What’s the difference?

Sometimes Mr Daniels sends us his letters to council or articles on town issues such as the MPS and LUB review. This letter, which was circulated some time ago to the members of one of the neighbourhood groups, was sent us by one of our readers. We set it aside at the time but since there is a meeting Wednesday July 2 at which the MPS and the LUB will probably be rubber stamped approved we were reminded of it and and dug it out of our archives to give it some attention. Here’s his letter:

Dear Mr. Wrye:

If I heard and recall correctly, at the end of the June 23rd PAC meeting, in response to my question of whether the forthcoming Draft 4 of MPS will show in the text itself additions and deletions from Draft 3, the response from Karen Dempsey and Gregg Morrison was “no”, that Draft 4 would be a “clean copy”. I’m afraid I could not hear if any reasons were given why Draft 4 would be “clean.”

I was surprised to hear that the new Draft 4 was not being, what I refer to as, “redlined”, that is, deletions and additions from the prior draft shown by brackets [ ] , or shading, cross out or other methods in the new text.

I was “surprised” because:

I recall you (during the Sustainability Task Force review) and others specifically requesting that new drafts of the planning documents be “redlined”;

Draft 3 is redlined;

my experience, albeit in New York State, is that it is standard practice when drafting bylaws and planning documents that will be reviewed in multiple versions that each new version shows the changes from the prior version; redlining makes it much easier to review the new version of a document; and word processing programmes, again in my experience, make redlining easy to accomplish; it takes less time than to type separate pages enumerating the changes.

I hope that the Planning Staff will be requested that in the future documents which are subject to multiple versions which will be reviewed by the public be “redlined” whenever possible.


David A. Daniels

As often is the case Mr. Daniels makes a good point. Why wouldn’t the Town do this? Why is it trying to make it difficult for people to understand what the changes are from the first to the final draft? We can imagine.

The changes from the present documents and the drafts are substantial. Here is the MPS as it stands now. Now take a peek at the draft MPS . 10 pages longer for a start and lots about “sustainability” as you will have guessed. Then take a look at the LUB as it is now here and the draft here.

We noted this in the “acknowledgements” in the draft MPS –

The extensive review of Wolfville’s Municipal Planning Strategy was made possible by the financial support offered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Fund and the Province of Nova Scotia, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. Both the Wolfville Sustainability Initiative (WSI) and the Centre for Rural Sustainability (CRS) were instrumental in obtaining funding for the plan review project and integral to the two and a half year review process. Specifically CRS conducted the community circles as a means of engaging Wolfville residents in the review process at the very beginning of the project and they were also retained to conduct the household survey component of the review process. Analysis of the Community Vitality Survey will aid in the development of community health indicators. Only through the support and participation of Council, staff, management, residents and business owners was this extensive plan review process possible and the development of a new Municipal Planning Strategy realized.

We don’t think business owners or even residents had much to do with these monstrosities. The Centre for Rural Sustainability had a huge hand in it. We note their website has not been updated since December 2007. Can we hope this heralds the demise of this very political organization which lists the Wolfville Sustainability Initiative as its project? The CRS Board has a nice close family feeling. One of these Board members spoke very eloquently about the need to eliminate R1, if we remember correctly, at the massively attended meeting at the Irving Centre auditorium. He is on the Planning Services Planning Advisory Committee. Another member of the CRS Board is on the Sustainability Task Force natch.

The sad thing is, the new Council which disgruntled residents will be voting in will be stuck with these documents. Embedded in them are statements about climate change and global warming which will be an embarrassment in years to come.


Comments are closed.