|
|
by Fred Kirby January 12, 2005
Glenn
Sutton states he is writing “to update the residents of Kincardine….” Yet
there is nothing new in his letter unless it is the comment that seasonal
residents now will have the opportunity to vote through a mail-in ballot.
I am not certain this is new since the mayor has back-peddled on the
telephone poll since first announcing his flawed plan. “Update” suggests
something new is being added to the debate. He fails to do so.
It would have been better had the mayor shared with us the options
presented to council during their “intense study,” the background to those
options, and council’s reason for their choice. The “residents of
Kincardine” need to know how other countries handle their nuclear waste
and the reasons behind their decisions. When I can pull reams of material
off the internet, why is the basis of the council’s decision in this
crucial issue not posted on the town’s website? As for referring citizens
to the OPG office (which, with more guile than candour, the mayor calls
the Community Consultation Centre), it is akin to asking a political party
whom you should vote for in a coming election. It is not the OPG’s role to
dispense balanced information; it is the mayor’s moral responsibility to
do so. He serves us all; he fails us all.
If safety is the primary factor in the nuclear storage issue, why was the
money mentioned first? If safety is the “first and foremost concern,” why
do supporters raise economic factors as grounds for voting ‘yes’? This is
fear-mongering.
A doctor, in a role of questionable ethics, touts the benefits; headlines
blare, “Hawthorne says ‘No’ vote damaging for Bruce Power,” editorials are
filled with angst because of possible loss of jobs, while realtors wring
their hands over the disappearance of commissions.
Playing the economic card illustrates how pitifully the mayor failed to
bring the citizens into an open process. Making the necessary information
available in the beginning might well have made the issue a slam dunk for
the ‘yes’ vote.
Safety is not the “first and foremost concern.” Safety is the only
concern.
|
