After reading about the latest chapter in the transportation saga, I was left not only saddened by what I see as continued political gamesmanship but also dismayed by Coun. Patrick Wilson’s decision to remain in the August council meeting. He also did not refuse to comment on the topic of public transit to the paper after the meeting. It is unclear whether he will vote on the matter in the upcoming September meeting. The debate over transit has been active for more than 10 years with various mayors, councillors and candidates making, or losing, their political careers on this very topic. Cochrane has in the past very clearly stated that they were not in favor of a transit system but in the last election the public seemed to acknowledge that eventually Cochrane would benefit from some form of public transit and that the current secured GreenTRIP and Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) sources of funding are a unique opportunity to make public transit a reality. I will agree that there are some legitimate concerns about public transit. For example, is Cochrane ready for transit? Will the cost will be too much? Are we attempting to spend outside of our means? What will be the cost for such a service? Any increases in property taxes always need careful consideration. I question the wisdom of those who appear to have made up their minds about public transit before the full economic facts are known, especially when many of these answers will be available prior to the actual vote to proceed. I have always argued that methodical planning based on fact, not conjecture and misinformation is needed for decisions regarding public transit. I believe that previous mayors and/or Town councillors have missed many opportunities to prepare for the inevitable inclusion of some form of public transit. I personally find it inexcusable that basic planning for transit was not included in the approval of previous housing developments. If this planning had taken place, we would now be benefiting from this long term approach to planning vs. continued divisive debates. The current committee examining public transit should have been formed years ago. This committee’s mandate should have included the following: • Strategies to encourage and plan for alternative funding options and/or the availability of provincial funding • infrastructure vs. town growth specifically relating to public transit • A clear set of conditions under which Cochrane would vote to proceed with public Transit • Various options for public transit • Opportunities for public engagement throughout this process. This could have included the public plebiscite that is now being championed by Coun. Reed – a delay that would likely jeopardize the current GreenTRIP and MSI funding. However, in the debate over public transit, there is now a valuable opportunity to close a policy loophole that I would say is long overdue – a clear and concise policy on conflict of interest. I believe Coun. Wilson’s livelihood as a taxi driver is in direct conflict with his role as councillor regarding public transit. I do not feel that someone’s stated good will for the community is sufficient to allow them to attend a meeting, comment on, debate and/or vote on a topic when a clear personal interest exists. Coun. Wilson’s situation is not unique to council chambers. In the past, councillors have taken campaign donations from builders and then voted in favor of that same builder’s housing development. There is also a longer history of this town having elected mayors whose intentions to build were well stated and ties to their previous positions in the construction industry were oddly opaque, understated or ignored. I’m hoping that this council how has the political will to make clear and concise conflict of interest policy to avoid similar situations in the future. In a time where democratic freedoms are progressively under threat, should we not strive to do better?! Dan Cunin
