Please — let’s not have déjà vu all over again.
Hearing calls for the seven-year Trust Policy Statement (TPS) process to be halted at this point is enough to make otherwise sane islanders jump overboard from the Salish Eagle in Active Pass.
It’s ridiculously easy to declare that work should be put on hold until the October elections are over. That is indirectly what ended up happening more than four years ago during the last electoral term because of vociferous opposition to a first-draft TPS released in 2021 after two years of intense work and public participation.
Trying to create a new TPS has cost us an estimated $335,000 since 2019. One TPS baby has already been thrown out with the bathwater; making it two could lead to three if the public doesn’t endorse what the next batch of elected trustees comes up with. The TPS and its implementation can still be an election issue, and candidates will likely identify themselves as being for it or against it, but there is no need for the brakes to be applied at this late date. The mandate given to current trustees to get the job done should not be disregarded.
It’s not that the draft TPS doesn’t need more work. It clearly does. The public’s sense that its growth limit and environmental protection language isn’t strong enough is justified. Environment-related statements in some other sections are bang on, but the lack of an overarching committed statement not connected to Indigenous cultural protection is a flaw. Many people have made excellent suggestions for improvement that should lead to a stronger and more coherent next draft, along with, just as importantly, input from Indigenous governing bodies, various government agencies and the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs (MHMA), whose sign-off is needed on the document.
Something that Trust senior policy advisor Jason Youmans casually mentioned at the Salt Spring TPS meeting last week was that the Islands Trust Act contains no provision for public consultation in crafting of the TPS. He stressed that it should be undertaken, and we agree, but we also believe that consensus is likely not possible when it comes to the task at hand. It’s now up to the trustees and staff to seriously consider what they’ve heard from the public and come back with a better, more publicly supportable draft that will also get MHMA approval.
We can’t wait to see it.
I disagree with your editorial conclusion that consensus on the TPS is “unlikely”. There was almost complete unanimity amongst speakers at the heavily attended public information session at the Harbour Hotel that much stronger policies are required to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the far seeing legislation to preserve and protect the unique environment that we are privileged to call home. Consensus does not mean unanimity it means that most people are on the same page. The problem is that the suggested policy does not reflect that consensus. What other evidence of consensus do you wish to see? Well, there are the elections of course….