Councillor Must Stand Up For Neighbourhood

(March 04) - Politicians are supposed to be political. It’s what they do. People expect it of them. When they stop arguing for the things they care about, they have to explain themselves. Otherwise, the people who supported them become confused. Like now with June Hofland’s sudden declaration of a conflict of interest with regard to decisions about redevelopment of the former Lafarge land.

The city councillor has declared that she has a “pecuniary interest” in the decision. She has a home in the neighbourhood. The development will affect her property values, she says. Therefore she can have nothing to do with debating it or voting on it.

Pardon the expression, but what a load of hooey. Think about it. Everyone who sits on city council must either own or rent property in Guelph. It’s a basic requirement of the job. Everything they do, every decision they make, affects their property value. They could slash the operating budget by canceling weekly garbage collection. Send the trucks around once a month instead. Taxes would plummet. So would property values. No one but the most ardent libertarian would want to live here.

If a tax-cutter from the lunatic fringe went to council and seriously proposed this, would all thirteen of them have to declare a conflict of interest? If they argued against it, would they be driven by a pecuniary interest to protect the value of their homes? To a degree, they would be. So what? They should be. In defending the value of their own homes, they also defend the value of their community. Not just the financial value, but also the social value. Everyone benefits when wisdom prevails.

Hofland is not the only one with property in the neighbourhood. She’s not the only one worried about the big boxing of residential communities. When she ran for election in 2006, she won largely because of her activity on the Lafarge file. She was President of the Howitt Park Neighbourhood Residents’ Association. She trounced a long-standing councilor who was widely perceived to be too sympathetic to the big boxers.

Now she says people think she is “leading the charge against the development.” Well, well. Isn’t that a surprise. She was leading the charge before November 2006, she was elected because of it and she shouldn’t stop now. Hofland is an intelligent, passionate and articulate believer in the need for wise planning. She argues for decisions that improve the economic, social and environmental health of her community. It’s too late to turn back now. It sends the wrong message that community activism is motivated by narrow self-interest rather than an understanding of the bigger picture and the wider implications of what we do.

Hofland says she sought advice from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. They weren’t sure, so she went to her lawyer. He did what most lawyers would do. He told her to be careful. She took being careful to mean stepping aside. Stepping aside means another wet blanket can douse the fires of political passion. The blandification of our city is moving relentlessly from the shape of our neighbourhoods to the shape of our government. They are two sides of the developers’ coin..

I think the people of Ward 3 want Hofland to continue leading this charge. They expect it of her, just as we expect all politicians to do the things we elect them to do. It’s not just Ward 3 either. It affects the entire city. If and when Costco and its friends land on Silvercreek Parkway, the temperature won’t just rise in the Howitt Park neighbourhood. The rest of the city will go up with it. We will be frogs in a pot, not noticing the gradual changes until it’s too late to jump out.

Hofland is one of the people who try to keep us out of the pot in the first place. We cannot allow her to be silenced. We need her to hang in there, doing what she has always done. I hope you will all help convince her to reconsider. Get her e-mail address or phone number from the city web site and contact her. Speak to her colleagues on council and ask them to talk some sense into her. Tell them all there is no conflict of interest when a community member defends community.