make the Alternative Approval Process much more democratic.

We look forward to your response.

Best regards,


Rick Shea, for
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning
Kelowna

[Rick Shea]

As a follow up to the previous letter, this was sent to Ida Chong today.


June 7, 2007

Dear Ms. Chong:

On November 29, 2006, we sent to you a letter detailing our concerns about the Alternative Approval Process, and recommending a change to the legislation. We wrote that letter out of genuine concern for democratic process, and in the spirit of attempting to correct what we view as a significant problem in the current legislation.

To date, we have received no response at all to that letter, other than the inquiry (copied below) from Natalie Miller.

We would very much appreciate a response to our letter, including your thoughts on the democratic underpinnings of the Alternative Approval Process, and on our recommended change.

Sincerely,

Rick Shea,
Citizens for Responsible Community Planning,
Kelowna, B.C.