By Frants Attorp
Watching the Islands Trust’s online “town hall” on Sept. 10 regarding the draft new Trust Policy Statement (TPS) was an exercise in frustration. My pre-submitted question on population growth was read aloud by the moderator, but the answers provided by two trustees defied logic — and there was no opportunity to respond.
For half a century, population growth on the islands has been a major concern. From the history section of our existing TPS: “Sustainability of the region’s physical environment, native species and quality of life are threatened by low density urban sprawl and rapid population growth . . . Approximately five million people presently live in the areas surrounding the Trust Area . . . The Trust Area continues to experience extreme pressure from population growth and tourism.”
Given Trust Council’s recent closed-door reinterpretation of the mandate to include everything from soup to nuts, is it any surprise the entire history section of the TPS, outlining how and why the Trust was established, and emphasizing the threat of population growth, has now been deleted? Poof — gone!
Regarding population, trustee Laura Patrick argued that “people live differently than they did 30 years ago.” She spoke of ways “to minimize the impacts of future development,” but made no mention of the need to limit the number of dwellings or ensure new units are for local needs only — even though 5,000 more people are already expected on Salt Spring under existing zoning.
Gabriola trustee Tobi Elliott tried to blur the connection between “density” and “population” and rewrite the book on conservation: “Limiting density is certainly one way to counter the harmful impacts of growth. Limiting human population, however, does not appear to limit the degrading impact of humans . . . Population control is not a tool for a land-use planning agency to do . . . So I think it’s most effective to regulate how humans live and direct where they live, rather than how many.”
The fact that population can be controlled by limiting the number of dwellings — as required by Salt Spring’s Official Community Plan — seemed to be lost on the trustees, as was MLA Rob Botterell’s message that “development and population growth in the Islands Trust Area is not inevitable; it’s a choice.”
Trustee Elliott’s creative solution to population growth, increased pressure on infrastructure and precious resources, damage to ecosystems and a general loss of rural character, reflects the word games being played in the draft new Policy Statement which offers two definitions of density: “number of dwellings” or “floor area ratio.” One can be used to limit population, the other opens the door to massive densification and population growth.
The only way to stop this nonsense is to tell trustees that we support the ecological interpretation of the mandate, and want growth to be truly limited, not just “managed” as in municipalities. There must be clearly-defined limits on the number of dwellings, along with solid guarantees that all new units will be affordable and go to workers and other local residents.
Two petitions, one by Friends of the Gulf Islands, the other by Positively Forward, recognize the need to limit development and population growth. Please consider signing.