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.