What A “No” Vote Does Not Mean!

The fact that confusion abounds around the Stave Lake Water Referendum continues to support my reasons for deciding to vote “No”.

To reiterate, a “Yes” vote must mean specific approval of the Referendum question and its essential elements (in effect, “yes” to all 10 of the questions expressly or impliedly contained in the 185 word Referendum question. Please refer to my October 29 blog – Guide for Voting For/Against the Water Referendum). However, some people seem to be of the view that a “No” vote means something more than what it is; an inability to vote “Yes”.

Let me be clear. My “No” vote does not mean:

– that I am part of or supportive of any alliance, group, person or movement related to the Referendum. I have come to my conclusions independently after careful consideration of all of the facts and arguments I could gather.

– that I am opposed in principle to P3s. I believe that public/private partnerships are appropriate in some circumstances.

– that I am of the view that coordination with Mission is essential, as opposed to important. Communication and coordination with our neighboring civic governments is critical, except in situations where Abbotsford’s needs would be compromised.

– that I am opposed to Federal funding.

– that I am in favor of the status quo. Additional water will be required by our community if we intend to grow. I am opposed to moratoriums on growth and in favor of growth as a sign of our community’s health (as opposed to growth for growth’s sake).

– that I am critical of City staff or consultants. In my view, this is all part of the democratic process. My criticism is focused on the Referendum and, to some extent, the assumptions made by it, and lack of information related to it.

In summary, I urge both sides in this debate to stick to the facts. There is no reason to allow the level of debate to generate to fear tactics or personal attack. We must all remain open-minded, ready to entertain reasoned discussion over this important topic. The issues are complex enough without jumping to conclusions and making unwarranted assumptions based on a decision to vote “Yes” or “No”.