The motion to get money out of politics arrived Monday night; two elections late and three-and-a-half years early. We offer kudos to Coun. Jim Hanson for suggesting councillors offer an inside view of their campaign chest before approving a development that could enrich the developers who stuffed that chest. But that democratic idea was immediately twisted into the undemocratic notion councillors be urged to recuse themselves from those decisions.
Coun. Mathew Bond asked if his colleagues who took campaign cash from Hanson might recuse themselves from voting on Hanson’s motion. No one took that idea seriously because, on some level, they agreed we can’t ask councillors who abided by the rules to abdicate the job they were elected to do.
To be fair to Hanson, developers are generally driven by their own financial interests. But there are so many other ways a politician can be beholden. Winning a neighbourhood group’s endorsement can mean anything said to constitute neighbourhood character – whether a park or a parking lot – becomes more important than the wider community.
When council resumes Monday’s debate, we hope they consider implementing changes when the next council is sworn in in 2022. Because whatever you think of the philosophical merits of Hanson’s motion, it is the legislative equivalent of dropping an ice cube on a glacier.
Residents opposed to development currently have something far better than any bylaws: five councillors staunchly committed to slow, slow growth. It would be wonderful to take money out of politics. But even better would be to insert a little more common sense.
What are your thoughts? Send us a letter via email by clicking here or post a comment below.
