As I opened on Feb. 14, I was horrified at what I saw being presented for the Neighbourhood Scenarios for the Garibaldi Estate Neighbourhood Planning Process.
As you know, Let’s Talk 麻豆社国产can be an overwhelming platform with the simplest of concepts. This is next level in complexity. After studying it, I felt like Planning made Scenario C incredibly unpalatable in the hopes that we would heartily agree to Scenario A to avoid the possibility of C.
As I waded through the information being presented, I thought, what if you just said “No.”
No to A, B or C. What about an Option D?
Instead of choosing the least ugly and obscenely dense of scenarios, how about this: how about you pump the brakes?
In a Sea2Sky Podcast last fall, one councillor stated that there are 11,000 new units currently slated and approved to be built. I asked the District’s planning department to verify this but I am still awaiting a reply. If that stat is true, that’s an incredible increase to our current population of 23,000. That growth would be imminent. I also don’t think 11,000 takes into account growth outside of 麻豆社国产from Furry Creek and Brittania. Which is also considerable and a population that is going to rely on 麻豆社国产for many of its services.
So, what if we pump the brakes and see how we manage with that growth before voting for Density by Destruction of existing neighbourhoods?
How about we see how we manage with traffic, schools, the hospital, recreational facilities, public works, parking, daycare, social services, support for the elderly and vulnerable as well as basic life necessities like doctors, healthcare, groceries and water supply? How about if we don’t give deepest consideration to the developers that have already purchased based upon speculation?
This council has the power to do that.
As I ask you to consider that as Option D, one important thing to think about is that as this Neighbourhood Plan primarily targets the Veterans’ Land Act land please remember that all people who live in the VLA bought knowing that this land was restricted from medium to high density. We didn’t buy speculating that our streets would be subject to land assembly by developers.
In 1965, when the VLA Ratepayers Group unanimously requested the current zoning and they asked council to adopt Bylaw 211, 1966, then-mayor Patrick Brennan told the group: “We are quite willing to go along with the plan, provided you do not come back at a later date and ask us to reconsider this.”
I am quoting this from The 麻豆社国产Times, Jan. 20, 1966. That article ends by saying this resolution would be embodied in a bylaw and would be binding.
Please know that the residents of the VLA didn’t go back on our word. We never asked for this bylaw to be revoked or changed.
We stayed true to the binding.
I am respectfully asking you to consider Option D.
Don’t move forward with Density by Destruction. Allow our single-family homes to stay and gentle density to continue.
Jill Dunnigan
Garibaldi Estates
Editor’s notes: This letter was sent to 麻豆社国产council and copied to The 麻豆社国产 for publication.
In response to a fact-check question from The 麻豆社国产 regarding 11, 000 units coming, the District sent the following statement:
"There is potential for 11,000 residents (not units) to be accommodated through emerging areas over the next 15 years – the Oceanfront, Waterfront Landing, University Heights and Loggers East, all of which have neighbourhood plans in place to guide development. 麻豆社国产in 20-30 years from now will need to accommodate even more people. The process of neighbourhood planning is important today to ensure the community is shaped by current residents, with an eye to the future for generations to come."
