What Price “Progress”?
Ron Bolin — July 11, 2010
Last Thursday night Council attended a Public Hearing to listen to the views of citizens on applications for spot zoning bylaw changes which would lead to changes on the ground in their areas of interest. While the request for the rezoning of a parcel of land within the Harbour Park Mall to raise the height limit for a proposed condominium tower from 6 stories to 26 stories got most of the pre-hearing press, and indeed did draw cautionary comments from three neighbouring community organizations as well as both favourable and unfavourable opinion from attending individuals, the most stimulating discussion of the evening came on another parcel.
A very well organized and prepared group of Hillcrest Avenue home owners presented an impassioned and compelling case against permitting a 6 unit development in their midst on a lot zoned for single family dwellings. Their concern was that this development would provide a disruption to their quiet family neighbourhood enjoyment as well as reduce the character and the value of their properties. Most of those attending appeared to be members of young families who prized their neighbourhood and their homes highly.
Here is where the rubber hits the road in the ongoing challenges brought about by a growing and changing city. Who is to prevail in the struggle between those who seek quiet enjoyment of what they have and those who seek change –and personal gain in the process?
It seems to me that the contest involves the following scenarios:
1) The proponent of change convinces those opposed that they too will gain by the change. In this case there is little or no opposition and Council can approve the change with a clear conscience.
2) If such agreement cannot be found, then Council is faced with making a decision in the matter. But how are they to decide? It seems to me that there are two possibilities:
a) If there is no compelling community interest to make the change, but only the interest of its proponent, Council should deny the request, siding with the many and the existing bylaw against the one;
b) If, however, a substantial and overriding benefit to the community can be demonstrated to offset the interests of the opponents, then Council should side with the proponent and the community interest and approve the change.
The obvious problem in these simplified scenarios is, of course, the definition of community interest. If the definition is so broad that “growth is good” or “density is good” or “a dollar more in property tax is good” then the question is moot, but so is any property right protection anywhere, and zoning which is supposed to protect those rights is a sham. It seems to me to be exceedingly difficult to show a community interest in any spot rezoning which affects a single lot –in effect block busting at its’ finest. If community interests are involved, then community rezoning rather than spot rezoning should be implemented by Council. Taking value from one or more citizens by abridging their property rights in order to give value to another requires careful scrutiny and evaluation. On Thursday, Council was unable to enunciate the principles which they use to determine these interests. They should be required to do so. We need to know the values that shape their decisions about our community.
What do you think?
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
What you are saying is both common sense and democracy in action. Trouble is, sometimes developer interests fly in the face of both. We need more public pressure to insure that both common sense and democracy prevail but, the trouble here is that when minority interests habitually prevail over the minority, people become discouraged and it is difficult to keep that pressure on. Wish there was a simple solution other than just keep on trying… As an aside, it always amazes me how business interests who undoubtedly consider themselves “conservative” are the first people to uproot the past and undermine community in the name of “progress”. What is it exactly that these conservatives seek to conserve?
Larry, please clarify “…the trouble here is that when minority interests habitually prevail over the minority, people become discouraged and it is difficult to keep that pressure on.” Is that how you wanted that to read?
Tomorrow (July 13) at 5pm in the City Hall Committee room, PNAC will meet to begin discussion of a new Zoning bylaw. The goals laid out for the new bylaw lie entirely on the side of new development and do not mention the protection of the quiet enjoyment of one’s property free -at least for the most part- from the threat of developers who, while they may improve your property and its values, may also destroy it value to you both as a place to live and as an asset. An outline of the nature of the new bylaw is given in the agenda for the Council meeting of July 12 as information. You may want to keep an eye on this process.
Here’s the detail on the new zoning bylaw from the Council Meeting agenda Monday 12th.
Click to access c100712a-zoning-bylaw.pdf
Nice link Ron;
the rubber stamp gang interests;
Local developer profits
Architects fees
Landscape architects fees
Land use consultant fees
Realtor commissions
Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee appointees from the list above
And some eye candy in the form of the Neighbourhood Network
But what about the 78,000 rest of us who apparently are not stakeholders in our own community, but likely soon to be ground beef as this consultation scheme moves forward?
Run for Mayor Ron
Arturo: Is the problem with the generals? Or with the fact that we have left them to run the war without us? It may be that we need more representation on the relevant Council advisory Committees. It is certain that we need to pay more attention; to ask Council and Staff more questions; to demand that they provide us with the reasoning behind their decisions; and to hold them accountable for their actions. If we do nothing, it is not surprising if those who do have an immediate personal interest take the lead and act on their own behalf. The question of how we bring about change to this state of affairs is what this blog is all about. Wish we had all the answers but, with your help, we will keep looking!
I saw this quote recently. Benjamin Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”
The rubber stamp gang invented the system that thwarts the interests of the population. There is zero proportional representation. A few seats on an advisory panel will not make any difference. You need to write the narrative yourself if you want to make a difference. Try online polls and aim for as much engagement as was evidenced in the last election. Ask straight forward questions, and not misleading ones as is currently happening on this blog, i.e. Are you in favor of the re-zoning to allow a twenty six story tower on Front Street at Port Place Mall? With one answer being; yes, more people living downtown. The better question and more to the point would be; Are you in favor of more people living downtown? If yes, do you support low rise, mid rise or high-rise forms of residential development?