Letter: North Cowichan proposed OCP ridiculous

It should be withdrawn from consideration immediately

North Cowichan proposed OCP ridiculous

Generally, the authors of this document and, in particular of chapters eight and nine, propose a completely unrealistic analysis of how a minuscule civic municipality (North Cowichan) can identify and adopt solutions to the problems of the world, within its own borders, by moral fiat and unauthorized regulation.

To suggest that prospective business ventures be questioned, as to their proposed employment standards and/or their moral duties towards their employees, before being issued any required permits stinks of eco authoritarianism gone mad. It is in fact no different to any other form of dictatorship, past or proposed, and should be squashed immediately. The truth is individuals and businesses will simply relocate to the nearest municipality without such provisions and personal interference.

Since when did most of N.C. residents look to, or even want, council and staff to be the determinants of life-style objectives, and arbiters of progress, as set out in sections eight and nine. Of course, we all want safety nets in our endeavours and failures in life and, fortunately, live in a democratic society and under a tax system that nationally and/or provincially, for the most part, provides them. It does not, though, tell me what to think.

The opening statement regarding the failures of “The Cult of Consumerism” by an academic, who undoubtedly does not live the life of a hermit in support of them, is a simplistic description of a competitive economic system that has brought several billion people from starvation to survival. Churchill’s observation that “democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others tried from time to time” and “Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater” also applies here to this draft proposal.

The ad-nauseum references to this OCP being based on a replacement economic philosophy, successfully administered, in isolation from surrounding communities by the likes of the current council and staff, are laughable. They could only be proposed by people with absolutely no economic experience of what it takes to make a payroll or succeed in the real world of money or politics. We have no need of a new economic system, or a third level of administration with increased powers and new levels of taxation, only common sense adjustments to the existing one to answer global GHG, pandemic and other problems on a national level and in partnership with countries worldwide.

It would be enlightening to know the total fees paid and the number of staff man-hours expended to produce this verbose document. It is without doubt impractical and open to serious legal challenge on many of its proposals and should be withdrawn from consideration immediately.

A.J. Willcocks