Here I am again, dealing with the fallout from a YouTube video about our community and previous council. I have been down this road before, and I am tired of watching criticism of municipal decisions turn into unsupported attacks on people’s integrity.
The video was released Nov. 8, the day before advance voting in our municipal by-election. With voters heading to the polls, it is especially important to distinguish what the court actually decided from the accusations circulating on social media.
For readers who have not seen it, the YouTube report centres on a 0.57-acre municipal reserve parcel along Southmore Drive in Blairmore. In October 2023, council accepted a $20,000 purchase offer, matching the municipality’s assessed value. The proposed Tanrock Homes project, The Village at Southmore, was a small tourism accommodation development.
A neighbouring landowner, Patrol Base Inc., challenged the sale resolution and the bylaws removing the municipal reserve designation and rezoning the property. Justice Melanie R. Gaston quashed those three decisions over failures in the required public process and returned the matters for rehearing.
The judge found council accepted the offer before the required notice and public hearing, committing itself to an outcome before residents could meaningfully influence it. She also found unfairness in restricting residents’ submissions at the rezoning hearing while allowing the purchaser and administration to discuss the development’s merits.
In plain language, council committed to the sale before giving residents the required opportunity to have their say, then unfairly restricted what they could discuss at the rezoning hearing.
The court quashed the sale resolution and two bylaws and returned those matters to the municipality for rehearing. It did not permanently prohibit the proposal, but the proposal must go back through the required public hearing and approval process before it can proceed.
The judgment makes no finding that councillors received kickbacks, personally profited or sold the land below market value. Nor did the judgment determine that the development lacked merit.
Yet some viewer comments beneath the video allege kickbacks and personal enrichment.
That is where questioning municipal decisions becomes something else entirely.
I served on the previous Crowsnest Pass council. When people accuse that council collectively of lining its pockets, that accusation includes me and the people who served alongside me.
I gave this community eight years of my life. I am proud of the work we did to move the Crowsnest Pass forward. Sensationalism and hostility will not make me bow my head or walk any less tall.
Did we get something wrong in the process? Yes, we needed to consult more. Do I believe the development itself was wrong? No. The judgment did not decide that it was.
Remember that distinction.
Public hearings could be tough during my years on council. We were often berated and shouted at when trying to move the community forward. That does not excuse the failures the court identified. But the personal toll of repeatedly facing hostility from the same small group of people should not be ignored. We had a responsibility to hear residents’ concerns, but listening should not mean we had to accept abuse.
We are holding this by-election because Colleen MacDonald resigned, citing the personal and emotional toll she experienced during her time on council.
Question our decisions. Examine the records. Expect answers. But if you are going to accuse someone of knowingly acting illegally for personal financial gain, produce evidence.
Just because you post an accusation on social media does not make it true. Likes do not establish it. Shares do not verify it. A hundred people agreeing with an allegation does not turn it into a fact.
There is another development discussed in the report that must be considered separately.
Charmed Resorts concerns a much larger site near Sartoris Road in Blairmore. On March 23, 2026, the Land and Property Rights Tribunal denied four appeals concerning that development.
The tribunal found the site suitable for the intended use and concluded that impacts were appropriately mitigated through its conditions. Those included environmental safeguards, traffic assessment requirements and screening beside existing residences.
It also recognized the municipality’s staged approval process as providing opportunities to identify and mitigate development that did not meet municipal requirements.
Neither decision cancels out the other. Each concerns its own circumstances. One adverse court ruling does not establish that every development decision or our entire approval system is improper.
During my eight years on council, we dealt with hundreds of developments and land-use matters. Consider these two challenges: the municipality succeeded in the Charmed Resorts tribunal proceedings, where the development permit was upheld with amended conditions. It lost in the Patrol Base case, where the court quashed the sale resolution and two bylaws and ordered rehearing. One successful defence and one successful challenge. You cannot reasonably take one loss and declare on social media that all our decisions were wrong or that everyone involved acted dishonestly.
Beyond the legal decisions, I want people to consider what this atmosphere means for our future.
Who would want to build here?
Imagine considering an investment in the Crowsnest Pass. You see projects challenged in court or before tribunals. Then you see the personal accusations and hostility surrounding development and developers on social media.
Would you invest your savings, your time and your family’s future in that environment? Or would you look somewhere else?
Think about that.
A developer is not entitled to approval. Residents are not obliged to support a proposal. Public hearings, environmental requirements and appeal rights matter.
But there is a difference between holding a project to proper standards and vilifying the people trying to build it.
We talk about wanting housing, businesses, jobs and a broader tax base. Those things require someone willing to take a risk on this community. What message are we sending them?
I know the people I served alongside, and we care.
We disagreed, sometimes strongly. I did not assume a different opinion meant someone had a dishonest motive.
I am deeply disappointed to see people I know assume the worst about neighbours they have known for years. You know our families, our work and our involvement here. Surely that warrants examining the evidence before joining a public condemnation.
I am also disturbed by the personal hostility directed at our chief administrative officer, Patrick Thomas, and his family. Yes, you read that right, his family! Disagreement over municipal decisions does not justify personal attacks. He is a member of this community with a family, and the words people throw around online do not stop at his office door.
The municipality said it would not comment because this remains an ongoing legal matter. Public statements can affect a municipality’s legal position, so caution is understandable. Not answering the reporter’s questions is not an admission of wrongdoing.
To anyone calling for an investigation into the previous council: bring it on. I stand behind my integrity and will defend the integrity of those who served alongside me.
I recently returned from Salem, Massachusetts. Its history is vastly different from our municipal disputes, but its warning about accusations gaining force through repetition stays with me.
Where is all this hostility and bitterness coming from? When did disagreement become permission to attack someone’s character?
In my view, it is poisoning our community. We should think hard about what that costs us, both as neighbours and as a place hoping to attract investment.
Despite that pathetic post claiming our Garden of Eden has been plundered, its beauty remains. But even a beautiful community can be poisoned by unsupported accusations passed from one person to the next. We all know the story of the serpent and the apple. Before taking a bite, think carefully about what you are being persuaded to swallow.