Reader challenges Council on their reasoning for rescinding the Heritage Moratoriam

Proposed downtown heritage assessment studyWhile attending the council meeting (Feb. 3rd), I heard points from all councillors as to why they did or didn’t support the continuation of the moratorium. Many of these points were heard for the very first time.

What I didn’t hear was a logical assessment of risk prior to decisive action. Ironically fitting that a prior item on council’s agenda was the adoption of risk-based assessment in our water and waste budget model — a favourable and realistic method that reduced the cost projections considerably.

In the same spirit, I ask this: What was the impact risk if the moratorium ran its remaining course? To that, what is the impact risk in cutting the moratorium short the remaining 2-3 months?

Impartial Question:

In allowing the moratorium to continue, what was so critical to the town that couldn’t have waited the remaining time? On the flip-side, what was so critical to the town that the remaining 2-3 months would have served?

Council’s Reasoning:

If the enactment of the moratorium represented a decisive act by council without consideration for public consultation and thus grounds to strike the bill, then what was the basis for council to strike the moratorium without consideration for public consultation? To cite an unjust act as a supporting reason for one’s actions does not exonerate one from committing the same injustice — especially as the very first act in response. I’d like to think most intelligent people have moved beyond “Johnny punched me in the eye, so I punched him back.”

On principal alone, leadership of clear reasoning should be the foundation of sustainable policy making, not a convenience in a time of choosing.

I’ve stated many times that I’m not prejudiced regarding Enerdu’s project — it has real potential to be exciting. But it has equal potential to be culturally devastating (amongst other impacts.)

To have one means you must have all. Without sustainable policies from the social construct of municipal government, all aspects of an affected community will reveal absence of sustainable policies.

I’m now asking all members of council to answer my questions on behalf of the town of Almonte. Point-form (not an epistolic screed) of what an impact risk report should include had one been offered. Expectedly, I invite all residents of Almonte to offer unbiased points based on probability — less of subjective assertions.

Thank you.

Ken Charron