Author Archives: Gulf Islands Alliance

Pump it don’t dump it

By Howard Breen

In May 2007 federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon was expected to approve regulations for the prevention of pollution from ships.

They would legally authorize discharges of sewage sludge, blackwater and greywater effluent, incinerator ash, oily bilge and ballast waters from large commercial passenger vessels plying Canada’s inshore waterways. They will even occur within marine protected areas such as our National Marine Conservation Areas.

Million of gallons of pulverized, sprayed-with-chlorine crap is not what Canadians want off their shores.

BC citizens are urged to let Minister Cannon know that his regulations will do little to prevent cruise ship pollution and that he and Environment Minister John Baird must act immediately to jointly announce an immediate prohibition on all cruise ship discharging in Canada’s marine protected areas.

Please contact Cannon and Baird and ask them to take a stronger position on marine pollution from shipping. Let them know that Canadians treasure their three oceans and want the the Conservative government to honour its commitments to safeguard the environment.

They should be doing everything they can to end the abysmal cruise ship fleet practice of using Canadian waters as their en route toilet between two U.S. ports of call.

And if they can’t achieve this goal with the current regulations — which bundle yachts and fishing boats together with large commercial shipping vessels — they should pledge to enact new national cruise ship legislation.

Canada should adopt a regime similar to Alaska’s. It has the best statutory independent compliance monitoring (Ocean Ranger program), vessel disclosure, and enforcement in the world.

Canada’s new regulation is too timid to end harmful sewage and other effluents and emissions from the international cruise fleet traveling along the labyrinthine coastline of B.C., through grey whale migratory routes, past approximately 650 salmon spawning rivers, and over 20 threatened and endangered marine species.

We insist that the cruise industry’s free pollution pass be immediately revoked and that zero discharge become the new operating principle in new federal cruise tourism legislation.

Here’s some background:

The Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC), an industry dominated consultation group crafted with Transport Canada the Conservative government’s new shipping pollution prevention regulations which will now legally authorize cruise ships to discharge sewage sludge and effluent, greywater, incinerator ash, crushed garbage, oily bilge effluent, and medical liquid wastes in Canadian waters.

There is no explicit regulatory exclusion for zero discharge within or near Canada’s National Marine Conservation Areas, marine ecological reserves, and other marine protected areas, thus the integrity of the marine habitat and species of these areas are placed in undue harm by these new shipping regulations.

The new regulations are the marine effluent pollution equivalents of “intensity targets” that the Conservatives are proposing in its Green Plan for atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions. The cumulative discharge of a growing cruise fleet is not addressed.

Ocean pollution worldwide from cruise ships has fouled beaches and created a serious human health risk, contributed to lethal algae blooms, and the suffocation of sensitive ecosystems from hyper-nutrification. Where there is appropriate monitoring and enforcement in the U.S., the industry has among the highest felony fines ever imposed for recidivist environmental crimes.

Earlier in the spring of 2007 Cannon, in response to Senator Pat Carney and opposition critics in a Transport Canada parliamentary committee review, said stronger penalties and jail time awaited any cruise line that violated the new regulations. But the real statutory nature of these regulations undermines the Minister’s claims. For instance:

— Cruise Lines are not held to a ‘zero discharge’ precautionary operational principle, yet no other mode of public transit (rail, air, bus) is permitted to discharge human waste into its operating environment.

— The industry will remain largely self-reporting. Transport Canada vessel inspections are in such a sorry state that no pollution charge, let alone felony conviction, has ever occurred in Canada despite the industry chalking up some of the largest pollution felony fines in U.S. history. Most noteworthy, there is no provision for ‘in operation’ inspections at sea, only what vessel owners want inspectors to see while the vessel is moored in port.

— Cruise Lines are not expected to fit their vessels with holdings tanks large enough to permit their vessels to hold sewage sludge for shore side pump-out. Since most of the B.C. leg of the Alaska-bound route is less than twelve miles from shore, it is safe to presume that thousands of tons of sewage sludge will blanket the route each cruise season.

— In exemptory practice, vessels with so-called advanced waste systems can discharge once outside port. These vessel owners claim to treat sewage adequately for discharge. Transport Canada provides no data whatsoever to Canadians to substantiate these claims, and Environment Canada provides no studies to reassure Canadians that vessel discharges do not cause harm to sensitive habitat and species at risk.

— Provision for adequate disposal of certain contaminants, such as incinerator ash, seem to be absent from the regulations though vessels routinely burn medical, galley and other ship garbage, paint can residues, and other ship waste at sea.

— Cruise ship issues, such ocean pollution, plans for Canadian taxpayers to help finance the construction of a federal cruise ship terminal and provision of a fleet-wide, fuel subsidy and possible emission exemption from the Kyoto Treaty are certain to become hot topics in the next federal election.

(Howard Breen is former Environment Committee Chair of the Gulf Islands Alliance)

GIA’s Simple Guide to the Islands Trust

The Gulf Islands Alliance encourages islanders to know and participate in the visionary mandate of the Islands Trust. Facing pressures on the islands such as climate change and rapid growth, the Trust – a unique form of government designed to preserve and protect scenic and precious islands’ environment and communities – itself deserves preserving and protecting. We are fortunate to have one of the world’s few governments dedicated to conservation.

Here’s a quick look at the Trust (prepared by GIA):

Area and inhabitants – The Trust encompasses 13 major islands and 450 smaller islands in the Strait of Georgia and Howe Sound in southwestern British Columbia. Home to 25,000 people, the Trust area attracts more than 1 million visitors annually and boasts an abundant biodiversity including many rare and endangered species.

History and Purpose – In the 1960s and ’70s, people who cared about the Gulf Islands became increasingly worried that poorly managed growth and development would one day overwhelm and ruin these islands. As a result, in 1974 the province created the Trust to safeguard ‘the Trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the Trust area and of British Columbia generally.’ With a population growing at twice the provincial rate, the Trust continues to struggle to save the rural life and natural environment that attracts visitors and property buyers to the islands.

Structure – Every three years two trustees are elected in each of 12 island areas and in the Bowen Island Municipality, for a total of 26 trustees on the Islands Trust Council. Except for Bowen, where trustees are part of a municipal council, each pair and a chair person comprise a Local Trust Committee. Each chair is a trustee from another island area appointed by the Trust’s four-member executive committee.

Function – The Trust primarily plans and regulates land uses which must conform to the preserve and protect goals on the Islands Trust Act. Regional districts and other entities look after other local services such as roads, policing and fire protection.

Trust Council sets policies for the entire Trust area, directs staff, ensures bylaws and official community plans conform to the Trust Policy Statement, and interacts with provincial and federal agencies whose work affects the Trust area. Council meets at various locations four times a year, usually for three days.

Local Trust Committees hold public business meetings that often include Trust staff reports and land use regulations. These committees are guided by official community plans and bylaws that are reviewed for possible revisions about every five years. Changes are sent to the Trust executive committee for approval. The provincial Ministry of Community Services must also approve changes. Local trust committee meeting schedules are posted in island newspapers and on the Trust website and various community information networks and notice boards. Trustees also serve as community leaders who interact with other agencies.

Trust financing – Most of the Trust’s operating budget is from local taxes. The Trust is also funded through user charges, including application fees and provincial grants. Since the Trust started, provincial funding has dwindled from almost 100 percent to 2 percent today.

Islands Trust Fund – In 1990 the Trust created a regional land trust to work with island communities. The Trust Fund Board, through acquisitions and conservation covenants, has protects special natural and cultural features. Citizens can participate by making donations or contributing land or conservation covenants on their properties. For example, the Natural Area Protection Tax Exemption Program gives landowners on many islands a tax reduction on the portion of their property protected by a conservation covenant. See the Trust website for further information.

Get involved in Islands Trust

Elections – Having good trustees is one of the best ways to ensure that the islands are protected. If you don’t run yourself, you can still help by recruiting and electing candidates committed to the Trust mandate.

Committee and Council meetings – Comments by e-mails, letters, conversations with trustees and/or presentations at public meetings and hearings are welcomed on re-zoning and development-related applications and other land use matters brought to your Local Trust Committee. It can reject or amend any proposal before and/or during giving it three readings. Changes to official community plans or bylaws require an official public hearing. This process differs in the Bowen municipality. At quarterly Trust Council meetings, time is set aside for presentations and comments from the public. For more on how to have your voice heard, check the Trust website.

Official community plan reviews – Held approximately every five years, trustees guide these reviews, inviting extensive citizen input. Typically, citizens can participate by applying to serve on committees, by expressing views in writing and/or speaking at small group sessions or community meetings.

Bylaw compliance – Enforcement generally is complaint-based. Islanders who witness a bylaw violation can contact the Trust and speak to a bylaw enforcement officer.

How to contact the Islands Trust

Trust Website: www.islandstrust.bc.ca gives the full story on Islands Trust, including how to contact your trustees. You can sign up for a subscription service to receive e-mails about the Trust.

Victoria Office:
(Serving Trust Council, overall Trust management, Islands Trust Fund, and the Galiano, Mayne, North Pender, South Pender, Saturna and Executive Islands Trust areas.)
Islands Trust
200 – 1627 Fort Street
Victoria, BC V8R 1 H8
250/405-5151

Salt Spring Office:
Islands Trust
1 – 500 Lower Ganges Rd.
Salt Spring Island BC V8K 2N8
250/537-9144

Gabriola Office:

(Serving the Denman, Gabriola, Gambier, Hornby, Lasqueti and Thetis Trust areas).
Islands Trust
700 North Road
Gabriola Island, BC V0R 1X3
250/247-2063

Bowen Island Municipality Office:
981 Artisan Lane Box 279,
Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G0
604/947-4255

Help save our precious place

Just over a year ago a handful of people across the islands launched the Gulf Islands Alliance. The organization grew out of two recent inter-islands gatherings of over 100 people each on Denman and Salt Spring Islands. Delightedly, we’re learning just how much people love and yearn to maintain the island environment and rural communities. We want to appreciate and encourage the remarkable talent and wisdom of these people.

The Gulf Islands Alliance is also learning that many community challenges are similar across the islands. We share information and strategies to meet these challenges. Our mission supports the mandate of the Islands Trust to ‘preserve and protect the Trust Area and its unique amenities and environment.’ The Trust was formed in 1974 and specially structured to recognize and keep the Gulf Islands as a unique and fragile treasure among the most beautiful landscapes in the world.

Because the islands are near major and expanding urban populations and vulnerable to intolerable damage from unplanned growth, the Alliance constantly reminds island trustees and Trust staff of their vital role and responsibility to honour the conservation goals of the Islands Trust Act.

The Gulf Islands Alliance believes that many people across the political spectrum view themselves as stewards of this beautiful place and want to protect it from harm.

Problems such as water contamination, forest clear-cutting and poorly planned subdivisions are often easy to identify. It’s more difficult to show how little abuses, such as bylaw breaches, can gather momentum and lead to unwanted results. With thoughtful planning and management, the downsides of growth and change can be avoided. Here are some popular misconceptions that, if believed, discourage essential public participation:

Misconception: There are no threats to the Gulf Islands.

Reality: The Gulf Islands are too attractive for their own good. Without land use precepts that carefully shape and limit growth, the serenity that attracts people here will disappear.

Misconception: The Islands Trust is weak.

Reality: This myth diminishes respect for the Trust’s noble goals and good efforts. The Trust must work harder to explain its purpose and authority. Some complain when their land-use ambitions are foiled by the Trust’s preserve and protect obligation. Some even agitate for a conventional municipal government with greater allegiance to economic interests. The Alliance commissioned a legal opinion that tells trustees that they are trustees, more than politicians, and their actions must comply with the spirit and letter of the Trust Act. Although the Trust has been criticized for lax bylaw enforcement, closer examination reveals that enforcement often founders on poorly-written or poorly-interpreted bylaws.

Misconception: There are more deserving things that need our attention.

Reality: Promoting peace and good health in distant places doesn’t excuse us from serving our community. Having a peaceful island neighbourhood inspires us to be better world citizens.

Misconception: What happens next door is none of my business.

Reality: Official plans and bylaws express each community’s vision. They interpret and give force to the Trust Act. By insisting on sustainability and separating incompatible land uses, they are instruments of civility. Just as you have the right not to breathe polluted air, you have the right to quietly enjoy your home in the islands free from disruption.

Misconception: I can’t make a difference.

Reality: Mother Teresa said ‘we can do no great things only small things, with great love.’ Telling others of your love for these islands is a small thing that will make a positive difference. You may have thoughts about how to help preserve and protect this very special place. People listen and act on good ideas, especially ones from caring, thoughtful people. Just as it’s sensible to maintain your car, the islands need your attention.

If you haven’t done so already, the Alliance invites you to become part of a growing community of people who are actively working to preserve and protect the Gulf Islands’ unique and wonderful environment and communities. We welcome you to join us and become a member of the Gulf Islands Alliance.

Christine Torgrimson
Chair, Gulf Islands Alliance (2006 to 2008)

Write to right the world

The Gulf Islands Alliance believes passionately in the power of ordinary people to do extraordinary things. With an enduring willingness to speak and write about our concerns and dreams, we know it’s possible to maintain our islands as a truly remarkable place in the world.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it’s the only thing that ever has,” said renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead.

A well-written letter remains one of the most effective tools in constructing a better world.

Here are some ways to make your letters really count.

The more personal your letter is, the more influence it has. Say what’s on your mind and in your heart. Use your own words wherever possible, but don’t think you have to write like an expert to have influence.

Handwrite your letter if your handwriting is legible and this is easy for you. If you prefer to type a letter, make sure you sign it and then add a handwritten P.S. and hand write the address on the envelope.

It’s best to be brief, clear and specific. Keep your letter to one page if possible.

State your opinion and your specific request in the first few sentences.

Always ask the policy maker to state her or his position in a response to your letter or ask them a question that you say you would like them to answer.

Be courteous and reasonable. Show respect for the policy makers you contact, even when you know you disagree with them. We are all in this together and will have to work together to find the solutions.

Include your address on your letter as well as your envelope (an envelope can get lost) and the date.

Some options:

Enclose a published article on the subject issue.
Describe how the issue affects you and/or your community.
Write or call a second time. Once they have given you a reply, a follow-up can have a stronger impact on policymakers and their aides than the initial communication.
Thank the policy maker for taking a ‘correct’ stand or ask for clarification or question any of their unsatisfactory answers.
Always ask them to respond to your letter.
Keep a copy of your letter (if you type them) and responses. You never know when you might want to refer exactly to something you said before or that was said to you.

If the people lead, eventually the leaders will follow.

Put place before people, governance consultant says

Thoughts on the Islands Trust Governance Task Force

By Graham Brazier, Denman Island

The Islands Trust Governance Task Force may have gotten more than it bargained for when it requested an independent consultant examine its structure with a view to improving how it governs. The work of the Task Force on Governance began in March of 2006 and will conclude with a report to Trust Council in June 2007. However, no sooner had the Task Force determined that a larger Local Trust Committee for Salt Spring Island was warranted, than the independent consultant released his report with startlingly different conclusions. It’s evident that the Task Force and the consultant have fundamentally differing views of what the Islands Trust is, and what it ought to be.

The Task Force is made up of Trustees, all steeped in the ‘culture’ which views the Trust as a ‘local government’ and views us, the residents and landowners of the Trust Area, as the folks they ‘represent’. Trustees see their role as that of balancing the interests of their residents and landowners (those who elect them) against the interests of the environment. The best of them view themselves as ‘councillors with a mandated conscience’. Nevertheless, as time has passed, the interests of the electorate have continued to encroach on the interests of the environment. And, of course, there’s no reason to expect that to change in the future. Some islands will move slower than others, but all are likely to continue to expand human-based interests at the expense of other interests, much like other jurisdictions where local governments are responsible for land-use.

The Consultant, who suggests that he may also speak for the Province, sees the Trust quite differently. He sees it as an organization established to protect a ‘place’. That is its only function. Throughout the report the phrase ‘places’ before ‘people’ appears again and again and again. In his view, the Trust was not intended to be a local government, it was not intended to represent the interests of its residents. On the contrary, it was intended to protect the ‘place’ for the ‘people of British Columbia’ largely from Trust Area residents and landowners.

It is my impression that this view is closer to the original motivation for the formation of the Trust. This view identifies the ‘place’ as worthy of protection and sees ‘people’, particularly residents and landowners, as the main threat to that ‘place’. It was, and continues to be, residents and landowners that seek to intrude, to subdivide, to log, to pave. We, the residents, have great difficulty seeing ourselves as ‘the enemy’, but it is evident that from the inception of the Trust, we have managed to wrest power away from the appointed Trustees back to the local electorate and have presided over the all the negative environmental impacts that have occurred since 1978 when that power shift took place.

Islands can be loved to death

The Best and Worst Islands : A Scorecard

(This story appeared first in the Seattle Post Intelligencer on November 17, 2007)

It’s no secret that people love islands.

But sometimes, we can love them to death. When tourism overkill strikes, the end result is not such a nice place.

National Geographic Traveler and its National Geographic Center for Sustainable Destinations conducted the fourth annual Destination Scorecard survey, aided by George Washington University. A panel of 522 experts in sustainable tourism and destination stewardship donated time to review conditions in 111 selected islands and archipelagos. Whidbey Island wasn’t in the mix, but Washington’s San Juan Islands and British Columbia’s Salt Spring Island were included in the survey.

Guide to the Scores

0-25: Catastrophic: all criteria very negative, outlook grim.

26-49: In serious trouble.

50-65: In moderate trouble: all criteria medium-negative or a mix of negatives and positives.

66-85: Minor difficulties.

86-95: Authentic, unspoiled, and likely to remain so.

96-100: Enhanced.

Judges’ Comments

San Juan Islands, Washington State, Score: 70

“This pleasant archipelago retains its attraction due to limited access through a network of well-managed ferries. With a growing number of second homes and slight gentrification, the islands still retain a good balance between environment and infrastructure.”

“No big hotels, no big crowds, but the open spaces are under attack by nonnative invasive plants. And whale watching in the waters off the islands is completely out of hand, with the native orca pods chased and harassed all day every day from May to October by tour boats.”

“Varied experiences on the different islands. Good kayaking, whale watching, hiking, bicycling. However, islands could be more ‘bike friendly’ with dedicated bike lanes needed.”

“Over 100 islands, each with its own character and attributes. Perhaps the worst is overdevelopment of Roche Harbor to appeal to rich baby boomers and the imposition of urban values into a beautiful setting. However, buildout settlements on other islands have remained sustainable and tasteful.”

Salt Spring Island, Gulf Islands, British Columbia Score: 69

“Salt Spring Island offers tourism options, mainly centered on contemporary fine arts/music culture, creative organic cuisine, agritourism, and marine ecotourism, largely driven by strong-minded locals who scrutinize every new possibility with intense National Geographic criteria eyeglasses!”

“The population is becoming increasingly artsy, retired, wealthy second homes, etc. Skyrocketing housing prices.”

“Suffering from being too popular. Major conflict between locals who want tourism and those who moved there to hide from humanity.”

“As long as the Islands Trust exercises strong land-use policies, the potential exists for Salt Spring to remain as a delightful and memorable destination.”

Trust’s devotion to environmental protection needs a tune-up: GIA

(GIA letter, November 16, 2007, to Islands Trust Local Planning Committee, regarding its Local Planning Services Review)

LPSreview 2007 [PDF]

Dear Trustees:

The Gulf Islands Alliance is a non-profit, grassroots organization with members based on islands under the jurisdiction of the Islands Trust. Among our objectives is to increase the effectiveness of the Islands Trust in fulfilling its “preserve and protect” object.

This letter provides comments on behalf of our members and the public regarding the Local Planning Services Review. We have some suggestions for improving how planning services are being delivered to Local Trust Committees and island communities. We recognize that we may not be as well informed on this subject as we would like to be and we look forward to exchanging views and information with you on this subject.

We wish to emphasize our support for what we believe to be a very significant recommendation that was made in the Local Planning Services Review conducted by Stantec Consulting in March 2007. On page 6 of that report under item 5.12 appears the following recommendation.

“It appears that most people understand the mandate, but there are not many people that feel that the Islands Trust is doing anything different or better than other typical BC municipalities in protecting and preserving the environment. The Islands Trust has the same planning tools as regional districts.

“This should get a higher priority and attention by working it in as a key element in its current and long range planning – from recruitment through processes. As LPS is functionally reorganized and other effective planning systems get put in place, there should be more time for addressing the specific elements of this key mandate and getting the Islands Trust into a leadership edge position.”

On page one, the Stantec report states that a wide range of people were interviewed, including most trustees, Trust planning staff and outside stakeholders. This indicates that most trustees agreed with this sentiment. The Gulf Islands Alliance (GIA) also believes that pursuit of the Trust mandate should get a higher priority in the day-to-day actions of Trust staff. One way to do this would be to implement the suggestion that GIA made at the June 2007 Trust Council meeting, that the Trust Policy Manual be amended to require all staff reports to analyze whether a proposed action by a Local Trust Committee or by Trust Council would further or hinder the Trust Object. We would like to see a thoughtful analysis in staff reports rather than the simple checklist currently recommended in the Trust Policy Manual. For example, when a Local Trust Committee (LTC) considers a new bylaw, the Trust staff report should include an analysis as to whether the new bylaw provides stronger or weaker protection for that island’s environment and community character and why.

Additionally, trustees, especially new trustees, may not always be fully aware of the legal tools that can be used to protect their island communities. When LTCs express their desire to increase protection for their island community, they depend on Trust staff to tell them how to accomplish this. That they receive this information is critical.

It has been suggested that staff time could be used more efficiently if bylaws and OCPs were more standardized across the islands. Although standardization is certainly more efficient, we urge caution. A great deal of work and community sweat has been invested in each island’s OCP and bylaws. The Trust islands are very different from one another. The Trust Act created individual LTCs and gave them the power to write individual OCPs and bylaws in order to protect these very differences. Any changes for the sake of efficiency should be encouraged but not imposed, and adopted only with the support of local communities and their LTC. For example, when new bylaws are being written for the first time, staff should be encouraged to use the appropriate Trust model bylaw as a starting point. If there is something that doesn’t fit the island, that can be adjusted.

It has been suggested that some planning staff members be dedicated to working only on long- term planning. During two recent OCP reviews (Salt Spring and North Pender), much hostility has been directed at local trustees. Perhaps this could have been prevented if the public participation process had been designed differently. It would be of benefit to have at least one Trust staff member who is an expert in state-of-the-art public participation processes. This staff person could work with LTCs to create OCP review programs that meet the needs of individual islands and promote productive collaboration among the trustees and the community. The OCP resulting from such a process would likely enjoy greater public support.

In revising OCPs, communities need to be informed about possible strategies to accomplish their goals. It would be helpful to have model OCP language for communities to work from. This does not need to be created from scratch because excellent model language has already been developed by Deborah Curran in her new publication, the “Green Infrastructure Toolkit,” which will be released this month. We urge the Trust to review this document. The bylaw language in this document was developed specifically to protect environmental values. In addition to model language, it would be most helpful to have various language options with an explanation of what each example would accomplish.

There has been discussion about how best to meet the needs of the smaller islands which do not have planners in residence. We think that it is important to have planners who specialize in certain islands so they can become familiar with the personality and history of each island. This will reduce unnecessary mistakes that can take much time to fix. Towards this end, we would not favour removing the Trust office from Gabriola.

It has been suggested that planners visit the smaller islands regularly to meet with the community there. We believe this would have the advantage of helping build positive relationships between the community and their Trust planner. However, at this time when it seems that there is a scarcity of Trust planning staff, we do have concerns about so many hours of planners’ time being spent traveling to and from Victoria.

Many in our islands’ community fear that university planning programs do not prepare planners for protecting a community, but rather for developing it. Therefore, we urge the Trust to provide in-service training for its staff about best practices around the world for protecting the culture and environment of endangered communities. This would include courses about how to conduct public participation programs that empower people and allow all sides of an issue to be debated in an open and constructive manner. Money for such programs is available from several granting organizations.

In closing, we urge you to seek out ways that Trust staff resources can be extended by encouraging Trust staff to work collaboratively with community groups on each island. Our islands are most generously endowed with community members who are experts in a variety of fields, including community planning, grant writing, biology, ecology. For example, the Trust could collaborate with a community group to sponsor staff in-service training, explore ways to work together to conduct better public participation programs, or gather statistical or biological information needed by the Trust. Funding for such programs could be applied for jointly by the Trust and the community group.

We are most interested in your work and welcome any of you to call us to discuss any of these suggestions. I can be reached at 250/537-1577 or at .

Maxine Leichter, Trust Policy Project Chair, Gulf Islands Alliance

Trust planners must shed pro-development bias

The Gulf Islands Alliance endorses Islands Trust efforts to reverse the 13-year trend of dwindling support from the province.

But, in a letter in early 2007 to the Trust, the Alliance said that Trust planning staff proportionately spends too much time processing permits for development. The Alliance would rather see more tax dollars used for activities to assure that development does not harm the environment and local communities. It recommended that more funding and staff time be allocated to improving local planning services in the following areas:

Bylaw and Development Permit Area Enforcement – Islanders biggest demand is for better bylaw enforcement. The Alliance appreciates that enforcement is a complicated problem, one that might be solved, not in employing more enforcement officers, but in clarifying and strengthening bylaws and development permit area regulations, providing more information to the public, and/or addressing overlooked planning needs. Staff must have time to work with trustees and their communities to come up with the best strategies.

Long term planning – The Alliance is counting on the new Trust Area Services person to improve long term planning. The greatest need, however, is to boost planning services on each island. So, the Alliance supports, in the 2007 budget, $200,000 for ‘staff for Local Trust Committee work’; $10,000 for training; substantial funding for new mapping; and $224,000 for ‘implementation of the strategic plan’.

Planning for Rural Communities – The Alliance wants the Trust to give more planning emphases to sustaining the environment and rural communities. This can be achieved by hiring, promoting and training staff that show a keen interest in these vital areas. While it’s sometimes necessary to hire consultants, the Trust’s mandate will be better served by hiring and maintaining an adequate complement of staff planners who intimately understand the history and planning issues of each island.

It is difficult to allocate funds when resources are so sparse. One solution is for the Trust, as a policy, to insist that new development pay for itself. For example, the Alliance urges the Trust to set fees for development permits that cover their enforcement and administration costs.