City authorities are circumventing the democratic process by unfairly using municipal tax dollars to persuade Whitehorse residents to vote no in the upcoming green space referendum.

That's the opinion of referendum advocate Carole Bookless.

Bookless heads the Porter Creek Community Association, which circulated the petition which spurred the referendum.

She told the Star this morning she is disappointed the city has decided to wage a 'No' campaign after officials said they would not.

'They said they were going to have an informational campaign,' Bookless said, explaining the campaign was supposed to be unbiased.

Earlier this year, Robert Fendrick, the city's director of administrative services, said the city would be undertaking an information campaign on the upcoming vote but that the city would not be taking sides.

'What it is, is a communication strategy; we want to make sure people have the information they need to vote,' he said.

'It's not a campaign to say this bylaw (2006-11) is bad, it's just to provide people with information,' Fendrick said earlier this month.

In May, city council elected to pass Bylaw 2006-10, the referendum bylaw, which requires city officials to hold a citywide referendum anytime an area zoned 'green' in the city's Official Community Plan (OCP) is rezoned for another purpose.

Bylaw 2006-10 was passed by council on Monday evening.

Bylaw 2006-11, the planning study bylaw, requires developers to come up with a preliminary planning study and a green space map for all new developments.

The bylaw also calls for the plans to be voted on by area residents in a plebiscite.

Bookless said the information campaign so far, involving advertisements in the newspaper and media releases, was decidedly negative in its approach.

'The city is putting out misinformation,' she said. 'They're saying this bylaw doesn't have anything to do with green space, and it does.

'This referendum is about green-space protection; that's what this is about; they're scare-mongering,' she said.

'They have made this extremely difficult the whole way.'

On Monday, the city issued a press release on the upcoming referendum which highlights the benefits to voting no in the upcoming referendum.

'A vote No against Bylaw 2006-11 is a vote against extra costs, time and processes,' the city's media release states.

'With plebiscite costs at $3,000 to $18,000, the cost to the taxpayer could range between $45,000 and $360,000 annually.

'It is likely that the projected time delays and higher development costs will create increased lot prices,' the release states.

'The time delay and additional development costs will affect builders, developers, home building suppliers and their staff, the real estate market, purchasers of affordable housing, first-time home buyers and taxpayers.'

Asked this morning about the city taking a position on the referendum, Fendrick said the situation is different than when his original statements about the information campaign were made.

'It's evolved,' Fendrick said.

There's nothing in the territorial Municipal Act stating what the city's information campaign has to look like, Fendrick added.

Mayor Ernie Bourassa said he and most other members of council are against Bylaw 2006-11 but conceded the city should also express to citizens what a 'yes' vote to the referendum would mean.

'It's the issue about taking it to plebiscite (that I disagree with),' Bourassa said.

'Every subdivision from one lot to a whole residential subdivision will require a plebiscite ... for a single lot development, what's the point of that? It's ludicrous.'

The city will likely have to put forward 'what a vote yes means' information as well, he added.

'I think we'll have to point out the pro-side as well.'

The green space referendum will be held Thursday, June 22 and is open to all registered electors within city limits.