Neville Chamberlain was a British Prime Minister, best known for his foreign policy of appeasement, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement on 30 September 1938.
As we all know, the results of that agreement didn’t turn out very well in the end.
“Appeasement” seldom, if ever, works in politics if you actually want to get anything accomplished.
If you want to please everyone you will please no one, simply because the task is impossible.
People are opinionated, and I, for one, am certainly no exception.
My opinion on the housing crisis, which I have been writing about for over 20 years now, really hasn’t changed.
The solutions I proposed in 2002-2005 are the same I would propose today – an employee, home ownership model ala Whistler’s solution. I am not a proponent of rental units unless there is no choice…as is the case at the moment.
The reason I am opposed to rentals long term is that they create a perpetual servant class of serfs…(or is that just a serfant class?) If you’re renting you’re paying someone else’s mortgage.
Getting back to “appeasement,” for years now a relatively small group of environmentalists on the island have been gettting appeased at every step of the way. Their familiar anti-everything Driftwood articles spawn ad nauseum.
They complain about water shortages as if the entire island had water problems, or, as if it never rains somewhere on the island, while in the next sentence say they are big supporters of rainwater catchment.
They complain in the Winter about trees being cut down and used for lumber or firewood, while sitting around their woodstove in the comfort of their wood frame home. Then they complain in the Summer that the same trees they don’t want cut down pose a significant wildfire risk, but don’t themselves practively follow Fire Smart guidelines by thinning their piece of heaven.
They complain that everyone should drive an electric car or ride a bike, blythely ignoring the environmental damage done in the mining of the raw materials for the car (in someone else’s “backyard”), and the fact they don’t ride their bikes to the grocery store in the middle of Winter…or Fall…or Spring….or whenever its raining…or whenever they have to go to Windsor Plywood.
They complain about over development when there is virtually no development.
They complain when the vacant lot next door, which they have walked their dog on for years, is finally built on.
They complain about more people coming to the island, when the vast majority of them moved here in the last 30 years. The population when I was growing up here was about 2,000. They don’t recognize they are part of their own “problem.”
You don’t see a single one of them carefully demolish their homes, covenant their property for no develpment, restore the environment, hand over their title deed to one of many First Nations, and then leave the island.
They say “Don’t change Salt Spring, let Salt Spring change you.” but ignore the fact they are responsible for the majority of the change that has occurred on the island. If only we had adopted that slogan back in 1973 pre-Islands Trust…
It is now time for their appeasement to stop. It doesn’t mean the complainers will simply go quietly into the night. On the contrary they will become fully enraged when they realize that their political pressure tactics have ceased to function as planned.
However, it doesn’t mean the changes necessary to create employee housing on the island will be environmentally destructive. Energy efficient houses are now standard. Clustering of development is energy efficient. Apartment buildings are energy efficient.
What is not efficient is the continual barrage of negativity, without any alternative proposed solutions coming from the “Positively No” crowd, which is slowly transforming into “Absolutely No.”
It is time for the “Positively Yes” crowd to emerge with the creative solutions. Our employees and employers need to stand up and be counted.
This Saturday, October 15th, vote wisely. Vote for real change. Vote for those who are prepared to enable a sustainable employee housing solution.
I am voting for Don Marcotte and Jamie Harris for Trust, and Kylie Coates for CRD Director. I would urge anyone who cares for this community’s future to do the same.
30 years ago, in 1992, the new Gulf Island Senior Secondary school was constructed. As part of the process and planning, additional water lines were placed alongside Rainbow Road for the future transportation of reclaimed water from the Ganges Sewer plant. The reclaimed water would be used for watering the school fields.
The Ganges Sewer plant pumps out about 113,000 gallons of water into Ganges Harbour each and every day. The majority of the water originally comes from Lake Maxwell.
The maximum for suspended solids (TDS) for streams bearing fish is 25 parts per million (ppm). Ganges Sewer treated water is 1 ppm.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is how much oxygen does water use to decompose organics. The allowable limit for BOD is 25 ppm…clean surface water would be 5 ppm or less….the Ganges plant’s water is just 3 ppm, about the same as St. Mary Lake.
Fecal coliform limit is 1,000 per 100 millilitres of water. The limit if you want to use a stream or lake for a water source is 100 per 100 ml of water. The Ganges effluent is about 25…
Thus, if the remainder of the water was treated to remove phosphorus, iron, copper, zinc, pharmaceuticals, etc. (easily done with reverse osmosis), the water would be drinkable.
A number of years ago I had contacted the Ministry of Environment inquiring what level of treatment is required to make the water useable for irrigation/landscaping. I was informed, due to its already highly treated state, it would need a relatively simple filtration, UV treatment (e-coli) and flocculation (to remove any potential viruses).
Along with others, I have been asking the question as to why the recycling of the water has not, in 30 years, been accomplished.
On August 30, 2018, just before the last election, the School District approached the Ganges Sewer Commission and asked if the District could pay for a study to be done to determine exactly what was necessary in order to move the potential recycling into reality.
The following is from the minutes of the meeting:
Mr. Pingle was present on behalf of the School District #64 to answer any questions regarding their request for a feasibility study to utilize the wastewater effluent from the Ganges Sewer to water playing fields. • Last year NSSWD permitted field watering at a cost of $30,000; this year no watering was allowed and fields will cost $15,000 to repair and are unusable for fall/winter sports. • Appears to be an ongoing issue with a potential solution. • School District is offering to pay 100% of the feasibility study which would determine scope of work, governmental approvals and regulatory requirements, estimated capital costs and governance of a new local service. • The CRD has previously studied the use of reclaimed waste water and will share any gained knowledge. • Consider consultation with municipalities currently using reclaimed wastewater. • SD64 would provide land for reservoir tank. • Potential for additional community uses to be determined
The Commission moved to go forward with the offer.
That the Ganges Sewer Local Services Commission agrees in principle to the use of reclaimed wastewater by School District 64 to irrigate playing fields adjacent to Rainbow Road; and that the School District will fund a feasibility study which includes consideration of other community uses.
Then, on October 27th, 2020, the budget showed that funding for the $50,000 study had been switched from the School District to Community Works Funds….
And then, on October 14, 2021, the budget showed the funding had been increased to $57,500 and now was not being paid for by either the School District or Community Works Funds, BUT, by the Ratepayers.
I inquired why/how/when the two changes had been made, and was informed Community Works Funds would not allow money to be spent on studies.
However there was no reasonable explanation as to why RATEPAYERS were picking up the $57,500 tab for the study instead of the School.
It appears that for some reason the School funding was turned down. It appears someone other than the Commission made the decision for the Ratepayers to fund the study, because there are no such decisions showing in the minutes.
I lay the blame of this over taxation of the Ganges Sewer Ratepayers at the feet of Director Holman. Likewise I lay the fact the study has not yet been completed at his feet.
About 113,000 gallons…a day….@ 50 gpd per person, is enough to supply 2,260 people each and every day…on an island where we hear, virtually every week, we don’t have any/enough water.
30 years x 113,000 gallons per day = 1.2 BILLION GALLONS which has been flushed out into Ganges Harbour.
Since 1992, our current CRD Director, Gary Holman, has been a CRD Director for 3 terms of office (2002-2005, 2005-2008, 2018-2022, and 1 term of office as our MLA.
He has had his 3 chances to do something about one of our most precious, underutilized, resources on the island, and its time someone took over that can get something accomplished in less than the next 4 years….you know…like the Boardwalk.
Well bless my soul…a CRD miracle has occurred now that tourist season is over, and coincidentally just weeks before the election.
The CRD waterfront gazebo, which has been a public disgrace since the last election, has just been replaced…without its top…but that’s better than what it looked like.
Here’s what it looked like 4 years ago…
Here it is earlier this year after they chopped off the roof.
And here it is as of a couple of days ago….
4 years to repair one of the waterfront feature spots in Ganges….
Now, will it take another 4 years to complete the 34 year old Boardwalk, or are we going to elect someone who will make the Boardwalk a priority and keep it a priority until its done?
Asking for a community that is ashamed of inaction in public office…
“Sustainable development” has been one of environmentalists’ favourite buzz words. If you do a Google search for the term you’ll get 360,000,000 hits.
Sustainable development implies “development” that is sustainable.
So, to have sustainable development you need some form of development.
To have a “sustainable community” (only 2,830,000 hits) on the other hand implies you need to be able to sustain the “community” you already have.
Which begs the question – “Who/what is our community comprised of?”
The current “who” is relatively easy to define simply by looking at last years Census. Among other things, it provides us with ethnicity, religion, sex (the old kind – male and female), family sizes, rentership vs ownership, and whether they receive employment income (6,340).
So, if we were going to work towards and plan for a sustainable community, we would first want to acknowledge the diversity we currently enjoy as a community, and then ensure it is somehow sustained….or, for lack of a better term “preserved and protected.”
Which is where we run smack dab into our community’s housing crisis. I say “OUR community’s housing crisis” because, while you may be living comfortably in your own home, there are literally hundreds of islanders who aren’t, because they can’t afford to buy. And, those people are people you depend upon on a daily basis for the lifestyle you enjoy.
In a few years, those hundreds will be joined by several thousand more employees who will be replacing our retiring teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, ferry workers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers…well I think you get the idea….all of the new employees/entrepreneurs/professionals will not be able to afford to buy here.
Meanwhile, as is happening at the end of every month now, more renters will be receiving their two months notice that the house they have been renting has been sold to someone new moving to the island….just like the thousands of “new” people who have moved here over the last 50 years.
All of which begs the question where will the “new,” new people live, given they can’t afford to buy, and the number of rental units continue to dwindle?
And that, ladies and gentlemen, raises the question – “Without sufficient workforce housing, how can you possibly have a sustainable community?”
The answer is simple – By having sustainable, affordable, employee owned, housing built… “sustainable development.”
If you are an employee, an employer, or a renter, you need to get to the polls and choose OUR future wisely.
So the only question immediately before you is this “Who will you vote for on October 15th that is prepared to actually make Salt Spring a truly, sustainable community?”
I’ve now had a chance to listen to all of the candidates and their platforms, and am placing my full support behind Don Marcotte and Jamie Harris to be my representatives to the Trust.
Hoity toity Oak Bay has just legalized secondary suites in ALL homes in their well manicured, upper class, municipality.
“After eight-year process, Oak Bay council votes to allow secondary suites….The district had been one of the last local municipalities without a secondary suites bylaw. But as of last Tuesday, the suites are permitted in all single-family lots as long as the suite meets the regulations and requirements outlined here. Homeowners will be required to reside in the principal home and must provide an outdoor, labelled, energized outlet capable of providing at least 110V charging for an electric vehicle, scooter, or bike. If not, the homeowner must provide a parking space.
Council adopted the policy after a public hearing this month, and after eight years of public consultation and research. The 2014 Official Community Plan process conducted a community survey that found 78% of Oak Bay residents supported secondary suites, and a specific secondary suites study was launched in 2018.
This legalization is mainly about addressing the estimated 500 to 750 “unregulated” secondary suites that the district already has. The UVic Students’ Society argued to council in June that without this bylaw many of those suites’ tenants—especially young newcomers—will continue to be mistreated. Meanwhile, Mayor Kevin Murdoch said at that time that the district’s infill housing strategy, not its secondary suites bylaw, would be what would increase local housing supply.“ Capital Daily, September 24, 2022
And now, the only real, regulatory requirement is a building permit, issued by their muncipal building inspection department.
Given the CRD’s Building Inspection department issues building permits on Salt Spring, a simple, similar change in our Land Use Bylaw, would mean an owner on Salt Spring could just apply for a Building Permit without having to jump through any Islands Trust hoops.
Secondary suites in pilot areas on Salt Spring were legalized 9 years ago (2013). Since then, it is my understanding fewer than 5 owners have applied for a secondary suite permit.
Arguably, the fear that the legalization of secondary suites would create an avalanche of applications was, and still is, unfounded in reality. Recent real estate increases have also decreased the liklihood of large numbers due to the fact that new, upper middle class owners, who can afford the existing real estate prices, don’t need/want tenants living in their homes.
An amended version of the current Land Use Bylaw, which would allow ALL homes to have a secondary suite, would look something like this:
Definition – “secondary suite” means an accessory, self-contained dwelling unit, located within a building that otherwise contains a single-family dwelling, and having a lesser floor area than the principal dwelling unit.
3.16 SECONDARY SUITES
3.16.1 Secondary suites are permitted on ALL lots.
Information Note: Secondary suites require a building permit from the Capital Regional District Building Inspection Office to be fully legalized.
3.16.2 A dwelling unit is permitted to contain a secondary suite provided that:
(1) the dwelling unit or the secondary suite is occupied by the owner of the dwelling; or
(2) the dwelling unit or the secondary suite is occupied by a person other than the owner who has responsibility for managing the property, including dealing with complaints of neighbours arising from the occupancy of the property.
Information Note: Pursuant to other provisions of this Land Use Bylaw, short term vacation rentals are not permitted in residential areas.
3.16.3 There is a maximum of one secondary suite permitted per lot.
3.16.4 A secondary suite must be contained within the walls of the building that contains the principal dwelling unit.
3.16.5 The entrance to a secondary suite from the exterior of the building must be separate from the entrance to the principal dwelling unit.
3.16.6 A secondary suite must not be subdivided from the principal dwelling unit under the Land Title Act or the Strata Property Act, UNLESS THE TITLE TO THE SUITE IS COVENANTED FOR EMPLOYEE, OWNERSHIP HOUSING.
Information Note: At time of Building Permit application, the Capital Regional District requires specific amounts of potable water be demonstrated, and proof of adequate septic capacity be provided, prior to issuing approvals.
Its long past time to stop being afraid of too many suites, and start worrying about not having enough. Either way, they are a temporary fix in search of our longer term, sustainable housing solution.
If you are an employee, an employer and/or a renter, on Octoberr 15th, elect two representatives who will support much needed employee housing on the island.
If you don’t know who they are, you need to wake up now, and find out – this is YOUR community’s future that is at stake. Do your civic duty and be part of the positive change we so desperately need!
Did you know that every building permit issued on Salt Spring costs YOU, the taxpayer, hard earned, after tax dollars?
Did you know that the reason for that is because two bureacrats arbitrarily took it upon themselves to change unwritten policy?
I’m guessing you are among the vast majority of Salt Spring Islanders who didn’t know.
Here’s how this happened.
Prior to a few years ago, when a property owner submitted a building permit to CRD Building Inspection, the application fee they paid was calculated to cover, on average, the cost of the review and issuance of the permit, and, inspections necessary to obtain final occupancy.
If the permit application was for a property that was not in a Development Permit Area, as any building inspector could find out in less than 5 minutes, then the permit review process would simply proceed.
Then, a few years ago, a change was implemented by the now retired, Chief CRD Building Inspector, with agreement by the Chief Administrative Officer of the Islands Trust.
They arbitrarily, and, without consulting our elected Islands Trustees and CRD Director, changed the unwritten policy so that a building permit application must now be submitted to, and approved by, the Islands Trust PRIOR to being able to submit it to the CRD for review.
When I asked, at a public meeting, Trustee Peter Grove, and CRD Director, Gary Holman, how/why this change had occurred, BOTH of them were unaware of the change. Read that again…BOTH of them were unaware of the change…
As a property owner, what the existing process means, to YOU, is this – because there is no fee charged by Islands Trust to review the building permit, the Staff time spent on the review is paid by you, the taxpayer, not the applicant.
In other words, the unwritten policy change, made by two bureaucrats, not only costs taxpayers more, it means there is also a time delay in the processing of the building permit application.
And, to top it off, the building permit “referrals” are added to the reported workload of the Islands Trust Staff, and now account for about 70% of the applications….as shown in this 2021 Islands Trust report:
Its time to put an end to this unwritten policy. The Trust is already working at an astoundingly low, self-admitted, 7.3% efficiency…costing taxpayers, OVER $2 MILLION PER YEAR, which would have any private company declaring bankruptcy.
On October 15th, use your power as a voter to elect the three people who promise to make the necessary changes.
PS – The 10 year average of Building Permit, Siting and Use Permit, Crown Land and Other Referrals, from 2010 – 2019, was 76.5, compared to 2021’s 188, a 245% increase!
When people talk about the housing crisis on the island, they usually discuss property price, rental availabilty, landlord/tenant issues, water, and, inevitably it seems, the environment.
However, there is another effect the housing crisis has – serious, emotional impact on young families trying to survive, pay the rent and buy groceries while raising children.
Anyone in the Salt Spring workforce who has had children knows exactly what I mean.
I was lucky enough in 1979, when my daughter was born, to buy a .75 acre lot for $17,500 and move a 20’x20′ cottage (which we paid $10,000 for), onto it.
Today, it would likely cost me $500,000 to do the same thing.
The stress young families, who are renting, go through now includes the constant threat of their rental home being sold for $1+ million, and getting two months notice.
This happens EVERY SINGLE month now, as investment rental homes are put up for sale.
Virtually no one is buying property here to use as rental income anymore.
And, those who are buying a propery with a house and cottage on it for $1.3 million don’t want, or need, a tenant in the cottage, thank you very much. Same goes for homes with secondary suites.
Thus we are now on a downward slope of rental units which has now surfaced with nearly every employer on the island being challenged to find workers who can (a) afford to live here, and (b) find a rental unit. The first question an employer now asks is – “Have you secure housing?”
The next time you hear someone talking about housing, just remember the people who are living in the houses they don’t own.
So, before you vote on October 15th, ask the candidates of your choice EXACTLY how they are going to deal with the crisis, and don’t settle for “we need more studies” or generalized ideas. Ask for specifics on how their plan/vision will actually deal with the crisis. If they can’t satisfy you, then consider other candidates.
On October 15th, elect two people who have a clear plan for the future of our community. This is a watershed election. If you are one of the over 6,000 employees or employers on the island you need to pay attention and get out and vote.
I’m going to try and make this as clear as possible.
Land use planning for a sustainable future MUST consider how the service industry (all employees) are going to be housed.
To do that you first need to quantify how many employees you’re planning for.
Currently (2021 Canda Census Data “CSD”), Salt Spring has 6,340 people over 15 years of age receiving employment income. That equals about 1/2 the current population of the island.
They are our teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, ferry workers, support staff, cashiers, fallers, firewood providers, chimney sweepers, appliance repair workers, garbage collectors, saw mill operators, counsellors, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, labourers, exterminators, financial planners, barristas, cooks, waiters/waitresses, engineers, accountants, bookkeepers, road maintenance workers, gas station attendants, concrete workers, caterers, auto repairmen, auto parts salesmen, boat repairs, bankers, insurance agents, ice cream vendors, couriers, florists, opticians, pharmacists, fitness centre workers, dry cleaners, camp ground operators, librarians, insurance agents, roofers, taxi drivers, jewellers, secretaries, crane operators, grocers, dentists, golf/tennis instructors, swim coaches, PARC employees, Islands Trust staff, CRD staff, Provincial Government staff, cleaners, farmers, excavators, truckers, arborists, home caregivers, B&B operators, hotel staff, carpet layers, accupuncturists, veternarians, float plane flight staff, appraisers, gardeners and landscapers, water deliverers, locksmiths, photographers, recyclers, architects, art gallery staff, police, ambulance, firefighters, bakers, computer repairers, dock builders, beauty salon workers, movers, bicycle repairers, blacksmiths, wine makers, glass installers, graphic designers, property managers, building maintenance workers, chiropracters, musicians, undertakers, painters, septic field installers, etc.
I challenge you to go through that list and tell me you did not interact today with one of those listed above.
Do you know how many of your fellow community members in the above categories could currently afford to buy a home on the island, based on their current incomes? Almost NONE.
To qualify for a modest home on the island now you need to be earning about $200,000/year.
Less than 10% of people on the island make $100,000 or more per year. (Source CSD)
Median income of an economic family is $97,000. (Source CSD)
So, let me get to my first point – Our service industry is slipping away before our eyes, with no plan for replacement.
And speaking of replacement, when a teacher/nurse/ferry worker/etc. retires, a new worker must move to the island…or commute….or the position will not be filled.
Anything sounding vaguely familiar yet?
Now, moving on to the housing issues, rental stock is plummeting, primarily due to two factors:
1. The purchase of rental investment homes by people who want to live here permanently.
2. The level of income which the new residents, buying homes over $1 million, means most do not want, or need, to be “saddled” with a tenant in a suite or a cottage. BC Tenancy rules and regulations now make it nearly impossible to ever evict someone from a secondary suite or cottage. Thus, when someone buys a $1.3 million property with a principal residence and a cottage, they do not want a tenant living in the cottage, nor do they need one.
So, lets think for a moment about how many dwelling units would be required to secure, long term, ownership housing, for our entire service industry.
A simple, generalized calculation is take the number of employees and divide by two. 6,340/2 = 3,170.
For the past 20 years I have said publicly, over and over again, we will need about 3,000 employee housing units IF we want to have anything approaching the character of our current community.
Was I clairvoyant in 2002? No, I just applied a simple, common sense approach to what our community consists of in the way of employees, knowing full well a day would come when we would become another Whistler, Nantucket Island, Martha’s Vineyard, Catalina Island or Vale, Colorado.
It wasn’t rocket science….all of those communities were already suffering from housing woes when I looked at them in 2002.
Okay, time is wasting so let me get to my solution on how to pull this community out of the fire. Follow with me now.
It is time to upzone ALL Rural and Rural Upland zoned properties to a maximum density of 1 per acre.
The following is an example of how this would help achieve the goal of 3,000 sustainable, employee ownership dwellings over time.
Example – A 20 acre, Rural Upland zoned property is listed for sale for $1.5 million. It is upzoned to 20 dwellings under the following provisions:
1. Only one dwelling on the property can be a “market dwelling.” The other 19 dwellings MUST be covenanted on title, for employee ownership housing, with a capped rate which is equal a maximum of the cost of construction plus 20%, and a future sale value not exceeding the initial purchase price plus the Consumer Price Index increase for the Capital Regional Area over time. That is the Whister Housing Authority model.
2. All dwellings will be strata titled, giving each a separate interest/title. This is exactly how any of the downtown townhouse projects are titled.
3. Each of the 20 units will have an area designated for the owners specific use. The way that is done is by designating areas as “Limited Common Property” (LCP) for the sole use of the individual owner.
4. If a not-for-profit organization bought the $1.5 million property, my suggestion would be to have the one market dwelling (the existing principal residence) desigated with 10 acres of the 20 as their LCP. That would allow the resale of that one market unit for, IMO, the same price as the original purchase – $1.5 million. That leaves the other 10 acres to have 19 homes/cottages/apartments/townhomes on it. That means the land cost for the project would be….virtually zero.
5. With virtually zero land cost, the cost of construction, ballparking at say at $300/sf for a 1,000 sf home would be $300,000 (plus 20% = $360,000). For a 600sf cottage or apartment, the cost would be $180,000 (plus 20% = $216,000.
6. Such a project would look something (though not exactly) like this….dwellings with designated LCP’s….they look like lots, but aren’t.
Do you know where I copy and pasted that image from? Page 30 of our Salt Spring Island Official Community Plan.
Clustering is nothing new. It has been encouraged since the OCP was adopted in 1999. However, it has never be visioned to be the solution for our employee housing problem.
And that, in a generalzed nutshell is how you solve the problem.
In closing, because I am sure many reading this are gasping, and/or spitting out their gin and tonics, as they wonder where all the water is going to come from, I will, in my next post address the water supply and septic question. Stay tuned…..
And please, copy and paste the web address, and share this article with everyone prior to October 15th and vote for the two people who you can believe and trust will actually solve the problem.
islandstrust 