Abuse of power or judicious lawmaking? That's the debate arising out of Mayor Dan Rogers's decree to rescind the decision to fund a new arena rather than renovate the existing Kin 1 in anticipation of the 2015 BC Winter Games.
Just when the community believed the matter over and done with - leaving user groups celebrating and opposing taxpayers crying - the mayor pulls out a rare rule to rehash it all over again for a third time, saying there were a number problems with the process.
There's a reason mayors rarely use this prerogative: it's politically dicey. Even people who don't care about the debate raise eyebrows when a politician uses such heavy-handed interference to make an issue go his way. It reeks of manipulation.
And in this case, we're pretty sure if the vote had gone against the new arena, as Rogers would have it, he wouldn't be bringing up his complaints.
But as it is, Rogers said his reasons for the re-re-review are threefold: first is "confusion" - pointing out that people are wrongly calling this proposed new arena "Kin 4" rather than a "stand-alone."
To say councillors need to debate this all over again because folks are not clear on the arena's design smells suspiciously like a straw man.
It's obvious the actual structure - attached or detached - is not topmost on people's minds. Those in favour want another facility. Those against don't want to spend money. It's that simple.
He says people also don't get the new arena's "potential impact on other city projects and priorities." If that's true, who's fault is it?
After months of debate, several appeals from each side of the argument and a consultant's analysis, why has this supposed doom and gloom scenario not come up?
Besides, when the people's representatives vote for something, that's supposed to trigger a change in priorities. That's the whole point of electing people to govern.
Another sticking point for Rogers is that the normal procedure for such a large decision is to "do an analysis, prepare a business case," and this hadn't happened.
So why was the issue even up for a council vote if these necessary pre-conditions for a new arena weren't done?
Sure the staff recommendation went against a new facility, but that doesn't absolve them from researching and reporting on the option.
In the end, when it comes time to vote, the real question should be whether the decision is based on a full understanding of the community.
Even though the timing of the vote and staff opposition stacked the deck against a new arena, five councillors still voted for what they believed to be the people's will. Doesn't that count for something?
When it comes to decisions the mayor doesn't agree with, apparently not.
-- Prince George Citizen
