Editorial: Bylaw do-over needed

October 15, 2020 Editor Opinion

The ongoing overhaul of the Municipality of South Dundas’ property standards bylaw is overdue with the existing bylaws covering only Morrisburg and Iroquois dating back to 1979 and 1986 respectively. The update will cover all South Dundas with one bylaw, which is the best practice to follow. That said, there are many issues with both the proposed changes and the method used by municipal staff to consult with citizens.

By the mayor’s own admission the bylaw is too fussy, and estimated that 95 per cent of properties in South Dundas are not fully in compliance with what is being proposed. One may wonder if in the midst of a global pandemic, while sectors of the local population are struggling with so many uncertainties – be it health, housing, schooling, business and employment uncertainties – if such a bylaw is a fair priority at this point.

The proposed bylaw sets unclear standards of cleanliness, maintenance, garbage and material storage, and general upkeep. It relies on references to the Ontario Building Code, a two volume – 12 section document, and the discretion of municipal officials. The draft bylaw states municipal staff or a health inspector determines if a complaint has merit. Either way, it means the government will tell you.

Most bylaw complaints are citizen driven and based on a person losing the enjoyment or use of their property by the actions of others. The revised bylaw gives too much leeway to the government in determining what the standard is and who it is applied to. This bylaw seems to have been rewritten to deal with a few specific bad apples in South Dundas. Implementing the bylaw, as is, leaves it open to abuse by anyone with an axe to grind.

The method of consultation by administration with citizens of South Dundas has also left this bylaw open to abuse before it is even passed. Staff placed a free, open, survey online to garner feedback, citing the pandemic as the reason for doing so. There are far better, and more secure, methods for gauging citizen feedback while still being mindful of staff’s pandemic concerns. A paper survey, or a code to a secure survey mailed to property owners are but two options that would work. Allowing people who are not South Dundas citizens to openly and freely comment on South Dundas bylaws is the height of irresponsibility.

It is clear that the original bylaws need replacing. But there are significant flaws and government overreach with what is proposed. The bylaw, and the consultation involved, need a do-over.

Discover more from Morrisburg Leader

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Since you’re here…

… Thanks for reading this article. Local news is important. We hope that you continue to support local news in your community by reading The Leader, online and in print. Please consider subscribing to the print edition of the newspaper. Click here to subscribe today.

Subscribe to Email Alerts

Enter your email address to subscribe to Email Alerts and receive notifications of new posts by email whenever The Leader publishes new content on our website.

Related Articles

No Picture
Opinion

The Bible’s Relevance in 2011

October 12, 2011 Editor Opinion

On October 5, 2011, during the CNN Piers Morgan Show, Piers said to Rev. Joel Osteen, “Don’t you think you should bring the Bible kicking and screaming into the 21st century?” 

Piers question, which may actually be a statement of what he thinks, expresses an all too common perspective in today’s world and sometimes even in the Church. 

The idea seems to be that the Bible’s message is dated; that because it is an ancient document it is a necessary assumption that its message, truth claims and perspective of the world must be reinterpreted apart from the author’s meaning and in light of contemporary norms. (A discussion of the acceptance of homosexuality as normal, and not sinful as the Bible states in Romans 1:24-28, was the context within which Piers stated his question.

The folly in this perspective is made clear when we remember who the author of the Bible is and how contemporary norms are arrived at. We will consider the last first and the first last.

Norms are authoritative standards of conduct or ethical values, in some way binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide that group. Such norms are contemporary when they are arrived at by actual, fabricated or assumed consensus of a current population, and they are considered right because they are said to be what most people within that population do, or at least agree to be acceptable for someone to do. 

 It is assumed in contemporary norms that majority agreement or acceptability, confirms rightness among a given group. 

We quickly recognize that the fact that because most people participate in a given behavior, or agree that it is acceptable, does not confirm the rightness of any behavior since we can easily identify wrong behaviors that most people agree is acceptable or actually do in various groupings; which behaviors may be factually harmful like smoking, eating fast foods, exploiting slave labor, etc. 

Furthermore, if norms are to be arrived at in a contemporary fashion then we confirm them to be temporary and of questionable lasting value, since what is contemporary by definition is continually undergoing change.

As a necessary point of faith, Christians recognize God as the author of the Bible. So for all genuine Christians the Bible is a communication, the quality of which is consistent with the quality of its author. 

This means that those qualities of person necessary to the proposition of actually being God govern the quality of His authorship; qualities such aseternal self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, absolute cogency and truthfulness, infallibility, impartiality and so on. 

Furthermore, as Creator He understands the creature perfectly, while the creature remains always in a process of self discovery through every contemporary context because he is limited by his finitude. 

Yes, the Bible should be brought into the 21st century, but not kicking and screaming because it was written for the 21st century, and every other contemporary context. 

It should be brought into the 21st century to provide transcendent norms for all societies, norms that are not subject to the frailties of the creature or his tendency toward sinfulness, but are the eternal wisdom of the glory of the Creator.

 

[…]