Our Official Community Plan (OCP) update process is about to start. So I’ve been chatting with people who were involved in the process the last time around in 1992. Apparently things started off very well. Anybody interested in any aspect of community planning was invited to sit on a subcommittee that would make recommendations to the steering committee. Many ideas were brought forward and explored and everybody seemed quite pleased with what their little group was coming up with. Then came the writing of the recommendations and all hell broke loose. Once the individuals involved understood the implications of the policies they were creating, they realized there were some very fundamental disagreements about which direction the island should take. Although I wasn’t personally involved, I’m told that things got quite heated and it wasn’t until the end of 1995 that the revised OCP was adopted. In theory the plan was supposed to be reviewed and updated every five years but it has taken until now for our council to muster the will to embark on the process once more. Hopefully things will be different this time around.
The Local Government Act outlines what must, by law, be included in our plan. It’s actually quite a short list and includes the sorts of things that one would expect but there are couple of items that are noteworthy. We must include targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions along with policies and proposed actions. One requirement that took me by surprise is that we must designate on planning maps the locations of sand and gravel deposits that are suitable for extraction.
The Municipal website outlines some specific challenges. It reminds us that we should address traffic problems, ferry marshalling, Snug Cove parking, business viability, an aging population, lack of affordable housing and choice, inadequate community facilities and numerous development proposals. Anybody who lived here in 1992 wants to dig up an old Undercurrent to see if they lifted the wording straight out of the list of current problems formulated before that review. But there is a new twist to our deliberations this time around. Today we must plan our future in a region that is growing at a tremendous rate, in a world facing climate change where we all have an obligation to reduce our carbon footprint.
If one were looking for a single issue around which worldviews could coalesce it could well be ferry size. Many of you assume that our population will grow and we will get a larger ferry. You realize that will mean large public expenditures on roads and ferry marshalling and port facilities but you just can’t see any way around it. There are others of you who are willing to work quite hard at convincing people to adjust their lifestyles to ensure that we won’t require a larger ferry. Many believe that the carbon footprint of the ferry and the cars commuting into town every day is something that we should be ashamed of. They would argue that ferry fares should rise to keep traffic at levels that the ferry can handle and the excess money taken in should go towards running the ferry on biodiesel. This example may be too extreme. We may politely agree to disagree on subjects that we know are just too charged with emotion and reflect mindsets that simply can’t bend far enough.
But there are bound to be things that will come up that will cause our cultures to collide and get people going. What we need in those cases is a way of gauging where the majority opinion lies. Think of it this way; twenty percent of the population is against everything and another twenty percent is in favour of everything. In between we have sixty percent of the population that is unpredictable. The joke is that we are all part of the twenty percent on some subjects, we’re absolutely convinced of the correctness of our position and yet it seems that everybody outside of our group of friends have lost their minds. Luckily most people give up on trying to convince others and just keep their mouths shut.
Which direction are we going to go? Here are few choices for you:
Should we: a) work to keep taxes low by having a frugal municipality that doesn’t feel the need to accommodate every group that wants something for nothing or b) build our community infrastructure to improve our quality of life, realizing that our property taxes will go up?
Should we: a) allow developers to build large subdivisions in exchange for community amenities or b) keep development in check and forgo the amenities?
Should we: a) build apartment buildings and townhouses in Snug Cove to provide affordable housing and give people housing choices or b) protect the rural nature of our island by promoting second cottages on existing large lots rather than multifamily housing?
These are the type of questions that exposed the deep divides in our community in 1992. Instead of starting off being nice, maybe we should start by figuring out where the 60% of us stand. To answer the above questions go to bowenbulletin.artisanoffice.com and leave a comment. By the way, I’m going to sign up for the committee looking into the location of those sand and gravel deposits.
Post a Comment