How Big Brother came to the Gulf Islands
The Islands Trust has turned the region into a museum exhibit for wrong-headed conservation
BY ELIZABETH NICKSON, SPECIAL TO THE SUN JULY 6, 2010
Last Sunday, suitably enough July 4th, the 13 communities of the Gulf Islands threw Salt Spring Coffee into Ganges Harbour and kicked off a rebellion.
With the Islands Trust’s refusal of the coffee company’s development application, the iron-fisted conservation government now finds itself in more trouble with its citizens than ever contemplated in those dewy days 35 years ago when the trust was struck to preserve and protect the Gulf Islands.
Former Vancouver mayor Senator Larry Campbell spoke, and 40 tractors, backhoes, septic and dump trucks drove to the protest site, some of the big-machine operators were nude.
To many on the Gulf Islands, the trust has become Big Brother, impenetrable, managed by a small closed elite, and destructive not only to once vivid, diverse and open communities, but arguably to the land itself.
The Gulf Islands have long been known as an argument surrounded by water. The end of the hippie trail, the repository of the anarchic, ridiculous and strange, to the casual observer people move here, shed their adult selves and decide to express their inner artist. All of which might lead that observer to divine that the islands are essentially ungovernable.
In point of fact, there is no government. Dozens of volunteer committees struggle with parks, water, library, recycling, recreation, fire, and every other issue that might come up before a municipal government. Area CRD directors parcel out money and try to keep up. And while the trust describes itself as a “unique form of local government,” its mandate is solely to manage land use. Mismanage might be a more precise word.
Property prices are among the highest in the country, despite 90 per cent of the land lying fallow and neglected. Tinder builds up in those abandoned forests, and invasive species predate once fertile fields. Hundreds of Gulf Islanders live in forest shacks, boats, trailers and tents, while the trust endlessly studies plans for affordable housing.
Applications for business expansion can take a decade to process through the trust and requirements are so stringent that applicants shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars only to be turned down, as the coffee company was, based on a “feeling.”
As business owners wait, jobs melt away, and young people, shorn of opportunity, leave. On many of the islands, there are so few students that schools are starting to close. And the islands are aging rapidly; on Hornby, the median age is 60.
The trust is the great-grandaddy of a new kind of government, which has over-laid strict environmental management on a new kind of jurisdiction — the conservation community. Struck in 1974, the trust has been imitated all over the world: The California Coastal Commission and the Cape Cod Commission, for example, are modelled, in part, upon the trust.
Essentially undemocratic, each island, whether 10,000 or 450 strong, has only two trustees, with any tie vote broken by an off-island trustee who comes in for the monthly meetings. Trust council can, with a single vote, obviate any decision approved by local trustees.
On Galiano, 100 forest-lot owners have been waiting since 1991 for permission to build just one house on plots that range from eight hectares to 43 hectares. Nowhere else in Canada must a property owner pay residential taxes on a property he cannot live on, and nowhere else in B.C. is a forest-lot owner not permitted a residence. On Denman, trustees turned down a 405-hectare park, bigger than Stanley Park, offered in return for a total of 100 houses on the 486 remaining hectares. Denman’s density is one resident for every 10 hectares, hardly “overdeveloped.” Dozens of similar decisions have worn away trust credibility and respect.
All over the world conservation communities are failing. An imposed web of ecosystem management regulation practically ensures a poor and aging population.
New York State’s 2.4-million-hectare Adirondack National Park, for example: 59 per cent of the park is private but subject to the earliest form of environmental regulation. The 30-year results were just tabulated: the population is aging, a school closes every 18 months, private business has fled, there is no Internet or cellphone coverage, young people have left, property tax revenues crashed, welfare and social service requirements have spiked and only massive government subsidy keeps the park going. Much of it is now closed off with little money left for maintenance.
Not one resident of the Gulf Islands wants over-development. We cherish our small intimate rural communities and treasure the little corner of the natural world we have been given to tend. Many of us build green houses, covenant our lands, and build salmon enhancement.
But without sensible reform, another 10 years of trust mis-management will turn the islands into museum exhibits for authoritarian and wrong-headed conservation.
Elizabeth Nickson is a writer who lives on Saltspring Island. Her next book is Soft Place to Fall.
1 Sep
How Big Brother Came to the Gulf Islands
Advertisement
Posted by Keith on October 7, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Dear Ms. Nickson,
I am writing to you as a fellow Gulf Islander (Denman), and as someone equally concerned with the local governance of my community. I discovered your writing after reading a back issue (July 22) of Island Tides, where in the “editorial” section there is a response to your July 6, Vancouver Sun article by Islands Trust Council Chairperson, Sheila Malcomson. I had not seen your piece while reading the Chair’s response, and I was dismayed at her defensiveness and glossing over of the real issues facing Island communities. Having now read your piece, I find your views to be over the top, oversimplified, and not entirely accurate. In a way, both these views provide a mirror of the other, the description of a Denman developer`s offer of a `park` in return for a development application but one example.
As you pointed out, the Local Trust has very little power other than Land Use and Zoning powers. To describe the Trust as ” iron-fisted “, ” authoritarian “, and draw an analogy to Big Brother is but one example of your overstatements. The idea that our local governance is responsible for the demographic pressures that fall upon us is an example of your oversimplification. It simply is not true, as I am sure that you are aware that this part of the world, inside and out of the Trust Area, holds the oldest mean average age in the country, in large part because of this tidal wave of greying boomers retirement plans. The applications made for zoning and land use changes very rarely cost hundreds of thousands of dolars, Saltspring Coffee notwithstanding. “An imposed web of ecosystem management regulation practically ensures a poor and aging population.”. While this is not only untrue, it is ironic in that the Local Trust cannot even regulate the use of pesticides. Many of the jurisdictional issues you are referring to are managed by the Province, including forests and riparian areas, or the Regional District.
I am a vocal critic of the Islands Trust in my community and elsewhere, and I took exception with Chair Malcolmson’s response to your article. She too offered near truths, oversimplifications, and outright defensiveness in her response. This is a very troubling fact, in that no organization can evolve in a responsive way without the ability to reflect honestly on its own shortcomings. If you were to only listen to Ms. Malcolmson, you would think that everything is going swimmingly well in the Trust area. As you know, it is not. But I don’t believe that this is primarily the fault of the Trust, ( our non-Trust neighbouring communities and other rural communities are facing the very same challenges), but we would be well served by a Trust Council that was more honest and transparent in their deliberations. I would be happy to expand on my ideas should you be interested in hearing them.
Sincerely,
Keith Porteous
Denman Island.
Posted by elizabethnickson on October 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Hi, that’s the trouble with 750 words on such an important subject. I actually did a rezoning on my 30 acre forest from 2004-6, and the cost was $160,000 – it was so crucial to my family’s success that I took 22 months off work, and lobbied ceaselessly every interest group on the island. As a result I met with scores of Gulf Islanders and learned a great deal about conservation in our area. Then I read deeply – 300 books, four thousand monographs, reports and studies – and talked to hundreds of rural people all over the U.S and Canada – I was trained at Time Inc. as a researcher – invaluable post-grad learning – and I used classical reporting techniques, which means I have confidence in what I found and the conclusions I have drawn.
When my application was finally put through after almost 2 years – (2 years to divide a 30 acre property in half) David Essig, then chair of the Trust, in response to complaints that my application had been processed “so fast”, told the public meeting that he had checked and only 1 application in 1000 like mine was put through. And we – by which I mean my colleagues in Islanders for Self Government – checked the aging stat – we are older than Victoria or Vancouver Island – themselves aging faster than the rest of the country. So I stand by my facts. I am aware however, that virtually no one has the time or inclination to perform the level of research I have. Ecosystem management has virtually destroyed almost every rural community in which it is thoroughly prosecuted and the results fall most severely on working and middle class families, who are driven out. I hope you will read my book, A Soft Place to Fall, which is the result of 6 years of close study of precisely what authoritarian and iron-fisted conservation has effected in rural areas all over the world. I repeat once more – I am not against conservation, but I do strongly object to it being used as a club to ruin rural economies and cultures.
And thank you so much for your thoughts.
Posted by elizabethnickson on May 13, 2011 at 1:54 am
and while we are at it, applications of any SUBSTANCE do cost hundreds of thousands. ask SS coffee or that poor devil who runs the SS Marina with both hands tied behind his back. Have you spent any time with those persecuted people on Galiano? I doubt it. How long till the Galiano forests blow up in fire, with no one to manage forests that need management. the environmental movement has caused catastrophe in human and natural populations where ever fool citizens let them take hold. Now go away.
Posted by Barbara Grimmer on May 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Have you included in your readings “The Destructive Role of Land Use Planning” by Andrew Morriss and Roger Meiners in the Tulane Environmental Law Journal (Vol 14, Issue 1, Winter 2000). I appreciated your letter “How Big Brother Came To The Gulf Islands” and wrote a letter of support in response. I have lived in the Gulf Islands for fifteen years, my husband and his extended family live here and have been here since the 1800s. I have seen and heard too much.
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm
While I have issue with the local governance protocols involving the Islands Trust, I have to comment that if you compare Gulf Island planning with other jurisdictions, or an area that has lacked forward thinking zoning regulations, you may not be so near-sighted in regard to your critique. My issues have to do with the fact that there is a lack of democratic input in amending bylaws, and the only accountability comes every three years.
Posted by Barbara Grimmer on May 12, 2011 at 4:59 pm
The paper I referred to above is an academic criticism of the centralized planning process used by a variety of jurisdictions for environmental protection. The authors are professors in Business Law, Regulation and Economics. An earlier version of the article was published as a chapter in the book “Land Use Planning in the 21st Century” edited by Sam Staley and Randall Holcombe. The lack of democratic input and the dismissal of local knowledge by planners is discussed in the paper. The paper also says that planners view the land owner as either not educated or understanding of the issues, or part of the problem if they are aware of the issues but don’t agree with the planner.
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Thanks for this reply. On the Gulf Islands, the local planning is done locally, and lead by the Local Trust Committee, with local input into the Official Community Plan. The Provincial Government Act of 1974 set the guidelines for the “preserve and protect” special designation for the Gulf Island’s Islands Trust jurisdiction. The Province has recently imposed new laws regarding riparian area setbacks as an example.
As well, the Agricultural Land Reserve or Silvaculture designation for a non R1 (residential) property determines the subdivision allowable for such large parcels (eg. not smaller than 40 acres for a farm lot). This is not solely an Islands Trust issue, and is governed from above at the Provincial level.
Ms. Nixon has her own axe to grind in regard to her frustration in subdividing her large piece of land. In getting approved, the value of her land nearly doubled, and she was fully aware of her zoning when she bought the land, or should have been. Islands Trust have a legal problem of setting precedent for more inappropriate rezoning of parcels of comparable sizes.
Even while I have issues of accountable democracy at the local level, the evidence is overwhelming in seeing the difference in planning and environmental protection in the Islands Trust Area as compared to other jurisdictions in B.C. In many ways, the Islands Trust Area has less jurisdiction than a municipality, and cannot regulate the use of pesticides (for example) and many other issues of concern.
When you read the mandate of the Islands Trust, most people focus on the “preserve and protect” mandate assigned by the Provincial Government but often do not note that this mandate is for all citizens of B.C., not just the locals.
kp
Posted by elizabethnickson on May 13, 2011 at 1:49 am
Ok, knowing my financial situation is stalker-y and you are banned. and wanting more environmental protection on our islands is simply nuts. the Trust has mis-managed SS’s watersheds to the point, where they run storm water into drinking water reservoirs. Our bird life on the Islands is 50% of what it should be because they don’t manage deer. ditto threatened plants. Landowners are THE BEST STEWARDS – note I do not say developers, but they Re more than adequately constrained.
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2011 at 6:52 pm
I have been reading reviews of your source. A few things: It is primarily in the context of American property law. It is primarily concerned with urban and suburban issues (not rural). It is politically motivated by a libertarian ideology, not in regard to Canadian rural environmental protection in a specially designated area.
Posted by Barbara Grimmer on May 12, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Yes, I am aware of much you are saying. I had the American context in mind when I read the article I referred to, and was able to tease out what was relevant. It was speaking specifically about environmental protection in land use policies. With respect to the ALR land the 40 acre minimum was set by the Islands Trust local committees. On North Pender Island where I live, downzoning occurred for both rural and ALR land in order to keep large parcels. South Pender Island still has a 10 acre minimum for ALR land. As for the mandate being for the people of BC as well as us, at the time the provincial government also provided significant funding to the Islands Trust, but has been weaning the Trust off of these funds, and instead is relying on the taxpayer/landowner to foot the bill. I don’t know what the impact of the federal government purchase of significant lands for the Park Reserve, but I have heard that their taxes paid to the Trust are not what they should be, leaving it up to you and me to pay the difference. I have a small rural parcel with a small house built in the 20′s, its own well and septic and the property taxes have more than doubled in a 14 year period. I used to be allowed a house and cottage, but it was downzoned to just a house and I will need to demolish the home on it now if I want to build a house because the cottage on it now is just over the 600 square foot max for a Islands Trust cottage. Oh, they also put a woodland DPA on the hillside to the building site (even though the previous owner completely logged it) and I was told by the planner that the DPA was put on there because it “could grow trees”. Oh, they also put a steep slope DPA so I guess I will also need an engineer. I think I will just fence it and let the sheep eat there.
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2011 at 11:23 pm
The DPA is because of the slope, and they want the trees to hold the erosion. This has been a debate on Denman too. The ALR subdivision MUST be approved by the ALC, a Provincial jurisdiction. It is true that the Province has cut their funding to a fraction, and downloaded the tax burden to us, as they have done to municipalities.
In regard to your cottage, we have this issue on Denman, and they have brought forward bylaw amendments to deal with “legal non-conforming ” (pre-bylaw buildings) so that they will conform to the OCP. Check into it.
Posted by Barbara Grimmer on May 13, 2011 at 12:07 am
Yes, ALC subdivision must be approved, but the decision for the size of the final parcel was left to the LTC to decide in our OCP, with final approval by ALC. As for the cottage, I did look into it and although it is legal non-conforming I am stuck with the downzoning. No grandfathering – unless you had the cottage first.
Posted by Keith on May 13, 2011 at 1:29 am
I guess my overall point is that I want more accountable democracy, and more environmental protection. Leaving environmental protection to landowner’s voluntary actions is simply not sufficient.
Posted by Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 on July 10, 2011 at 5:35 pm
This is a very interesting article and illuminating comment section. The arm of UN Agenda 21 is long and reaches into every community in the world. The philosophy of Communitarianism pervades these arguments. To want government to serve the people by culling herds, removing invasive species, or defining reasonable land use regulations is not contradictory to objecting to the imposition of restrictions on land use that break the hearts and wallets of property owners. Communitarianism ‘balances’ the rights of the individual with the so-called rights of the community. Because the rights of the community are not defined in a constitution they can change without warning or notice; one’s individual rights are balanced against a continuously redefined amorphous rulebook. This rulebook is written in the dark and the individual runs up against it at dawn, and alone. The slogan of UN Agenda 21, to protect the rights of future generations and all species against the potential crimes of the present, is both a smokescreen and a declaration of entitlement. By standing on this high sounding premise the rights of the individual are called selfish and those who would fight for them slurred as Ayn-Randians. The philosophy that by merely living and exhaling we pose a direct danger to the earth is self-destructive and truly damaging to those lands that we steward. The green mask must be drawn back–far back from the personalities, the little dictators running trusts, foundations, planning departments, city and town councils, provinces and states, non-governmental foundations and the like. The green mask must be removed from those who have hijacked the environmental movement. Behind the money in green; the more than five trillion dollars in private money poised to make green loans; the carbon credit brokers; the enormous wealth in purchasing land fills, ‘carbon sinks’, inaccessible lands in third world countries; behind that greed which one would expect—look behind that. Find what intelligent, educated people the world over look away from as from a spotlight: there is a plan for world governance that is in place and eating like a metastasized cancer into every nation, free and bound, in the world. Under the banner of saving the planet we are drowning liberty. Under the mask of green our civil liberties are being restricted, constricted, and suffocated in every village and hamlet. The plan is imposed locally.
Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.