(originally published in April 2008)
A dozen years ago, people in the know about land use and settlement
choices were getting excited at the prospects for small towns and
cities. Solutions to problems like rural and suburban sprawl,
auto-centred development, and ecologically inappropriate development
seemed at hand. But small town leadership, in the face of squandered
fish and forest assets, desperately looked to growth-at-any-cost as a
panacea. The result: a dark age for "sustainable" development.
Things change. Small towns are now places where it's possible to talk
seriously about "sustainable" development. Growth is now being viewed
as something that must serve community and regional ecological and
social – as well as economic – needs.
Sadly, we are still living with the legacy of zoning from the "dark
ages." The most recent local example of an inappropriate development
proposal is the plan to put a gas station complex on the foreshore, on
our still-scenic Comox Road.
As I write this, a public hearing is only days away. A recent email in
my inbox outlines the limited options available to local politicians,
a tweaking of existing bylaws. Local government feels constrained
because there is no strong indication on the part of citizens
(taxpayers) that we'll support the legal and financial risks of
downzoning properties that have an active development interest. The
existing zoning is a sleeping dog that has been woken, and may bite
the taxpayer if disturbed. Would that we had de-fanged the beast while
it slept, downzoning the property to a more appropriate land use
before someone had the bright idea of putting a gas station in such a
sensitive location.
Though this proposal may be a done deal by the time you read this, it
isn't the only sleeping dog legacy of our town's dark ages of zoning.
These are ugly opportunities for bad development. Unless defanged –
and processes like the current regional growth management exercise, as
well as the local land trust's Regional Conservation Strategy are
opportunities to start this defanging – they will have long term
implications for quality of life in the region.
Examples of how yesterday's dark ages have a lasting impact are
myriad. In the 20 years since I returned to the Comox Valley we've
lost a lot of ecological integrity and aesthetic beauty to innumerable
instances of rural and suburban sprawl. The ugliest and most
problematic examples of wasted opportunity are, however, retail
developments: We've OK'd the paving over of prime alluvial soils so
that we could have a big-box mall; We've sacrificed rare near-to-town
industrial land for big-box retail that competes with our existing
commercial core; We've allowed a proliferation of single-story retail
while struggling with an affordable housing crisis and the need to
create densities.
We – as citizens who elect the politicians and taxpayers who pay the
staff to regulate and guide development – aren't particularly
special. Our choices are typical for towns large and small in North
America. Land and fuel for cars have been relatively cheap. We've
followed a development model that squanders real estate – and the
other, increasingly significant, values that lie in the land.
But things change. Real estate values are climbing. We are becoming
more sensitive to the costs (fiscal and environmental) of our
spendthrift ways with the land. Awareness of costs is having an impact
on how development is taking place here and on the Island generally.
Yet our old habits of wasting land persist. We still have many
remnants of dark ages thinking, many sleeping dogs in our bylaws.
Tweaking of existing bylaws may frustrate or channel landowner
actions. But this is using a small stick to beat the sleeping dog.
Better to use a carrot – or doggie treat – approach, especially when
we are not yet ready to pay for the sins of our community fathers and
mothers. My morning's email, for example, suggests directly contacting
the land owner/developer, to gently encourage him to reconsider this
project. It's a soft approach. But it may have some strength. There is
growing interest within the real estate and development industry of
the value of quality of life arguments, and growing interest in taking
a leadership role viz "sustainability."
Several years ago – and well before the Premier's conversion to the
"green" side – the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA), endorsed a
"Quality of Life" initiative (see www.qualityoflife.bcrea.bc.ca). A
related body, the Real Estate Institute of BC, has for a number of
years, been an active partner in cutting edge sustainability projects,
including Smart Growth on the Ground and UBC's Sustainability by
Design initiative.
There is a significant shift in long-term thinking about land and land
uses on the part of industry in BC. This could provides a peer-driven
argument when dealing with things like the current gas station
proposal. It's an old zoning, based on inadequate science and an
antiquated vision of community. Does it support anyone's ideas about
quality of life today? Does it improve real estate values in the
neighbourhood? Does it improve the natural systems values in the area?
What does it say to potential investors in the community, home-buyers
or business people, when they see how carelessly our local developers
and our community treat valuable properties and landscapes? And, what
can the landowner gain by moving his gas station to a more suitable
location? What impact would this kind of leadership have on future
projects? There developers on the Island who are taking these
questions seriously. Perhaps our friend on Comox Road may be
persuaded...
The project may go ahead. It's part of the legacy of those
not-so-distant small town dark ages, when things like viewscapes,
water quality, fuel and oil runoff, etc were not important issues.
This landowner may not be convinced of the long-term value of being a
leader. Maybe this will move us – as citizens and taxpayers – to
support stronger local government actions, including review and
revision of inappropriate bylaws and zonings based on inadequate
scientific data. So that, like the little village of Uclelet, we
prioritize things like a shoreline walkway (from Courtenay to Comox,
imagine...) and insist that development be consistent with a vision of
ourselves as a sustainable, livable region. A community where we
invest in and are vigourously supportive of our quality of life,
rather than squandering it.
– 30 –
April 2008
(c)hanspetermeyer.ca / 2008
