The people are about to get their first official kick at Wal-Mart.
The question is: does it matter?
The concept of big box retail in the Squamish Business Park has been batted around for years. We've had surveys, referendums, public hearings and council votes on the idea since 1999 - but always on the idea of a big box, not Wal-Mart itself.
But this Wednesday's public information meeting represents the first time that Wal-Mart itself has come to Squamish, presenting itself to public scrutiny as it asks to rezone the land it has purchased from the District of Squamish.
After hearing from the people, council will make the final decision on whether or not to grant the rezoning and allow the project to proceed.
There's only one problem: those seven men and women who will make the final decision to rezone, have made a conditional deal with Wal-Mart to sell them the land they want to build on.
The law states that once a rezoning proposal is before council - after it passes two readings - councillors cannot make up their minds until they have heard all sides after a public hearing. Naturally, the law can't get into anyone's head. But a judge can look at outward actions and draw his or her own conclusions.
Having approved a deal with Wal-Mart to sell the land, it can be argued that council has the appearance of having made up its mind already - why go to the trouble of signing a deal to sell if you intend to reject the rezoning, after all?
We're not alleging wrongdoing on the part of Squamish council - they are following the law to the letter.
But when a municipal council is in a situation like this, where it sells land to a developer conditional to its rezoning, perhaps there needs to be a neutral authority to handle the rezoning process to remove the taint of bias.
We're also not passing judgement on Wal-Mart: we're simply suggesting that the people who have agreed to sell Wal-Mart their land can't in good conscience sit in judgement over the project's fate.
In fact, those who support Wal-Mart coming to town should be very concerned about this process - it gives opponents of the store a chance to have council's decision thrown out in court.
If any one of the councillors owned the land or worked for or was related to the person who did, they'd automatically have to withdraw from the vote based on conflict of interest. So why doesn't the same principle apply to council as a whole?
This is one of the biggest decisions Squamish council will make in its three-year term. We'd like to see the decision made by the people and their representatives, not the courts.
