Wind (again), Signs and County Land

Here it comes … brace yourself. After “The Budget”, there’s a second major issue on the table for County people: Industrial Wind Turbines.
We’ve all addressed this issue so many, many times, there’s really nothing left to say.
It’s neighbour against neighbour and I suspect, at some point, we’ll all have to take to the streets and duke it out. Last person left standing wins.
I saw a kid outside my shop blowing on one of those pinwheel toys, and I ran out, snatched it out of his hand, stomped on it, and then beat the daylights out of him, and left him dazed in his Big Boy stroller. That’s what it’s coming to.
I won’t try to capsulize all of the many opinions on this subject, because the opinions alone would make this column run into “Part 6”, and it would end around July 2015. And we would still have no reliable information.
Still, I think, when the mayoral candidates state their positions on this, they may stand to lose 50% of their current supporters. Or perhaps gain some.
So my Second Question to the Mayoral Candidates is: “How, specifically, do you feel about the future expansion of  Wind Farms,
based on the requests already in hand?”
I think this is a reasonably worded question.
I’m not asking for a  “love em/hate em” response, because it’s a Fool’s Dream to expect any politician to say “Yes” or “No”. (Until after they’re elected.)
In the “Trial Run” debate for mayoral candidates held earlier (which doesn’t really count because … wait a minute, I can’t remember why), two of the candidates came on board with the concept of putting a “hold” on further development until we check out the two projects that have been approved.
As you know, I like to tell my candidates how to answer – and how not to answer – well in advance. So I would suggest to any mayoral candidate that you do not shrug and go: “What can we do? It’s out of our hands. There’s nothing we can do about it.”
This, to me, does not show leadership quality.
Also, do not try: “The provincial government and the County Staff run me. I’m sorry if you were under the mistaken impression that you – the people who live here – run me.”
That satirical twist is not meant to steer the candidates’ responses to my way of thinking. But if you are aiming to claim a leadership role, and bring in Change, you are not going to be able to do it without a fight.
If it means fighting McGuinty, Harper, or your own staff’s decisions, you’re going to need to do it.
If not, we should just eliminate our Pretend Representation at the municipal level, and let Dalton, Stephen and the Staff run it.
They’d all be thrilled … just ask them.
The flyers are starting to appear for each of the mayoral candidates, and the signs are certainly appearing at a rate which makes our local sweet corn harvest look pale.
I love the signs, because you can always find out how crazy your neighbours are by the election signs on their lawns. But most signs are just sort of scattered randomly around, which means that no-one nearby has actually invited them to put them on their lawns.
This says to me: If telephone poles and major intersections could vote, I think I already know the outcome of this election.
Most of the signs are pretty straightforward:
Vote X For Mayor (or 4 Mayor, which shows this one is cost-conscious and doesn¹t want to pay for the extra two characters).
The newest addition to the race has a sign that says: “Vote Boyd”. That’s it. That’s about as minimalist as you can get. So I’m assuming there’s no marketing team and campaign managers at work here.
One has a catchy two-word slogan which makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. It gives me an instruction I don’t know how to follow. But still, it plays well on the signs.
And one has some spectacular signs that are totally beautiful. They are works of art. Brilliantly executed and instantly eye-grabbing. I don’t get them at all, but it reminds me I haven’t shopped at The Gap for a while.
So I’m wildly entertained, just by the signs, so far.
The flyers also add entertainment value, since I’m now a political machine, and read every word.
I won’t do a blow-by-blow, but this one entry made me laugh out loud. And it’s not a criticism.
In Sandy Latchford’s flyer, under “Questions from around the County”, I see the question: “Are you a real estate agent?” Answer, “No, I am not.”
Let me explain why I find this hilarious. Clearly Sandy has, as she said from the beginning, talked to a lot of County people. I, too, hear this all the time, in typical “Word on the Street” fashion.
There’s a huge number of people out there who have told me the County should ban real estate agents from positions on Council.
Oddly enough, it’s not because of Conflict of Interest cases in Council votes. It’s because there is a wide perception that “real estate
councillors” want development at any cost, will sell anything they can get their hands on, to anyone who will take it, without regard for the buyer’s future use.
Hmmm … remember the building beside Shire Hall (totally within their own control)? Remember the Pentecostal Church (in private hands, beyond their control)?
As one person put it: “Real Estate people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.”
This is way, way too harsh in the non-Council world. We all know there are many excellent real estate people out there, and I have made referrals to many of them. They are trustworthy people.
But the question comes up when a Councillor gains the power of decision when he/she takes their seat.
It’s a nagging concern of County people: As a Councillor, do you see the same future we do? Or do you just see the County as saleable property?
This is not MY question, so don’t attack me. It’s what I hear “out there”, so it’s something worth considering. “Perceptions” are not always real, unless they are.
There’ll be big talk about Heritage coming up. But heritage is more than buildings. Heritage is also lifestyle, and landscape, and preservation of the County Way.
There’s more than just old buildings in jeopardy here.