City council showed this week that, for the most part, it can put the concerns and wellbeing of residents first. On Monday councillors voted on a series of recommendations that would have adversely impacted St. Albert taxpayers if the vote had gone the other way. On the issues of parking and voting, councillors chose to put what could be the concerns of people ahead of what staff had recommended or what councillors thought was in everyone’s best interests.
Mayor Nolan Crouse and councillors have little say in how the next municipal election will proceed, a necessary barrier to protect the impartiality of the vote. All they vote on are very rudimentary motions that appoint the next returning officer, who is the city clerk, divide the city into polling areas and set how the vote will be conducted. Yet the recommendations of administration this year could have disenfranchised several hundred voters, even if the reasoning seemed sound from looking at the numbers. Staff wanted to stop issuing special ballots, as only 45 people used them in the 2010 municipal election, and also wanted to open polling stations at 9:00 a.m. instead of 8:00, saying it was hard to get workers to start so early on election day and noting only three per cent of the population voted between 8:00 and 9:00.
But as Coun. Cathy Heron pointed out, three per cent of the population is still a few hundred people. And while special ballots might have cost the city $15 each in 2010, enfranchising voters is more than fiddling with numbers. Whenever there is doubt about whether or not to take a specific action when it comes to elections, any body of government should always vote to expand accessibility to voting rather than restrict it, regardless of how few people might be affected. Maybe only 30 to 35 per cent of the electorate bothers to cast a vote on election day in municipal votes, but restricting the ways with which they can vote will not improve the number. Yes, St. Albert will have an Internet voting pilot next October, but exactly how it will work is not yet determined, nor do we know if it will be expanded in years to come. It stands to reason that the registration process for the first Internet vote will be heavily safeguarded to protect the impartiality of the process, which might eventually turn people away. Until we know for a fact Internet voting is here to stay and is less of a hassle than voting in person, there is no sense in restricting other polling options.
On the issue of parking, council actually voted down its own motion, but did so because the changes it was contemplating bordered on farce. Had council, in its effort to limit the practice of camping in large commercial parking lots, successfully voted to limit parking of all vehicles on all city streets to 24 hours, the effect would have been ludicrous. Not all homes have driveways or garages, or ones large enough for multiple vehicles. It would have taken only one or two tickets issued to drivers for the outrage to fester.
Granted it’s unclear right now whether the change council did make — to restrict parking vehicles in private lots with For Sale signs — addresses an issue that can be highlighted as a problem. However, the change does bring the city’s land use bylaw into conformity with the provincial Traffic Safety Act, which does outlaw the practice. In instances such as this, it’s probably better to be in lock-step with the law instead of trying to chart your own path.
