THANK YOU BOWEN ISLANDERS!

Thank you to all who voted, those who put their names up for election, and those who saw fit to vote for me.

Platitudes aside, Bowen Islanders are the clear winners in this election. We will now have a very well balanced Council, a mix of incumbents and new (but well known) faces, and pretty much the full spectrum of views and interests represented.

I look forward to good debate, thoughtful decisions, and real actions coming from those decisions.

It was quite apparent during the campaign that there are half a dozen issues that all candidates agreed were of core importance. Now the obvious job is to move on them.

I'm rarin' to go, and trust everyone else is, as well. 

Thank you all!

Re-Elect Peter Frinton for Councillor

Some Personal Accomplishments from this term....

* Collaborated with Abbeyfield/Bowen Court to craft the new rezoning solution that will establish the seniors' precinct as the first 'on the ground' project of the Snug Cove Village Plan- within our current OCP height and density provisions

*  Sought out and obtained funding for  women's crisis support on Bowen Island

*  Led the successful bylaw process to adopt Green Building Standards on Bowen

*  Initiated and helped write a grant that secured $400,000 funding for the Snug Cove sewer upgrade

* Spearheaded the Islands Trust acquisition of Fairy Fen - valued over $1 million

* Researched and promoted a Reuse-It store that led to the Knick Knack Nook

* Brought in our first Sea-to-Sky Air Quality bylaw 

 

Some Personal Projects for the next term...

* Enable innovative technologies for low cost housing, including manufactured homes

* Enact alternatives to commercial open air slash fires including waste diversion and controlled burning

* Launch a pilot project for low speed Electric Vehicles

* Introduce a Forest Retention Bylaw (to regulate large scale clear-cutting)

 

In addition to getting on with our core Council strategic initiatives...

1) a final resolution to the Cove traffic, parking and marshalling impasse

2) create more affordable housing options

3) improved recreational facilities and  modest community/fire halls

4)  an equitable way forward with Cape Roger Curtis

5) an efficient OCP review

6) a new overall waste management strategy

7) pursue  ongoing environmental protection objectives

Letter of Support from Paul Hoosen

As published in the Undercurrent - Nov. 3, 2008

To whom it may concern:

I am fully supporting Peter Frinton's candidacy for Municipal Council, and hope that many others do, as well. Peter has served this community with care, intelligence and dedication for years, and provides an important voice in any deliberation, no matter what the subject. He has a strong social conscience, and delves deeply into any issue before making up his mind, thereby allowing diverse points of view to be heard and considered, so that effective decisions can be made.

Peter is a hard worker and a smart worker, bringing a wealth of experience and research to the table. He volunteers an immense amount of time for committee work, and follows through with regular attendance and careful input. He is not afraid to speak up, and present a different point of view, even if it is not popular, while always remaining a good listener.

Peter takes a fiscally prudent, but balanced approach to spending, and has a strong desire to find out what is best for the community at large, in advance of embarking on risky ventures. As an artist, I appreciate that Peter has always supported our goals, and taken concrete steps to make Bowen a sustainable and arts-friendly community. 

He will address the issues of Affordable Housing, Civic Facilities, disposition of Community Lands, Cape Roger Curtis development, OCP review, and infrastructure upgrades with equal passion, and when the moment is right, take positive action. Please consider supporting Peter on Nov. 15.

Paul Hooson

(604) 947-2652

Supporting Peter Frinton

   Peter Frinton needs to rewrite his campaign literature.  He’s way too modest for his own good.  His hard work on council isn’t glamorous and service on council must be a thankless occupation. 

This does not deter him.  He is tireless in his pursuit of informing himself about the details of governing this island.   Endless bloody meetings that go on for hours about all the things in public discussion - housing, Snug Cove, the arts, green regulations, sewers, grants, marshalling, the Cape, transportation, the community plan.   Email him you’ll get an answer. Call him, he responds. Leave a message he gets back to you.      

Whatever issues are up for consideration, Peter is there inquiring, listening, thinking about, researching, immersed in the discussion.   Adding to the discussion and pointing out the pluses and the minuses.  And finally offering nuanced conclusions.   Ask him to show up, & he shows up 100% of the time.  He nourishes himself on doing his stacks of Council meeting homework, talking to everyone about this place where we live and must dream about the nuts and bolts of bylaw writing.   Details, details, details.  Judiciously weighing how it all fits together.  For the public good of it.  For the future of the island and our community.   

He is a municipal councillor day and night.  There isn’t anyone who is more devoted. Without fanfare.  Through and through.  What he hopes for by way of thanks for his dedication is one thing.  The opportunity to do even more of it. Hours and hours, weeks, month after month. What he certainly deserves - is our vote.   - Fitch Cady  

Question about the Synthetic Turf Field

My name is xxx. (deleted personal information)  I am contacting you because over the last few months I have been frustrated with the process with regards to the synthetic grass field project.  As a stakeholder, a coach, an athlete, and a member of the community as a whole, I am concerned that we as a community are not embracing the people who put in endless volunteer hours to aid council to make sound decisions.  The synthetic grass field is a prime example of councils inability to make a decision.  As voters, we spend time researching council members that will make hard decisions and elect them to do so.  It seems to me that some members of the current council do not want to make the hard decisions and seek uneducated feedback from the community, creating community divisions in the process.  I urge you to read the information on the municipality's web site regarding the process that has been undertaken to reach the current status of the synthetic grass field project.

 

As a registered voter in this next Municipal election,  I am interested in your position on the project.  I have real concerns about how Bowen Island will be perceived by the Community Connections grant representatives.   Our elected officials have stalled this process many times thus putting the grant on hold.  I'm sure these are funds that could have been given to other communities in need.  In addition to this concern, I am appalled that this council let this project get to tender.  Many companies invested real money to quote this job with the vision of completion and I know that  local contractors pulled their quotes because of a fickle council. 

 

I am aware of the budget concerns but think we can still construct the field on budget using the Community Connections grant and the additional funds from the recreation reserves.  BIFC will also work to raise additional money to assist in the construction if needed. 

 

The greatest misconception of this project is that it was conceptualized by the Bowen Island Football Club.  As a result we have been demonized in the community and to council as a special interest group driving decisions in council chambers.  It is true that I believe we need new recreation facilities; for example, the gym floor is an unsuitable playing surface  and is constantly over booked.  The school field is getting better but will now be closed for essentially 3-4 months because of the weather.  Contrary to popular belief,  the single largest beneficiary of the artificial turf field  is Bowen Island Community School (West Vancouver School District) who have been 100% behind this project from the beginning.  Lets have a look at the volume of user groups that stand to benefit from this project.  BICS:  lets say only 200 kids use the field (massive underestimate),  BIFC:  currently at about 200 members,  IPS: ultimate program 50 students , additional programming opportunities and people who would play on a better, safer surface: approximately 100.  So that is a user potential on the low end of about 550 community members, not to mention the potential for teams to come from town to play on a good home field.  Not a bad ratio for a community of about 3500 people.

 

The second largest misconception is that the synthetic grass field is meant to be a practice field.   It is true, from the BC Soccer perspective, that the field is only officially large enough to host the under 10 age group games however,  BIFC is encouraging soccer development which translates to small sided games.   Even the men and women's programs regularly play on fields of this size or smaller to encourage touches on the ball.  We have plans to develop inter-squad leagues at all levels but cannot because of field closures, the current state of the field, and an over booked gymnasium. 

 

In conclusion , I am using your response to this issue as a gauge to judge whether you and I share some common vision for Bowen Island.  I would like to see one project completed to better the community so we can continue to be vibrant and engaged.  I encourage you to embrace the volunteers of the community.  It seems to me that their well intentioned efforts are not always properly utilized and then we spend unnecessary tax dollars on another expensive study.  I realize there are many other issues of concern, affordable housing, OCP, Cape Roger Curtis, the cove,  and the list goes on.  I urge you to respond honestly and not politically side step this issue. 

 

Sincerely,

 xxxxx

Dear xxxx:

Thank you for your email. I was on the Parks and Recreation Commission from 2002-2004, and continued as Council liaison from 2004 until it went into hiatus in late 2007. We were apprised early of the Community Connections Program, and of the process that distilled the possibilities down to the synthetic turf proposal. As you know, Council unanimously voted in Dec. 07 to transfer up to $375,000 from reserves into the 2008 recreation budget. We all thought it was a great project, and for different reasons, but the common thread was the one you identified- that this would be a high value, heavily used facility that would be a de facto first phase of our Civic Facility process.

When we received the report from the project coordinator and staff (Christine Walker) in May 2008 which elaborated some of the project elements- the need to remove the trees, the additional costs, the exclusion of lighting  from the core project, I think we were put a bit off balance. This was compounded by the high bids tendered, and of course, the public reaction.

The voting record of individual Councillors is in the minutes; suffice to say that two councillors began to raise strong concerns about the project, particularly the lack of a wide public process. Two were in favour, and I remained fairly neutral. The mayor tried to achieve an equitable outcome, though it became clear that all of us were becoming wary as the public heat increased. 

The crafting of conditions- including the budget ceiling, the requirement that the marked trees should not come down,etc. led to an attempt to introduce other configurations, including the south of current field concept plan, which SD #45 rejected.

Also complicating the decision has been the inability, as yet, to update our joint management agreement with the SD. Ongoing concerns, such as hours of use, access to washrooms, cost allocations for maintenance, have not been addressed. That background work is proceeding.

Given all this, Council has directed that a further public process set for January. That may appear to you to be stalling, but it is genuinely felt that the time was needed to put the ducks in a row. We would not be spending another $2000 if we felt the project did not have merit, or that it was to be flatly rejected, regardless.

My position is quite clear; I support the construction of a new field, appropriately designed and located. I understand the advantages of the 100x120 synthetic turf field in the original location. However, I am more than open to alternatives that would not raise the ire of so many people. 'Uneducated' or not (and that is your view, not mine), there was a strong visceral reaction to this, and  I do not believe that approving something like this in this atmosphere would have been beneficial to the project.  We on Council did not create the divisions- the underlying values simply existed, and coalesced around this project.  I spent a LOT of time with the Civic Facilities Working Group, at which there was much talk about ways to build community support for new facilities. I want to build consensus around the field and  community hall projects, not fight people- ie perhaps complete one project but in doing so jeopardize another, larger one.

The money is still there, the desire for a field is still there, and Community Connections has extended the grant period for a Sept 09 outside completion date. I truly appreciate the volunteer effort and the terrific activities of the BIFC, and your willingness to fund raise. I ask that you please be patient, recognize the bigger picture, and help us to reach a solution that pleases a clear majority of Bowen Islanders. 

I've floated some ideas, none of which seem to resonate. Maybe you can comment. One was to go back to the type of concept put forward by John Reid and architect Ron Cato 3 years ago- to build a covered facility on the 'Snake Field', which can accommodate a 100x120 surface (barely). Can one utilize a quonset type building (with sidewalls)  for the intended uses? How high does a ceiling need to be? What about a tent- much like the BIRD structure but bigger and higher? Several years go, there was a plan to do something of this sort on newly acquired community land at the top of Cowans adjacent to Headwaters Park...

Thank you.

Peter Frinton

Supportive and Affordable Housing

On Monday November 3rd, there was both a hearing and readings given to Bylaw #224, which amends our Land Use Bylaw to allow for the development of a Seniors Precinct zone. This bylaw, once given final reading after covenants and legal agreements are in place, will allow for the construction of the long awaited Abbeyfield, as well as some market and rental housing that will assist Abbeyfield and Bowen Court financially.

This is a highly significant for a number of reasons. It is the first bylaw to implement the 2005 Snug Cove Village Plan. It will be the  North bookend project to our 'Village within a Park' concept. It utilizes the maximum density of 17.5 units/acre, without requiring any further amendment to our OCP. It will give new financial stability to Bowen Court, now over 20 years old, but still saddled with a mortgage. It provides for a mix of multi-family rowhouse typologies along Miller Road, which will be in considerable contrast to the existing single family , 1/4 acre lots along that portion of Miller Rd. and finally, the Abbeyfield structure will have flexible housing as well- lower cost rentals in the beginning, conversion to Abbeyfield resident units in the future, or for ancillary functions such as respite housing. As Faye White said during the hearing: " This is a health initiative as well as  housing"

So- we get seniors housing, affordable housing, assisted living and market multi-family. Exactly what we wanted when the Village Plan was crafted.

I am extremely proud to have been involved in this project- albeit in a limited manner. As a member, then chair of the APC back in 1995/96, I supported the 'unit equivalency' provisions for supportive seniors housing, which were quite contentious at the time. I brokered the density in the Village Plan which settled on 17.5 units/acre.  I  attended AGM's of Abbeyfield, supported community grants to them, donated money, and this year, sat down with Graham Ritchie and Dave Witty to strategize on the rezoning application. They were very reluctant to be first out of the gate; I am so pleased they are, as the project significantly benefits the community, and sets an example and bar for further rezonings along the west side of Miller Rd. and elsewhere within the Cove.

There were two cautionary notes sounded at the hearing- by a neighbour and another very long time resident, concerned about traffic, noise and precedent setting. In speaking to the issue, I thanked them for their concerns, and the need to ensure that not only must mitigations be in place, but assurances that Miller does not become entirely a strip of higher density housing. Certainly, the Community lands across and down the road need to be properly planned to ensure that development does not overwhelm the area. In fact, I believe there is a strong case to keeping 3A and B (north and east of the RCMP) intact as green space, and concentrating on lot 2A between Seniors Lane and the school, which have views and are not well forested.

This rezoning will bring significant change to the area. I am confident that it will be, on balance, a beneficial one.

Two weeks to go- a quick summary of my thoughts

So- We’re over half way through the election campaign, and a few things have become quite apparent.

1. Elections are a good thing. A time to look back and verify whether things have been going well or not, and to look forward to see what might be in store. People reawaken to local issues and want answers.

They force all the candidates to articulate thoughts and feelings, to debate, entertain new ideas. A few themes have emerged. 

• A need to be very careful with money- no argument there.
  
• A common interest in building a modest community hall
• Agreement that we need to do an OCP review- efficiently!
• Support for affordable and supportive housing
• A desire for an equitable CRC solution
• Infrastructure renewal and upgrades (roads, water, sewer)
• Forward looking waste management strategies
• Appropriately scaled economic development
• Ongoing protection of the environment

2. All the candidates are credible. It’s nice to have good choices.

3. We live in a great place. We want to keep it that way. The only question is how. So the debates are among well meaning thoughtful people trying to find the best path.

Whether Council functions well or poorly depends mostly on alignment of intent. The Kenyans call this Harammbe- pulling together. Each person must work hard, for common goals, with respect, persistently.

I have tried to do just that- bringing well researched ideas to the table, debating them hard, voting and supporting the outcomes. I have brokered compromises, and followed up to try to make sure decisions became actions. Not always successfully- I’m still waiting for the fix to the Cardena Road drop-off, even though we’ve all agreed to get it done.

I’ve followed some of my own initiatives- the Home Safe Program, The Fairy Fen Crown grant, the Air Quality objectives. I’ve been at the forefront on the successes of this term- Civic Facilities Planning, Sewer expansion Grant, the Abbeyfield rezoning, Affordable Housing modalities, Green Building Standards.

I’ve got more projects in the works-a neighbourhood electric vehicle pilot, alternatives to commercial open-air burning, a showcase project for innovative manufactured homes. Add to that, I strongly support the core Council initiatives- OCP review, a good CRC resolution, Cove improvements, Community land sales, modest fire and community halls.

I still have energy and drive, an understanding and perspective of civic issues going back to the 70’s, and the know-how to advance initiatives, as well as continuing to be productive in day-to-day Council business. It truly is the time to put together the good ideas, the studies, the organization, and bring to fruition in this term the projects already in the starting gates and on the track.

For that, you need at least one pragmatic, results oriented non-ideologue on the team. Whether your leanings are more left/green or you are conservative minded, please look carefully at my ongoing contributions to three Councils, and at what I would do this time around.

Please give me that chance by voting  Peter Frinton for Councillor on Nov. 5th or 15th

Add comments or ask questions on this interactive website  Or just call or email  with questions.

 Thank you.

Bowen Community Character-Quo Vadis?

I moved to Bowen in 1972 essentially to get AWAY from the perils of the universe. Population was 480. The first ferry left at 6:45am and had a regular coterie of 6 car driving commuters. Car and driver cost $3.50 return. The school had 13 kids and was in danger of shutting down. That summer, a family moved in with 2 children, saving the day. 

By 1979, Bowen had outgrown its school and SD 45 built the one we now have. Population was over 1200, I think. A wave of suburbanites had moved here, partly because Bowen was less expensive than, say Surrey. 

Thirty years later, we are somewhere in the 4000's- nobody really knows because many 'invisible' people live in suites and cottages and trailers and huts. And other than an OCP which set out quite piously to project a build out of approx. 7200 people, there has been very little change to the way we go about managing growth. 

The old subdivisions such as USSC/Snug Cove predate the last century. Scarborough, Hood Point were laid out in the 19 teens. Deep Bay, Bluewater, Tunstall, Adams Road, were creatures of the 60's, Queen Charlotte Heights the 70's. Toss in Sunset Estates in the late 70's. 

Really- it is not until you get to Cates Hill- late 90's, and then Cowan's and John Reid's smaller subdivisions since incorporation, do we get a different approach- higher densities in exchange for green space and amenities. 

Until we started to hit the crunch with ferry overloads, high prices, and the request for more services which came with a bigger population, it was all going quite swimmingly. Rural sprawl meant nice big lots, dogs in the yard, a place for a garden. 

The problem now is that we are seeing the limits to growth using the old model. So the real question facing Bowen in its impending OCP review will be: Do we want to use current regulation to thwart unwanted growth, or will we anticipate growth and delineate new land use patterns. 

John Rich pretty eloquently speaks in favour of the former. If we do not 'cave in' to urban planning precepts, and remain vigilant, we can keep the status quo, albeit at the big expense of community diversity. Change the formula- which is what our 2005 Snug Cove Plan does, entertain Abbeyfield, the Community Lands rezoning, CRC, etc. and we clearly signal a willingness to adjust our thinking about what the future of Bowen holds. 

Galiano and Denman Islands are examples of Trust Islands that have historically just said NO. Lasqueti even more so, by denying a car ferry and electricity. One result is declining school populations, another- stagnant economies. Saturna has found another way- with the Federal Park, which effectively caps the population. Gabriola- similar to Bowen in population but a bit more 'down to earth', has managed to stay vibrant. Their food store is great, they have 3 community halls, and there are no condo projects on the horizon. But they are under WAY less pressure than we are, as Nanaimo can still easily absorb new growth. 

I miss old Bowen, but quite frankly new Bowen is a lot more interesting. The sophistication of our community is remarkable. I don't think we can go backwards, and so I reluctantly embrace the new land use model. To me, it is a question of scale and balance- where new growth happens and how. I fought quite hard for the 12.5/17.5 units/acre cap and constricted boundaries in Snug Cove, as a compromise of visions that wanted too much or squandered land. A blend of Smart Growth concepts and island scale works for me. The trick is getting it right. And until we can get beyond the entrenched positions, there is no real way to negotiate the details. 

That's why I'm excited about an OCP review that has embedded in it real-life scenarios presented by BIM in the Cove and the CRC proponents out at the Cape. It will help to focus issues clearly. The future of the island is at stake- and that is not an ominous threat, but a fact. Now is the opportunity to define what we really, really want....

CRC- The Cape!

Someone emailed this question to me yesterday:

Hi  Peter, I just have a quick question about the Cape Roger Curtis development.

 

Would you be for or against going ahead with the plan that has received first reading?  I mean going ahead with something that closely resembles the large development that they have in mind even if it is still "tweaked" abit? Or would you prefer a much smaller density, closer to existing OCP, even if we lose access to some waterfront & trails.

 

This is the most important question I have regarding my vote in the election.  I would appreciate hearing from you.

Dear XXXX:  I am sorry, but don't have a good concise  answer for you. I am in favour of a good comprehensive development, as opposed to a 58 lot subdivision without further rezoning. I personally am not married to the large park and 80% + waterfront, but those elements appear to be very important to a lot of people. So, to me it is a question of what the public at large really wants, and at what cost ( in terms of densities and uses). I will sincerely be guided by what the public appetite is.

A couple of other things. Right now, the OCP says 224 single family residences (dwelling units). However, we have passed a secondary suites bylaw that essentially would allow all those units to have an extra suite, ie 448 units if all chose to do so! I argued against providing this automatic entitlement in new comprehensive zonings when the bylaw was being debated. My inclination was to control suite numbers as we had with Greenways West- which allowed 8 of the 23 units to have suites. 

This proposal allows suites, but the proponents have said that is negotiable. So if we allowed, say, 25% of 295 single family residences to have suites, plus the 95 multi-family units, the total comes to about 460. Not much difference. Affordable housing is an add-on to the density provisions under both models.

As to the Inn- my take is that it is outsized for Bowen sensibilities, and possibly counter ot the Islands Trust policy statement and our OCP which prohibit building 'attractions' as opposed to filling local needs. The Seniors' Continuum of Care suffers the same scale problem though to me, as an institutional development, and one which greatly enhances services for seniors, I am less critical of it. The other stuff- the school/community sites, live-work, limited commercial, are all fine by me.

Dave Witty's plan was for 275 units (235 of which to be single family), and 100% public waterfront. But he did not include the  $7.5 million to municipal coffers. 235 permitted suites added, and the plans converge a lot more...

At Cowan's Point, we allowed current OCP buildout- about 175 units, I recall, each of which now will be able to build a suite. On top of that we permitted a 20 room inn, 16 condo units, some commercial space, and a 20 room 'retreat'. The inn, retreat and condos could conceivably be marketed together as a de facto 56 room inn.

I would not likely be in favour of giving further readings to the bylaw as current worded for two other reasons. First, there is a big pinch point between Pebbly Beach and the Cape, which is by far the most popular and valuable public amenity offering. The public dedication should be wider. Second, much of the flat land has agricultural capability, and lies within our Agricultural map. Simply providing a community garden is not a good enough tradeoff for alienating those lands. I would like to see those lands still available for future agricultural use. One way is to have a 'Horsey area'- larger lots, a horse ring, etc. that provides a high value use that still reasonably protects the land.

Reply back: Thanks for your well thought out response Peter.  

Good luck in the election.

NOV. 5 UPDATE

The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society emailed questions to the candidates in advance of the meeting November 9th. These are the questions:

*       How do you see the mandate of the Island Trust to preserve and
protect the natural features of the Islands (including Bowen) benefiting
Bowen?
*       Do you support a fast tracked and thorough revision of the OCP
and a moratorium on all major unapproved development projects on Bowen
during the revision?
*       Would this moratorium include a) the latest development proposal
for CRC and b) the earlier subdivision application for 58 10acre lots?
*       Do you support the latest development proposal for the Cape?
*       Are you satisfied that the current level of research submitted
regarding the proposal is adequate to address the issues of water,
sensitive area protection, environmental impact, transportation,
emergency response and availability of sufficient power to supply this
and other development?

This was my answer:

The mandate of the Trust includes more than protecting the natural features of Bowen Island. The Object speaks to preservation and protection of the Trust Area-both its unnique amenities and environment, and is expressed primarily through the Policy Statement, updated 2003. 

Curiously, the tag line for the Trust places a slightly different emphasis:

Preserving Island communities, culture and  environment

There are enormous benefits to Bowen- we are bound and obligated by the legislation, so major bylaw amendments affecting land use must be approved or at least reviewed as being conforming by both Trust staff and executive.

 As well,the Trust holds land and covenants on Bowen, provided our Crown Land profiles, and was the vehicle for the Fairy Fen Crown Land Grant. We can access Trust office resources, such as GIS mapping, and are party to the various protocol agreements and Memoranda of understanding- with First Nations and San Juan County for example. So we are very much part of a team.

 Yes, I support a fastracked OCP review commencing in the first quarter of 2009. I believe that review of major unapproved development projects, specifically CRC and the Coummunity owned lands in Snug Cove should be EMBEDDED within the overall OCP review. This will provide specificity and focus to the process.

 The earlier subdivision application for 58 lots could not be constrained,if re-activated, by an OCP review, as authority for subdivision rests with the approving officer, not Council.

 

I do not support the current development propsal in its details- both overall numbers and land use patterns. I do strongly support a comprehensive rezoning approach to the Cape, and the major elements contained in the current application. Public appetite for the tradeoff cost/benefits will guide my decisions about final density, how it is measured, and what exact amenities are obtained. Park, trails, extensive shore access, public land deidcation are paramount.

 

I have read the reports submitted by the Cape proponents- not line by line, but extensively. The environmental aspects, I believe, are quite well addressed. However, the water study is troubling to me, in that there is very little margin in supply. Also, I do not trust the transportation study as truly reflecting the impacts the development would have both on cross-island and ferry traffic. Finally, the proposed sewer outfall, which if constructed to tertially treatment levels would not likely introduce biohazards to the ocean environment.But it would collect and hasten groundwater return to the ocean. I believe there are better alternatives.

 

Emergency response is not something I feel qualified to comment on. Clearly, CRC is at the ‘end of the road, as is Bluewater or Hood Point West and Cowan’s. Response times and capacity are critical. Our firechief is very cautious, as was seen with the Inn appication earlier this year. He has concerns about 4 storey buildings which I share. I am sure that before any approvals are given, they would receive a full vetting.

 

Electrical supply- short answer is that I am sure BC Hydro would ensure that sufficient capacity is available. They should be included in the referral process. I would love to include on-island generation as part of our energy security. New developments will be built to our new Built – Green Gold/Energuide 80 standards. 

The Arts on Bowen

 All of the candidates will be falling over backwards to insist on how greatly we appreciate the Arts, and of the importance of fostering the arts on Bowen. The presence of the arts 'out there' is unmistakable, from Kitchen Junkets to recording studios, a full roster of exhibitions here at the gallery, at the library, in private galleries. Clay gets thrown, films get made. New players show up and put on occasional theatre, Morris dancers do their routines and various arts instructors ply their trades at well attended classes.

 To be truthful though, there have been only a few recent mileposts, such as the addending in the OCP of the Cultural Master Plan. Looking back on what I wrote between 2002 and 2005, the talk is eerily the same....

 * Referendum in 2006? 2007?- now 2008? 2009? 2010?

* CHAC endorses work of Civic Facilities Task Force- now CFWG

* Need to address funding, start building, opening dates delayed

However, there have been real successes:

 * CFWG conducted an enormous planning process. I attended 52 of 55 meetings as liaison with people who are the most dedicated volunteers I have ever worked with.

* The feasibility study and space needs program have been completed

* A location has been identified and set aside

* Next tangible steps- funding, schematics, hiring of project manager, have been costed and recommended

 The biggest 'win' of the process was to break down physical and viewpoint barriers between arts and recreation. The proposed community centre is to be just that- a centre of and for the community. The uses cross over, the spaces cross over. Never should there be an argument about who gets what, or us and them.

 Obviously we have had a lapse since May. That has not altered my determination to proceed. What we most need now is a public process to obtain consensus. We may not get a dream facility, but we must hone in one that meets our needs and makes us proud. This is the single most important project we could undertake in a generation that will actually build community. We can repave every road, have shiny fire trucks and a great sewer system- all laudable and to varying degrees necessary, but none will deliver the pride and functionality of a real community hall.

 Meanwhile, continued recognition of the Arts as an economic pillar and an uplifting element of Bowen needs to be emphasized repeatedly. Support for BIAC, Tir-na-Nog, and other arts organizations, not just via grants but built into our core budget. Continuation of special artistic events such as Voices in the Sound, the Fridge. Building more arts programming and classes. Establishment of a cultural commission, most likely in concert with a resurrected recreation commission, and eventually a facility management board, are things we should plan now, in the same way such administrative structures are being developed for affordable housing.

 Arts flourish when nurtured. It takes more than talented people, or buildings. It happens when a community recognizes the importance of the arts and deliberately plans for their inclusion as a cornerstone of community development. And Council carries that responsibility. I certainly do.

 

 

Greenways OCP Amendment-Just another new set of regulations?

There was an information meeting last night on a proposed OCP amendment

 which would add language around 'greenways' on Bowen. Sue Ellen Fast, chair of the recently formed Greenways Committee, chaired the meeting,  and planners Celene Fung and Jason Smith walked through the presentation.

Unlike a previous info. meeting on Abbeyfield a couple of nights earlier, well over thirty people attended, and they expressed a number of concerns.

The primary one was around language: the bylaw states, among its policies (5.4.1), that the "Municipality will in appropriate circumstances secure and protect lands for Greenways.... including Municipal purchasing... securing covenants.... establishing stewardship partnerships ... and by other means. " 

This brought up the sceptre of expropriations, or denial of building permits or issuance of development permits unless municipal desires for land were satisfied. Never mind that provincial authority granted under the Expropriation Act http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/E/96125_01.htm

already provides power of expropriation, and that an OCP amendment does not impact regulatory bylaws.

Even when this was explained, the fall back was "It's just another bloody constraint, more bureaucracy, an attack on property rights that will cost us money."

I countered that the Greenway concept has really taken hold on Bowen, that developers such as John Reid have made greenway connectivity a hallmark of his applications which have found favour with three successive councils. Also, that our OCP is deficient in language around this concept, and other jurisdictions are rapidly making changes to their OCP's- in fact, a whole Green Bylaws  Toolkit has been put together by a group including the BC Government, Environment Canada, Uvic Faculty of Law, Ducks Unlimited, and so on. See:

 greenbylaws.ca

That said, the argument then shifted to: "We should wait until an OCP review. This is the cart leading the horse." Good point, and in fact, if passed, the amendment would patch into the new OCP. Just last Monday, Council received the final report of the Sustainability Framework Working Group - and its proposed OCP add-on to capture language around sustainability. A few years back, a Cultural Master Plan was incorporated into the OCP, and before that a Parks Plan. There is a recreation add-on in the works as well.

The point of all this is that OCP are dynamic documents, and we don't stop everything, awaiting their review. I'd rather have general objectives and policies than be floundering for ways and means to input bright ideas when they emerge. As well, having policy in place does guide the derivative regulations that over time get developed. In pressing for seatbelts in cars in the mid fifties, it was important to accept the premise that they might save lives. Manufacturers didn't like back then, either....

But I did promise to bring the concerns back to council and modify some offending words. I don't think that will mollify those who still think we ought to have less law, however.

Community Spirit

The essence of any community is its members. I say members, because the word implies 'belonging', and a true measure of place or home is the sense that one belongs, has both entitlement to being there, and a stake in its future.

We talk a lot about inclusivity, yet in many ways we don't include whole groups of people. Certainly, those whose hours of employment, or need to be mobile at off hours, cannot easily live here. If aged and/or infirm, it's pretty tough, with an incomplete spectrum of medical services and support. And housing choices are very limited; everyone knows the difficulties of finding accommodations for  service workers, people on pensions, or others unable to afford the exhorbitant costs of house ownership or even rentals.

However, for those who do manage to carve a niche, one of the big attractions is our community spirit. BowFest, Canada Day, Remembrance day, the Christmas choral concerts, Run-for-the-Ferry, the fall Fowl Suppers and ongoing Legion dinners, Hallowe'en haunted house and fireworks, Family Place's Children's festival, Strawberry Tea, PPP, the Children's Centre annual huge rummage sale at Cates Hill are all examples of events that underscore how rich our community really is. 

Add to that the extraordinary array of volunteer driven entities that don't hold events- like the NERPS, BIRD, the formal advisory committees of Council,  and myriad others, and one realizes that Bowen really is something special.

It's odd, though, that we don't have a 'real' community hall, and haven't gotten together to do an old style barn raising to address that. Instead, we hire visionaries, and do feasibility studies, needs analyses, convene committees that meet for years. In one sense, it is a measure of prudence and sophistication, but in another, a measure of incapacity. North Pender, Lasqueti, Denman, Hornby, Mayne, Saturna- in fact all the Gulf Islands have built impressive community centres via 'grass roots' means.

The recent ferry waiting room erection- small project, mind you, was exhilarating in that it just happened. One organizer, lots of helpers emerging from the woodworks, money from Harper's Island, and over three work days up it went. And people actually use it. 

Somehow, I think we need to harness that kind of thinking to further other projects. Or, as I like to think of it, we need a community hall, not a Taj Mahal!

Recycling Election Propaganda

I dug out  material that was posted in 2005, and some even earlier than that,  to see how the great promises held up. You can see the unedited postings by going to:

http://www.checkmateconsulting.com/ffc/

The painful and obvious truth is that many of the same issues are highlighted with only the timelines changed. This indicates several possible things- unrealistic expectations, acts of God or other interveners, politicians saying anything.

Probably all of the above. Things take a long time (and work expands laterally to take up all available time), there WERE some glitches- including major senior staff turnovers, and it is true that most political aspirants want to suggest they'll do far more than is reasonably possible.

Case in point- Snug Cove. We've been tossing planning ideas for decades, the Village Plan was finished in 2005, yet another Master Plan done in 2007, yet on the ground nothing much has changed except some south side sidewalk work. We've said as a Council that we ought to start with  the ferry apron to Cardena section, but BC Ferries, who said they'd get back to us in August, have only said that a dropoff in that area is unpractical. We asked our highways guys to widen the corner at Cardena for a better turnaround, but they haven't done it- possibly because Public Works wants to see how it fits into the bigger picture (and to their defence, they've been really busy with other projects, including road repaving, as we have all seen). Meanwhile anything to do with major traffic works hinges on acquisition of GVRD land, and we haven't even begun to nail down exactly what we want.

Hard to pin specific blame, if due,  except that ultimately these are political decisions, and collectively it is Council's responsibility to decide, give direction to act, and ensure that what has been decided is done.

I've touted a simple, inelegant ferry marshaling/parking plan for quite a while now, and will push to see it, or something similar adopted. That is, to use the existing traveling surface of Gov't Rd, but get rid of south side parallel parking, replacing it with angled parking on the north side. Not ideal, but inexpensive (you can go around the hydro poles), requires a strip less than 20 feet of GVRD park land, and it provides better parking plus allows for 2 lane marshaling. And it minimizes incursion into the active heronry area. Even if a narrow median  was added to the road, only another 2 metres would be needed. We could argue, or wait, or just get on with it.

Other examples to follow...

Just What Does a Councillor Do Anyways?

We all know Mayor and Councillors sit around a table once a week and work through an agenda- that may include development applications, 'housekeeping bylaws', correspondence, minutes, delegations,  budget, etc. These meetings alternate weekly between formal decision making and a committee of the whole- structured less formally to discuss and allow for public input.

In addition, there are hearings, closed Council meetings about 'land, labour, and law' (16 so far this year), informal meetings with the likes of BC Hydro or Translink. A couple of times a year there are strategic sessions held, to identify priorities and review progress toward stated goals.

Then there are committees of Council to which Councillors are appointed by the Mayor, and to which they are liaison or active, but are expected to attend regularly.

I have been on:

• Parks and Recreation
• Community School Joint Management Committee
• Civic Facilities Task Force, then the Working Group
• Greenways Committee
• Sewer Committee

Annually, there is the five day Union of BC Municipalities convention,  and usually 3-5 elected officials attend this. Some go more regularly than others.  As well, there is an annual Lower Mainland Local Government Association conference, much like UBCM in focus, but smaller and hands on. There are meetings with provincial government staff and cabinet ministers at both conventions, and an opportunity to network with other local governments as well as attend workshops. I go to all UBCM and alternate LMLGA conferences.

Beyond that, individual councillors take on initiatives of their own. That's where there is a lot of divergence. Howe Sound Forum meets 2-3 times a year, which I attend. But there are other learning and  networking opportunities. Here are some for which I have taken time to attend:

• GVRD Council of Councils
• Built Green conference
• Wood Works symposium and showcase
• Procurement Workshop (Best practices in municipal contracts)
• Smart Growth BC Annual Exhibition/Meeting
• Sea-to-Sky Air Quality Management Plan meetings (3-4x/yr)
• BC Tourism Workshop
• Waste Technologies presentations
• GVRD Sustainable Region sessions
  
• Riparian Area Regulations Workshop
• Legal primers and 'effective meeting training'

All this adds up to a lot of time. Some may argue that these are 'beyond the job description', but to be effective requires that one gets beyond the steep learning curve. Plus, it broadens and deepens the reservoir of knowledge that stands behind every decision.

Finally, there are the initiatives that a Councillor brings forward and championed. In my case it has been everything from the Women's Home Safe Program to assisting the writing of grants for the Spirit Square and Towns for Tomorrow, that led to a $400,000 sewer grant. I looked into Re-Use -it Store models on Pender, Salt Spring, Hornby, Saturna, Mayne and at Whistler. I checked out recycling operations as well. I compared approaches in construction of Fire Halls at Whistler, Pender, West Van. and Colwood, all of whom built new facilities within the last few years. I did a remuneration analysis for mayor/councillors, helped Abbeyfield work through their density and building form options, and put together a first draft of a forest retention bylaw. I brought the anti-idling bylaw forward, and it has now passed.

Another three years will see that list expand, if re-elected!

Bowen and the Islands Trust

When Bowen incorporated, it became the first island within the Trust federation to do so. Much of the discussion leading up to the incorporation vote in 1999 (which went 60:40 in favour, BTW), revolved around speculation as to the role of the Trust in Bowen's future.

Many were concerned the Trust would lose its pre-eminence in local politics, and with it, the 'Preserve and Protect' object. Others were concerned about the domino effect- that other islands would soon follow suit. Yet others just wanted to see the last of what they considered to be an obstructionist, brittle organization.

None of the yea nor naysayers have been entirely bourne out. The Trust has receded from the front lines of public view, but it is still there in the background. Bowen's land use bylaws still get vetted by staff for adherence to the Policy Statement Directives, and OCP amendments actually require Trust Executive approval. We still benefit from Trust programs- such as free Crown Grants, Trust Fund ecological covenants and outright land ownership, as well as remaining part of the federation, and its protocols, intergovernment agreements (eg First nations/treaty group relationships), cross border memoranda (eg with San Juan County). There are annual Stewardship Awards, for which Bowen Islanders have been nominated and been awarded. A tax emption program for natural area protection, NAPTEP, is in the process of getting approvals for use on Bowen.

Two Bowen Trustees attend Trust Council quarterly, plus belong to sub-committees. I have been on the Governance Task Force as well as the Programs committee for the past term.

I remain both an ardent supporter and critic of the Trust. Supporter, because the Trust philosophy is close to my own, and because as an organization, it has generally protected the islands in the same way the ALR has protected farmland. A critic, because the Trust has failed to become nimble nor innovative in its delivery of core services, and because it often retreats to hardline positions that imperil its wider effectiveness. Case in point is a long battle on Galiano that has cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars, has torn the community apart, and has failed to uphold ecological or community values. A similar intransigence has infected Denman to a lesser but still worrying degree.

I am also a critic of the cost of keeping the organization afloat, and Bowen's bloated contribution, close to $200,000 in 2008. Yet the Trust is very dear to my heart, and a unique attempt at marrying land trust principles with actual governance- an ideal that is worth fighting for. 

I've brought a bit of an outsider's view and jaded eye to the Council table, but know I make a sincere contribution that has generally been recognized by staff and other Trustees alike.

So why am I not running for Trust again?

There are two answers. First, with the Governance review complete, it is time for the Trust to concentrate on its core function of providing good planning services to the 12 Local Trust Committees. This does not directly concern Bowen, and as I was more interested in policy work, I felt there was not a lot I could do at the committee level. The major Bowen Trust initiatives- Fairy Fen, Crown Land profiles, NAPTEP are either done or well underway. And after three terms, I am pleased to see new councillors be exposed to the Islands Trust culture.

The other reason is that, with current GVRD Director Dave Hocking not running for re-election, the  GVRD Director position will be open (an apppointment of Council). I began my island civic work as an alternate to Ross Carter at the formative period of the Livable Region Plan, attending workshops and literally getting Bowen on the map. This led to our primary designation as a Green Zone.

Now I would like to have the opportunity to be the next Regional Director, and  Council tradition has been to spread the work around.  So- GVRD instead of Islands Trust.

Fiscal Imperatives

The current economic climate is perilous, to say the least. Both market conditions and the economic outlook clearly point to global recession. This affects our community in many ways.

Savings investments have lost value, and for people near or  of retirement age, it will be very difficult to recover lost equity. That directly impacts the ability of our largest growing demographic to plan for their later years enjoying life on Bowen. For younger families, simply making ends meet, let alone planning for the future, becomes increasingly difficult.

With tighter credit and riskier outlooks, construction slows, house prices dip, and the ability to achieve liquidity gets harder. Land development projects get delayed or scaled back.

As the economies slow, there will be layoffs, possible pay/benefit cuts, and  businesses lose clients. (My home based travel business is off 30%).

With less discretionary income, people forego non-essentials. Much of Bowen's retail economy (groceries aside) caters to this sector.

In the face of all this gloom (and I fervently hope that recovery is swift), Bowen Island Municipality can only do certain things. First and foremost is to control our spending. We have a structural 3-4% annual increase built into our budget- from employee pay raises to building our reserves and general cost escalation for rents, contracts and projects.

But there are certain areas where we can economize. Do we need weekly curbside garbage pickup, when most people take their recycling to BIRD. What if we had a droppoff, as Whistler does?

Do we need to replace our Youth Worker and Public Works Superintendent (current vacancies), or should we economize with p/t or contract services?

Are we being uber-efficient in our service delivery, or should we tighten up procedures, reduce redundancies with the downside perhaps of becoming less 'front-door friendly'. An example has to be the inordinate amount of staff time spent on water system administration.

The biggest of all is in our projected capital projects. We need a community hall, not a Taj Mahal. The same could be said for our fire services. We can't afford to repair and repave roads even at the rate we did this year. But we do need to follow our 40 year roads plan to ensure they don't deteriorate.

We will face tough decisions about disposition of community lands. Even rezoned, we may find it hard to market the lands, and by 2010 we will need to either refinance or pay off the $2 million loan.

The 'effective increase' in municipal taxation has been quite modest over the first nine years of incorporation. It will take INCREASED DILIGENCE to keep it that way.

My commitment is to work with Council, staff, community groups and the service providers to ensure that Bowen taxes are being spent prudently and frugally.

What we don't want to do is to abdicate our principles- our 'pillars of sustainability', because green building costs a bit more and environmental protections are seen as an added impediment. Looking at the fundamentals, cutting corners makes no sense. Doing less, and doing it better, does make sense.

Re-election Brochure Copy

RE-ELECT PETER FRINTON

Experienced- This does not mean 'beyond expiry date'! It means I've climbed the steep learning curve, and am in full gear. I don't waste time on polemics; there is barely enough time to get on with things
Informed- Just that. I'm an information sponge, and coupled with experience, that makes for the ability to make good decisions.
A moderate view- As a pragmatist, not an ideologue, I see politics as the 'art of the doable'. I am not blind to diverse and sometimes more strident perspectives, but I always weigh up the cost/benefits of a given project to the community as a whole, and choose a course that best reflects community values.
All this leads to -A balanced approach- One grounded in principle, tempered by reality, and executed with confidence.  And finally,  I am Results Oriented. Viewpoints and intentionsof themselves mean little; what actually happens is what ultimately matters. That's why I am proud of my record of successive achievements- in the areas of planning, land use, service, general policy and finance.

BOWEN- MY HOME FOR 36 YEARS
I first came to Bowen when I was ten- to camp at Cowan’s Point. I loved it, and kept coming back, moving here at age 22 with my partner Carol. We live at Ravenhill, a heritage farm.
First elected to office as a Councillor and Island Trustee in 1999 as part of the inaugural Council. Re-elected in 2004 after a close bid for mayor in 2002. Re-elected in 2005.
Aside from Council work, I operate a small home based travel business.
We keep sheep and chickens, and grow vegetables in an old orchard. We enjoy long walks, T’ai chi, kayaking, and I like to ski and go sailing whenever I get a chance.


FEEDBACK FROM BOWEN ISLANDERS

• Listens to what people say, and gets it at a personal level.
  
• Responds to queries and requests, communicating directly and in the media.
  
• Has appropriate and helpful background knowledge.
  
• Voluntarily participates in a wide range of committees and community organizations.
  

A CLEAR VISION FOR BOWEN ISLAND

ACHIEVABLE GOALS
We need to continue protecting the air, water, and land that sustains us all. A strong environmental social contract. We need to make sure that those who have chosen to live on the island, are able to continue doing so. The goal must be to achieve adequate affordable housing, support the young, families, those with special needs, the aging- and to ensure that our social services meet our needs.
We need an economic strategy and fiscal discipline that builds on our strengths and natural attributes, not one that consigns us to being simply an island suburb. Appropriate tourism, institutional development, home-based and service businesses are key to a stable local economy, one that utilizes on-island service providers and facilities.

A WAY FORWARD
To protect the environment, we can’t just rely on regulation. But good, respected and enforceable bylaws are the foundation. In the upcoming term, I want to see completion of our core environmental bylaws, and modifications to our OCP to reflect the realities of this century. Steep slopes DP, greenways OCP add-on, tree retention, sensitive ecosystem DP, controls over commercial scale open burning, a soils bylaw.
To develop our island economy, encourage institutions, small business and individuals to create unique-to-Bowen products and services. Rewrite our home occupation section in the LUB. Treat properly conceived and scaled economic development initiatives as amenities in rezonings and development proposals.
To build our community, implementation of our Snug Cove planning- disposition of some community lands, construction of village elements, completion of ferry marshaling and traffic improvements. In addition, establishment of our housing corporation and a good start on non-market/affordable housing. And planning for a health clinic, review of our entire solid waste reduction strategy, start building our needed firehall and community centre.
These are ambitious goals at any time, and more so in a tight fiscal environment. Only through co-operation and partnerships can we succeed.

A RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT

★Helped to obtain Crown Land Grant Fairy Fen
★Women’s Crisis Support (Home Safe Program)
★Air Quality Management Plan (Anti-Idling)
★Sewer Upgrade Grant Assistance ($400,000)
★Instigated adoption of Green Building Standards
★Liaison to Civic Facilities,Greenways,BIPRC
★Worked with Abbeyfield on density/typologies
★Proponent for a Tree Retention Bylaw
★Researched cost-effective Firehall options
★ Advocated for a Re-Use-It Store
★Forwarded NAPTEP and Lieben (Islands Trust