When you consider what it’s like to be a municipal council member, you realize quite quickly that this isn’t a role for the faint of heart. It’s a tough and unforgiving position. Most “simple” decisions are actually quite complex, and at any given time there’s going to be people out there who think you’re an idiot.
I know this firsthand, having spent my time at that council table, first as councillor and then as mayor. I’ve sometimes wondered whether public service should be mandatory for everyone in the community at some point, so that perhaps we could all experience what a challenge this can be.
Niverville’s council faced a particularly great challenge this week with the public hearings in regards to a cannabis store.
In a brief and unusual glimmer of intelligence on social media, I actually saw someone correctly point out that council couldn’t have made a decision that would have pleased the collective masses. Kudos to the person who made this comment, because it reminded me of two phone calls I took one day during my tenure on council. The first gentleman informed me that we were wasting his tax dollars on the mowing of ditches. The second informed me that we were setting a poor first impression for visitors by not mowing the grass all the way to Highway 59.
Why was I reminded of this? Perhaps the similarities go beyond the fact that both the past and present story deal with grass.
While recent articles and commentaries have enlightened the masses about what happened at that July 23 council meeting, people’s confusion about the role of council is a bit silly. It’s silly that in this day and age we still have public notices written in legalese, when what the public really needs are notices written in plain language.
And it’s downright foolish for members of the public not to take the time to educate themselves on how their government works. Heck, when I get my insurance renewal, I’m often confused by the listings of coverages and exclusions, so I get in contact with my broker and have it explained to me. That’s not wisdom; that’s just basic prudency.
Yes, the rules around municipal zoning make for a complex piece of legislation, but it boils down to a pretty straightforward principle: making sure that the use of a particular title is in sync with the neighbourhood and community at large. So either a property’s use is permitted, conditional, or not allowed. If the use is permitted, no hearing is required. If the use isn’t allowed, then a variation or rezoning is required.
The whole idea behind the idea of conditional use was to recognize that sometimes it’s okay to go outside the precisely allowed use of a property. Sometimes it’s not. And often it’s okay as long as certain conditions and modifications are met.
Applying for a conditional use isn’t a yes-or-no process, by design. Council has the ability to consider a large number of factors in making their decision, including whether the best interests of the community will be met. They don’t just consider the points of view of the few people who attend the hearing; they have to consider the entire community.
Viewing this as a pro- or anti-marijuana debate is oversimplifying it, and it’s just plain foolish. To do so is foolish for a member of the public and foolish for a member of council.
We live in a confederation where, unlike our neighbour to the south, areas of responsibility aren’t delegated by geography but rather through levels of government. Our federal leaders have deemed this substance saleable, just as they have tobacco and liquor. They have delegated controls and legislation to the provinces, who have in turn passed on local responsibility to municipal authorities.
It’s not now the role of a municipal council to determine whether the feds have made the right choice; that role belongs to the people, who will decide shortly if our current federal leaders deserve another mandate. But it is the municipal council’s role to scrutinize each proposal brought to them and determine if all appropriate measures within the sphere of their responsibility have been put in place.
Simply put, the proponent of this conditional use application failed to answer some valid concerns. Were I still sitting at that council table for a conditional use hearing, be it for a home daycare or marijuana dispensary, if the applicant couldn’t address my concerns then the use would not be passed. period. That is the duty of council.
I say this as someone who has previously written in support of legalization. I’m hopeful that despite the missteps of government in implementation, legalized sales will result in less money funnelling into the hands of black market dealers, just as government-controlled liquor virtually eliminated the backyard booze stills of the past. I don’t believe it will happen in the near future, but this is the first step in the process.
Council fulfilled their role this time around, and at this point I’ll trust that they made their decision for the appropriate reasons within their scope of responsibility. And I trust that the community can accept it.
Until the next proposal comes forward. Because it will come, and may we all be better prepared.
