Change or status quo.
So many disputes, across all aspects of society, boil down to that dichotomy. The pragmatists try to find a middle-of-the-road solution, a progressive conservatism to borrow a phrase and a party name from another era.
Sometimes, however, there is no middle ground to be had and such was the case with the plan by CIF Construction and Timber West to relocate to another property along Otway Road. They want to change to grow their business. Many of the area neighbours, including the ones on the other side of the Nechako River, would prefer the status quo and to leave things as they are.
In a 5-3 decision Wednesday night, after three decisions and nearly 11 hours of emotional and, at times, acrimonious public input, city council opted for change. Mayor Lyn Hall, along with councillors Garth Frizzell, Susan Scott, Albert Koehler and Terri McConnachie, supported the rezoning application, while councillors Brian Skakun, Murry Krause and Jillian Merrick voted in opposition. Coun. Frank Everitt was not present and a split vote would have defeated the application.
Those in favour of change in general and this development in particular will call it progress because that's how they frame their belief. Viewed through that lens, change is always a step forward, a move up and life only gets better each time change occurs. Anyone who disagrees with this relentless march towards a glorious future is dismissed for their irrational fear of the unknown and their illogical adherence to tradition. They just don't get it.
Meanwhile, those in favour of the status quo and rejecting this development tout their own version of progress, one that promotes environmental conservation and preservation, protecting vulnerable land and water, semi-rural neighbourhood values and the rights of individual property owners. Anyone who agrees with endless development at the expense of the environment and area residents is dismissed for their irrational faith in business as usual and their illogical adherence to growth and development. They just don't get it.
In other words, they aren't even speaking the same language to each other.
Both claim the mantle of progress for themselves but with dramatically different outlooks. Both claim their opponents pose a threat to society as a whole with their defiance to progress.
Both use labels for themselves and those with the nerve to disagree.
In this case, opponents of the status quo are greedy industrialists who don't care about the environment or their neighbours and only care about power and profit. Meanwhile, supporters of the development are trying to encourage new industry, new jobs and increased affluence, not only for themselves but for the whole community.
Opponents of change are selfish rich people living on their fancy rural acreages who don't want anyone making a living anywhere in their immediate vicinity. Meanwhille, supporters of the current zoning are trying to protect the area not only for themselves but for the whole community, now and in the future.
After 11 hours of public hearings, there is no question mayor and council understood the nuances of those perspectives. Based on their comments, those who voted in favour were sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbours and were not 100 per cent convinced of the merits of the proposed development. Based on their comments, those who voted against were sympathetic to the ambitions of local businesses and were not 100 per cent convinced of the merits of the concerns of the neighbours.
Their votes, however, are not weighted. They listened and then they decided, one way or the other.
And, in this case, their decision was the right one and for the narrowest of reasons.
The proponents offered numerous concessions to accommodate the concerns of their neighbours. Most of those who spoke against the rezoning made no such concessions of their own in an effort to find common ground. Not only did they reject most or all of the conciliatory efforts of the proponents, they tried to cynically frame those efforts as shady manipulation.
The proponents seemed to be consistently working in good faith and were willing to bargain. The opponents less so.
When the matter is complicated and it's hard to tell who's correct, sometimes the King Solomon approach of finding the more sympathetic side of the dispute is the only way to decide.
