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....