Two golden opportunities to rescue democracy in Kamloops

We have two remarkable opportunities to rescue the democratic process in Kamloops.

One of them will come this afternoon; the other between now and election day Nov. 19.

The official results of the parkade counter petition — collected signatures minus those ruled invalid — are to be announced at today’s City council meeting.

Mayor Peter Milobar has said that, assuming the counter-petition succeeds — and there’s every reason to expect it will — he will not support the City taking the parkade issue to a full referendum.

This is wise. For one thing, forcing the issue to a vote at a cost of around $90,000 wouldn’t do much for a politician’s popularity.

For another, this project is so divisive that no responsible mayor would want to prolong such a painful public debate.

Instead, he says, he would prefer a task force of City council to look into alternative sites.

He and council can do even better than that. Without community members, such a task force can’t be considered inclusive or consultative. Instead, they can set one up that goes beyond members of council and includes stakeholders.

A good balance might be three councilors, one representative of the Kamloops Voters Society (as the sponsor of the counter petition), one from the Kamloops Central Business Association, one from an environmental group and one citizen at large.

The terms of reference should go beyond parkade sites to include a holistic strategy for reducing the need for cars in the downtown core.

But here’s the key — rescind the Lorne Street borrowing bylaw and direct that the task force be set up as the first orders of business today; then and only then have the report on the counter-petition results read. After all, at this point the numbers are a technicality; the undeniable fact is that this is an unpopular project.

Wouldn’t that be a fine piece of leadership?

The second opportunity is up to the voters of Kamloops. There have been many negative comments about some of the mayoral candidates since nominations closed last Friday.

In my own initial response, I suggested that Brian Alexander might not be a particularly appealing candidate for mayor, and that Gordon Chow isn’t a serious contender.

I’ve also heard it said that the lineup for councillor seats isn’t inspiring, either.

It’s true that the past records of candidates are an important part of the consideration when people vote. It’s of note what they’ve accomplished, what they’ve done and what they’ve said a year ago, three months ago, and last week.

But we also need to listen to what they’ve got to tell us between now and Nov. 19. They’ve come forward because they feel they have something to offer our community, to assure that we have a choice.

I’ve always believed that the “characters” who sometimes run for office are an affirmation that we are a true democracy, that anyone can grow up to be prime minister, or premier or mayor.

A small part of me forgot that when I was putting together my thoughts for Saturday’s column. If we give the candidates, all of them, a fair chance to be heard, minus snap judgments, we respect the system and do justice to our city and to ourselves.