I was told by a friend who is very connected and politically astute that some people perceive my efforts to get more information out to voters on the Crystal Pool referendum as putting me in the “No” camp.
Wrong.
I am not in the “No” camp.
I’ve been very clear about the benefits of having pools and rec centres – swimming lessons for kids, health benefits for adults, having third spaces – especially for people in our rapidly growing, densifying, sustainable neighbourhoods. And much more. Recreation is community-building, and recreation spending is community spending.
My effort to get more information out to voters is just that – getting information out.
I initially put out this information on my blog and in social media because it was scarce to non-existent in the public discussion on CP. Recall that the two things I wanted to clarify are:
- The full costs of CP and, based on Council behaviour to date, that the costs are likely to be covered by City spending cuts – likely including cuts to community spending – rather than by tax increases.
- The fact that if the referendum fails, Council can and likely will direct staff to look at other alternatives in order to ensure we have some sort of pool and rec centre. As Mayor Alto puts it, we will go “back to the drawing board.”
See for yourself, here and here.
Because my communications have limited reach, I tried to amend the motion at last week’s Committee of the Whole to remove its pointless and harmful political sloganeering, and instead ask staff to provide the information, e.g. by adding it to the City website. See for yourself, here.
(I lost the amendment vote, and I voted against the original motion and I’m glad the original failed 7-2.)
Back to the main point – have I taken a side in the Yes/No debate?
No. I have not.
Will I take a side? It’s possible.
What would persuade me? I would provide full-throated support for CP-Yes if I had solid reassurance that CP costs would not result in layoffs or cuts to the City’s community spending eg. housing and homelessness; climate action; sidewalks, crosswalks and bike/roll lanes; the arts; etc.
What would such reassurance look like? I don’t get to decide that; it’s up to others on Council. So surprise me! Maybe it looks like Council members making a *solid* commitment not to cut other areas of community spending in coming years. Or making a *solid* commitment to agreeing to support tax increases that are higher than in recent years – higher by the amount of the CP costs (which could be labelled as a separate Recreation Levy?). Maybe both. Or maybe something else. As I said, surprise me!
(By the way, as everyone knows, it can be exhausting fending off straw-man arguments – where people attempt put their words in your mouth and then attack you for those words. Related point: if someone is telling you that I am in the “No” camp, then you are being misled by that person. Talk to me directly instead. And my advice is to ignore that person in future, for obvious reasons.)