Link to comment on the Times Colonist website
The City of Victoria’s code of conduct for council offers little incentive for good behaviour.
A commentary by a former public servant who lives in James Bay.
Victoria council will soon make game-changing decisions affecting the city’s future and the well-being of residents. Decisions include a non-compliant 14-storey tower of luxury condos, a report on our Official Community Plan (OCP) and the fate of our iconic Centennial Square sequoia.
Can council be trusted to make decisions that fairly reflect our interests and concerns? Their record to date shows a need for improvement.
Before the last election, a team of James Bay residents interviewed most candidates now elected. (Krista Loughton did not respond to requests and Susan Kim could only spare 15 minutes.) I was one of that interview team.
All candidates vowed a fairer distribution of development throughout the city with slower, gentle development for already dense communities, like James Bay. They preferred expanding current low-rise buildings over demolition and high-rise rebuilds. Tree protection bylaws needed strengthening. Creating affordable housing was the priority.
Fast forward 28 months. Jeremy Caradonna, Matt Dell and Dave Thompson shifted positions dramatically. Joined by Loughton and Kim, they have proven staunch supporters of big development, approving every proposal that came before them, as has Mayor Marianne Alto. (Caradonna voted against one.)
These include high density multiple-storey buildings in already dense neighbourhoods. Most require demolition of existing housing, including historic, affordable and low-income, and the destruction of significant numbers of trees, including bylaw-protected trees. As for affordability, the city has failed abysmally, while exceeding targets with market-priced housing.
Post-election voting records of Councillors Stephen Hammond, Marg Gardiner and Chris Coleman generally follow their pre-election positions.
Interviewed about affiliations and support, all candidates denied influence from any political party or developers, claiming no knowledge of donations from developers.
However, Elections B.C. records show that Caradonna, Dell, Thompson, Loughton and Alto received donations from several people holding high positions in development companies.
Electors have a democratic right to contribute to candidates they believe will support their interests. At the same time, public opinion has questioned if donations can unfairly impact decisions involving competing interests.
A 14-storey luxury condo development was recently advanced to a public hearing despite overwhelming community opposition and contrary to staff recommendations. The majority vote included five members who received donations from a top-ranking official in that development company.
Of course, correlation is not necessarily causation.
All municipal councils must adopt a code of conduct to ensure elected officials’ accountability. Sadly, when approving the new code, council decided that only complaints filed by the mayor, another councillor or staff can be addressed. Dell, Caradonna, Loughton and Kim supported Thompson’s amendment to not allow complaints from the public.
Victoria’s code offers little incentive for good behaviour. Consider the debacle of raising their own salaries! Also, Caradonna’s insulting accusations against Hammond and Alto’s failure to intervene. No-one filed a complaint. Only after Hammond threatened to sue did Caradonna apologize.
All candidates interviewed pre-election expressed strong commitment to consultation. Yet post-election, council reduced public input. When they allow consultation, the process is usually brief.
City information has been criticized as biased and not fact-based. If feedback is received, certain councillors appear to ignore it if they do not agree.
Consider:
-
For the OCP update, the city promised consultation. However, council condensed what was previously a two-year consultation into just six months. Community associations were excluded. The OCP survey presented only two options and questions favoured specific outcomes.
-
The Crystal Pool referendum offered only one design. Less costly alternatives were ignored. Information provided few facts or analysis, and read like an advertisement for their single design.
-
The destruction of the giant sequoia for a redesign of Centennial Square prompted a petition with more than 4,000 signatures. Responding to letters, Caradonna claimed B.C. Hydro wanted the tree gone because its roots endangered hydro and other utility equipment. However, a citizen’s freedom of information request to B.C. Hydro revealed no records to this effect.
Clearly, the majority of Councillors do not fare well in my mid-term review.
By ignoring commitments made during their election campaigns, supporting developers over residents, stifling public input and shrinking avenues for accountability, it is no wonder that residents raise concerns about their level of trust in council’s decisions.
It is said that public trust is hard won and easily lost. Victoria councillors have two years to win back lost trust. Unless they do, electors may well award them a failing grade.