The June 2017 decision to relocate the arena has sparked four years of controversies in the court of law, the court of public opinion, and the council chambers at city hall.
At the time of the decision, the politicians involved touted it as ‘spectacularly visionary.’ Four years later, many people have not bought into that vision. Why is that? And whose responsibility is it to convince people to buy in?
The project has had a number of controversies in both the scope and the process. And yet, other controversial projects have received public buy-in in the past. I went back and read about controversial projects that were successful in receiving public buy-in and noticed there were common themes.
There were transparent and accountable actions and discussion. Projects were environmentally sustainable. And, perhaps most importantly, it appeared there was continuous and ongoing engagement throughout the process.
The last point is vital. To me, it appears the proponents of these controversial, yet ultimately successful, projects were genuinely interested in engaging the public. Taking that step seemed to mean more to them than just complying with procedures. They understood that engagement is not about winning and losing, it’s about growing value for everyone. There was inclusion and respect for different viewpoints.
A project needs to have more than a financial benefit. It needs to demonstrate a positive impact on society. And in the 21st century, there needs to be a tangible benefit (or at least no major damage) to the environment.
I concluded from what I read that world-class public engagement habits were a necessary trait of any leadership team trying to execute a controversial project. Substandard public engagement would not suffice.
And so it is with great disappointment that I would like to bring attention to the fact that one of our more experienced municipal leaders used their Facebook platform to dismiss and undermine the legitimacy of a recent petition going around because it was non-compliant with official city procedures. Talk about completely missing the point. The petition the councillor references represents the collective voices of constituents who are expressing their frustration that they have had a substandard engagement throughout this arena debate. Neglecting to follow a civic petition procedure doesn’t change that.
To me, the message is loud and clear. Taxpayers who signed the petition are telling council it needs to do a better job at public engagement. Don’t take my word for it. The comments on the petition illustrate this clearly.
Even if you want to dismiss the petition, there is ample evidence of a lack of engagement in our local news. Seventy letters and guest columns about the Kingsway Entertainment District have been published by Sudbury.com and The Sudbury Star in the last year. Of those, 57 submissions written by 34 people spoke out against the Kingsway Entertainment District. Thirteen submissions by eight people were in favour, and Ward 5 Coun. Robert Kirwan authored five of those 13 submissions.
So while Councillor Kirwan likes to say only a handful of people oppose the KED, respectfully, I must point out the numbers disagree. What does the public have to do to be heard?
I also think it’s important to note that substandard engagement practices have been going on for years. The list of poor engagement practices include bullying constituents to the point of reprimand for having a different view. Banning people from social media conversations for voicing different opinions. Threatening litigation and financial retribution for using perfectly legal civil mechanisms. Labelling people anti-KED activists. The list goes on and on.
Perhaps the most regrettable behavior is making misleading statements. Councillor Kirwan has claimed in the past that a referendum is not possible. Every reason he provides demonstrates that a referendum would merely be difficult. Some of them may even demonstrate a referendum was not possible in 2018. But none of the reasons provided prove that a referendum is not possible in the future.
If he cannot think of a way to hold a referendum, then I invite him to step aside and allow one of his colleagues to lead an initiative to make it happen. There have been referendums in the past on the arena and the city library. This has been a persistent topic of discussion for years. Ironically, Councillor Kirwan once held a poll on his page asking his members if they wanted a referendum on the arena location — 75 per cent of the respondents voted yes.
Councillor Kirwan has also claimed that the time to engage people is over. The time to engage is never over. In the case of the arena location, it was never even allowed to start.
The Ward 5 councillor has been literally telling people since at least 2018 to ‘just get over it’. It’s no wonder people are so angry about this. The onus should never be on constituents to ‘just get over it.’ The onus is on council to engage and answer questions in a transparent way.
For me it’s simple: the responsibility is and always has been on council to earn the public’s buy-in. And that clearly has yet to happen.
I also believe people shouldn’t be discouraged by Councillor Kirwan’s statements, which I would call misleading. In my last column, I wrote about a number of the risks associated with this project. These are just some of my outstanding questions, and it’s why I decided to sign the petition. How often does council receive petitions with over 2,000 signatures on it? How many voices can council ignore? Will they continue to double down on substandard engagement practices?
With that, click here to go to the petition. Honestly, it’s just a few clicks and takes less than a couple minutes. You can even sign anonymously. If you want to speed it up, look for the “skip this page” button after you’ve filled in your name. What do you have to lose?
Ian Berdusco lives in Greater Sudbury.
