Is the alternative approval process (AAP) a democratic deficit in Saanich? Does silence mean consent for borrowing $150 million for the Saanich Operations Centre?
Make your voice known before the deadline on June 25, or it will give consent for Saanich residents by default. Ten per cent or more of the electors are needed to oppose borrowing $150 million (that is 8,735 responses in opposition). Forms are available from May 21.
The AAP used by the District of Saanich to seek public consent for borrowing millions or altering community assets is being touted as a cost-effective way to engage electors.
However, this provincially legislated mechanism, recently employed for five capital program bylaws and now proposed for the Saanich Operations Centre (SOC) redevelopment, is deeply flawed. It undermines democracy, prioritizes municipal agendas over public input, and demands reform to ensure Saanich residents have a genuine voice.
The AAP’s core mechanic is inherently anti-democratic. Unlike a referendum, where residents actively vote “yes” or “no,” the AAP assumes public approval unless 10% or more of eligible electors submit an elector response form to oppose a proposal.
This opt-out system places an unfair burden on residents to actively dissent, often within tight timelines. Many citizens, busy with daily life or unaware of the process, may not even know an AAP is underway. The recent five AAPs, concluded on March 19 for sewer, storm drainage, transportation, parks, and community facilities capital programs, illustrate this issue. With minimal public opposition recorded, one might assume widespread support, but low engagement more likely reflects the AAP’s obscurity, not community consensus.
Transparency is another casualty of the AAP. Saanich claims the process saves resources, but at what cost? Information about AAPs is often buried in municipal websites or dense documents, as seen with the SOC project’s reliance on the “HelloSaanich” page and FAQs.
Elector response forms for the upcoming AAP require residents to navigate bureaucratic hurdles to voice dissent. This setup disadvantages less tech-savvy or time-constrained residents, skewing participation toward those already engaged or opposed.
The district’s debt management strategy, allowing a maximum of 14% (we are at 5.33% now) of prior-year revenue for debt servicing, further complicates matters. Without clear, accessible communication about how borrowing impacts taxes, residents are left in the dark about decisions affecting their financial future.
Saanich’s leadership argues that AAPs are necessary to spread borrowing costs and maintain core services. Yet, this justification glosses over the process’s exclusionary nature.
The SOC redevelopment, a significant investment, deserves robust public scrutiny, not a passive approval process that risks rubber-stamping council priorities. The recent AAPs for capital programs, bundled together despite their distinct impacts, further diluted public ability to weigh in on specific initiatives. A referendum, though costlier, would ensure active participation and clear mandates, fostering trust in governance.
The AAP’s defenders may claim it’s efficient, but efficiency should not trump democracy. Saanich must prioritize inclusive engagement over cost-cutting shortcuts. Referendums, public town halls, or hybrid models combining digital and in-person voting could replace the AAP, ensuring all residents – not just the motivated few – shape their community’s future.
Visit Saanich’s website (Saanich.ca) to learn more about the SOC project and make your voice heard – before the June 25 deadline silences it by default.
Coun. Nathalie Chambers
Saanich
