Transparency has two sides, just look at Beaconsfield

The big buzzword in municipal politics these days is “transparency.”

And that’s great, when councils want to be transparent. The problem, of course, is when they don’t.

Let’s take Beaconsfield as an example.

In April, Beaconsfield council presented a notice of motion for a zoning change that would allow electronic billboards on Beaurepaire Drive near its public works building on the south side of Highway 20.

This being Beaconsfield, there was immediate reaction. Emails between residents and members of council started being sent back and forth. Many residents, especially in the immediate vicinity of the proposed billboard site, near the corner of Beaurepaire Drive and City Lane, are against the idea. And who can blame them. Would you like to live next to an electronic billboard that would be programmed to splash advertisements in bright lights at 10-second intervals 24 hours a day next to your house?

But there is a trade-off. The venture would create a revenue for the city. The estimates would see about $300,000 in cash generated every year for the next 10 years. Not bad if you live in a trailer park. But Beaconsfield is no trailer park.

So there is every expectation that the issue will be settled at a public consultation meeting next week. Residents have been invited to city hall to learn about the details of the proposed deal and voice their support or opposition to the plan.

The meeting is an opportunity for residents to ask as many questions about the plan as they would like, according to Mayor Georges Bourelle.

The members of council appear to be keeping an open mind about the proposal. And it would be my guess that when all is said and done, this proposal will be rejected.

It has been an exercise in transparency. Let’s review what has happened:

An interested party, namely the unnamed billboard company, had an idea. Municipal bureaucrats had a few back-and-forth sessions with the firm. Council has proposed a notice of motion to change the zoning. The public will be consulted. Council will then take the residents’ views into consideration. And a decision will be taken.

So why is this all happening so quickly and so smoothly?

The quick answer is because no one in Beaconsfield really wants this to happen.

Now, let’s contrast this procedure with another one: a proposal to build a sound wall along the same stretch of highway.

Changes to that stretch of Highway 20 were proposed more than 20 years ago. The highway was reconstructed and the posted speed limit increased. The noise from it and the increase in traffic that has been realized in the intervening years has led to a call for a sound barrier. But what has the city really done to deal with this request?

Have there been any backand-forth sessions with all stakeholders to see what could be done? How actively has council pursued this dossier? Have the options been explored? Figures, grants, cost estimates been crunched? What about follow-ups to contraventions to sound-level tolerances? Public consultations?

What little has been done has been forced upon the town by a tenacious campaign by a small group of residents. How come this dossier has not progressed smoothly and quickly?

Perhaps the answer has something to do with the fact that, in this case, some people in Beaconsfield actually want something done.

How transparent is that?