Student's killer on parole
Charges after investigation
Hostage was on captor 
Regulating power prices
Gen X is raking it in
LeBlanc laying groundwork
US vetoes UN resolution
$100M Nassar settlement
12 Trump jurors picked
Rates slow green economy
Vicinity hires president,
Record housing starts
Warriors ready for Round 2
Kalamalka Bowl cancelled
Rockets live to fight on
Rihanna's parenting ‘hack’
Tarantino scraps film
Munn talks cancer battle
It’s happened twice, now. People at public forums have been busy talking about the problem of the park takeover, and they’ve seamlessly slipped into talking about the problem of homelessness.
What ties the two together in the minds of these speakers is the idea that city council is remiss in expressing genuine concern for the public interest.
In support of the business community, council created a bylaw to fine the homeless for sitting or sleeping on sidewalks.
They could instead have recognized that the homeless are people, that these streets belong to the people, and, of course, that the homeless would be better off living in homes than being fined for not having one.
In support of the business community, council created two bylaws to give away public parkland for the next 29 years.
They could instead have recognized that parks belongs to the people, all the people, not just a thin sliver of the community.
So city hall has succeeded in creating an us-versus-them scenario.
On our side, make no mistake, we are the people. Everyone at the city’s public hearing and the opposition’s public meeting knew this. We, the public, were engaged in a fight to protect our public park.
We are now an as-yet unnamed public advocacy group, engaged in the same fight, and with even greater determination.
On the other side, there is the elite, the one per cent.
Perhaps they started out as merely the business community, the establishments where we take our dry-cleaning, drink our coffee, and buy our airline tickets.
When the city decided to privilege their concerns over the concerns of the majority, they became, wittingly or not, an exclusive class.
Is this us-versus-them scenario what the community wants? Shall we sit back and say what council has done is all well and fine, carry on?
Or shall we say, let’s recognize the people, all of them, and let’s recognize the public interest, and let’s move forward together, the people undivided.
Join us by emailing Linda Jones-Evans, [email protected].
Dianne Varga
