DEAR EDITOR:
The possibility of unintended consequences is inherent to any decision-making process. When the general public is the principal stakeholder, leaders are well advised to rely on transparent, sincere and inclusive engagement with the public to develop broad-based buy in, at first for the problem that requires fixing and secondly for appropriate solutions that are widely understood and carried out. Rash fixes often backfire, producing a longer route to success.
Among mayor and council’s many decisions in recent months and in other news, four examples stand out regarding their pronounced potential for unintended consequences:
- 1660 Ecclestone Beach development variance permits;
- the new public places bylaw No. 537;
- a voluntary cape on Bowen forest protection covenant;
- and disharmony in the Islands Trust Council.
In the case of Ecclestone Beach, Mayor and council discounted the overwhelming number of public comments that spoke out against granting a number of variances for a private dock application. In justification of their decision against the protection of the beach, council claimed a higher understanding of the nature and the particular dangers of this pocket beach and marginalized the intimate experience and knowledge of generations of beachgoers. Council’s vote has left many people feeling belittled, frustrated, thwarted and possibly infuriated.
The Public Places Bylaw No. 537 is a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. Publicly voiced concerns include constraint of personal freedoms; overbearing bureaucracy; detriment to our values of equity, inclusion and diversity; lengthy and costly permit applications and the discretionary powers installed in the CAO, department managers and the bylaw services officers (BSO). Without clear guidelines and decision-making criteria, staff is left to their own individual judgments when it comes to the enforcement of Bylaw No. 537. As an unintended consequence, there’s potential for arbitrary and biased decision making regarding the implementation of all-encompassing rules and regulations including hefty fines and permit fees. These concerns were raised by members of the public throughout the bylaw process. However, only one councillor showed sensitivity to the public input and – with foresight of the great potential for unintended consequences of this bylaw – voted against it. The remaining votes were in favour.
With Cape Roger Curtis’ history, any proposal from a developer should be handled with caution. However, when a voluntary Cape on Bowen forest protection covenant was presented by staff with a recommendation that council authorize the protective covenant, a vote in favour was held pretty swiftly. Some councillors expressed dismay with the short lead time before they were expected to vote on this matter. Some councillors suggested the inclusion of relevant committees for a joint review, presumably in order to reasonably examine the potential for unintended consequences. Councillor Hocking expressed a sense of urgency in the matter. Mayor Ander brushed all concerns away, calling the proposal a “no brainer.” What’s going to happen next? Will the covenant predominantly protect trees along the perimeter around the 10 acre lots or is the Cape in for another haircut with a license to clear-cut everything outside the protected covenant zone? In any case, another decision made in a rush without adequate engagement with the public, community organizations and the relevant committees that may very well have a thing or two to say.
Finally, what’s up with the Islands Trustee Michael Kaile? Apparently, Trustee Kaile is not having a good time at the Trust as he reports of nail-biting and harrowing experiences. He has joined forces with a splinter group of trustees and succeeded in forcing an unscheduled third-party review of the Islands Trust and how efficiently the Trust delivers on its mandate. This exercise will cost at least $75,000 for a consultant with a report expected sometime in 2022. It is no secret that Coun. Kaile questions what value the Islands Trust delivers to Bowen in return for the Trust’s annual requisition of some $300,000. The many unintended consequences of this story remain to be seen. However, questioning the value of the Islands Trust openly and in an increasingly insistent manner may entice people to also question the value of the Bowen Island Municipality itself. What are we getting back for the $9.2 million BIM will spend this year – rising to $10.2 million for 2025? And are municipal services delivered as efficiently as one would hope? Maybe an independent third-party review could help figuring this out?
Too often governmental policies end up being ineffective, especially when there’s a tendency to do something in the face of an ill-defined problem and under the guise of urgency. The results are heavy-handed blanket policies and expansion of bureaucracy, especially when the policies are incredibly difficult to undo. Understanding unintended consequences can assist in helping to make better decisions.
Recent letters in the Undercurrent went even further and floated the idea of the disincorporation of BIM. It appears that recent decision making without appropriate engagement of the public is beginning to show impact. Folks are openly wondering about the status quo and the benefit of being a municipality. Alternatives are starting to look appealing – and all that as a consequence of the accumulation of unintended consequences.
Richard Wiefelspuett and Lesley Gaunt
