Yesterday I wrote a post about how difficult it has been to get a direct answer to an important question from CBRM Council and CBRM planning: CBRM has repeatedly claimed that they are not able to consider the environment when deciding whether to make a zone change for a development. Is this true? 

It is not true. I used a washing dishes analogy to show this yesterday. Today, I offer the example of the municipality of West Hants, which uses its Municipal Planning Strategy to protect dykelands: "The intent [of the policies] is to prevent the loss of both human and animal lives in the event of flooding, to minimize property damage, and to reduce the risk of pollution of wells and watercourses from manure, on-site sewage disposal systems and hazardous materials."

It cannot be that the good people of West Hants have municipal powers that were denied to CBRM. I do not imply that the dykelands are the same as the Bras d'Or watershed, just that municipalities have the clear authority to consider protecting the environment when making planning decisions.

Moving on to the post that led Councillor Gillespie to block me from his Facebook site (I assume): 

1. Councillor Gillespie posted that he would keep constituents informed about the  proposed Big Pond RV park on his Facebook page.
2. Someone asked the councillor if the environment has been considered in the decision to create a new zone in Big Pond. 
3. Councillor Gillespie replied that looking at the environment comes later in the process. 

This is not accurate. Sure, the Department of Environment will look at whether a waste water treatment plant will meet certain criteria, within a limited sphere, but they will not decide whether there should be one in the first place. Or whether endangered species could be harmed or displaced. Or what the effect of a large-scale development will have on wildlife. Or whether we should preserve wetlands near barachois.  

So I posted this, on Councillor Gillespie's Facebook page: 

And I was almost immediately blocked from Councillor Gillespie's page. 

I consider this a kind of selective-democracy move on Councillor Gillespie's part. 

If a councillor tells us, his constituents, that he is taking it upon himself to keep us updated about an issue, they must do so in good faith. With the facts before us, we can make up our own minds about important issues. But when a councillor presents only one part of a complex story, they lose the trust of the people.

The Department of Municipal Affairs of Nova Scotia published a document that gives advice to new councillors on how to deal with opinions that they may not share: "Not all voters will necessarily agree with your votes on council or the decisions of council as a whole. As an elected official, it is your role to listen and understand these opinions. While you may disagree or feel this is a fringe opinion, remember that you represent all members of the community. They have elected you to serve them and as a result you should do your best to hear the opinions of all community members, not just those who support you. "

So, I await my unblocking, Councillor Gillespie, and I urge you, as I did in my original post that now floats out there in cyber land unread, to do some more research into the jurisdiction of municipalities when it comes to protecting the environment. Let us all agree that we need to know what Council is and is not capable of doing. 

Stay tuned.  The Case of Councillor Gillespie and Big Pond RV park continues next post.