Midhurst petition goes viral – 42,000 and counting
AWARE News Network interview with Margaret Prophet of the Modhurst Residents Associaiton
– 42,000 have signed the petition – that’s getting on for ten times the previous goal of 5,000 – are you surprised?
Yes and no. When we started the petition, we weren’t even sure if we’d break a few thousand, but we remained hopeful. It’s surprising because we’re so used to the rhetoric “But what can one person do?” that people give up and don’t try because they assume that they can’t make a difference. This petition and this cause shows that people can make a difference if they “show up”.
On the other hand, it wasn’t a surprise because I know our cause is true and just – that’s why there are so many of us sticking it out, fighting the good fight because it’s the right thing to do. So, we knew that if we could just get people to hear us that they would also understand that this is a people’s fight, not just about development. Thanks to Margaret Atwood and tireless efforts of our volunteers, people are hearing us and realizing that this is a true and just cause just as we do.
-What has got people so inspired (angered? upset?) by the Midhurst issue?
I think our cause resonates with many people and their experiences – disappearing farmland, fields replaced by strip malls and ticky-tacky houses, our environment paying the cost for greed, feeling cut out of government and how they spend OUR money, feeling as passengers when we’re really supposed to be drivers of our democracy. Reading through the comments on our petition and the massive amounts of emails we are getting, this is the sentiment that they are sharing time and again. It’s not that Midhurst is the most important community in the world to save (although it is to me and my family), it’s just representative of many other issues that have never been combined the way they are in the Midhurst issue. Whether your pain is the loss of farmland or whether you believe government should bend to the will of its citizens, there are many levels that our issue appeals to people. It gives them something to stand up against and more importantly something positive to fight for – a future with local farms and food security, plenty of clean water, rural living, small town Canada and governments that not only listen to the people whose pockets they constantly pick, but ones that make decisions WITH the community not against it or behind closed doors.
-Change.org is promoting you – how did that happen?
Well having Margaret Atwood support us the way she has was one of the key reasons. As our campaigner at change.org says, celebrities sign a lot of petitions, one of them getting this involved (tweeting, promoting, issuing a challenge) is very rare. When I first was contacted by change.org, it was during the election campaign this past spring. Our campaigner, Lauryn, was lamenting about how they were looking for a local (Ontario) issue that they could use to engage people more in the election and were disappointed because they weren’t able to find one. When I sent out an email to our signers about Margaret Atwood coming, the email went into her inbox as well (as an administrative function) and it caught her eye. She said it was just the type of issue they were looking for. We then decided it would be best to wait until the Margaret Atwood event to launch the campaign and use an interview with Margaret Atwood as a way to help it go viral.
-In your email to supporters you cite the special loophole as something that the premier needs to close – does that resonate with people?
Absolutely. In general, people are tired of scandals, of seeing government make decisions excluding local concerns and the sense that corporations and businesses have more say in their government than the people who fund it. It seems like almost half of our comments and emails outline how the loopholes (in general) have to stop and how local constituents should have some ability to determine their community’s future.
What’s missing in all of this is true consultation, co-creating a vision with the community. What we have in Midhurst is that consultation at various levels was seen as more of a checkbox rather than a whole-hearted effort to be partners in creating the Midhurst and Springwater that people can get excited about. Having an open house to discuss which route the raw sewage pipes are going to take is consultation by definition, but that’s well below the level of engagement and say most people would like to have in the development of their community. Those are details, but how many residents – not developers or engineers or other businesses/people that could profit off of this sprawl – were involved in the vision? When I mentioned this to a previous councillor, they scoffed – “Well you can’t give people too much information”. THAT is what is wrong and that is why loopholes such as the one for Midhurst need to be closed. It’s about transparency and accountability – words you hear often from government, but rarely evidenced.
– MRA met with people from the premier’s office recently. What do you think will come of that meeting?
At this point, no one knows for sure. What we have is a level of interaction that we’ve never had before and that’s very positive. With our petition growing and higher profile friends coming to stand with us, we can only go up from here. We want Wynne to stick to her word – not only about investigating and talking about the Midhurst plans with residents and their allies, but also the promise given through the throne speech – “a full and active participant in our communities.” Now is that time when communities such as Midhurst need her to stand by that.
-Anything you want to add?
Many people have been wondering how recent events at the OMB have changed our outlook and plans for the cause. First, we were always expecting that the developers would get their approvals – not necessarily because it’s what is in the best interest of the community or environment, but because the rules of the game are not meant to stop this type of large-scale sprawl, only to find middle ground and some compromise. We find it hard to find compromise here – how much prime farmland is an adequate amount to lose forever? How much should we let the Minesing Wetland and Willow Creek degrade? How much traffic congestion should we tolerate? How much of an increase to our taxes should we allow to pay for the operation and maintenance of a mega-sprawl plan that we never wanted to begin with? These are decisions that we will be feeling the effects of forever. This isn’t just a temporary situation – it will change the nature of our township and community evermore. So that’s why we are not prepared to stop using our voices and pressuring government to listen to its people.
On the plus side, there were some small wins for us in OMB settlements that reassure us that the local pressure we are putting into this issue is making a difference. The Township to their credit has put in a long laundry list of conditions that will need to be met before the plans get final approval. The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority has also put in some seemingly strict conditions that need to be met prior to approval. We feel that if we had stayed silent, hadn’t shown up to meetings, hadn’t had our membership and supporters writing letters and emails etc., this development likely would have met little resistance from the authorities. We will be watching closely to see how those tests are conducted, how much public input will be included and the level of enforcement. We will still be pleading our case regarding sustainability, loss of farmland and the basic right of our community to say “NO”.
Excellent interview Margaret. Keep up the good work!!