Langford fast-tracks a bylaw taking 72 hours or less
It’s evident that good governance of a city includes letting the taxpayer weigh-in thoroughly on bylaws which impact their lives.
The new Langford council knows this especially after a recent election when lack of public consultation and transparency were major issues and arguably a reason they were elected.
So it’s alarming that council took less than three days to introduce, discuss, and consult residents before adopting a new bylaw. Choosing to blindside the public with a restrictive bylaw on tree cutting with harsh penalties after only weeks into a new mandate is both shocking and disappointing.
On Dec. 19 the introduction of a last-minute agenda item for a ‘special’ afternoon council meeting caught taxpayers off-guard. Until then the meeting itself was largely ignored by the public since there was only a closed-door item on the agenda.
On Dec. 20 council quickly fired off a press release on the proposed bylaw to supposedly allow for adequate public input.
On Dec. 21 a second ‘special’ council meeting was set and then after a couple hours of public discussion the bylaw was adopted that afternoon.
Presto, all in less than 72 hours.
There are usually weeks before a proposed bylaw, temporary or otherwise, is adopted to allow for thorough public input and for council to consider its ramifications carefully. There are usually council procedures to prevent agenda items being inserted onto the agenda at the last minute.
Never mind that council knew residents were given inadequate notice about the bylaw a few days before Christmas and during holidays when many are traveling and staff need a break.
Never mind there was a school break and the city was coping with a once-in-a-quarter-century blizzard.
Never mind that there are no other jurisdictions that we know of which does the public’s business this time of year.
Langford council needs to amend their procedure bylaw so this alarming precedent of fast-tracking a bylaw in less than three days without thorough public input never happens again.
Shaping public policy is a serious business and must never be done at the expense of democratic principles.
The end doesn’t justify the means.
MORE:
Langford adds ‘very restrictive’ tree bylaw to council agenda at last minute, Goldstrean News Gazette,Dec. 19, 2022.
Langford adopts tree protection bylaw, Times Colonist, Dec. 22, 2022.
Langford council meeting, Dec. 19, 2022.
Langford council meeting, Dec. 21, 2022
Langford council brought in a tree-protection bylaw with immediate effect for good reason. You neglected to say that it is temporary (six-months) while a permanent bylaw is developed. The experience of other municipalities is of unbridled tree cutting in the consultation period before enactment in anticipation of a restrictive bylaw. The temporary bylaw prevents the destruction of trees that would be protected with a tree-protection bylaw. The permanent bylaw will take public input into account. You have made a mountain out of a mole hill on this one. You also neglect to point out the significance of maintaining and increasing our tree canopy. Trees are one of our main hedges against climate change, providing us with services for free: cleaning the air, cooling, water management to prevent flooding, habitat and biodiversity, just for a start. Tree loss is a serious threat to our future welfare.
Good morning Didi, The story as you know was a commentary, and in fact, paragraph 8 references the bylaw as a temporary bylaw, Cheers
You think this is bad? Last council Victoria council passed a motion to give a private for profit company a stranglehold on a full block of inner city greenspace. It did this in the dying days of it’s mandate and the term of the contract will last for two full council mandates. The direct cost to the taxpayer is a bit shy of half a million dollars a year. There has never been any business plan here or public rationale for this decision. This was done entirely in camera with zero public input or even awareness as a last minute addition to the agenda when all the councillors apposed to the contract were not in attendance.
How is it that this example of gross bad governance, to say nothing of the gifting of public assets and tax dollars raises nary a mention from your publication?