The Editor:
What part of no doesn't Coquitlam council understand?
Coquitlam city council has long emphasized the principle of using public input in its decision-making process.
An important tool to facilitate such input is the public hearing. The potential reduction or elimination of public hearings based on new provincial legislation was lamented in a recent letter from Mayor Richard Stewart.
I’ve contributed to many of these public hearings over the years and I’d like to pass along a recent experience as a reflection on how the Coquitlam city council’s keeps to this noble principle.
At a public hearing on Nov. 20, 2023, the applicant was Loblaws Companies Ltd., owner of the Real Canadian Superstore chain.
Their proposal was to relocate an existing wine store license to the Superstore at 1301 Lougheed Hwy. and make wine available on the shelves at that location.
Supporters of the plan comprised of eight or so employees of Loblaws.
Given their allegiances, it’s unclear how much their testimony should have weighed into council’s decision that night.
The opposition to the proposal included a diverse group that included local business people, the Fraser Health Authority and me as a representative the Maillardville Residents’ Association.
Part of the opposing argument was consideration of the support for our local Maillardville community, specifically the contributions from our local business people versus a comparable lack thereof from the applicant.
But this was only one aspect of the formidable opposition put forward by stakeholders from the community. You can view the public hearing here and judge for yourself.
Regardless of your personal position on the issue, council was provided with more than enough information to proceed with a fair and informed vote that evening.
But that’s not what happened.
Instead, council made an extremely rare decision to defer consideration of the issue to a future meeting, thereby providing the applicant an additional opportunity to build their case for support.
I believe our city council should have decided the case based on the evidence presented at the public hearing.
Council has since held a meeting, without the public's participation and voted in favour of the applicant.
The totality of what happened between Nov. 20 and the council vote is unclear, but I believe Coquitlam city council owes the opponents of this proposal a full and transparent account of all new information that led to their final decision.
- Ben Craig, Coquitlam
