Councillor’s integrity

In last week’s Echo, there was a wonderful editorial, plus another article about the Station Street development for affordable housing in Mullumbimby.

The essence I received from both articles was there has to be change in the way we as a community are able to decide on our own future.

As an example, in the editorial ‘Could you be a better councillor?’, Aslan Shand pointed out that even though we had a tremendous number of submissions against the development of the Station Street affordable housing behemoth, councillors disregarded 740 submissions and voted for the development.

This is the biggest submission I believe that Council has ever had, and yet the reason that councillors voted against the community submissions was that they had gotten into power by promising their voters affordable housing.

In this particular instance, and in the revised DA, the final result is still an eyesore with little tiny studios and the loss of serious community parking and facilities.

It makes me wonder if there just cannot be a better way for decisions to be made. The fact that councillors can quietly say ‘yes, yes, yes’ and then vote ‘no, no, no’ just doesn’t seem right for me.

How is it that councillors can promise things to ratepayers (in this case affordable housing), and then, when the majority of the community does not want a particular flawed affordable housing proposal, they still vote for it, even though they are obviously not supporting the majority of the community’s wishes?

As a system, it stinks.

There has to be a better way. I am told by many people there is no better way.

I don’t believe it.

I believe there’s always a better way, and here in this day of incredible technology, surely there is a way that we can make decisions more democratically and more related directly to current community opinion.

Ian Blair Hamilton, Myocum