Post by Rick Shea on Aug 17, 2007 12:57:28 GMT -5
Sent to the Salmon Arm Observer today.
The best laid plans…
Dear Sir:
The recently-announced temporary delay of foreshore development on Shuswap and Mara lakes is indeed a positive step. It will allow some breathing room -- an “intelligent pause” so to speak -- and allow the CSRD and member communities time to develop or change official community plans, and plan other infrastructure improvements.
Official community plans are ostensibly a valuable democratic tool for directing improvements, and controlling land use. The OCP process provides for public input and approval, and many believe that this plan is a valuable tool which “will allow local government to take control of area development.”
The reality, however, is very different.
The new powers given to local governments under the community charter allow wholesale changes and variations to the OCP with no citizen input at all. The “alternative approval process” (the government’s equivalent of negative option billing), has already been used in various municipalities to bypass the referendum process and ram through millions of dollars worth of tax increases.
The city of Kelowna has already used the AAP on at least two occasions. One of those was for a controversial aquatic centre to be located in one of the more affluent areas of the city, and which created a significant tax increase for all residents across the city despite the fact that much less expensive alternatives existed.
Kelowna adopted an OCP in 1995, and has revised it on several occasions since. That OCP was very prescriptive in terms of land use and zoning, and in terms of the pace of future development. But, already, development that was originally planned to happen near the end of the life cycle of the plan (close to the year 2020) has gone ahead. “Leapfrog” developments which were to happen far in the future are already going ahead. Developers routinely approach council with significant and sometimes outrageous zoning variances, fully expecting that they will be approved because so many of them already have been. And land designated far into the future as agricultural is almost routinely being rezoned and built over.
Kelowna is scrambling to deal with infrastructure issues. Traffic is near gridlock, not just on Highway 97, but on many of the side streets as well, and most locals already know that the expensive new bridge will have little benefit. After one more expansion, the existing sewage treatment plant will be at capacity, and a new plant will have to be built in approximately 2025, at significant additional cost to taxpayers. Both plants will add to the effluent being dumped into Okanagan Lake, and that issue is only now surfacing as a problem. All this growth and development is occurring despite the fact that the city has no idea how much total water is available in the local watershed.
Clearly, an OCP isn’t really a plan at all, just a guideline that city councils can change at whim. A pro-development council will quite naturally favor changes which help developers, but which don’t necessarily help existing residents or address the issue of sustainability and long term planning.
Add to this mix the recently-announced TILMA (Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement), which may or may not strip municipalities of powers to restrict or control development at all, and it is uncertain whether any “made in Salmon Arm” or other locally-made solutions will have any effect at all.
Is the OCP process just busywork then? That depends very much upon who we elect to city councils and to regional district boards. We need real leaders, who have at heart the fundamental principles of democracy, of sustainability, and of citizenship. We need people who will stand up and say “no” when saying “no” is the difficult but right thing to do. We need people who will say “yes” to the best interests of the community and its citizens, even when saying “yes” is the difficult thing to do.
But, unfortunately, most politicians are not leaders at all, just short term followers -- following the latest polls and trends in order to get elected, using all the current jargon and buzzwords (“smart growth,” “eco-density,” “sustainable development,” “what’s good for the economy is good for the people,” and so on) without thinking about the long term consequences, and attracted inexorably to shiny new developments like moths to a flame.
If we wish the delay in foreshore development to be meaningful, then it is indeed up to us to be our own leaders. Each and every citizen must be involved in the planning process, and each and every citizen must hold politicians at all levels accountable for their decisions -- not just every few years at election time, but every day. Attend meetings, write letters, make phone calls, and let them know what you want your future to be.
Otherwise, the vested interests and the short term profiteers who couldn’t care less about the community, about sustainability, and about quality of life will create your future for you.
Sincerely,
Rick Shea,
The best laid plans…
Dear Sir:
The recently-announced temporary delay of foreshore development on Shuswap and Mara lakes is indeed a positive step. It will allow some breathing room -- an “intelligent pause” so to speak -- and allow the CSRD and member communities time to develop or change official community plans, and plan other infrastructure improvements.
Official community plans are ostensibly a valuable democratic tool for directing improvements, and controlling land use. The OCP process provides for public input and approval, and many believe that this plan is a valuable tool which “will allow local government to take control of area development.”
The reality, however, is very different.
The new powers given to local governments under the community charter allow wholesale changes and variations to the OCP with no citizen input at all. The “alternative approval process” (the government’s equivalent of negative option billing), has already been used in various municipalities to bypass the referendum process and ram through millions of dollars worth of tax increases.
The city of Kelowna has already used the AAP on at least two occasions. One of those was for a controversial aquatic centre to be located in one of the more affluent areas of the city, and which created a significant tax increase for all residents across the city despite the fact that much less expensive alternatives existed.
Kelowna adopted an OCP in 1995, and has revised it on several occasions since. That OCP was very prescriptive in terms of land use and zoning, and in terms of the pace of future development. But, already, development that was originally planned to happen near the end of the life cycle of the plan (close to the year 2020) has gone ahead. “Leapfrog” developments which were to happen far in the future are already going ahead. Developers routinely approach council with significant and sometimes outrageous zoning variances, fully expecting that they will be approved because so many of them already have been. And land designated far into the future as agricultural is almost routinely being rezoned and built over.
Kelowna is scrambling to deal with infrastructure issues. Traffic is near gridlock, not just on Highway 97, but on many of the side streets as well, and most locals already know that the expensive new bridge will have little benefit. After one more expansion, the existing sewage treatment plant will be at capacity, and a new plant will have to be built in approximately 2025, at significant additional cost to taxpayers. Both plants will add to the effluent being dumped into Okanagan Lake, and that issue is only now surfacing as a problem. All this growth and development is occurring despite the fact that the city has no idea how much total water is available in the local watershed.
Clearly, an OCP isn’t really a plan at all, just a guideline that city councils can change at whim. A pro-development council will quite naturally favor changes which help developers, but which don’t necessarily help existing residents or address the issue of sustainability and long term planning.
Add to this mix the recently-announced TILMA (Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement), which may or may not strip municipalities of powers to restrict or control development at all, and it is uncertain whether any “made in Salmon Arm” or other locally-made solutions will have any effect at all.
Is the OCP process just busywork then? That depends very much upon who we elect to city councils and to regional district boards. We need real leaders, who have at heart the fundamental principles of democracy, of sustainability, and of citizenship. We need people who will stand up and say “no” when saying “no” is the difficult but right thing to do. We need people who will say “yes” to the best interests of the community and its citizens, even when saying “yes” is the difficult thing to do.
But, unfortunately, most politicians are not leaders at all, just short term followers -- following the latest polls and trends in order to get elected, using all the current jargon and buzzwords (“smart growth,” “eco-density,” “sustainable development,” “what’s good for the economy is good for the people,” and so on) without thinking about the long term consequences, and attracted inexorably to shiny new developments like moths to a flame.
If we wish the delay in foreshore development to be meaningful, then it is indeed up to us to be our own leaders. Each and every citizen must be involved in the planning process, and each and every citizen must hold politicians at all levels accountable for their decisions -- not just every few years at election time, but every day. Attend meetings, write letters, make phone calls, and let them know what you want your future to be.
Otherwise, the vested interests and the short term profiteers who couldn’t care less about the community, about sustainability, and about quality of life will create your future for you.
Sincerely,
Rick Shea,