I recently attended one of the consultation sessions held by the Oak Bay United church inviting input on their development.
The church’s consultation meetings were intended to gain input from those living nearby who will be directly affected by the project. However, others who actively participated in the discussions included people living some distance away, congregation members (some from further away), members of the consulting team, and even members of the municipality’s advisory planning commission and advisory design panel.
The way feedback was recorded will make it difficult, if not impossible to distinguish comments originating from neighbours or from others. Every idea was given equal weight, whether one person or several supported it. The discussion had no depth, there was no identification of trade-offs or priorities (what is more or less important). There was no overall summary or consensus sought or developed from the entire group. consequently, the consultation was flawed and compromised. The church has said it is trying to improve its public engagement process. It needs to try harder.
My feeling is that the neighbourhood is not opposed to the provision of affordable housing – something that is much needed. However, whatever is built should complement the community already here.
I am wondering why this process has to be so rushed. At my session, each table had only 50 minutes total to discuss four questions, none of which the participants had seen before. Now they tell us that they will be bringing back design concepts in December – this is just before the holiday season when people are so busy.
Barbara Lamb
Oak Bay