Dear editor,
I'm not sure that four years terms for local government are a good thing for democracy.
There are certainly many indicators of disconnects between the rate payers and their elected representatives in the Comox Valley.
How does the ongoing Maple Pool Campsite issue reflect the will of the people? It seems to reflect the will of the administration.
How will four-year terms improve this approach to problem-solving?
Recently, the CVRD hosted a public session for ratepayers to ask questions on budgets. Only two residents attended.
CVRD budgets impact on many of the 65,000 Comox Valley residents. Why was there no interest?
With this level of apathy, administrations could see this as a mandate for increased growth of spending in the next four-year term.
The rural roadside garbage /recycling referendum was another indictor of disconnect between the administration/directors/voters.
Polling by the administration indicated overwhelming support, but rural residents voted 74 per cent against the service.
How will a four-year term address this disconnect?
Now it seems that referendums will be replaced with Alternate Approval Process. Is democracy eroding?
Interesting that some Area D (Oyster River North) residents are forming a ratepayer association. Although they appear satisfied with their elected representative, they want more open, frequent communication between their elected representative and residents.
Although Area D residents have seen minimal or flat tax increases, they want fair services for a fair tax burden-lower taxes.
It seems that democracy will survive in Area D, thanks to interested residents, and with credit to their elected representative.
Area D residents are trying to make democracy work. If they are successful, the four-year term could be beneficial.
Will this be the case in the Comox Valley?
Phil Harrison,
Comox