By FRANTS ATTORP
When trustees reinterpreted the preserve and protect mandate during an in-camera meeting in 2023, environmental protection suddenly became just another “element” to consider. Now there is evidence it is being sidelined altogether, at least on Salt Spring.
The latest shocking example is the contract the Trust signed with the consultant who undertook the recent Complete Communities Assessment. The project’s request for proposals states: “. . . the analysis must focus on growth through the lenses of housing, daily needs, transportation and infrastructure . . . .” Guess what’s missing from the “lens!” (The environment was added later according to planners, but only “through the stakeholder workshops.” It seems someone had to complain.)
Asked why the natural environment was excluded from the growth lens, a Trust spokesperson wrote: “That methodology did not require consideration of the unique mandate of the Islands Trust.” While that may be technically true, it is false in every other sense. Even the provincial Complete Communities Guide — which was never designed for protected areas — includes “preservation of the natural environment.” Furthermore, it is the responsibility of staff and trustees to apply the Islands Trust Act to all land-use planning.
Interestingly, the document required this task: “Based on input received, create a single scenario that reflects a working community vision to inform policy development . . . .” Yet when the consultant did exactly that — by highlighting “a community deeply committed to preserving its unique character and natural environment” — trustees sent his final report back for a “substantive edit.” That resulted in a revised report that planners described as “more neutral” and not reflective of “a community vision.”
Another phase of public engagement for the official community plan “update” will start soon, but already there is evidence the environment is being sidelined. Even though proposed changes are sweeping, irrevocable and a violation of existing growth limits, the scope of the project will be limited primarily to housing, and “community visioning” will be “targetted.” That is a reversal of priorities. Housing, while important, has never been the raison d’etre of the Islands Trust.
This leaves us with a burning question: Who is directing the choir as the Islands Trust sings its swan song?
That the debate about the future of Salt Spring (and the other islands) has to happen in a community newspaper is evidence of a broken process. The fundamentals of proposed policy changes should have been aired before the whole idea of “integrated solutions” was foisted on the community, before the Housing Action Program Task Force made its recommendations, before trustees tried to upzone most of the island for extra dwellings and of course before trustees resolved to nullify the mandate.
Massive changes are in the offing, both locally and at Trust Council, without the public ever having had full opportunity to weigh in on key issues of growth, sustainability and the Islands Trust Act.
Given the circumstances, we should all be grateful to the Driftwood for allowing the debate that trustees seem determined to stifle.
The writer is a Salt Spring resident.