Ottawa Sun
Published: Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Be careful what you wish for

It has often been said that money is the mother's milk or holy water of politics. And regulators have increasingly tightened the faucet as water naturally tries to find a way to slip through the proverbial cracks.

In an effort to highlight the perceived influence of money from developers, Ecology Ottawa released a report last week: Do Developers Run City Hall? The report documents the extent of developer and development industry contributions to the successful candidates during the 2006 municipal election.

To be fair, Ecology Ottawa does acknowledge the important role the development industry plays in contributing to the social fabric and character of our city.

However, the broader assertion that the development industry is wielding undue influence over city planning decisions due to its $120,000 in combined contributions to candidates three years ago doesn't meet the test of what is actually happening at City Hall.

Council is poised to adopt an update to the Official Plan (OP) -- the master document that governs zoning, land-use planning, transportation and infrastructure -- this spring. In fact the planning and rural affairs committees held a joint meeting this week and conducted yet another round of public delegations (after an earlier tranche in early April) as part of its OP update cycle.

On this file, development interests have consistently taken issue with city staff projections on urban intensification and future housing choices and asked that 2,000 or more hectares of land be added to the present urban boundary. Yet staff has not wavered and is only recommending an additional 850 hectares (of which only 500 are actually developable) be added.

And here's the rub, even though 18 of 24 members of council received contributions from development interests, the 850 hectare recommendation (or less) will carry the day. So much for that undue influence developers are purportedly exerting.

But let's follow Ecology Ottawa's logic further. Why stop at developers? Why not car or bus manufacturers who have a vested interest in suburban sprawl? And let's go after union contributions as well since the higher tax rates at budget time help finance higher wage settlements.

At the federal level the Harper Conservatives put an end to all business and union contributions to the federal political process. However, there are those who will forever be left with the perception that big business and big labour interests are still exerting undue influence over federal decisions.

If we are going to restrict donations to council candidates then it is patently, if not constitutionally, unfair to single out developers. Abboud's convenience mart, Shawn's paper pushers union and Marie-Lucie's hair salons must be shut out as well. But this still won't stop Abboud from making a personal contribution and bending his councillor's ear on a zoning decision near his store. It won't deter Shawn from spreading his donation limit around to several left-of-centre councillors and pressing the flesh for further restrictions on contracting out in the next union contract. And it won't deter Marie-Lucie from suggesting a transit stop in front of her salon while giving her local councillor a dye job and a shampoo, donation or no donation.

Finally if we take it to the extreme, why not ban donations altogether and move to full public financing of elections? Then your tax dollars would be used to fund candidates and positions that you oppose.

When it comes to election financing changes, be careful what you wish for as the law of unintended consequences looms large.