Talking about the Regional Growth Strategy in the Comox Valley...

What do you think about the Comox Valley Regional Growth Strategy that's about to be released (August 10, 2010)? 

I was lucky enough (!) to be one of a number of recipients of a recent flurry of emails between various land-use practitioners on the subject. I've posted them (with the authors' permissions or with names removed). It got me thinking that, again, we are needing a "third place" to have these kinds of conversations.

I'm borrowing this "third place" idea from a comment Tom Dishlevoy made in a recent post. "Third places" are what wikipedia describes (citing Ray Oldenburg in The Great Good Place) as those places other than home and work that "are important for civil society, democracy, civic engagement, and establishing feelings of a sense of place."

CV2050 as a "third place"

I think of CV2050 as a virtual "third place." Not unlike a couple of earlier experiments in creating a venue for dialogue and learning about community and change I've been involved in, CV2050 is a place where the "conversation about sustainability in the Comox Valley" can take place in a non-partisan fashion. 

Being non-partisan doesn't mean feelings aren't strong, that people don't talk as part of their work or home lives. It does mean that this is about conversation, not policy. I've been an active proponent of "community sustainability" and "community quality of life" in my community for a long time. But for me this means, primarily, creating a space where people with knowledge and passion can exchange ideas and passions. I'm not sure any of us know what "sustainability" looks like; I do know that there are many with ideas of what it could look like. I do know that most of us cherish notions of what "community quality of life" is about, and we need to be talking about how we invest in that – even as we talk about how our ideas about what that means is different from household to household, neighbourhood to neighbourhood. These are appropriate conversations in the kind of "third place" I see CV2050 being. We won't set policy. What we say, however, will inform the kinds of policies and regulations that will shape our communities as they struggle with very real changes being forced by a host of things that we can't control, from climate change to the price of energy to the greying of our population.

When three of us imagined CV2050 in the late summer of 2010 it was with the intention of stimulating and supporting this conversation. We thought, and I think this holds true today for all three of us, that real change happens in many ways, large and small, and conversation is often the starting point. 

Reviving this "third place" for our current conversation about change

I'm proud of what we did with CV2050 last year in the couple of months we had to get it up and running. It was a success, if you go by the numbers. Lots of folks were happy to participate in the video interviews. We had good numbers watching the vids, and even better numbers on the various online conversations at CV2050.com, Twitter, and (primarily) Facebook. For a little while, it became the "third place" for talk about official stuff: building and site development, transportation, housing & neighbourhoods, ecoysystems/environment/parks, social/community well-being, food systems, economic health, infrastructure – the 8 pillars of sustainability we borrowed from Mark Holland and the crew at hblanarc.ca

Now, as we start to get into reviewing what the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) looks like, it's time to kick CV2050's conversation into gear again. Here is the (slightly) edited version of the recent email exchange I was privy to. Names have been removed for folks who have declined to make their comments public. 

The recent Regional Growth Strategy email exchange

From: Kelly Gesner, Landworks Consultants

To: Hans, George, Jack, Gerard, (and others)

Date: Jul 23, 2010

Hi, Hans. I read your article (and Jack Minard’s) in the July/August issue of the WORD. I do appreciate you (and George’s and Gary’s) perspective regarding the rural/urban divide. My concern with respect to this issue – from a different perspective – lies in the potential impact of the RGS on the Comox Valley. My concern was heightened when I read Jack’s complimentary comments on the document.

 

Either I’m completing missing something, or this draft RGS absolutely does not understand the nature of the Comox Valley and its appeal.

 

Let me preface my concern by saying that I am a confirmed, die-hard urbanist. (I believe you share some of my thoughts on this planning concept.) I live in downtown for many reasons, and would LOVE to see the downtown core of Courtenay (and Comox and Cumberland, although what happens in those communities doesn’t directly affect my lifestyle so much) densify extensively and thus be able to offer me more amenities and attractions and opportunities. In light of this “bias” on my part, I find it ironic that I feel compelled to raise the alarm when I see the draft RGS trying to do just that. Because that’s not why residents love the Valley, it’s not why they stay here, move here or intend to move here.

 

I think the RGS, as it’s drafted, it set up to fail. It attempts to direct/force 90% of all new development into the urban cores. It does so, in part, by discouraging residential use outside the urban cores. If fact, it claims that “estate residential” living (i.e., the CVRD’s Country Residential zones) is a “concern” – and to be curtailed as much as possible. So, if in the long run, this approach were to succeed, we would end up with lovely, dense, amenity-filled urban centres and lovely farms and forestry lots dominating the rural areas. Now, as much as I would love that, I don’t believe many other people will. In fact, I’m fairly confident that the main reason people live/move here is because they like the valley the way it is … and they want space and privacy. Many of them actually want a 5- or 6-acre lot and actually do NOT want to farm it “intensively!” Which they will be mandated [to do] (somehow, which is a whole ‘nother problem, and even people who own ALR land cannot be mandated to farm it – let alone intensively). The document says nothing [about] forcing people with lots smaller than 5 acres or larger than 10 acres to use intensively for agriculture or forestry.

 

I believe that attempts to enforce this approach – alas for me! – are doomed to fail, because there is no market and no appetite for this urbanist vision for the valley. The only effect I can see is sky-rocketing prices for existing 5- to 10-acre lots.

 

Please, please, correct me if I’m wrong or missing an important point somewhere!

 

Kelly Gesner

___________

From: Kelly Gesner, Landworks Consultants

To: Local government staff 1

Date: July 23, 2010

...I'm now a bit perplexed about the public process for the draft RGS. I'm preparing to make a presentation. But I don't know whether it should be on the draft document that was presented to the public in June or on the revised one. The CV Echo reported this morning that "A series of changes to the draft have been backed by a forum of elected officials from across the Comox Valley." The article goes on to say that these "amendments [were supported] at Tuesday night's meeting."

If the public hearing is on the amended version, will that get presented to the public before the public hearing, so that we can determine whether or not the comments we are intending to make are still appropriate?

Thanks for any clarification you can provide!

Kelly
___________

From: Local government staff 1

To: Kelly Gesner, Landworks Consultants

Date: July 23, 2010

Public reaction is being sought on the version that is contained in a bylaw.

That bylaw is currently scheduled for readings next week with a public hearing to be set.

Due to provincially mandated time lines we are moving straight to the hearing but on the amended version to be read at next weeks meeting.

___________

From: Local government staff 2

To: Kelly Gesner, Landworks Consultants

Date: July 23, 2010 1:09 PM

Out of the office but saw this email. Staff report on RGS and bylaw proposed for first and second reading is on CVRD website under agendas.

___________

From: Kelly Gesner, Landworks Consultants

To: Local government staff 1 & 2

Date: July 23, 2010

I appreciate this...; it helps a bit. There is only one item under Agendas: the Board meeting scheduled for 27 July. When I followed that link, I found [staff] memo of 22 July, along with two 16 July memo's from Urban Strategies, under Item 5) - Regional Growth Strategy. The first of Urban Strategies was helpful, as it outlined "recommended changes" to the RGS. Further down the page, under the second Item 1) [meant to be Item 7), I think] - "Public Hearing Notice - Bylaw 120 ...", I found a one-page memo which would form the basis of a Board resolution to hold the public hearing

on 10 August at 7pm.

But I was unable to find a copy of Bylaw 120 and/or the RGS itself. And I went through the agenda three times. Did I miss it somehow?

So I went to the Regional Strategies section of the CVRD's homepage, and under Regional Growth Strategy, found the version of the RGS that was presented to the public in June - not the amended one referred to in the Comox Valley Echo.

It would appear that the RD needs to make the revised version available - somehow - to the public. Or, if I missed it, make it easier to find.

Thanks!

Kelly
___________

From: Jack Minard

To: Kelly Gesner, Hans, George, Gerard

Date: July 26, 2010

I think that [Kelly?] has a point...

The developers are adamantly telling me that people who are moving here are looking for a single family home on acreage. Literally no one moves here to live in a condo.

Still, core densification is the way to go and if all there is on the market 10 years from now are townhouses and condos perhaps they will sell like hotcakes.

I think if we build the densification with nature welcomed and honoured in design and function people will want it, we will get a livable community and sustainability will be measured by lifestyle choices within these new urbanizations. 

My two cents,

Jack

___________

Your comments?