The flood that united us will start to divide us

Some of our best traits emerged these last few weeks in Calgary. So we’d better get ready to be up close and personal with some of our worst.

The best in us was on full display as strangers rallied to help those unfortunate folk whose homes were caught in the flood waters. Meanwhile those same homeowners showed a stoicism and strength that so often arises when life turns dire.

At the same time politicians of all stripes put aside the bickering and showed true leadership and sensitivity when citizens needed it most. But, as they say, that was then and this is now.

For we have a maelstrom brewing in our city that gives every indication of turning into one of the nastiest and most bitter arguments we’re ever likely to witness. Not surprisingly those powerful emotions, fear and greed, are slap bang at the heart of it. Toss in a little jealousy and it’s a recipe for civic savagery.

It is going to be a three-ringed circus — those homeowners caught by flooding, the governments involved and, finally, the rest of us. It is easy to imagine the dismay, confusion and fear among those people who’ve seen their homes badly damaged or destroyed. With insurance covering little of the loss in many cases they face a financial battering. Add to that the fear if they stay and rebuild this whole sorry situation could happen again.

So they look to government for help and guidance. We’re trained to do that these days. Certainly there were politicians a-plenty in the days after the raging rivers crested and the promises of help flowed freely. But reality has a price tag and the limelight has a nasty habit of eventually becoming a spotlight from which there’s no escape.

Stephen Harper knows that this isn’t his scene. Our prime minister isn’t the man of the people sort, so a quick tour of the area, a promise of future cash help and no fake photo ops of him cuddling washed out Calgarians. There’s a reason he’s the top dog of Canadian politics despite having the fulsome personality of a hard-boiled egg.

One man with personality to burn is Mayor Naheed Nenshi who emerged as a national as well as local hero for his undisputed leadership throughout the actual crisis. That goodwill will last well past the next civic election but there’s a time limit on everything and his halo will eventually slip. Being a hero and a serving politician of a city facing tough decisions will eventually prove mutually exclusive. But he’s on easy street when compared to Premier Alison Redford. Those affected know that’s where both the money and the potential blame lies. The province has already opened its purse. The question is for how much and for how long.

Previously ignored flood prevention plans add grist to the mill while confusing multi-coloured maps placing homes in different anointed flood areas serves to confuse and divide those affected. Will people be paid to move? What if they don’t? What if only half of Elbow Park moves out, for example? Will it be the rich man’s version of old Victoria Park where piecemeal derelict homes frustrated the Stampede’s hopes to redevelop for so long?

And, the multibillion dollar question, what happens if it happens again? Those not directly affected have so far been fairly quiet and supportive. But there’s a growing murmur and the politicians hear it.

It goes something like this: “OK, let’s help these folk. Let’s give them money to repair their homes or buy them out. But if they decide to stay then that’s it. If it happens again don’t expect my taxes to pay for the repair of your swanky house on the river when my son is still living in the basement because he can’t afford to rent an apartment in this city.”

It should come down to fairness. But fairness, much more than beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe all this budding nastiness will dissipate. Maybe oil and gas prices will jump so much we can afford to make everyone happy. Maybe Barack Obama will make a real decision on Keystone instead of telling the world how he too could have been racially profiled and shot as a young man instead of being President of the Harvard Law Review.

Then again, maybe it won’t.