Ihave always been a supporter of the current Orangeville Council. I see it as a mature, experienced body that pools its knowledge and educated opinions, overcomes what philosophical differences its various members may have and usually arrives upon an intelligent consensus.

When it comes to the issue of the proposed 1.2-kilometre trail alongside the railway tracks that run through town, however, I cannot help but feel the majority of council is tuned into Radio Free Paranoia, the station of choice for reactionary, navelgazing NIMBYites.

Listening exclusively to opponents of the Rail with Trails (RWT), one could easily get the impression that this is not a recreational walking and biking trail. It’s Orangeville’s version of the Mogadishu Mile.

They paint a picture of a corridor of chaos where marauding gangs of bullies will roam, toxic rail soil will silently spew out incapacitating fumes and howling denizens from Hell will party through the night and menace the neighbourhood.

And, by all accounts, Councillors Gail Campbell, Mary Rose, Scott Wilson and the lately converted Sylvia Bradley are buying into this line of thinking and will likely cast their votes to have the RWT quashed.

When it comes to a specific issue, a municipal council member has the choice, or the dilemma, of approaching it through three different perspectives. 1) Approach it as an elected representative and, therefore, be responsible to parlay the wishes of the majority of his/her constituents. 2) Come forward as one that has been given a mandate to provide his/her interpretation of governance. 3) Speak up as an advocate of the committee where, as council’s representative, he/she is essentially representing a constituency within a constituency.

Since there hasn’t been, at this point, an extensive public poll on support for the RWT, perspective number one is not a viable option to draw an educated opinion.

Options number two and three appear to come into play when it comes to Councillor Sylvia Bradley’s about-face on the railside trail.

Let’s start with number three. The purpose of being on a committee is to bring problems and concerns to the table, hash them out and come up with solutions. Everything’s on the table. Leave politics at the door. That’s the way it’s supposed to be at all levels of government.

Ms. Bradley, who has voted in favour of the project at council, truly surprised her fellow Trailways Committee members by saying she had difficulties with the project from the beginning and was waiting to hear “all the information and options.” Then she decided she had “enough information to make an informed decision.”

As a councillor bound to (number two) provide governance, that’s fine. It’s what a responsible council member feels he or she must do. Ms. Bradley has never been one to shy away from expressing herself, even if her opinions differ from the norm.

Yet, if her only purposes on the committee were to merely vacuum up info and draw her own conclusions, her presence could easily be construed as a waste of space.

On the other hand, Ms. Bradley should be applauded for publicly chastising the despicable and false allegations made by rail trail opponents, that the trailways committee had somehow misappropriated town funds for its own purposes.

I will say, in all objectivity, that committee chair Bernadatte Hardaker is one of the most respectful, decent and compassionate individuals I have ever met. To direct such accusations at her – and other committee members I have come to know – is like using “dainty” and “erudite” to describe King Kong. It’s absurd, hurtful and borderline slanderous.

As for the rest of the opposing councillors, they they have voiced a common thread of dread about placing a trail next to an “active rail line.”

Let’s get real, here. There’s been much hoopla that the railway will become a bustling behemoth if the quarries start up in Melancthon. When a gravel pit sought to expand its operation in Mono, it took seven years to get permission to proceed. The Melancthon quarry does not yet exist, and has to contend with a maze of underground waterways at the proposed quarry sites – not to mention intense local opposition – before mining can commence.

That being said, it could easily be close to a decade before an aggregate train comes through Orangeville. Even then, the trains will have to be loaded with tons and tons of aggregate and proceed along a single line rail at a maximum permitted speed of 30 m.p.h. (and only 10 m.p.h. through Orangeville).

Realistically, it would be hard to see more than two or three such trains passing through town each week.

In a letter to the editor explaining her new stance, Ms. Bradley argues about the cost and logistical difficulties of keeping the RWT open in the winter. News flash, folks. None of the present Orangeville trails are maintained in the winter. What would make this one any different?

Ms. Rose and Ms. Campbell are loyal supporters of their committee constituencies of seniors and the physically challenged. Blocking the project could free up $110,000 which could be spent making other portions of the trail more accessible to these deserving people. This is noble.

In the meantime, they will be blowing off $220 grand in secured grants for the RWT from the federal and provincial governments. This is dumb.

Mr. Wilson says people shouldn’t be encouraged to trespass on the tracks and, for some reason, the RWT will do just that.

Such logic dictates that we should not have a safe, legal and accessible walk way for approximately eight months of the year. Instead, we should have an illegal, more treacherous pedestrian thoroughfare for 12 months of the year. This is dumbfounding.

While these councillors may have a grasp on perspectives number two and three, they may want to consider tuning out the screams of the rail trail opponents and revisiting perspective number one.

There’s a distinct possibility, perhaps even a probability, that the majority of Orangevillians support the RWT.