Coercing people to express themselves

Sep 19, 2007

Looking at Ryerson Township’s public opinion poll on their new Official Plan (OP), your first thought might be “what were they thinking?” When you actually hear what they were thinking, it might surprise you.

It’s brilliant.

The letter sent out to Ryerson property owners looks ordinary enough. Council is simply looking for some last-minute input on the OP. If there’s anything unsatisfactory, put it in writing. Sounds good.

It’s when you get near the end that it gets interesting. Failure to respond will be considered a vote in favour of the plan as it is.

What?

That’s nothing new, of course. Plenty of councillors, when faced with a room full of angry people, have fallen back on that old chestnut, the silent majority. But they usually don’t write it into polls ahead of time.

Besides, since when does responding to a poll constitute a vote? Is this to make a decision or gather information? It really isn’t clear, and the way it’s presented is bound to get a lot of people worked up.

It’s when you get the whole story that all becomes clear. It’s supposed to get people worked up. Ryerson council wants a clear picture of the arguments against the proposed OP. That one little sentence was thrown in to ensure a good response.

Pure genius.

But what does that say about us, when a council has to coerce people into participating in something they already feel strongly about. Obviously, enough people oppose the OP to make this exercise necessary, but too few are presenting their arguments in a useful way.

The fact is, the only time you’re likely to see a big turnout (or any turnout) at a council meeting in any municipality is when an unpopular decision is on the table. People tend not to pay attention to their local government until they get a notice in the mail or some other wakeup call. Then they descend on the council chamber at the last minute, demanding changes to something they really don’t know much about, and in many cases, accusing councillors of trying to put one over on them.

That is a general statement, not necessarily related to Ryerson’s OP. What is interesting, however, is that Ryerson council has set out to virtually engineer such a situation, to make this bit of human nature work for them. How it will turn out remains to be seen.

The question it raises is whether this will turn into the boy who cried wolf. How much of this will people take before they start doubting the importance of anything a municipality sends them? Would it make matters worse in the long run? The ultimate answer is not trickery, but a change in people’s priorities and attitudes about government.

The person who figures out how to accomplish that will be the real genius.