We need to let the OCP review run its course without moratorium
Re: Councillor Justice’s motion [for a moratorium on development]
I enter this debate with trepidation. Christopher Justice is a dear friend and a thorough, hard-working, thoughtful councillor. But I do not agree with the proposed motion. While I believe it is well-intentioned, its application is fraught with complications, and implications resulting from the motion are not fully identified.
There has been much hyperbole on both sides of this debate, and my effort will be to find and speak to a middle ground. As someone who sat on North Cowichan’s Community Planning Advisory Committee, I am aware of the many stages and countless months (more often years) it takes for development or housing projects to see the light of day. There is a fleet of hard-working municipal staff tasked with the delicate balancing act of maintaining our liveable community, attempting to solve some of our social problems through housing policy, providing an environment that gives local businesses the confidence it needs to work here, safeguarding our ALR, and responding to the growing needs of citizens for recreation and the demands of a changing climate. It is a tall order.
The elephant in the room is of course VIMC. I think all sides learned from that debacle. I do not think we can take from that, however, that everything North Cowichan proposes should be viewed with suspicion (though I understand the temptation), nor that they are not working from a solid foundation of conscientious professionals intent on doing the best they can for their community. They live here too.
I contend that for the most part they have done a good job. The fact that we all choose to live here is a reflection of this. Not every decision will be to our personal liking, but as the above list suggests, there is a tall order of factors that need to be weighed in municipal land-use decisions. Not all of us will be happy with what we get, but I think if we all leave the table a little unhappy, we will have come a long way towards a fair administration of the wishes and goals of the whole community.
I recommend staying the course through the OCP review process for three specific reasons: 1) the current OCP was developed through public consultation and established a roadmap and set of rules to follow; 2) at 18-24 months, the review process is relatively short (especially given the comparative length of time required for the approval of development projects); and 3) I believe it is unfair to those who have played by the rules to have those rules changed at their expense and without public consultation.
If land development and home construction were as lucrative as its critics make out, we would have a housing Klondike. We don’t. What we do have is a fairly consistent increase of new neighbours bringing with them a moderate demand for housing of all types. Some will happily live an urban existence in the city, some are looking for a home and a yard for their kids, some are aching for a hobby farm, others are desperate for space and solitude. To assume that we only plan for one type of Cowichan — despite the sensible climate arguments for it — is to ignore who we and our neighbours are. Does this mean we don’t embrace smart growth? Of course not. Does it mean we are on the way to paving the Valley in a gallop toward endless suburbia? Certainly not. Does it mean we need to find a new language and process that doesn’t pit neighbour against neighbour nor the environment against development? You bet.
My father used to say that every house is someone’s castle. I would add to this: we all need to make room for others as those before made room for us.
The current North Cowichan development process has a level of community safeguards established through the existing OCP. An additional safeguard (Site Adaptive Planning in Urban and Rural Interface Policy) was introduced last year as an interim measure to better address environmental, natural hazard and community character issues and to provide further development oversight while the OCP review is underway. Those who have made financial and livelihood decisions based on the rules as set out, should not be penalized for having followed them. Let the process unfold as intended, and here’s hoping that along the way we can all recognize the tough choices, the community passions, and the need to find compromise throughout it all for everyone’s benefit.
Mona Kaiser
North Cowichan