THE 10,000 DOLLAR FARCE M.W. Salamon
Bamfield is currently engaged in the process of updating its’ Official Community Plan (OCP) by way of a co-operative effort with students and staff of Vancouver Island University (VIU). This process is touted by its’ supporters as a breakthrough model for addressing the future OCP requirements in the ACRD Electoral Districts. The participants include the students and staff of VIU, the residents of the Electoral District and marginal ACRD appearance by way of a junior planner dispatched to provide a semblance of credibility. In short, this is a $10,000 dog and pony show complete with refreshments and prizes for the audience designed to deflect any REAL participation by the ACRD. The OCP text is 90% civic planning and the absence of the Manager of Planning and Development at these proceedings can only be viewed as an insult to Bamfield and contempt for the process by the ACRD.. Legitimate and often expressed concerns like zoning, density, parking, cannot be addressed by this experiment. In fact, these concerns were identified in the current OCP which is now 12 years old. NOTHING has been done by the ACRD to satisfy these concerns. Justification for this lack of activity is enshrined in the current OCP:
Section 3. IMPLEMENTATION, paragraph 3 reads;
“The official community plan does not commit the Regional District or any person or body to undertake any of the projects it suggests but any project undertaken shall not be at variance with this plan.”
The ACRD will undoubtedly require this paragraph to be preserved in the new OCP. This will render the exercise and the document produced about as important, very much more expensive and as effective as a letter to Santa.
Parking:
TRANSPORTATION, Policies, paragraph 2 reads;
“A public parking area is to be established in East Bamfield in a suitable location. This parking area is to serve residents and tourists destined for Port Desire and Mills Peninsula. Such area will be acquired and maintained via provisions of a new Section 906, Parking By-Law.”
That was 12 years ago. It gets uglier.
Paragraph 3 reads;
“Full compliance with on-site parking provision under By-law for all commercial and multi-family development and redevelopment schemes in West Bamfield may be “waived” or reduced and a cash-in-lieu option exercised, where circumstances, in the Regional Districts opinion so merit. In this regard the Regional District will outline and detail such options with a new parking by-law under section 906 of the Municipal Act, in consultation with input from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.”
This type of action is very similar to the “indulgences” granted by medieval popes for cash which reduced your time in purgatory. It shows that Bamfields’ desires can be disregarded by a suitable cash payment to our governing body. I would like our new Regional Director to investigate whether any cash was ever collected under this scheme. If so I would ask that the cash be returned to Bamfield and that the Manager of Planning and development be summarily dismissed from his post for disregard of the electorates wishes. “Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done.” If the ACRD can dismiss staff “without cause” it can also dismiss staff “with cause”. That cause being contempt for the electorate.
WATER:
INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES, Policies, paragraph 3 reads;
“The Regional District will seek, through the appropriate Provincial agencies, teh designation of Sugsaw Lake Watershed as a community watershed primarily as a resource protection measure.”
Has this been done? I have often asked this question and have never received an answer from either the ACRD or the Water Board. They do, however, seem intent on investing several hundred thousand more of our dollars on improving the intake at Sugsaw Lake which is not defined as an area under their jurisdiction or control near as I can tell. Does this make sense? Improvements to our water system thu far were initiated by provincial legislation and not out of any ACRD concern for Bamfield.
By the way, who is John Thomas? He appears on the District Staff List but I’ve been told the Water Board is paying consulting fees for his services. Is this true? If it is it smells like double dipping to me.
SEWER: also under INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES: Policies, paragraph 4 reads;
“The Regional District will consider and seek authority and concurrence from relevant Provincial Agencies to analyze and encourage innovative and viable solutions to (and for) community liquid waste management. By way of explanation the Regional District is of the opinion that “standardized” Waste Management Planning options are niether justified, warranted or financially feasible within the community.”
Action taken by the ACRD equals ZERO. Obviously this is not a concern for legislators who live in Port and surrounds. The ”innovative and viable solutions” seem very elusive to the ACRD. The ACRD budget lists magazine subscriptions as an expense item. Is it the intended purpose of these subscriptions to keep the ACRD current on professional matters (such as innovative and viable sewage practices) or are they buying reading material for the lobby? Why can’t we build houses with gray water systems so we don’t overload our septic systems?
DENSITY: After a short tour of Bamfield any person of normal intelligence would come to the realization that Density is not a concern in Bamfield. Any concerns in this regard can be addressed at the APC level and by variance. In short, the concept and its’ accompanying legislation as regards Bamfield is nothing short of a cash grab by the ACRD. To a developer the 500 dollar charge for density variance is peanuts, to the average Bamfielder the sum is considerable. Let’s put this punitive concept in the trash where it belongs.
COMMUNITY HALL: A site has been identified for the building of a new community hall and the mechanism for expediting the process is identified in the 2000 OCP. The justification can be found under CIVIC, PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL USES, Policies, paragraph 2 reads;
“As a matter of general policy future civic or institutional use will be permitted within the Plan Area in locations which are deemed, by the Regional District, appropriate and have little significant negative impacts on surrounding or neighbouring land uses and users, as demand and need so determines.”
Okay, lets get it done, what is the holdup?
In support of this site; TRANSPORTATION, Policies, paragraph 9 reads;
“The Regional district will, with the agreement and concurrence of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Public Works Canada, the Ministry of Environment, BC assets and Lands and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, seek to establish and maintain specific barge landing sites and facilities at the following locations or, any other location identified as being feasible and pragmatic for the facility: a) adjacent to Nuthatch Road, road allowance (East Bamfield);”
Herein is the justification for our Community Hall Dock which, by way of proximity will also serve as a school dock.
There’s much more but this is enough to digest for now. The OCP would be better addressed by meetings of a committee of Bamfielders and the appropriate ACRD staff. The 10,000 dollars would cover the expenses incurred in the process and the results would be infinitely more meaningful.
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”
(Thomas Jefferson, 1743 – 1846)
Add to Google
