Dear Editor:
We are approaching the second COVID summer in a row and with it the usual seasonal slow-down in municipal politics. Whether this summer becomes as focussed on self-preservation as the last one remains to be seen. But it is fair to say that in 2020, as the pandemic was ramping up, Bowen Islanders turned very much to their own affairs rather than paying copious attention to municipal politics and decision making. How else could it be explained that not a single public comment was received as municipal staff, mayor and council initiated, drove and concluded a bylaw process that is the equivalent of an open-heart surgery on Bowen’s Official Community Plan (OCP). In less than five months bylaw 521 was approved, which amends policy 235 of the OCP to include a designation of the entire municipality as an area where temporary use permits (TUP) may be issued and to remove language requiring that a TUP be issued for a use that is “short-term or seasonal.”
A paradigm shift is defined as “an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way.” In other words, there’s a distinctive difference between the realities of the “before” and the “after.”
Bowen’s paradigm shift occurred during the public hearing on August 27, 2020. The last stop for public comments on the road to a new Bowen order. The video recording of the hearing is worth watching: (youtube.com/watch?v=CqTTPVkvfis). The eight-minute clip evokes the sense of desperation and loneliness portrait in low-budget sci-fi movies like John Carpenter’s Dark Star. Like the crew of the deteriorating starship Dark Star, the four attending council members are alone in the vast and empty space of their municipal mission and it is heartbreaking when Acting Commander David Hocking calls three times “Is there anybody out there?” and the only reply is the deepening sound of silence.
In the “before,” the OCP considered TUPs “…as short-term or seasonal in nature and as long as they did not create an unacceptable negative impact upon the natural environment or the character of the neighbourhood…,” reasonable restraints that provided guidance and protection for the island’s neighbourhoods. However, in accordance with the Local Government Act, a municipality can only issue TUPs in formally designated areas. The 2011 OCP did not indicate specific areas. This omission surfaced in early 2020 during the heated controversy surrounding a TUP application for a school in a residential area. A solicitor, retained by opposing interests, notified BIM about substantial legal issues which rendered the school TUP unlawful.
In a knee-jerk reaction, staff, mayor and council went about to “fix this” (problem).
Did the band-aid solution go too far when the safeguards of “short-term and seasonal” were dismissed and all of Bowen Island was declared a designated area? By definition, TUPs suspend existing zoning restrictions and permit activities that may disrupt neighbourhoods for up to six years (an initial three-year term with the option for renewal) before proper rezoning must be considered. Does the soil of this quick-fix solution contain the seed of a new problem?
The fallout from bylaw No. 521 has already left one neighbourhood on Bowen deeply divided over the issue of a cidery. After a subjective discussion on the appropriateness of a cidery in the specific neighbourhood and a confusing debate over details of the planned operation council decided in favour of the TUP. The study of related staff reports, council meetings, votes and public input raises urgent questions of the adequacy of the TUP approval process. Has public input been appropriately considered and evaluated, or did it fall on deaf ears? And most troubling, is bias and arbitrary decision making the new normal?
Digging deeper into the story of amending Bowen’s OCP in 2020, one is left wondering what went wrong. In 2020, public health orders imposed a range of restrictions encumbering traditional public participation initiatives that rely on in-person interactions such as public meetings, face-to-face council meetings and public hearings. The permission of e-participation presented new challenges to ensure a meaningful dialogue with the public, the cornerstone of sound, democratic decision-making.
What was the thought process of using a very broad brush to paint “TUP” all over the island without consideration of the existing diversity of zoning on Bowen? Was council aware of alternatives, and the trouble an island-wide rollout would bring to neighbourhoods?
Ultimately, why did council not show grave concern and reflect on the absence of public comments during the bylaw process? Ignoring the importance of inclusive engagement risks amplifying existing biases and results in ineffective planning.
To be clear, there were no formal omissions in informing the public about the bylaw No. 521 process. But only customary channels were used to ask for input from the public. Was that enough? Surely, on Bowen, where everything from birds to bees, from docks to beaches causes a debate, an amendment of the valued OCP would cause some reaction from the community.
However, not a single word of support or dissent was registered on public records.
Did this atypical indifference of its citizens not strike anyone on council as unusual, or is it possible that Bowen’s elected officials were simply too Zoomed-out to notice? Or was the sound of silence the hoped-for answer as council moved and seconded a development agenda that – in normal times – would evoke an intense and inclusive debate?
Richard Wiefelspuett
Property owner, Bowen Island
