Dear Editor,
John Sbragia (June 5) believes that the implementation of the OCP would “avoid polarization” within the Bowen community. In this, he appears to be supported by Dave Witty (June 12).
I disagree with Messrs Sbragia and Witty. In my view, the OCP’s implementation, especially in an extreme form, will increase polarization, not avoid it. As evidence, recall the sharp - and effective - public reaction in the summer of 2011 to the three ridiculously intrusive bylaws (Envionmentally Sensitive Areas; Steep Slopes; and Watershed, Aquifer and Stream Protection). These were all designed to do exactly what Mr. Sbragia now proposes: implement the OCP.
I realize there are many Bowen residents, including of course some members of the council, who regard the OCP as holy scripture that must be imposed regardless of the reaction it may engender. But again, let’s not pretend that such imposition will “avoid polarization”; it will almost certainly increase it.
Of course no one knows for sure what the magnitude of the polarization would be. This is because we don’t really know the magnitude of the public support for the OCP. This in turn is because the council of the day (08-11) failed to submit the document to voters in a non-binding referendum. This could have been readily and cheaply done at the time of the regular municipal election in November 2011. But the council apparently did not want to subject the OCP to that democratic test. To me, that is a strong indication that the council feared the proposed OCP would be rejected.
On a related topic, I can’t help but comment on Dave Witty’s view that “private land ownership does not trump public good”. This view may be valid sometimes, but too often it’s simply cover for property confiscation that benefits one group within the community for free at the expense of another group. Governments should have, and in fact generally do have, the right to expropriate private property on behalf of the community. Trouble is, expropriation comes with that tiresome requirement to actually pay the owner of the property compensation based on a fair market price set by an independent arbiter. Much better just to invoke the “public interest” and get it all for free. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t find that ethically reassuring. In fact, to me, it smells like public larceny.
Bud Long
