www.ChrisLaBossiere.com

According to one Envision Edmonton volunteer, who also happens to be a Community League President in the community league in which my daughter plays fastpitch, Envision is providing "grants" to those willing to volunteer and gather signatures in the area. Promoted in an email by the league president, each signature on the petition is worth $0.75 - $0.80.

I don't even begin to think that this is illegal, or even suggest that paying canvcassers is wrong. I know that many charities use this method to canvass neighborhoods for donations door to door.

The problem in my mind is the potential for the message to be delivered wrongly to the trusting person answering the door. Let's assume that these well intentioned volunteers show up on your doorstep, we can bet the conversation goes something like this: "if you sign this, we can get $.80 for little Johnny's baseball team".

The system of paying on a per signature basis, is simply where I think this breaks down. If the canvassers were at the door, being paid $10.00 per hour for their time, then the canvasser could be honest with their neighbour and say something like "I am not sure where you stand on this important issue, here are some facts for your consideration, and I was wondering if you would be willing to sign this petition?"

The Community League President was boastful that in 4.5 hours, she was able to gather 100 signatures. A VERY respectable $17.00 per hour of her time, all presumably donated to what I am sure is a needy cause.

What's the worst or best case in this, depending on where you stand? There will be a plebiscite. That is not the end of the World. I am sure that is also another line used by canvassers.

But we all need to be aware of the bigger issue at play here, and it's not about our airport, or the petition. It's about how we as citizens make important decisions for the future of our community. We must make them with the most information possible. We must consider ALL of the information publicly available on a topic before we put our signature or vote behind something.

I wonder how many citizens know that the airport currently generates $900,000 per year in tax revenues for the City of Edmonton, and if redeveloped, would provide $70 - $90 Million per year in new tax revenue for the City?

I wonder how many little league ball parks, community league services, and public amenities that kind of money can provide?

Of course the City of Edmonton has had to be very public in it's debate and decision making process, and has reached out to it's citizens in many public hearings and council debates.

Envision Edmonton has not been so transparent. They refuse to release their list of funders,  and they refuse to provide transparency on how they are funding petition canvassers.

None of this is illegal, and the ethics are debatable depending on which side of the fence you may be on in this matter. But never forget that we will be responsible for this decision, as a community, and we should be making it with the most information possible, presented fairly, transparently and as fact-based as possible.

CLARIFICATION & UPDATE: I mistakenly attributed the email soliciting for support as FROM the Community League President, when it was TO her. Either way, Envision Edmonton has now communicated that they are in fact paying community leagues for paid signatures. You can find their information release here.

I think it's a shame they didn't share this strategy in advance of being pressed, and that they didn't even bring their own paid communications people into the loop, or defend their supporters who spent the day denying the issue. Now you can decide if you think this is worth debating.

I believe in community. I volunteer for it, I evangelize for it, and I support it. Edmonton is a great community, with significant potential. Edmonton's aviation community is also great, but in my opinion with assets that outweigh their potential. I am a proud member of both.

We are lucky to be benefactors of the resource lottery, and yet we also should have a long-term vision for diversity that is beyond oil and gas. To realize that vision, is to develop other assets that will help us along the way. Significant on that list is a more responsible development of our urban core, dense mixed-use pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods, transit infrastructure and perhaps most importantly, post-secondary institutions which give us a smart citizenry (all connected by a major investment in Rapid Transit). A diverse, knowledge based citizenry.

So I feel compelled to frame the debate regarding the City Center Airport as a way to progress the greater community. Will it harm the immediate interest of the stakeholders using the airport (I am one)? Yes, of course. Will it provide a greater opportunity for the City in significantly improved tax revenue, which can be used to provide better services to our residents, I think so. I would never take this position if we didn't already have five (5) airports already in the Capital Region.

So as you consider this debate, I would simply suggest that you look at it with a balanced and open mind. Consider the significant social and fiscal benefit which could be gained by developing an extremely inefficient use of 500 acres of land in the middle of the City. Do I want to see a declined Medivac service be responsible for even one death? Of course not; though I believe this risk is being overplayed and appropriate contingencies have been thought of. But have we weighed the value of new social services delivered, and the communities we could develop with an additional $70-$90 Million in annual tax revenues?

It's not as simple AND certainly not as sensational as admittedly both sides have suggested. It's time to change the tone of this debate.

Like a baby left on my front-doorstep, I found this email in my inbox, which does justice to having this debate differently. I think it's worth the read:

Imagine for the moment that the Cold War occurred in an entirely different manner. That instead of pushing the boundaries of technological advancement to create the most efficient and powerful weapons ever developed, perfectly civilized nations picked up rocks and sticks whatever else they could find, channeled the proto-homosapien buried deep within our DNA, and then spent decades beating the Holy living shit out of any other nation they found to oppose their view on the world. That instead of diplomacy and gamesmanship, we resorted to chaotic bloodlust, grabbing short-term opportunities as they came forward. This very concept would have been absurd during the Cold War and it is even more absurd today. Our technology, carefully constructed mores, and the considerable lessons we’ve learned from the past guard us from devolving into a rush of primal hatred.

So, it begs the question, why do we continue to permit analogous behavior within the realm of public debate? Too often, as we allow debates to form and progress, we act like drooling Roman spectators rather than the critical thinkers we have the responsibility to be. Those competing in front of us focus less on their contest and more on winning over a dimwitted crowd.

This is essentially the current state of the ECCA debate. Recent weeks have been a shameful display of attacks and deliberately misleading generalizations on the part of proponents of both sides of this debate (not all, but some). Claiming that councillors don’t care about the lives of Medevac patents, or that airport patrons are mostly entitled rich men who can’t bear a moment of inconvenience are irresponsible and inaccurate characterizations. These are just a few, but not the most notable, examples of where this ridiculous farce of public discourse finds itself.

The true disservice of framing this debate in such a way is that now it’s about proving which side is the more virtuous of the two. What it should be about is what kind of city we want to be and how the choice that has been/will be made around this airport will play a part in that. This conversation is easy to have. The enthusiasm behind both viewpoints represents the same goal – both want a better city.

For those who want the airport to stay open, they believe that it would be foolish to do away with existing infrastructure (capital, commercial and human) that could be developed into what they claim would be a high-impact economic catalyst. For those who want to close the ECCA, they see it as swath of underutilized land close to the core that could be developed into a model community for a city that is becoming increasingly famous for expanding outward.

These two viewpoints are not as starkly different as they have been made out to be, particularly in that they both envision their respective development plans as a cornerstone of Edmonton’s next era, both have excellent case studies behind them (for example, pro-closure has Garrison Woods in Calgary to look to, anti-closure has the Toronto City Airport as an example), and both, quite frankly, would be good for the city if taken seriously, albeit in very different directions.

Discussions like this need to become more civilized. We need to stop looking at the electorate as a collection of influence units to be herded into the general vicinity of our preferred opinion so that we can declare victory over those who hold a different belief. The two sides in this debate are not engaged in a dialogue as much as they are shouting over one another. Both have a responsibility to engage the other, and the public, in such a way that explores the relative merits of their proposals rather than the character defects of the people making those proposals.

We have the tools to develop this debate so that it produces a mature, informed public when it comes time to make a final decision on the matter. We can produce a debate worthy of the magnitude of this decision. Let’s table point-counterpoint position papers, film a live debate on the subject, speak to the local media jointly, and promote one another’s material: anything that will allow people to come to their own conclusion, rather than being led to one by bombarding people with dogma.

If it takes a plebiscite to bring that debate along, I will support it's conclusion. But I compel you to think of the whole issue.