Last week, local policy makers were challenged to walk in somebody else’s shoes by the Westlock Accessibility Coalition.
“We get a lot of people come before council, and I often hear ‘I think that’s unacceptable.’ I mean, hello Captain Obvious. The list of unacceptable things is longer than our list of resources. But when (the coalition) came to see us about this, their approach was phenomenal.”
“What it showed me was that these people are going to make reliable partners.”
This is what mayor Ralph Leriger had to say about the coalition’s way of interacting with town council. There is a problem, in their eyes, with mobility for disabled people. The question was “How do we fix it?”
Ultimately, yes, accessibility is a problem. It should be clear that it isn’t a Westlock problem, however. Edmonton has its own issues, just to give an example. There, estimates in January showed that to fill only 20 per cent of the missing sidewalks, it would cost about $10 million.
It also isn’t a problem for people with disabilities only or for the elderly. Better sidewalks can only improve foot traffic, and perhaps in the future prompt beautification projects around town as people start walking to places more frequently.
There are numerous benefits to improving infrastructure and they extend beyond the coalition’s goals with the challenge.
The lesson then is in the coalition’s move to invite conversation rather than demand immediate action. In our view, this makes for an effective way to engage with policy makers, and in return receive the label of ‘reliable partner.’
And we can focus for a second on yet another display of pragmatism: among the challenge invitees, we could find business owners like Paul Olsen of Westlock Ford, and R.F. Staples principal Wayne Rufiange.
It’s clear that accessibility is not just about sidewalks, it’s about the idea of how we move around the spaces we inhabit, the spaces where we conduct business, buy stuff, and most importantly where we learn. How we get from one place to another should not consume time and cause worry.
Of course, one question remains: “Will things change?” We can extend that further to how will they change, if they do. But at least now we can afford to ask those questions.
It is a step forward, not a leap into the abyss.
