The Process is Really Screwed (... I Mean Skewed)!

Unfortunately, I have had to think a lot lately about how well our public servants serve us, or not. First of all, in the Federal arena, where we seem to lurch from one scandal to another and usually involving millions if not billions of our dollars. The Adscam scandal clearly showed us that our bureaucrats don't all have the good sense or integrity to tell their political masters where to get off when they ask them to do something highly questionable. Then again, we don't have whistleblower legislation in Canada which would protect them but I would still question them taking our paycheck and then "the easy way out".
That brings us to the provincial level, which I have already written a few missives about (see blogs "So Much For Due Process" and "If You Live in Lantzville..."). The situation here is much the same except that our problems are exacerbated by a very polarized political climate. I truly believe that there are more ideologues per capita in B. C. than anywhere else in Canada. The main distinguishing feature of a political ideologue is that they are convinced that their side can do no wrong and the other side can do no right. The result is that they spend all their time and energy yelling at each other over the "fence" and the problems of the common man never seem to get to the top of their priority list. This process is a little further advanced in the United States but the expected results can already be seen - the battle lines have been drawn, the troops conscripted, the media 'hacks' brought on board and its all-out war!
Is refusing to talk to each other really going to help us solve our problems or is it all about making sure that it is YOUR solution that is picked - even if it isn't perfect. We need a government that will truly govern for ALL of us, adopting the best ideas no matter which side they come from and we need to get back to talking to each other or we will not be able to move forward.
Finally, we arrive at politics at the more local level, regional districts and municipalities. One of the biggest issues that these governments deal with is land use and planning (development). Now, I have a neighbour who tells me that "you can't stop development". Given that he is the son of a retired realtor and small-scale developer, maybe that's what one would expect, except for the fact that it doesn't seem to matter what a developer might be proposing to do in Lantzville, he's for it. My own common sense tells me that it is impossible for all developers and all of their proposals to be "good for the community", yet he actively supports them all.
Here in Lantzville, we've had lots of challenges over the past 10 years. We've had three major development proposals for the same piece of property, a long-standing promise to complete Lantzville Road to Dover reneged on, the RDN wanting to put a landfill up in the foothills behind us, a scheduled OCP review delayed for years, several pieces of land taken from us by the City of Nanaimo for intensive commercialization, a huge 'Welcome to Nanaimo' sign insinuated within our boundaries, a plan to import water all the way from the Englishman River dam, a study to see if we should incorporate (in part, in response to all these things already mentioned), and recently, a major proposal for development up in our foothills. All throughout this, there has been one constant - the tremendous difficulty in the average Lantzville resident feeling like they have a say and can make a difference!
The developers/proponents control the flow of information and, since they are in the 'marketing' business, they only tell you what they want you to hear - I learned a long time ago that it's always the other stuff that matters most to you and me. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats are reluctant to require these people to be more 'up-front' with us. I am not sure if this is because their political masters have told them to bend over backwards to not appear business-unfriendly or if it comes from the fact that they are 'planners' and 'planners' love to see their plans come to fruition. In any event, this is what the public faces when a land use issue is raised in their community, and no, it doesn't seem to matter which community we are talking about - all developers seem to have gone to the same school, as have all politicians and 'planners'.
The very first hurdle for the public is to find out that there is a land use issue - there are required newspaper ads at some point in the process and many jurisdictions now have their own website, some better than others. Depending on the specifics, there may also be a requirement that there be a notification posted on the affected property, which sounds good. However, when some jurisdictions require a sign that is no more than .75 m x .6 m and others only require a sign to be posted for a minimum time period (as short as 3 days), one can see that finding out about the issue in the first place can be a challenge. Sadly, these methods all require an individual to have the time or opportunity to see the notification. If you are within a certain radius of the affected property (usually 200 m), you should receive an official notification in the mail, however, many land use issues can/will affect people much further away from the property than that.
O.K., so now you know that there is a land use issue and you want to find out more (the specifics). You will usually be directed to you regional district or town office to see the actual application made by the land owner. This application will generally make reference to various Acts, Bylaws and other planning documents (e.g., Local Government Act, Regional Growth Management Plan and Official Community Plans), which usually are many pages long and written in semi-legalese. One Bylaw may refer to an Act which references a specific agreement, and so on. Are you starting to get discouraged yet - try not to be because that's what most developers count on?
Assuming that you are able to grasp the "ins and outs" of the application, the applicable rules and legislation and the sometimes-convoluted case that the 'planners' have put together, you now get to speak to the matter at a public meeting of your local politicians. For some people, this will be enough to "scare them off" - you have to gather your information and thoughts, get yourself on the Agenda, appear at the appointed date and time and then stand up and "have your say". You may also be asked questions by the assembled politicians and then you get to sit and wait until they get to that item on the Agenda so that you can see if your comments had any impact on them. If the politicians decide that they need to hear from more of the public on the issue, they may require a Public Information Meeting be held or they may feel that the proposal still has enough merits that it should go to Public Hearing.
Oh goody, now you get to spend even more time preparing for that - putting together an "information package" for interested parties and notifying people outside of the official notification area about the issue and asking them to take time out of their busy lives to attend yet another meeting, making up signs and placing/moving them (believe it or not, some people actually go around and damage or steal them), creating informational web sites, calling people in the community you know who you think would care about the proposal's impact on the community, preparing a list of questions or a presentation and then actually attending the meeting and asking those questions or making that presentation. Remember, this is all on your own time and dime.
Contrast this with the developers' situation - this is their business, it's how they make a living and they work at it day in and day out. Since they have an expectation of profit, if they need something done, they hire a consultant, whether it be a planner for interpretation of the relevant documents, a lawyer for advice on the legalities and application of the various Acts, Bylaws and legislation, a public relations firm to prepare glossy brochures and put the right 'spin' on their proposal, architects to design a 'pleasing' facade, engineers to design their infrastructure and landscape designers to provide pleasing sketches of native vegetation. We, the time-challenged, economically-limited and sometimes just plain 'frazzled' public are left to do it all on our own with the good of our community our only motivation/reward!
Given all of the above, maybe my neighbour is right - "you can't stop development" - but you certainly can't if you're not prepared to try!

If You Live In Lantzville...

Below is a presentation which was made to Lantzville Council at their Regular Council Meeting on Feb. 28, 2005. It is the culmination of a development company (Watt Ventures - Duncan and Cameron Watt) having gained political influence with our MLA, Judith Reid, so that the provincial government stepped into a local process and allowed them to take a piece of buffering (even more so before they clear cut it), Lantzville property into the City of Nanaimo and rezone it to commercial (Woodgrove Regional Shopping Centre). Guess what that did to its value!
They and the government “pulled out all the stops” (see blog “So Much for Due Process") and neither the City nor the Regional District of Nanaimo was prepared to tell them ‘NO’ (they had the ability but were they coaxed/threatened?). The people of Lantzville were left out of the process at every turn and all anyone could say was “it’s a done deal”. Now these guys want to increase their lucre even more, and therefore, have applied to the District of Lantzville for rezoning of the adjacent .7 acre piece of property so that they can add 6,000 more square feet to their 75,550 sq. ft. mall, which recently received a Development Permit from the City.
They have even convinced Highways to sell them a .2 acre piece of adjacent ‘road closure’, something Lantzville was supposed to be notified of but wasn’t – should we be surprised? They claim that Lantzville will benefit by having priority at this public parking lot, which we can use if we need to park at Pioneer Park (it’ll be a dash across a busy through-street) – how much is that worth? Then again, they've also implied that it will be used primarily for employee parking. They are also offering to build a 195 m long section of 3 m wide, gravel, then paved and now apparently gravel again "multi-purpose trail" on the north side of the extended Lantzville Road (across the street from the proposed parking lot). How much good this 'orphan' trial is going to do in that location, I don't know, but at the very least, it seems to me to be on the wrong side of the street.

It even took a ‘neat trick’ on the District’s part to allow this proposal to proceed as just a rezoning instead of first requiring an OCP amendment – in my opinion, the proposed parking lot does not fit the Bylaw 500 definition of “public (utility) use”, and therefore, does not deserve an exemption from an amendment.
There is a Public Information Meeting at Costin Hall on Monday, March 14/05 at 6:15 pm. where the developers will be making a presentation on their proposal and the District/RDN will be talking about the ‘technical’ aspects of the application. If you were at all concerned about the Jeffs’ property being taken into the City and how it all happened and how it has and will continue to negatively impact our lives in semi-rural Lantzville, please come out to this meeting! You will have an opportunity to ask questions of the developers (don’t make it easy on them, so no simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ questions please) and, given the way we’ve been treated in the past, I would say that anything goes including, since we weren’t consulted about giving up the Jeffs’ property, any lingering questions you may have there, as well (we’ll have to try our best to be polite to our ‘guests’).
Lantzville residents will remember that we were sold incorporation, at least, in part, to make sure that Lantzville wouldn’t lose any more land (to protect our borders). If Council agrees to allow this proposal from the very same people who took the Jeffs’ property from our community to ‘reach back’ into Lantzville and build a commercial parking lot, is there really any difference?

Mr. Mayor and Assembled Councillors,

Let me begin by saying how refreshing it is to be able to address our elected officials related to the development proposal by Watt Ventures in person, since the last two, major, public decisions regarding their development were made by the RDN in the height of the summer vacation season and by Nanaimo City Council just days before Christmas. When the issue of Lantzville land being taken into the City was first proposed by this developer (it was the third attempt for this property that I am aware of), representations were made by Watt Ventures that there would be information flyers and a Public Information Meeting for the residents of Lantzville – it never happened!
Instead, we were treated to landowner meetings with politicians (local and provincial), cash inducements being offered to the City to secure their acquiescence, Nanaimo’s Mayor breaking his word and holding some of you up to ridicule, City policies being ignored and a key definition in the Urban Containment and Fringe Area Management Implementation Agreement being arbitrarily changed. We, in Lantzville, were told by our MLA and the Minister responsible that there were ‘bigger interests’ than just us to consider. The City of Nanaimo, having the province to blame it all on if anything went awry, sheepishly went along. So, here we are tonight and you seven elected officials now have the chance to draw the proverbial ‘line in the sand’ and just say ‘NO’.
Watt Ventures has certainly been successful in getting things going their way. My neighbours and I, while trying for over 5 years to get Lantzville Road extended to Dover without any strings attached, were first told that the designated funds had been spent on completing Ware Road ahead of schedule. So, being a creative bunch, we came up with the idea of having Highways swap at most a couple of acres of their vast local, landholding with the then-owner of the property which is the subject of tonight’s proposal, but were told that it wasn’t Highways land to swap – it belonged to something called the ‘Transportation Financing Authority’ (chaired, as it turned out, by the Minister of Highways). We then came up with the idea of having them sell sections of the no-longer-needed gazetted road just south of the properties fronting Rosalyn and Owen, which had been set aside to be used to connect Lantzville Road to Dover Road before the current plan came into being. At least three of my neighbours had contacted Highways expressing an interest in just such an acquisition and the proceeds could have been used to complete the road connection – again, no dice. In the report before you tonight, you will see that Watt Ventures has obtained a piece of Highways’ land to extend their proposed landscape berm further west, a trade-off with the originally proposed 10 metre-wide berm, or so I am told. I have to envy them their record of accomplishments but I don’t really understand why they could be successful where we couldn’t.
In case you think that it’s only the questionable way in which this all came about that I am unhappy with, I have a number of concerns regarding the specific proposal before you tonight which I should like to bring to your attention.
With respect to this proposed parking lot being a benefit for the community of Lantzville – it has been my observation over my many walks past Pioneer Park that the vast majority of people parking there are NOT FROM LANTZVILLE. This raises the question of whether we should be accepting an amenity that would be used by relatively few of our residents in exchange for a rezoning into a ‘commercial-looking’ parking lot. Remember, Lantzville has consistently told anyone who would listen over the past 10+ years that we are a semi-rural community. This proposal does not respect that!
There is a considerable need for parking for the many activities which occur at Pioneer Park – soccer, football, baseball, rugby, skateboarding and tennis. Many of the current users of Pioneer Park park along the south side of Dover (which will not be available once the Nanaimo portion of this development proceeds), in the curve of Shook and Dover (even though it is posted) and even on the development’s vacant property. It is entirely possible that something like half of the 81 spaces provided by this proposal would be required on a regular basis by those users of Pioneer Park. I say again that the vast majority of them are not from Lantzville and wish to point out that the City of Nanaimo should be responsible for providing adequate parking for its parks.
Mr. Senini (the developer’s lawyer), in his letter to Robert Lapham (District Planner) of Feb. 18/05, states that the rezoning is requested “for the primary purpose of providing parking for the employees of the commercial development proposed for adjacent Lot 2…, general vehicle parking and other uses”. This would appear to change the order of precedence in the report from Mr. Lapham, where employees aren’t even mentioned, and lessen the veracity of the suggestion that this proposal would provide a benefit for Lantzville. Why should Lantzville be responsible for providing employee and customer parking to a Nanaimo development paying taxes to the City of Nanaimo? It appears to me that this is not so much an amenity for the residents of Lantzville as a way for the developer to increase density on his formerly Lantzville property.
Finally, with respect to the proposed landscape berm, 5 metres (16.4’) of landscaping will cut down very little highway noise and light, especially when the initial vegetation will only be something like half its ultimate height. In my opinion, it is a far cry from the buffer required by our OCP. Personally, I would not be unhappy to see the remainder of this property left just as it is today.
Therefore, I urge you to accept option no. 3 and reject this application outright but, in the alternative, I would strongly suggest that you require the Applicant to distribute information flyers and hold a Public Information Meeting before you consider this matter further and HOLD HIM TO IT! Only then will you know whether or not this proposal provides a real benefit in the eyes of Lantzville residents.

THANK YOU

The Liberals, Trust and God

excerpts from Victoria Times-Colonist Sat., Feb. 27/05
Press Pass Inside B. C. Politics
"BC Liberals rate their trust level at 97%"

"Often in election campaigns you might see maybe three vague promises come out" ... Judith Reid said of the New Era document in the legislature this week. "These were specific, page after page after page of them - a very bold move. The purpose was to increase confidence in politicians and the process of government. What's the result of that? Well, four years later, 97 per cent of those have been either done or actively engaged in."

Reporter's note: They're not revealing their calculations or what promises they consider broken.... But they're definitely admitting some slippage, because for two weeks now they've been bragging about how their word can almost be trusted.

Let's see the breakdown of those "done" and those "actively engaged in" and just how much any of the latter has done for the average British Columbian. What about the things that they promised they wouldn't do but then went ahead and did anyway (tearing up contracts, expanding gambling and selling B. C. Rail come to mind) - are they part of the 97%? What about the many things that they 'ragged' on the previous government for and then ended up doing when they achieved power? Is every promise rated equally so that one small 'kept' one counts equally with a large one, not fulfilled?

"I heard a member of the opposition say 'but, you haven't kept them all'. I couldn't believe that, what kind of nonsense that is. First of all, the only person who ever keeps 100 per cent of their promises is God. While she might have high regard for us, we never claimed that status. The idea that we could have kept so many promises is remarkable."

I'll tell you what nonsense is, Judith, and its this whole preposterous statement. Almost sounds like they even surprised themselves, what with all the promises they've managed to keep - then again, in my simple, ethical world, I don't believe anyone has a right to make a promise that they have no intention of keeping. Since she finds their performance "remarkable", she must have been expecting some failures. As pointed out in the article, politicians share the bottom of the 'public respect' list with journalists and your contention that the Liberals have, in a single term, elevated politicians' stature to near mythical proportions smacks of serious delusion. Only in your 'dream-world', Judith.
God promised "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16) - but how do we mere mortals (unless you are a person of faith) know if he has actually kept that one? It is even more than a little ironic that Ms. Reid was a former Minister of Highways, a Ministry which many people used to say believed that they were God!
This is all moot anyway since an Ontario court recently ruled that politicians can't be held to their promises and that, if voters believe a campaign promise, they are "naive about the democratic system". The judge further said that "it is up to the voters, not the courts, to punish governments who fib and fabricate." That's all well and good but we know the damage the scoundrels can do in the ensuing 4 or 5 years and then they can just lie to us again, hoping that we will have forgotten or promising to actually keep their promises this time (sort of like Lucy, Charlie Brown and that darn football). One question: if we can't rely on anything politicians say during an election campaign, how exactly are we supposed to decide who to vote for?
Judicial Quote of the Year: "This decision not to keep the promise does not mean that the promise, when made, was untrue, inaccurate or negligent". If a politican doesn't have the information necessary to commit to a course of action, he/she has no business making a promise concerning that issue/item in the first place.