October 29, 2012Dear Sir,I am grateful for the number of column inches you have given in the discussion of the Pembroke Marsh not only in the Letters to the Editor but also in articles such as the one which appeared in your October 29 issue entitled ‘Government defends its record on Pembroke Marsh remediation’.I am pleased that both political parties realise the importance of this remediation to the larger community. I don’t wish to make this effort a political football but there are substantial differences to the Government and OBA approaches. I can’t help but feel, however, that the Minister’s concern comes rather belatedly after I wrote to you earlier this year about the Marsh in the aftermath of a horrendous fire and subsequent to the OBA announcement that the Pembroke Marsh would be reimagined.The Government’s vision, therefore, is just a reaction to what we said. It uses a top down approach without consultation with any of the stakeholders. It involves not much more than weeding the fresh water marsh of invasive species, using Casemates prisoners. No mention is made of the treatment of the area that is causing the greatest threat to safety and social disquiet, the adjacent composting facility which keeps bursting into flames.On the other hand the OBA’s vision is holistic and all-encompassing. We believe that consultation is key to collecting sensible and ecologically sound ideas about revitalisation. We don’t want to talk just to the people who live next door, we want to talk to people from Mill’s Creek to the Arboretum and Happy Valley to ensure that all residents of the area have a voice. The key is to eliminate the idea that any one person or group can “see” all of this and form some deep understanding of how all these elements are connected.One of the founding principles of the OBA is Inclusiveness. In this way full and authentic community engagement, which seeks out those seldom seen or heard, will provide success for any subsequent community planning efforts.SCOTT STEWARTOBA CandidateConstituency 15