By MICHAEL WALL
Much of the good-natured discussion we’ve been enjoying in the community recently regarding reviews of the Trust Policy Statement and Salt Spring Official Community Plan (OCP) has been focused on housing needs, and the idea that building density closer to the village cores rather than out in the more rural parts of the island would decrease disruption of the forest ecosystems, decrease fire risk and reduce car use, etc.
I think this is an accurate assumption, and if we were, just now, to embark on a process of subdividing and zoning the island, it would be the best place to start.
Unfortunately, the island was subdivided and zoned many decades ago and we are stuck with the consequences of that process. So it is all very well to say, “We should not build homes remote from the villages,” but there are roughly 1,600 vacant lots currently and the owners have the zoning to build on them, resulting in an estimated build-out population of 17,000 — 5,000 more than now. Do we say to these owners, “I’m sorry, we have decided that you can’t build on your lot because we want to move your density closer to the villages?” I think the Trust would be deluged with bankrupting litigation immediately.
Or should the community buy out these properties, create park land and transfer the densities to the villages? Let’s say at an average of $700,000 per lot, that’s more than a billion dollars we’d have to find to do that. And in the villages we would have to ensure water supply and sewerage adequate for more dense communities.
We live on an island where water resources are already scarce and vulnerable to climate change effects. In other words, new buildings in rural Salt Spring and the resulting population growth are “baked in” to the future of the island, so any additional market housing built in the village cores will add to the island population over time. Many islanders who have been here as long as I have — nearly 40 years — consider the population already maxed out. Salt Spring’s population from 2016 to 2021 grew at twice the national average.
There is, however, a concrete change we could make to mitigate the environmental effects of remote home building which is within the power of the Islands Trust: take control of the kind of homes that are built. The Trust can do this by limiting the floor area permitted in new homes. If, say, a limit of 2,500 square feet is imposed, it would eliminate construction of “mansions” and summertime trophy homes — we already have more than enough of those. It would probably lower the values of those properties and make it easier for families to buy them. The creators of our existing OCP and land use bylaw tried to do just that but met with strong opposition from certain sectors of our community. Perhaps in the next review we will have the resolve to make it happen.
Our local trustees have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their lumbering review process and PR campaign, but have failed to commission any scientific research into carrying capacity and environmental degradation which could be used to calculate the effects of the extra development they want. The precautionary principle encourages us to consider the consequences before taking action, and that philosophy has never been more important on our lovely little island.