1. You guys completely blew it with Cape Roger Curtis
We all lost an opportunity at the Cape for the benefits a comprehensive development would have provided. The blame cannot be placed solely on Council, the proponents or the public, or the market.
2. Where did the F...ing National Park idea come from? It is a distraction from what really needs doing.
It started in 2001, when the GINPR was first being planned, and Council asked that parts of Bowen be included. Iteration two began in 2009 with a unanimous resolution to send two Councillors to talk with Parks Canada, and they (PC) did a preliminary evaluation after which they confirmed their interest in exploring the idea of a Park on Bowen. In between 2001 and 2009 Council had repeatedly tried to get assurances of protection of our Crown land watersheds and Lieben to no avail. This, combined with the CRC situation, were the prime motivators. Hardly a distraction, given that conservation and recreation are generally pretty high on our collective wish lists.
3. Why is it you spent all the money in the kitty and got nothing done- particularly hiring all those consultants to draw up fancy plans that go nowhere?
Bowen does not, cannot run a deficit, by law, unlike senior governments. Bowen has drawn down some of its reserve accounts, especially the Capital and Stabilization Fund, which was over $1 million, and by the end of this year is projected to be 10% of that. But that is how we paid for the sewer plant upgrade, among other things. Meanwhile the Recreation and Community Use Reserve has about $750,000 in it. The Parks Reserve has about $300k+ in it, though the 2012 Tunstall Bay boat ramp will draw down those two fundsby about $220K in aggregate. On top of that, we have $1.3 Million in 'accumulated' surplus, ie money in the kitty not earmarked for anything other than a rainy day and to manage cash flow.
So- no, we are not broke. We have a $2 million debt on 38 acres of land which of course can be sold, held for our civic uses or banked... or all three. That said, we cannot continue to run down reserves. In fact, reserve replenishment is accelerating, by committing to an annual 1.5% dedicated tax increment.
As to hiring fancy consultants, yes we've had some great work down by HBBH and more recently by James Tuer on Snug Cove. I've posted those totals. Other consultant expenses I'm not so proud of- the Cygnus report on community centre fundraising, the burning bylaw reg. background work.
4. Why have the community lands not yet been serviced and sold off, to pay back the $2 million loan and seed fund all those great projects like the Community Centre?
We can't sell the land until they are serviced, or else accept a very low return on raw land. We can't service until we raise the money. There is a BIG question as to whether it is appropriate to go to referendum to borrow and then further tax all islanders for benefits that will largely accrue to one area, and whether BIM should be taking risks associated with development. Alternately, we could pre zone community lands, invite interested parties into a design competition and award projects. Or solicit proposals. This has been the impediment from 2005, and the market downturn has made short term prospects bleaker. We even paid Paul Rollo to do an assessment, and short of putting up single family homes in direct competition to unsold stack, there is little business case right now to jump into an expensive undertaking.
5a. Why did you have to introduce those really stupid, intrusive environmental bylaws into the OCP process?
The mapping for the bylaws was deemed to be aspirational, not regulatory, so they belonged in the OCP,and we did not want to craft an OCP, pass it, only to then immediately reopen it. As to the LUB (Land Use Bylaw amendments) wording, doing them alongside proved to be clumsy. But it is the regulations themselves which were disliked by some parties. Two things have happened. First the readings for two of the bylaws (steeps slopes and ESA) have been rescinded, and will come back to the new Council. My hope is that the recommendations to tone down the language and provide greater exemptions will be accepted. As well, amending the maps, for example to make 40% a threshold for steep slopes rather than 30% or to tier the provisions, seems like a reasonable thing to do. Second, the OCP maps have no force until the LUB portion is enacted. The Watershed, Aquifer and Stream Protection Development Permit Area is now enacted, but with exemption provisions around primary residences giving latitude within an adjacent area of around one acre- pretty liberal...
5b. Why was the whole OCP exercise such a useless waste of time and money? Which was it- an update or a new OCP?
The last major OCP amendment was in 2005, The Snug Cove Village Plan. The OCP was due for review and needed new elements to be compliant with Local Government Act requirements. Dave Witty determined that the review be an 'update', in other words, we would not incur the expense and time to go back to square one nor review every clause. Perhaps it was simply a label- i'd say we got a review AND update, but that review was not exhaustive. It did not look at some sticky issues such as how we measure density (Should a studio apartment be considered the same as a 5 br house?). Also, density transfer was dumbed down from the early thought of providing a virtual 'bank'. There was little on economic development. Because the document replaced the old one, technically it is a 'new OCP'
But it was far from a useless exercise. We have a much more elegant document. It includes new sections on climate change, air quality, tourism and institutional development. It paved the way for Belterra, and densification in the Cove and Seymour Bay. Plus the general precepts of the 1995 document were examined in public and strongly re-embraced. The cost, at over $200,000, was high, but much less than the aggregate costs of the 1995 OCP.
5c. Why did you cut off public input to the OCP after second reading, and then make changes which you then rammed through?
There is a petition, requesting the OCP 'be set aside for illegality or error of law', before the courts, dated October 6th, 2011, so I cannot comment on specifics. It was brought forward by Richard Underhill and Wolfgang Duntz. However, in general terms, (and Dave Witty wrote an article in the undercurrent outlining the public process), after public input was received it was tabulated, debated at Council, changes made to OCP in response to that public commentary, and a 'concordance table' drawn up to illustrate all tracked changes and to flag all principles/policies from the 1995 OCP. That took an awful lot of work and considerable time. witty said the public process was 'exhaustive', and the consultant, Linda Allen of CitySpaces, apparently remarked it was 'unprecedented'.
After a duly constituted public hearing, surviving an initial court challenge, and further readings , the OCP was finally adopted.Whether it is overturned- in which case there could be more public consultation, a new hearing and rereadings, will depend on the legal outcome of the current challenge
6. When are you going to 'just do something' in Snug Cove, rather than talk about it?
This is an enduring and legitimate question. There have always been barriers. Now, we have very good plan options, and on October 24th there will be a workshop on 'next steps'. Some things stick out, given the public reaction to Tuer's four derivative designs. Amending the parking provisions in our LUB to permit off-site residential, combined with lowering requirements, will enable property owners in the lower Cove to consider redevelopment. A small incursion into Crippen Park would facilitate angle parking, preferably on the south side. This would multiply those spaces and make them much more usable. Revamping the ROW behind the south side small lots to include a hard surfaced pedestrian laneway would bring new life to that area, and bookending with new and infill buildings would contain a new wider village area. Some of these things could, and should be done almost immediately. We CAN 'just do something'
7. Why did you spend $2 million of taxpayers money for a sewer plant when you've got no money to hook it up to anything?
This has partially been answered. It started with the opportunity of getting a Towns for Tomorrow grant from the provincial government. This was supplemented by a Federal Infrastructure grant- 'stimulus money'. So we got two-thirds of a $2.1 million upgrade paid for out of senior government coffers. It was too good a deal to pass up, even though it left us at an impasse as to how to now connect up additional properties. But make no mistake- the plant was at capacity, not always running within best parameters, and the environmental benefits of tertiary treatment all factor into making this a good decision at the time.
8. Just when are we going to get affordable housing and Abbeyfield?
Three years ago, we completed the Abbeyfield/Bowen Court rezoning. Three years later, they still can't get off the ground. Obviously, sewer pipes need to be extended, and the Cove Bay water supply augmented. This leads back to the previous questions about money. A genuine vicious circle, and the answer may well rest with gaining partners to make the needed infrastructure more affordable itself! Adjusting Crippen Park boundaries to enlarge the seniors' precinct area (a proposed 30 metre strip north of the existing Bowen Court lot line is being explored with Metro Vancouver Parks).
9. Why are the roads worse now than they were 12 years ago when we became a municipality?
We knew roads would be expensive, and unlike in the 1991 Restructure plan for incorporation, there was no promised $12 million matching fund dowry, just five years of maintenance, valued at $2.5 miillion.
Between 2000 and 2004, MOTH took care of our roads, and did very little. After we took them over, we dedicated about $500,000 annually in the roads budget, but for the first three years lacked the capacity to undertake much in the way of road improvement/reconstruction - se we focussed on surface maintenance. Since 2007, we have bumped spending, and the number of improvement projects has been impressive. Dorman Road, the reconstruction of Grafton near the firehall, repaving Senior's land, Mt. Gardner Road, Bowen Bay Hill all come to mind. We bought a lot of new equipment to improve our winter maintenance as well. So are roads worse? Some are- they have deteriorated over that period. others are much improved, and now there is a roads renewal plan in place and being followed that will continuously renew roads over a forty year cycle. Wil Hilsen has done an amazing job on this.
10. Why do we have so many people working at city hall? What is it now- over 30!, when they said it would only be about 12 needed? And with so many people running around, what are they doing other than moving paper around to justify themselves?
In 1999, the Restructure study concluded that at then current service levels, about 12 FTE's would be needed to fulfill staffing requirements. Since then, we have added services, grown, taken over contracts, and absorbed functions previously outside the municipal core services. The library became a municipal library. Ergo, librarians became municipal employees. Water sampling and system maintenance, same thing. Teen centre, ditto- including auxiliary youth workers. Bylaw control and building inspect, previously contract and Islands Trust, now in-house.
The real question is whether all the staff are necessary, and the muni. is conducting a core review of services to look at our operations. It is very easy to save money if you don't want the services. It is very easy provide great service if you have lots of money. The trick of course, and what is so difficult, is to define and curtail excessive service levels, if any, and adjust to what is affordable. That exercise will probably be the early prime focus of the new Council.
Add-on commentary after that post on the Phorum:
There are many interpretations of what went wrong vis-a-vis Cape Roger Curtis, including accusations that the mayor broke a tacit promise, or that good faith in negotiations was breached. I am not obfuscating, nor apologizing for those councillors who spoke very stridently about the neighbourhood plan. I know what my position was- it was, first, to be guided by public sentiment, and second, to seek accommodation through incorporating the CRC NP in the then upcoming OCP review. My motion to that effect,on April 20th, 2009- to give no further consideration or readings to the CRC NP bylaw 'at this time', pending the outcome of the OCP review (within which the proposal would be considered). My motion was defeated.
The following motion, to rescind first reading, which effectively put an end to the plan, passed 5:2, with only Alison and Dave Wrinch opposing. After Cro indicated he would vote to rescind, because he felt the number of units was too high, I realized the gig was up. I voted as I did so as to not have it appear I supported the plan as it was. Later Cro and I talked- his preference would have been, like mine, to try to come to some compromise.
All this is now moot. The overwhelming factor was the lopsided public sentiment. So when I say the blame does not solely rest with Council, I am inferring that the proponents failed because they held on to a target buildout that was too high for public support, the public process might be deemed to have failed because there was no resolution of the competing components- waterfront and park dedication vs density, and council for not plugging away until there was a deal. However, the proponents said quite clearly they were unable to wait for that uncertain OCP process to play out.
The following motion, to rescind first reading, which effectively put an end to the plan, passed 5:2, with only Alison and Dave Wrinch opposing. After Cro indicated he would vote to rescind, because he felt the number of units was too high, I realized the gig was up. I voted as I did so as to not have it appear I supported the plan as it was. Later Cro and I talked- his preference would have been, like mine, to try to come to some compromise.
All this is now moot. The overwhelming factor was the lopsided public sentiment. So when I say the blame does not solely rest with Council, I am inferring that the proponents failed because they held on to a target buildout that was too high for public support, the public process might be deemed to have failed because there was no resolution of the competing components- waterfront and park dedication vs density, and council for not plugging away until there was a deal. However, the proponents said quite clearly they were unable to wait for that uncertain OCP process to play out.
First formal mention of an NP correctly goes back to 2009. However, in 2001 there was a general invitation to meet with the then Environment Minister David Anderson. He was the political driving force behind the establishment of the GINPR, which was in planning stages at the time. At Council we thought it a good idea to send someone, and I offered to go, suggesting I ask about the possibility of parts of Bowen being included in the park proposal. That was agreed to, and I met him in North Van. He was wary, put me over to their public liaison person, lawyer Greg McDade, who over time got back and said -"no way"- The GINPR was to be on the other side of the Strait, and south of Active Pass.
Crippen Park boundaries- The idea is to take an approximately 100 foot (30 metre) wide chunk of land OUT of Crippen, immediately north of Bowen court. That's why I've been traipsing back in forth, 100 foot tape in hand, to measure the area. This area gets lots of light, is dead flat, has mostly small alders growing on it, and would make a wonderful extension to the 'precinct'.
Incoming Comment: I'm not going to spend much more time on this, as email debate usually doesn't get very far, and I have better things to do with my life than to look at reserves of quicksand being loaded to run off a fiscal rock. But, in comment:
* the neighbourhood plan did not collapse; it was destroyed
* the 10 acre lot subdivision was not the default position, but the original position, as required by the OCP of the day
* if one is more inventive than considering only multifamily unit development, the options expand, and did expand, considerably
* Abbeyfield has legitimately been seeking the assistance of the municipality and has not been given much of it
* what part of any 2009 "deal" needed to be sweetened?
* nobody pleaded unawareness: incredibly, yes, they did
* the neighbourhood plan did not collapse; it was destroyed
* the 10 acre lot subdivision was not the default position, but the original position, as required by the OCP of the day
* if one is more inventive than considering only multifamily unit development, the options expand, and did expand, considerably
* Abbeyfield has legitimately been seeking the assistance of the municipality and has not been given much of it
* what part of any 2009 "deal" needed to be sweetened?
* nobody pleaded unawareness: incredibly, yes, they did
XXXX- you were not here during the lead-up period to CRC. Your views are partially informed by opinion, and backcasting analysis. That doesn't fault or minimize them, but it does not jive with first hand experience. To say they NP process was 'destroyed' implies a deliberate attempt to stop it. The NP had many merits, but it did not stand up. Quite simply, the public was not willing to accept it. And yes, 2 councillors spoke very strongly, as did the mayor.
Default? Original?- same thing in my mind. It was always the fallback position to subdivide without rezoning.
Sweetening the deal- perhaps lowering the number of total units, or some other concession.
As to unawareness, I don't know what you mean. I think we all (the whole community) knew this was the biggest thing to have ever hit Bowen Island. It was certainly in the press a lot, a hot topic of conversation.
Alternatives to multi family housing- yes, the land economist said the best and highest use of community lands was to build single family detached units. As a Council, we rejected that for two reasons- why compete with a sector that was already being well served- Cates Hill, Cowan's had lots of lots available. Plus, what people have been saying for years is that they want to age in place, downsize, be closer to the Cove. So using our lands for multifamily makes sense, from a social planning perspective.
Abbeyfield got a major rezoning in 2008, and gets their taxes waived. We built a sewer plant that will ultimately serve them, and we are considering a land trade to help build synergies with Bowen Court
YYYY- The Lot 3 (east of Miller Road) community lands have high value- high park value, high development potential.
Extending the seniors' precinct (perhaps adding other affordable housing) does two things. It spares the other land for future uses, and expanding immediately adjacent into fairly recently logged land that does not really have competing uses (its park value is quite low) and is really accessible only through Bowen Court/Abbeyfield, ensures an ability to rebuild without tearing down the older units beforehand.
Default? Original?- same thing in my mind. It was always the fallback position to subdivide without rezoning.
Sweetening the deal- perhaps lowering the number of total units, or some other concession.
As to unawareness, I don't know what you mean. I think we all (the whole community) knew this was the biggest thing to have ever hit Bowen Island. It was certainly in the press a lot, a hot topic of conversation.
Alternatives to multi family housing- yes, the land economist said the best and highest use of community lands was to build single family detached units. As a Council, we rejected that for two reasons- why compete with a sector that was already being well served- Cates Hill, Cowan's had lots of lots available. Plus, what people have been saying for years is that they want to age in place, downsize, be closer to the Cove. So using our lands for multifamily makes sense, from a social planning perspective.
Abbeyfield got a major rezoning in 2008, and gets their taxes waived. We built a sewer plant that will ultimately serve them, and we are considering a land trade to help build synergies with Bowen Court
YYYY- The Lot 3 (east of Miller Road) community lands have high value- high park value, high development potential.
Extending the seniors' precinct (perhaps adding other affordable housing) does two things. It spares the other land for future uses, and expanding immediately adjacent into fairly recently logged land that does not really have competing uses (its park value is quite low) and is really accessible only through Bowen Court/Abbeyfield, ensures an ability to rebuild without tearing down the older units beforehand.
1 comment:
just dropping by to say hi
Post a Comment