Common Planning Fallacies #4
Tony's on tour with this series of posts! He's giving us some great stuff to bounce off of -- please feel free to post comments. Here's the fourth installment:
Fallacy #4: "Substantial growth is going to occur whether we like it or not, so we had better plan to accommodate it."Also see #1, #2 and #3.
Tony's comment: "There will certainly be great pressure for growth, but the Community, not developers, should decide just how much or how little growth occurs. That is what an Official Community Plan is all about. If the Community simply accommodates demands for growth then the tail is wagging the dog.
To quote page 26 of draft 2 of the OCP, 'The management of growth can take many forms and may include such measures as limiting the amount of land available for development, prescribing the type of development that can occur, and the conditions under which development would be permitted."
posted by Jeremy |
Permanent Link
6 Comments:
I heartily agree with taking responsibility and not being afraid to define parameters on what development is desirable and what is not. If developers, new businesses and home owners want to locate in Summerland they will either find a way to do what is requested or go elsewhere. If they don't like it then perhaps they won't be missed in the long run. Growth might be slower but more sensible as more thought is put into it.
By
Tannis, at 8:30 p.m.
I heartily agree with you, Tannis, and concur with Tony’s philosophy. From a geographical point of view, from an aquatic and environmental view, we need to keep Summerland’s small town status. We have everything we need here in Summerland, (with the exception of a hospital, and this is the provincial government's fault) and if the local businesses don’t have it, they can order it in. I very seldom have to go to Penticton or Kelowna to shop (that’s because I’m old and have just about everything). Anything else I can get on E-bay , Sears, or order on the Internet. I don’t object to a slow increase in population, provided that the infilling is done in the town centre first as well as along established water and sewer lines. I am very much opposed against any residential use of ALR land as well as any land that SHOULD have been put into the ALR originally. I am also opposed at the method Council is using to coerce the citizens into going along with their pre-established method of getting the OCP passed.
By
Anonymous, at 9:37 a.m.
Frank, I like your point about infilling. Although the OCP does encourage the concept of infill development, there's no implied order or sequence. Could it not specify an order of development, so that hillsides up Praire Valley or any ALR land couldn't be developed at all until all the sewered, non-ALR land in the "urban growth area" was infilled? I'd also exclude the Jersey Lands from the current draft's definition of urban growth area -- it stands out like a sore thumb on this map.
That map also makes it clear how absurd the golf course plan is in the context of the OCP. It's way out on the edge of the FUTURE growth area, which shouldn't be touched until the existing areas are full. Or am I missing something?
I liked your note about OCP process as well. Although I'm not convinced that there's necessarily malicious intent, the process has certainly smelled bad since council disbanded the stakeholders committee.
By
Jeremy, at 10:46 a.m.
Jeremy, do you know what the Stakeholders terms of reference were? I think if you find out then you will realize that they had finished their job. But, some of the stakeholders are like the eveready bunny they want to go on and on.
By
Anonymous, at 7:47 p.m.
"Jeremy, do you know what the Stakeholders terms of reference were?"
No, I'm sorry to admit that I don't know the exact parameters. There was some reference in the paper to their having fulfilled their mandate, before we started hearing from Amie, Tony and others. Perhaps "disbanded" was a loaded word to use. Douglas Williams sent me back into the minutes of the stakeholders committee, and it is very interesting reading.
By
Jeremy, at 11:01 p.m.
re: terms of reference of the stakeholders
Tony Cooke sent me a list of them from the consultants overseeing the process:
"The role of the Key Stakeholder Group is to:
A...Provide input to UMA on interests, objectives and goals of Summerland community members.
B...Bring forward issues and concerns on behalf of the groups they represent and work with (the) planning team on addressing them in the OCP.
C...Communicate meeting discussions and outcomes with their respective community members.
D...Provide feedback on consultant's work at various stages of the project process."
It says clearly in the second draft of the OCP that council took the recommendations of the stakeholders and then asked the consultants to pursue a more aggressive growth plan. It seems now that they're not interested in hearing from the stakeholders committee, even though these notes that Tony included would indicate a longer mandate. Why? That would be a great question to ask the councillors -- as many of us found out at the open house, they seem approachable and interested.
By
Jeremy, at 2:42 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home