by Michael Matthews When I arrived here in January, I immediately became aware of the issue of the new Powell River Public Library. Not only was it the subject of heated correspondence in the pages of the Peak, but every time I went into town I was beseeched to “Save Willingdon Beach.” I do confess to being a little puzzled by this, because when I went to examine what would be lost it seemed to be no more than a rather unappealing patch of gravel.
The picture portrayed was the familiar one of bureaucrats not listening to their community before spending large amounts of non-existent money to build an unnecessary and unwanted project in the wrong location. Just what we expect from the faceless “them.”
However, before adding my voice to the critical chorus, I took the precautionary step of looking up “New Powell River Library” on Google. To my surprise this revealed a wealth of research, planning and consultation documents going back to 2009 which described a process that, to all appearances, has been thorough, effective and democratic. Among the many reports, I found a detailed needs assessment, a funding strategy, site selection criteria and a full account of the process used to select the site.
As a newcomer, I have no worthwhile opinion on the merits of a new library, or its location. However, I do have a strong opinion on the working of representative democracy. It is the responsibility of the elected representatives to inform themselves of the technical factors involved in a decision (to a greater degree than is possible for the ordinary individual), to sound out local opinion, and to ensure financial viability. Then they must take a decision. As far as I can judge, City of Powell River council has fulfilled all of these responsibilities. Our system requires a level of trust in our representatives that they will take well-considered decisions in what they believe to be the best interest of the community. If they fail to do so, they are held to account at the next election.
No project is ever without a downside and it is always easier to find a basis for opposition than it is to propose an alternative that satisfies everybody. Add to this the unpalatable, but very real, truth that not everybody can or wants to take the time to inform themselves properly about each issue, and a negative campaign always has an inbuilt advantage.
I don’t know whether, in the last Powell River election, any candidates stood on a platform of opposition to the library project. If they did, then presumably they were not elected in sufficient numbers to get the policy changed; if they did not, then the opponents of the library passed up their opportunity to put their viewpoint before the electorate. Our system allocates decision-making authority to those with the most votes, not the loudest voices, and unless and until that system is changed we must allow it to function as intended.
Michael Matthews lives in Okeover and famously wrote an article published in the Globe and Mail, “How we ended up retiring in rural British Columbia.”
