Editor:
Governments don’t make decisions, people do. Sometimes it’s good decisions, sometimes bad, and sometimes reprehensible. If not held to account, bad decisions can lead to worse decisions.
The pedestrian zone was defeated and Banff Avenue reopened, and that is where the discussion should begin, not end.
The Mayor, Corrie DiManno, and other elected officials, decided to ignore the concerns of over 1,000 residents about their health and safety. Instead, openly siding with special interests, they attempted to defeat their concerns by popular vote. Their rationale was that a closed Banff Avenue would not impact the safety of residents and visitors. Experts disagreed. So did the residents. Any delay could cost human life in the case of a cascading wildfire.
The mandate of the Town of Banff is first and foremost to protect Banff’s residents and visitors. Yet the Mayor persisted, promoting the permanent closure of Banff Avenue during an ever more dangerous wildfire season. Despite the vote, the mayor recently implied in the Outlook that just as the paid parking petitioners were overruled, the same might happen again later in this case.
Given the Town’s mandate, the process that has taken place, and the consequences at stake, have the mayor and other elected officials acted ethically? If not, should they be held to account?
In 2022, at the urging of citizens, Town council appointed an independent investigator, Strategic Steps, that can respond to complaints of ethical conduct. Complaints can be filed with anonymity. They can interview risk assessment experts from outside of Banff, release their findings to the public, sanction elected officials if warranted, and recommend safety and policy changes.
Jamie MacVicar,
Washington, D.C.
