Two large tankers operating in hostile waters can be a para-less journey.. in this case a metaphoric journey into the undecided. It is time to revisit where we are on the Canada Parks issue.
First let me be clear, I am not on either side in the battle. I have no preference. I am offering some outside observations from what I have heard and seen. I also have a bit of an outline as to who may or may not be winning the day.
A while back I cautioned the no side to broaden their view. Putting up a sign or carrying a sign that just says NO is not helpful. The reason is it allows the Yes side to define a group thought into a single identity with a negative overtone, it allows the yes side to generalize “They are all the same” the meaning “They are negative obstructionists”
I have read the list of interests at the table trying to either point out problems or seek clarification and some resolve. On Wednesday I noted there are those saying, it could take up to two years to decide. That sounds to me like a statement to calm the waters. It is likely more rhetoric than fact.
There are any number of valid issues to be discussed and resolved, water, range land, recreation, soil conservation, and the list goes on. The odd issue out here is the idea it will bring more tourists. I asked a group of reasonable friends what they interpreted that to mean. Answered varied.
1 these people want a small closed community
2 this community is suspicious of strangers
3 it is a community that does not want change,
Those were the three main responses. If these assumptions are true there are impediments to having these dreams come true.
Here is some insight on why that might not be the case:
1 Wanting a small closed community with a major highway running through it makes a closed community in the 21st century nearly impossible.
2 Suspicion of strangers or outsiders is not really a viable argument either. The yes side can rightfully claim the opposite by pointing the fact this community elected an outsider to the position of mayor. In fact the new mayor barely hung up the curtains on his front window when he took the oath of office.
3 Not wanting change in this world isn’t going to fly either. Time marches on and change happens, the idea is to see it is positive change.
There are many recognized groups working to define the ground rules to determine whether or not they can support the venture. Because they are involved in the dialog does not mean they are for or against, It means they are garnering facts in which to base a decision on.
Those who just say NO limit their ability to communicate their concerns. They cut off access to the decision makers and they are defined as obstructive with little to offer except the word NO.
It should also be pointed out a referendum might not serve the interests of the NO side. If this park is to be on crown land, then the referendum could very likely see the citizens of BC voting. Where people in the South Okanagan might well vote NO the vast majority would likely vote YES. In addition even more tourists would flock to the area.
Based on what I see the NO side is being more and more isolated from the process. They have more visibility but less influence. Be rest assured the decision will not be a local one, therefore to be successful the entire direction needs to change.
To have any hope at all NO has to opt in to the discussion, not just hold up signs saying NO
Two large metaphoric tankers are on a collision course, both filled with statistics, views, and placards saying NO, but then this whole idea has been debated for some time without resolution.