Council should be allowed to do its job

A recent blog post from Lee Cutforth suggests that Council should delay "major votes" until after the new Council is elected. This idea raises several questions:

1. How major is "major"?

2. How long before the election would this limitation come into effect?

3. If we don't let Council make decisions in the last, say, three months of their term, why have a three-year term at all? Why not a 33-month term?

4. Are Council decisions permanent or un-revisitable?

5. Given that the decisions of any elected Council will have dissenters, should any Council be allowed to make major decisions?

Separate from the practical shortcomings, I'm also left idly wondering which "supporters of the project have questioned the grandiosity of its scale". At the moment we are talking about new facilities to replace and enhance functionality of the Bowman Arts Centre. That building (a recycled school) was barely sufficient when it was re-purposed originally. The city has more than doubled in size since 1963.

Soon (I hope) we will be talking again about a Performing Arts Centre to increase public performing arts facilities beyond the what the Genevieve E. Yates Memorial Centre can provide. It was opened in 1966 and seats under 500 people (the addition of the Sterndale Bennett Theatre is a separate 180 seats). By the time that a new facility is built the population of Lethbridge will likely have TRIPLED. A 1500 seat theatre is not out of the question.

Perhaps we should put enhancement of our sports facilities on hold for 45 or 50 years?

I'm going to ask Mr. Cutforth to answer these questions and I will post his response when I get it.

Go vote.