for the upcoming RURAL SUMMIT
Rural Summit - "Draft Issues
Paper" was posted on city's website August 12,
View Report: DRAFT
Appendix "A" – "Rural Summit
Consultation Results" - Feedback from Public
Consultation on Rural Summit Issues:
Initial reaction and comment:
Aug 18 -
Committee discusses RURAL SUMMIT - ISSUES PAPER
Aug 18 -
Summit faces high expectations - Sue Sherring - The Ottawa
Aug 17 -
doubt, call a meeting - Kelly Egan - The Ottawa Citizen
Aug 15 -
City staff need rural education,
Jellett says - The Ottawa Citizen
The RCOC Reports
- Feedback from one of our member organizations:
of the Richmond Village Association finds exclusionary statement
The statement in
the DRAFT ISSUES PAPER for the Rural Summit, that,
Summit will not be dealing with issues that City Council has already
decided (for example, the transit levy and the Munster forcemain)",
is hugely offensive to the Richmond Village Association, and must be
deleted for a number of reasons:
REASON # 1:
summer, Harvey Snyder, President of the Richmond Village Association
(RVA), and Paul Treboutat, resident, met with Mayor Bob Chiarelli,
specifically to deal with the city-caused threat to the safety of
Richmond’s shallow-well drinking water source, that the Munster forcemain routing has created.
As an apparent
means of avoiding having to deal with the issue at that time, the
mayor suggested to the two RVA representatives, that, “the matter
be put on the agenda of the Rural Summit” – to be dealt with at the Summit.
The RVA fully expects
that the Mayor's deferment of the issue, to the Summit, will be honoured.
Munster-Richmond forcemain case is a classic example of the city's
misuse of process: to manipulate, contort and abuse that which is in
the public interest. Failure to address past instances of the city
employing deceitful tactics and bad faith practices, will only give
license for it to continue without correction. The city should
welcome the opportunity to justify its past practices or face
certain realities in order to effect improvements in its future
dealings with the public, (rural or otherwise).
The RVA has
every RIGHT to raise the water-source-threat issue at the Rural
Summit. The ‘dirty little pipeline deed’ may seem done, but the risk to the
potable water source, created by the forcemain, HAS JUST BEGUN
–AND WILL BE ON-GOING UNTIL IT IS CORRECTED.
So, does the
issue have current relevance? This
issue will remain current and unresolved until the city either:
on-site treatment plant at Munster and mothballs the forcemain,
forcemain away from Richmond's shallow drinking water source, or,
water to Richmond ---at no capital cost to Richmond residents.
Issues Paper, itself, states in its opening paragraph: "The
issues, agenda and timing will be identified and developed
by Ottawa’s rural citizens..."
One can only interpret from this that the Rural Summit is
intended to be an open, community-based process.
Any right thinking person would also
take this to mean that the rural
citizens of Richmond, indeed, should be permitted to bring
their concerns about
the 'ticking time-bomb'
the city-caused water source threat ...to the Rural Summit table!
Otherwise, the Rural Summit
arguably could be deemed an utter farce, right from this very
This is a
'watershed moment', (pun intended), for the Rural
Summit’s credibility and that of its city conveners. The Issues
Paper must quickly include the Munster forcemain threat
to Richmond's source water as a
front-and-centre issue, lest the Rural Summit be accused of classifying
Citizens of Richmond …as
Rural Council has learned, it appears that the majority of Richmond
residents feel that their anxiety, stress and mistreatment at the
hand of the city over its "public endangerment" of their water
supply, has earned them the right to have their 'effective' status,
as 'non-Ottawa' rural residents, formally realized in the
(Letter sent to City Manager, Kent Kirkpatrick, from Adele Muldoon
of West Carleton, August 18, 2005. Adele was unable to
present this in person, due to another commitment.)
It must be obvious by now that much of the discontent in the rural
areas is the result of decisions taken by council over the last five years.
It is fine to say that a new process will be put in place to help the city
make better decisions in the future, but, if we have to continue to live
with the decisions of the past our present discontent will not go away. For
example, in addition to the issues referred to below we have to reconsider
the reduction of service in our Client service centres to one day a week,
the harmonization of a number of by-laws that do not meet rural needs, the
application of a one size fits all policy in increasing development fees,
business licences and user fees and many other issues that were raised by
residents during the consultation. These were decisions passed by council
that are now city policy and I believed that they were all up for
reconsideration. If not, it appears the decision on what we are going to get
out of the summit has already been made.
Are we wasting taxpayers time and money or can we discuss all issues openly
with the view to correct past errors as well as establishing a new
governance structure that will help us to avoid such errors in the future?