Dear Editor,
When I first moved to Bowen Island more than 35 years ago, there were only about 750 full-time residents on the island; we were an “unorganized territory”, governed by the “preserve and protect” mandate of the Islands Trust.
During that first decade, Bowen Island changed quite dramatically. Even with the philosophical backdrop of the Islands Trust mandate, and a series of elected Trustees devoted to keeping Bowen “small and rural”, the population expanded rapidly – between 1986 and 1991 alone we experienced a 56 per increase in full-time residents.
In 1999 we became a municipality within the Islands Trust, and contrary to fears that this change in political structure would spur rapid population growth, the converse has occurred. Between 2006 and 2011, for example, our population grew at the relatively paltry rate of 1.2 per cent. Not only that, but a comparison of our housing prices with Metro Vancouver from 20 years ago demonstrates that we have lost a significant amount of economic value, in relative terms.
How are we to understand these changes? Was old Bowen more appealing to potential newcomers? Has our growth under the Islands Trust become our downfall, with the increasing costs of ferry travel and the increased lengths of ferry lineups serving as disincentives for potential buyers? Why haven’t the increasingly virtual workplace and a wealthy and retiring baby boom generation served to offset those disincentives? Why is Bowen perceived, in economic terms, as a less desirable place to live than it was 20 years ago?
I can’t provide any definitive answers to those questions, but I can say that Bowen of 2014 is a more interesting, more diverse and more pleasant place to live than Bowen of 1979. We now have more economic and social diversity within our population: not just the hippies and rednecks and the summer folks of the 1970s. We have a vastly expanded range of amenities – physicians, a pharmacy, a golf course, a year round synthetic turf field, a newly expanded Ruddy Potato, Artisan Square, some wonderful restaurants, bakeries, Cates Hill Chapel, and the list goes on. All thanks to developers and private capital, we should acknowledge.
I suppose that the only lingering detraction is a sense that Bowen Island is, on the eve of another election, a socially and politically divided community. Most of us can recall the conflicts over Cape Roger Curtis in 2009. We experienced a council between 2008 and 2011 that refused to negotiate with the developers, playing hard ball, and insisting that the owners would never be able to obtain a 10 acre lot subdivision for the property.
Their champion – and probably the most unwilling to compromise or co-operate was our current mayoralty candidate Murray Skeels. In the Bowen Bulletin of March 2009 he confidently asserted, “People forget that there is no 58 lot subdivision. It died.” And to those of us who then sent out a flyer, urging negotiations and compromise with the developer, he issued what turned out to be an entirely incorrect rebuke, “…this flyer actually states as fact ……..[58 lots] is what we will get. They even end their incredible and totally unfounded assertion with the statement, And yes, it is perfectly legal.”
Well, Murray was clearly mistaken in his many rants against those of us who wanted compromise – something better than the 59 large acreages that we now have. He was one of the principal architects of division within the community, but I should also say, in fairness, that Murray does love Bowen and works hard to try to create a future that fits with his vision. That’s admirable, but it cannot overcome his lack of political experience and his commentaries to date.
We need calm and reasonable people who don’t resort to vilification of those who disagree with them. And we do have an opportunity on November 15th to elect such people. Tim Rhodes for Mayor and a council with four women – Alison Morse, Maureen Nicholson, Melanie Mason, and Yvette Gabrielle, along with two men, Michael Kaile and Gary Ander. It would be a council with a more diverse representation of age and gender and, most important, with a clear commitment to working constructively with each other for the good of the community.
Neil Boyd
