Your statement, "I would encourage you to round up your neighbours, head to the next council meeting and demand a commitment" has been the accepted past practice of residents that want council to give them what they perceive as something that belongs to them or they want to remain the same. Unfortunately, you use the asphalt paving of Concession A as a singular example and make those residents that came before council as greedy and self-serving residents that own properties with high assessment values.
You could have written about the cyclists lobbying for wide shoulders on Frogs Hollow, which now has delayed the work possibly until next year or the residents in proximity to the two closed bridges that connect Meaford to Walters Falls area, who through their lobbying efforts have convinced council to replace the bridges with alternate structures. This of course, went against the low traffic counts, far less than the traffic count on Concession A and the increased cost far more than the $93,000 extra cost for asphalt over tar and chip for Concession A. Then there was the tar and chip cost for Story Book Rd east of Concession 10.
But you could have also written about lobbying efforts such as Advocates for Memorial Park and most recently residents against the Leith beach proposal. There are many more examples, but these examples demonstrate how lobbying by residents remains an effective method to influence council's decisions.
So before you single out one specific group connected to a project/program that effects them, please consider that it is the democratic right to lobby their elected representatives to protect neighbourhoods and programs that they have enjoyed in the past.
Douglas Robinson, Leith