A response to the TJ’s opinion on PlanSJ

Last week the Telegraph-Journal printed the following opinion on PlanSJ:

Council knows public’s priorities
There are a number of ways one could interpret the rush of applications to serve on Saint John’s municipal planning committee.

Clearly, many citizens want to have their say in how the city will develop over the next 25 years. The question is, how much of the interest stems from the perception that council is not achieving enough progress on the city’s priorities?

This year and next, council will invest approximately $1 million on devising a new municipal plan. Such a plan is badly needed, since the city’s zoning and development strategy hasn’t been overhauled since the 1970s. But the magnitude of the investment is disappointing in a city where basic services such as reliable drinking water, well-paved streets and recreation facilities require significant capital investment.

Does City Hall really need a new storefront office to communicate with the public about planning issues? Does council really need an elaborate process to understand what residents want in terms of facilities and community development?

If so, there’s something wrong.

Citizens have been telling councillors what their priorities are since before the last municipal election. Veteran council members, such as Mayor Ivan Court, Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase, Chris Titus, Bill Farren and Peter McGuire, have heard the same concerns raised year after year. New councillors don’t have the same depth of experience, but they must be noticing certain common threads in the conversations they have with their constituents.

Council members should not need to muse about what kind of city people want to live in. One where the water is treated to national standards, and people can drive on the roads without losing hubcaps, bending struts or wrecking their cars. A place where their children can play hockey and soccer and baseball, and not need to walk in the street in winter because the sidewalks are impassable. A city where rainfall is collected and diverted before it floods streets and houses; where phone calls to municipal departments are answered or returned; a city whose administration is focused on improvement and which tracks quality control because it is proud to serve a public of neighbours.

Perhaps council should spend $1 million more on these priorities, which it already knows about and has made a public commitment to, and direct the city’s planning department to handle planning issues at a minimum of additional expense.

Today, local artist Sarah Jones had a great response printed:

PlanSJ seems like dynamic initiative

Sure, everybody wants clean water and passable roads, but these demands do not amount to a sound, effective or long-term urban plan. Contrary to what you suggest in your editorial, it is not necessary to sacrifice a long-term plan for short-term necessities.

And when your newspaper calls so frequently for governmental transparency and public consultation, I find this editorial critique of PlanSJ odd. After meeting the Citizens Advisory Group, attending the launch last week and checking out the great storefront in Brunswick Square, PlanSJ strikes me as one of the most dynamic initiatives and extensive community engagement projects we have seen in this city. Too bad you can’t see past the potholes.

SARAH JONES

Saint John

If we have all learned one thing from the recent NB Power controversy, it’s that citizens want to be engaged from day one. They want to have their thoughts and opinions heard.

PlanSJ is a process that will ensure the people in this city have a voice in the new municipal plan.

I believe in this process.

Join in the conversation on Saint John’s Municipal Plan online using: Twitter (via the hashtag #plansj) or the Facebook Group!