The Incredible 200 m Piece of Asphalt!

The following is a 'Letter to the Editor' which I submitted upon seeing a picture (with story) in the Nanaimo Daily News regarding the connection of east Lantzville Road to Dover Road, something my neighbours and I were promised by the Ministry of Transportation over 10 years ago!

Dear Editor,
The politicians in the photo accompanying your story in the Friday, Sept. 2nd edition of the Daily News regarding the 'opening' of the Lantzville Road extension to Dover Road (New road connects 'neighbours') certainly have reason to smile.
It's always a good day when politicians are able to take credit for helping solve a problem that they themselves created in the first place. Ever since the Bypass was opened in 1996, my neighbours and I have been putting up with up to 1100 cars a day (many of them ill-behaved) on what we were told would be a quiet, residential street, all because Mssrs. Haime, Scott and Dempsey and Mdme. Crayston, as Trustees of the Lantzville Improvement District, lobbied the Ministry of Transportation to change a long-standing committment to extend Lantzville Road to Dover after it was cut off from the Highway. Somehow, in the process, a developer ended up with a taxpayer-funded ($490,000) road across his vacant, downtown Lantzville property and we got all that traffic.
Nanaimo Mayor Korpan and Councillor McNabb can smile because the City will soon have yet another mall to pay high, commercial taxes, especially when all those empty spaces in the other malls are still paying plus the City was able to secure a $100,000 'donation' from Watt (not Wyatt) Ventures in exchange for Nanaimo playing along with the provincial government in taking in this recently 'orphaned' property.
If Cam Watt had been in the picture, he too would have reason to smile. Regular readers of this paper will recall that the property on which Dover Pointe Corner is being built (the Jeffs property) was taken from Lantzville by the provincial government after lobbying by the landowners and handed to Nanaimo.
Yep, that 200 m (not 500) section of road is "special" alright - its already provided one developer with almost half a million dollars of taxpayer's money for building a road which they would have had to provide for free on subdivision and it afforded Watt Ventures the ability to transfer their property from Lantzville into Nanaimo and have it zoned commercial, resulting in a 2.5-fold increase in its assessed value. Not bad just for knowing the right people!
In my simplistic world, 'neighbours' don't break promises and they certainly don't seek to take land from each other, disrupting lives along the way. So far, all of the giving in this relationship has been distinctly one-sided. Even after Nanaimo had taken several pieces of property from Lantzville, implied that our Area Director was lying and insulted our Mayor, Lantzville Council still made decisions based on wanting to 'appease' Nanaimo.

Update: Besides the Lantzville politicians in the picture, who sought to take credit for solving a problem which they helped create in the first place, we now have councillor Warren Griffey, councillor Douglas Parkhurst and councillor candidate, Denise Haime (the Mayor's wife), also seek to take credit for completing this small stretch of road. Ms. Haime has claimed that she negotiated this 'compensation' when the then-Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (formerly Municipal Affiars), George Abbot, told her in no uncertain terms that the Jeffs' property was going to Nanaimo and asked her what she, as Area 'D' Regional Director, needed to 'smooth things over'. Having been actively involved with this issue for the past eight years, I fail to see what contribution either councillor Griffey or councillor Parkhurst have made in that respect. I do, however, recall seeing an earlier picture in the same paper in which councillor Parkhurst participated in the sod-turning ceremony for the shopping centre to be built on this former Lantzville 'buffer' property.

A Point of Clarification! (Their 'All-Candidates' Meeting)

On October 29, 2005, on his website, Lantzville Mayor Colin Haime wrote:

"The candidates for Councillors who said they were busy but keep them informed:
Hans Larsen"

when what I actually wrote in my emailed response was:

"Should a truly impartial, community-minded group come forward to sponsor an All-candidates Meeting, I would consider it, subject to format, venue and timing details.
In the meantime, as a candiate for Lantzville Councillor, I will continue to get out and meet with residents and discuss what I consider to be the key issues in this election directly with them."

Yes, I am busy but that clearly wasn't the essence of my response!

Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville Councillor Candidate

Lantzville, You're Invited!!!

Lantzville residents are invited to a series of 'Open Houses' at Costin Hall on each of the next three Saturdays, sponsored by myself and the other five candidates who are running on the simple premise that we are "united in supporting respect for the majority opinion and open, fair and inclusive decision-making".

The times and dates are as follows:

Saturday, October 29 9 am - 12 pm
Saturday, November 5 12 pm - 4 pm
Saturday, November 12 12 pm - 4 pm

The coffee pot will be on and we will have some information to share, as well as being prepared to listen to what your specific concerns might be.

Your hosts,
Harry Adcock, Niels Gram, Hans J. Larsen, Lee Anne Veres, Mark Wilson and Ian Savage

WE WILL LISTEN!

Lantzville OCP Amendment Bylaw 50.1, 2005 Public Hearing (Oct. 24/05) Written Submission

These are my written comments, submitted to Lantzville Council at the Public Hearing last Monday night at Costin Hall. This was the third Public Hearing in 40 days on our OCP (like the second one, this one was only publicized in one newspaper and on the District's website (although you would have to search to find out what the Public Hearing was actually about). Since I chose not to read my submission at the Public Hearing, the following comments will likely not appear on the Lantzville.ca website.

Re: OCP Bylaw 50, 2005, Amendment Bylaw 50.1, 2005

Mayor and council,
The Regional District of Nanaimo's (RDN) 2003-2004 Sustainability Report, which "reports about progress towards regional growth strategy goals and objectives" has recently been released. Nanaimo councillor, Bill Holdom, chair of the Regional Growth Monitoring Advisory Committee, which oversaw the creation of the report, says, "this report... underlies the need to protect and enhance our environmental, social and economic capital for future generations." Joe Stanhope, RDN chairperson, acknowledges that long-term sustainability is a key concern for residents of the RDN and goes on to say that "the RDN Board has made a commitment to the residents of this region".
Having been forced to develop more than a passing interest in the machinations of the RDN over the past 10 years, let me tell you how it looks from where I sit. The vaunted objectives and goals of the Regional Growth Mangement Plan went on life support on Aug. 12, 2003 when the majority of the RDN board voted to accept, as justification for extending Nanaimo's Urban Containment Boundary to include a 2+ ha piece of property which had been taken from Lantzville by the provincial government (the Jeffs' property), a change in a key Urban Containment and Fringe Area Management Implementation Agreement (UCFAMIA) definition of meeting "community needs" to become all about the needs of this property for city services. Contrary to the usual practise of being asked to provide their decision early on in any transfer of jurisdication application, a decision was made by senior RDN and City of Nanaimo personnel to leave this key step until the end, by which time the land had already been stripped from Lantzville.
The final stake was driven into the heart of the RGMP's key goal of controlling urban sprawl when, on Sept. 20, 2005, the RDN Board of Directors (Stanhope, Korpan, McNabb, Holdom, Krall, Manhas, Sherry, Longmuir, Westbroek, C. Haime, Kreiberg, Lund, Hamilton, D. Haime, Holme, Biggeman, Bartram) accepted the District of Lantzville's request to have their Regional Context Statement (RCS) for our final draft Official Community Plan (OCP) approved by the Board. This was despite RDN planning staff's serious concerns about numerous elements (4 major definite plus one optional) of that important statement about how our OCP conforms to the Regional Growth Strategy and how any discrepancies are to be resolved over time and their recommendation that the Board refuse to accept the District of Lantzville's RCS.
It takes a certain amount of chutzpah for a small municipality like Lantzville to adopt the position that, if their RCS and the RGS (Regional Growth Strategy) are inconsistent, then it is the RGS which should be changed but that appears to be exactly what you are proposing! As someone who has devoted a considerable amount of my time for the betterment of my community, I am deeply saddened and disturbed that you would take such a cavalier attitude towards something as vital to everyone's ability to enjoy our semi-rural lifestyle. I oppose your inclusion of this RCS into the OCP, which was adopted in direct contravention of the clearly expressed wishes of the majority.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

Note: At the Council meeting immedately following the Public Hearing (Council did take about 10 minutes to read my submission), Councillor Scott, speaking in support of adopting the amendment said that he supported the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and felt that we met the RGS's goals but with a "made in Lantzville concept". "Lantzville controls Lantzville's vision as opposed to the Regional District controlling it" - a clearer contradiction between actions and words would be hard to find!

Well, Now I've Really Gone and Done It!

Well, now I’ve really gone and done it! After much thought and consultation/deliberation, I have decided to put my name forward as a candidate in the upcoming municipal elections as a Councillor for Lantzville. I have decided to do this because it has become apparent that the current Council, all of whom are running again plus a few of their wives/friends, are not prepared to listen to the clear, expressed, majority wishes of the residents of Lantzville. They have taken this abrogation of their democratic duty one step further and have done what many other councils with their own agenda have done and that is to control the flow of information and make decisions based on keeping the public uninformed, off-balance and always playing catch-up.
Their job is to clearly identify issues/concerns in the community, develop a range of options for addressing these issues and then fully informing the residents as to the pros and cons of each and letting the people decide – it is NOT to push their own agenda on us. We are being treated like we can’t be trusted to make decisions in our own best interest!
My decision to run was not made lightly and will involve many hours of effort by myself and other similar-minded, concerned residents. I have been fortunate to have been introduced to five other individuals who share my deep concern about the slippage of democracy here in Lantzville and have also decided to run and I would like to share their names with you – Harry Adcock, Niels Gram, Ian Savage (candidate for Mayor), Mark Wilson and Lee Anne Veres. You will be seeing and hearing more from them in the near future - if they show up on your door-step or invite you to an ‘Open House’ at Costin Hall, please give them the opportunity to earn your vote.
This thing we call democracy can’t work on its own – it needs the people to be involved in the process to ensure that our representatives know what we want. I do not like to ‘manage by crisis’ (it makes for bad decisions and bad feelings and causes unnecessary angst). In order to avoid this, I am asking each and every Lantzville resident to commit just a little time (say, one hour per week, on average) to make this community an even better place in which to live. Are you up to the challenge?!
We have been labelled a ‘special interest group’ but I would ask you to consider what that interest is. Everything we have done has been based on respecting the majority’s expressed wishes, we all volunteer our time for our community and I have no agenda of my own other than to see an open and fair process. If there is a way that I can benefit financially from my community involvement, I haven’t yet found it!
If you generally agree with my comments/thoughts on this web log and feel that you have some time to spare to help in the campaign (even a couple of hours would be appreciated), please contact me by email at vigilantz@hotmail.com. Remember, “no place in the world today remains special by accident!”

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen

RDN Gives Up Any Pretense of Controlling Urban Sprawl

In response to a call for feedback on a proposed new agreement between the members of the Regional District of Nanaimo, I submitted the following comments. Being a resident of Lantzville, I had already seen the old, more robust UCFAMIA agreement being manipulated by politicians or staff in order to satisfy someone's lust for money. Lantville has lost several pieces of land to the City of Nanaimo, driven by the City's lust for taxes and the provincial government's need to keep their friends happy. As ineffective as the currrent agreement was in preventing urban sprawl, I can guarantee that the proposed agreement will basically remove any pretense of the attempt.

Attn.: Christina Thomas, Senior Planner
Re: Urban Containment Implementation Agreement Public Input

The concept of an Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) is a key element in the Regional Growth Management Plan’s (RGMP) objective of limiting urban sprawl and protecting rural values. The 6-page Urban Containment Implementation Agreement (UCIA), which is proposed to replace the 14-page Urban Containment and Fringe Area Management Implementation Agreement (UCFAMIA), is a classic case of putting the wolf in charge of the hen-house. It is not possible to have a workable RGMP when each member jurisdiction is put in charge of establishing their own “community needs” and a highly subjective phrase such as “on balance” is used to qualify the criteria terminology, which itself is open to interpretation by each party to the agreement. Two criteria intended to prevent “adverse changes” to the health and on-going viability of sensitive ecosystems and the resource productivity of adjacent lands have also been removed in this revision, in my opinion, further weakening it.
The current UCFAMIA has already been misappropriated in order to extend by 0.5 km the urban sprawl which has come to define the City of Nanaimo. In that instance, a small sub-group of the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee (IAC) decided to arbitrarily change the key definition of “community needs” in the agreement so that, instead of the criteria being about the needs of the community (which couldn’t justify the inclusion of the Jeffs’ property into the City’s UCB), it became about the needs of this particular piece of property for services such as sewer and water. One would perhaps expect this kind of behaviour from some developers but certainly not from the public body which is supposed to govern for the benefit of us all. If this is a precursor to what can be routinely expected with the proposed agreement, we might as well not have a RGMP since it will be impotent.
The only way to control urban sprawl and protect rural values is through a coordinated effort where the various RDN jurisdictions are subject to the strictures of “the greater good” and not in the position of “competing” with one another for development. You cannot have a Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) creating a livable region when each ‘fiefdom’ in the ‘Kingdom’ is free to decide where the castle walls end. No reasonable parent would allow their children to decide what they are each having for dinner and then let them make it because they will end up eating empty calories, competing for ‘ingredients’ and leaving the kitchen in a mess.
Although, contrary to Ms. Thomas’ report, it really isn’t a change over the existing UCFAMIA, allowing UCB changes to be considered out-of-sync with the RGS means another opportunity for the public to be able to provide timely, meaningful input is made more difficult and will result in applications being received “willy-nilly”, with any hopes of coordination and “seeing the big picture” being forfeit. This will end up being just like Nanaimo’s OCP amendment process where applications have been accepted mid-stream and almost any old justification/reason is accepted for going against the express will of the people. You can’t do growth management piece-meal and on-the-fly! It matters not how many meetings with planning staff of each of the member municipalities your staff has had or how many meetings of the IAC there have been or that someone from the Ministry of Community, Women’s and Aboriginal Services facilitated them (they have proven to be as autocratic as anyone), it is clear to me that the intent is to water down the present agreement so that the public will lose even that avenue of protest over your inability/unwillingness to control urban sprawl, as required by the RGMP. This agreement is supposed to protect rural values, yet the Electoral Areas (which could be significantly affected by any failure of the agreement) don’t appear to have been part of the consultation process leading up to it – I think that speaks volumes about how much the “member municipalities” really care about the well-being of their neighbours and the livability of their region. Somebody has to be the parent in this relationship, making and enforcing decisions for the benefit of the whole family and jurisdictions, like children, need boundaries (figuratively and literally).

After receiving input from the public, the RDN decided to hold off on implementing the new agreement - basically what they did was wait until they thought the public had forgotten about the issue and then they went ahead and did it anyway!