Did Councillor Gillespie go rogue? T

The latest in a small series of posts that examines some seemingly odd behavior on the part of Councillor Steve Gillespie around the proposed Big Pond RV park:

1. I  wrote about being blocked from Councillor Gillespie's Facebook page in You Have Been Blocked.
2. I posted the post I wrote that apparently provoked Councillor Gillespie to block me in You Have Been Blocked Part 2. 
3. And I wrote about Councillor Gillespie stating that he may personally benefit in What the Sam Hill!  - or, (I know, but there a few things left to say.)

And now I write about what what is that was the crux of my ethics complaint about Councillor Gillespie's actvities and statements around the proposed Big Pond RV park: What I will call the The ignore-the-Utility-and-Review-Board-and-if-necessary-the-Nova-Scotia-Court-of Appeal move. 

I have written before about a local business person who has posted on his Facebook page that he is working with others to promote the proposed RV park in Big Pond: It seems to be a rules-smules, law-smaw, kind of campaign. (And to be fair, I have no idea if it continues.) 

And I quote from the local business person's post;

“In the meantime I have looked into the by-laws, development laws, etc. and from what I can gather, the UARB are only involved because, according to them, the CBRM are essentially breaking their own rules. So the CBRM merely needs to agree to change a few of those "rules", then Mr. Skidmore re-applies and the UARB becomes irrelevant. I know there are councilors these updates. I would be happy to have some input from you. There will be more updates the first of the week. Thanks”

A friend pointed out this post to me, knowing I am concerned about this potential development, and wanted me to know that there was seemingly a plot afoot to ignore the legal process, whatever its eventual conclusion.

This struck me as odd: After all, the planning restrictions that are on the books at the CBRM, like you can't put a campground just anywhere in rural CBRM, but must choose a place where people can be reasonably protected from its impacts are rooted in other laws, like the right to the reasonable enjoyment of one's property. ( I am not a lawyer, but this seems to be the case.) 

A local business person working toward influencing CBRM to change its laws to allow a development where the UARB has ruled that some people cannot be reasonably protected from its impacts seems strange to me - I think that reasonable limits on development are necessary for Cape Breton, its main attraction being its unspoiled nature, to thrive. 

But when I saw that Councillor Gillespie had thrown his support in with said business person's efforts, typing  -"I'm in"; I immediately thought "This is not ethical." 

Why? 

I have put together a graphic: 

So, Mayor Clarke has informed me that my complaint re Councillor Gillespie's ethics around the proposed new zone in Big Pond have no merit: No policies or laws or rules have been offended. But still I encourage Councillor Gillespie to think about how it looks to a citizen who agrees with the UARB ruling - that he supports a group that seeks to change the rules of the games. 

What would be the point of going through the process of a UARB appeal - the only check on the CBRM's planning decisions, if Council would seek to ignore its ruling? Or the ruling of the higher court? 

And I think that all people who live in CBRM should want our Councillors to listen, be informed, and follow the rules as they are laid out. 

Again, I do not mean to hound Councillor Gillespie, but I think that we must demand more accountablility and transparency from our local government.