I’m going to claim credit for that line. It’s something I coined after sitting through countless hours of public hearings, listening to delegations who didn’t want to come out and actually oppose a change in their neighbourhood (especially something like a greenway that might be for the good of the city as a whole but brought outsiders into their community.)
Instead they would argue that the process itself was so inadequate, flawed or corrupted that the motion should be defeated or deferred until a fair and comprehensive process was conducted. That was the argument heard frequently at the recently completed public hearing on duplex zoning for RS-1.
It’s not just the delegations who use that strategy; it’s a favourite of councillors who certainly don’t want to oppose initiatives for more housing but also don’t want to vote in favour of something adamantly opposed by existing residents. Like Melissa DeGenova: “At this point in time, I will not be supporting this. I just don’t support a process that hasn’t engaged people.”
There is no process that will likely be acceptable to those who oppose a change unless it is resolves in their favour. For, after all, if the process worked, it would have come to the conclusion they agreed with.
I like Frances Bula’s recent tweet:
I would pay money to have a speaker at a public hearing say someday: “Your process was very good, you engaged with a lot of people and explained the proposal clearly, but I happen to disagree with what you want to do.”