Sunday, November 15, 2009

Victoria alone makes Beacon Hill a heritage site

Victoria councilors agreed to designate Beacon Hill Park as a heritage site. No input was obtained by the majority of the region’s population.

Victoria of course does not have to consult, ask or even follow the direction of the majority of the region. It can do what it likes regardless of the fact that it is controlling an assets used and which benefits the entire region.

It may be that they are doing the right thing, if so that is lucky. The problem is that Beacon Hill, the inner harbour, the Blue Bridge, the Blackball Ferry terminal, and so many other key components of downtown are not areas in which only Victoria’s have an interest. These are key components of the entire city and it is wrong and unfair to allow a minority to dictate what will happen to them.

The region is entitled to input and control over these regional assets and that will only occur in an amalgamated city. The situation right now is grossly unfair. Obviously with control comes responsibility which the region should readily embrace. Better planning will come from the input of the entire region. Without question, an amalgamated city would have a better chance of getting the top people into office who could spend the time and effort to make the best decisions while considering the interests of the entire region.


Anonymous said...

An amalgamated city would encourage the best to run?? I think a lot of your arguments are weak but that one is ludicrous. In the smaller communities especially the Councils are made up of people who are there to serve there community for little in return. In a large amalgamated city you would have "professional politicians" who would view it as a job and not necessarily have the interests of the community at heart.
There is no doubt that many things in Greater Victoria could be better but many are already wonderful!!

James Legh said...

Thank you for your comments.

I actually have a lot more in the way of arguments, however my objective with this blog is to comment on current news items, as there are frequently points that come up which I feel would be better managed by an amalgamated city.

I agree that some of them are weak, but the reality is there are so many, that huge number of problems start to speak volumes.

Regarding your comment that; an amalgamated city "would encourage the best to run." That is not what I said. Nor is that the point I was making, so thank you for allowing me to clarify.

In an amalgamated city, instead of having 91 people running our area we might have say, 30. I then hope that the best people of those running would be elected. Likely from the same pool of people we have now. It would mean that there would unlikely be acclamations as occur now. (i.e.: View Royal, Saanich Mayor etc.)

It would mean that the electorate could select the best candidates out of the 91 (or obviously more, given the numbers who run). These people would then run the city (or cities).

I appreciate that we will end up with more "professional" politicians. I agree that money and advertising etc may become more of an issue.

However, I do believe that people dedicated to the profession will, on the whole, do a better job than those who do it part time with other issues to distract them.