“Vox Populli” is defined in Wikipedia as “the voice of the people.”
This phenomenon is not something that Penticton City Council would be vaguely aware of or have any interest in. When you are possessed with superior intelligence and have all the answers, why would you listen to or put any credence in public opinion?
Why have a referendum on a contentious issue when the mayor, in his infinite wisdom, has already decided that the “silent majority” is on board with city council’s decision to put a waterslide on city parkland property?
The “silent majority” that the mayor refers to is indeed that; silent. That would make a clear thinking person wonder whether it is in fact the silent minority, and not the majority that he has presumed it to be.
The attitude at city council appears to be: “don’t confuse me with the facts.” After all facts and common sense have the awful habit of derailing some of the grandest schemes.
I hate to belabour a point, but must again refer to the Eckhardt Avenue dormitory proposal as the most recent city council scheme that went badly off the rails.
The fact is, and I am convinced that legally-trained individuals will agree, that you do not allow a prospective purchaser to take possession of your property until it is legally conveyed and you have full payment in your hands.
The lawsuits that the contractors who worked on the construction filed against the city attest to that fact. This little fact apparently went unnoticed by council and/or its representatives. Are there any such “little facts” that may apply to the waterslide proposal? Time will tell, but it could again prove costly to the taxpayer.
One would think, since two of the current members on city council (Mayor Andrew Jakubeit and Coun. Judy Sentes) voted to proceed with the Eckhardt Avenue dormitory prior to legal transfer of the property, they would proceed with caution on the waterslide issue, particularly with major opposition by their employer, the taxpayer.
There I go, thinking again. In any event they were re-elected in spite of the dormitory fiasco, so that could be construed as approval of their past performance by the electorate. Will that happen again when the next city election rolls around in three “long” years?