Surrey’s consultation process is broken.

I couldn’t agree more with Coun. Barinder Rasode, who lamented the divisiveness and lack of meaningful dialogue at the five open houses on amending Surrey’s bylaw to allow larger homes to be built on the traditional 60-foot lots which were once the suburban standard.

Rasode said she would like to take a good look at the structure of Surrey’s public information meetings.

“I’d like it to be a true exchange of information and I don’t think these ones were. As a council, we need to take a look at (consultation) and see how we can do that differently.”

Her words came at a most opportune time. Not only has the consultation on large homes been divisive and controversial, it wound up just as the city made another attempt at consultation, this time on the plan to allow an adventure park in Redwood Park. A proposal for a five-hectare area “wild play” area, including zip lines, suspension bridges and scramble nets, was the subject of an open house on Tuesday night.

This meeting is a classic illustration of all that Rasode finds objectionable. It was held months after the initial suggestion of an adventure park was brought to public attention.

There was minimal notice to those who are interested. Unless one checks the city website regularly, or happens to see an advertisement (which do not reach some Surrey residents at all), these meetings are never known to most people.

In addition, this meeting was held from 6 to 8 p.m., which is not the most opportune time for people who are just on their way home from work, and it was held at Hall’s Prairie Elementary, the night before a statutory holiday. The school is located in a remote rural part of Surrey that is miles from a transit line.

Had I known about this meeting more than 24 hours in advance, I would have attended, given my strong concern that Surrey is letting a unique heritage park be partially taken over by a private company.

Nonetheless, the city persists in holding sham meetings like this. They take place on the premise that no one can complain about a project if such a meeting is held, because they had the opportunity to speak up.

I’ve attended many of these meetings over the years, on several occasions about development plans in my neighbourhood. They are set-ups from the very beginning. Opinions that are at odds with the planning department are pushed off to the side and never featured in any report on the meetings.

Surrey, whether by accident or design, uses a scattergun approach to public consultation. Citizens are allowed to have their say, but the feedback is so diffused as a result of the process, the essence of their concerns is completely lost.

There are exceptions. When the community is able to rally around one project and it captures enough of the public’s interest, as happened with the planned road extension through Bear Creek Park, city staff and council cannot ignore it.

But in most other situations, the current approach works very well in ensuring that the city is run by senior staff in exactly the way they want it run, with minimal interference from council – and particularly from pesky citizens.

newsroom@langleytimes.com