You have until 11:59 pm February 1st to file an appeal of your assessment. There is no cost to you to file and the process is very easy, it is just a short form with your contact information and a few details about why you are appealing. You your assessment role number.
This is a good document to read about the appeal process.
Once you file an appeal, you can drop the appeal at any time you would like at no cost to you.
I am happy to act as an agent for anyone wanting make an appeal, just drop me a line at bernard@shama.ca
Once you have filed you will be notified that the appeal is going to the Property Assessment Review Panel.
BC Assessment will then contact you and discuss with you the issues you have with your assessment. They will explain what information they have about your place and how they arrived at the value they set on it. You can tell then why they information is not correct. Most people that appeal come to an agreement with BC Assessment at this point.
If you do not come to agreement, you go to the Property Assessment Review Panel. This is panel of three individuals with knowledge of administrative fairness and property values. I served on PARP in Lillooet for a number of years and then in Greater Victoria for four years.
The panels are not confrontational, but they can only consider a very narrow set of evidence. All they can consider are open market sales of comparable properties to determine a market value on July 1st 2009.
The only evidence that matters is evidence of actual sales or evidence to show that your house is incorrectly classified by BC Assessment.
While I sat on PARP I saw many people come forward with what looked like good cases, but they did not come armed with market sales to prove their point. Without this evidence we had to find for BC Assessment.
As I mentioned before, I am happy to help anyone wanting to appeal their assessment, just drop me a line.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
CRD Public Workshop on Regional Growth Strategy - Feb 4th
It is very nice that the CRD is doing this, I just wish that they had given as all a bit more warning. The date is only one week away, hardly a reasonable lead time. Also, there is only one session. I suspect they will get a low turn out and not get a lot of functional public input into the process from it.
There is a discussion going on at Vibrant Victoria about the issue.
The CRD page on Regional Growth Management has the background on where the process is at and where it is headed.
Important documents to read:
I will be there, I think I might bring along the youth from the 3rd Douglas Sea Scouts and Sea Venturers. It would be a good exercise for them to learn about how the future of their city is decided.
Media Release
For Immediate Release
January 25, 2010
CRD Hosts Regional Growth Strategy Public Workshop February 4
Victoria, BC – The Capital Regional District is holding a public workshop session on the five year review of the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) on February 4, 2010. The session will help the CRD set future direction and priorities for the RGS, which will transition to the Regional Sustainability Strategy (RSS).
Residents are invited to attend and give input at this interactive event; a presentation by MetroQuest will show real time implications of current decisions on the future of the region. Using MetroQuest’s planning tool, residents will have the chance to “vote” on options for managing regional issues such as transportation, housing, and future growth locations. The open house will also present an opportunity to learn about Regional Planning
projects and speak to staff.
This initial RGS public workshop session is taking place on February 4, 2010.
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010
Place: Laurel Point Inn, 680 Montreal Street
Time: Doors Open: 5:30 pm
Open House: 6 – 7 pm
MetroQuest Presentation: 7 pm
The current RGS was adopted in 2003 and operates as a strategic planning document that promotes long term liveability and addresses issues such as transportation, population growth and settlement patterns in the region. The new Regional Sustainability Strategy is scheduled for completion by Fall 2011.
- 30 -
For further information please contact:
Sheila Taylor, Manager, Community Relations
Corporate Communications, CRD
Cell: 250.216.4427
Tel: 250.360.3308
regionalplanning@crd.bc.ca
There is a discussion going on at Vibrant Victoria about the issue.
The CRD page on Regional Growth Management has the background on where the process is at and where it is headed.
Important documents to read:
I will be there, I think I might bring along the youth from the 3rd Douglas Sea Scouts and Sea Venturers. It would be a good exercise for them to learn about how the future of their city is decided.
Friday, January 22, 2010
How Prepared are You for an Earthquake?
In the wake of the Haiti earthquake I thought I would post something here to get people to think about how prepared you are for an earthquake here in Victoria.
The last major earthquake that hit Vancouver Island was June 23rd 1946. At a magnitude of 7.3, this earthquake was stronger than the Haitian one. The location was at Forbidden Plateau. Roads and houses on Vancouver Island were destroyed. Damage happened in Vancouver and Victoria and even in Washington state. Texada island was hit with a 2m high tsunami.
There have been other ones on the coast here.
One on December 16, 1918 close to Nootka Sound at M6.9
On Janaury 27th 1700 there was an estimated M9 earthquake of the western edge of Vancouver Island - that makes one of the biggest earthquakes anywhere at anytime. Alaska had an even stronger on March 27th 1964.
May 26th 1929 M7 on Haida Gwaii
August 22 1949 M8 Haida Gwaii this earthquake was the power of 31 Haiti earthquakes. If this had happened in this area, odds Victoria would have been flattened.
Feb 28 2001 M6.8 in Puget Sound. I felt this one in Ladner, the Safeway I was in in had cans falling all over the store.
We are clearly in an area that gets big earthquakes, some of the largest on earth.
First thing you can do is look at the Victoria earthquake maps and figure out your relative risk.
Next, how much water and food do you have? Can you last for a week in your house without power and gas? Two water s0urces in every house that few people think of are the hot water tank and the toilet reservoir, the part that activates when you flush.
Food for a week is not hard to have on hand if you have such things as granola bars, trail mix, dried fruit, jams, canned vegetables. Your diet is boring, but you can last for the week with 'snacks', no need to have anything special set aside.
Do you know where emergency supplies are kept in your neighbourhood? See the container in the field with Esquimalt Rugby on it? These containers at schools are filled with emergency supplies
View Larger Map
Do you know first aid? If you do not, do know your closest neighbours that do? If you know first aid, have you told people that live near you?
Do you know if the building you work in is safe in an earthquake? Do you know who to ask to know the answer?
Does your work have a plan for an earthquake?
What is your home plan for an earthquake?
Do you know how to turn off the natural gas to your house? If the answer is no, learn now.
What you should have on hand:
It is almost inevitable that we will see a very large earthquake in this region within a human lifetime. How well do you think we as a city are prepared?
The last major earthquake that hit Vancouver Island was June 23rd 1946. At a magnitude of 7.3, this earthquake was stronger than the Haitian one. The location was at Forbidden Plateau. Roads and houses on Vancouver Island were destroyed. Damage happened in Vancouver and Victoria and even in Washington state. Texada island was hit with a 2m high tsunami.There have been other ones on the coast here.
One on December 16, 1918 close to Nootka Sound at M6.9
On Janaury 27th 1700 there was an estimated M9 earthquake of the western edge of Vancouver Island - that makes one of the biggest earthquakes anywhere at anytime. Alaska had an even stronger on March 27th 1964.
May 26th 1929 M7 on Haida Gwaii
August 22 1949 M8 Haida Gwaii this earthquake was the power of 31 Haiti earthquakes. If this had happened in this area, odds Victoria would have been flattened.
Feb 28 2001 M6.8 in Puget Sound. I felt this one in Ladner, the Safeway I was in in had cans falling all over the store.
We are clearly in an area that gets big earthquakes, some of the largest on earth.
First thing you can do is look at the Victoria earthquake maps and figure out your relative risk.
Next, how much water and food do you have? Can you last for a week in your house without power and gas? Two water s0urces in every house that few people think of are the hot water tank and the toilet reservoir, the part that activates when you flush.
Food for a week is not hard to have on hand if you have such things as granola bars, trail mix, dried fruit, jams, canned vegetables. Your diet is boring, but you can last for the week with 'snacks', no need to have anything special set aside.
Do you know where emergency supplies are kept in your neighbourhood? See the container in the field with Esquimalt Rugby on it? These containers at schools are filled with emergency supplies
View Larger Map
Do you know first aid? If you do not, do know your closest neighbours that do? If you know first aid, have you told people that live near you?
Do you know if the building you work in is safe in an earthquake? Do you know who to ask to know the answer?
Does your work have a plan for an earthquake?
What is your home plan for an earthquake?
Do you know how to turn off the natural gas to your house? If the answer is no, learn now.
What you should have on hand:
- Water and food to last up to a week
- First Aid kit - nothing fancy is needed
- Flashlights - the new LED ones are dirt cheap and the batteries last forvever
- Fire extinguisher - you should have one in your house in any case
- Basic camping gear - easy for those of us that camp, but the rest of you should consider buying some.
It is almost inevitable that we will see a very large earthquake in this region within a human lifetime. How well do you think we as a city are prepared?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Need for a Connection from the Galloping Goose to Tillicum Mall
Saanich has done a nice job of traffic calming Maddock Street from Tillicum Mall through to Harriet Road. There is a pedestrian light at Maddock and Harriet and cars are not allowed to go straight through on Maddock. This is all wonderful till one gets to this:
View Larger Map
There is a problem, there is no way to continue on. There is no pedestrian/bike friendly way to get from the Tillicum area to the Galloping Goose. I am sure that the lack of this connection reduces the number of people biking to work. People are forced either onto Gorge or Burnside, neither one is pedestrian/bike friendly.
As you can see here, the sidewalk along Burnside is not only narrow, it has telephone poles in the middle of it. Hardly convenient or nice.
View Larger Map
The idea of acquiring the four properties needed to connect Maddock through to Washington and then onto the Galloping Goose has been a plan of the City of Victoria's since the June 1992 Burnside Neighbourhood plan. You would go from the end of Maddock on Balfour through to Doric and then through to Washington at the head of Cecilia Street and the access to the Galloping Goose.
The need for this connection was reiterated in the August 28, 2003 Greenways Plan. The city adopted the recommendation that this be initiated by the city as properties become available. I know of at least two relevant properties that became available after the plan was adopted.
The city then allowed the best part of the Cecilia Creek Ravine Park to be built on. The upper meadow had the Burnside Gorge Community Centre built on it. In 2008 the City agreed to delist the Ellice Street Park to allow for the Streetlink shelter to be built there. The was a promise at that time that the city would acquire more parkland in the neighbourhood. One would think this means they would move forward on their planned commiment from 1992 and 2003 for the Maddock - Cecilia connection.
The City also passed their Pedestrian Master Plan in October of 2008. All the major issues listed in this report clearly indicate the neighbourhood with the biggest problem is the Burnside one and that the connection from Maddock to Cecilia is the most important one foe the whole city.
View Larger Map
There is a problem, there is no way to continue on. There is no pedestrian/bike friendly way to get from the Tillicum area to the Galloping Goose. I am sure that the lack of this connection reduces the number of people biking to work. People are forced either onto Gorge or Burnside, neither one is pedestrian/bike friendly.
As you can see here, the sidewalk along Burnside is not only narrow, it has telephone poles in the middle of it. Hardly convenient or nice.
View Larger Map
The idea of acquiring the four properties needed to connect Maddock through to Washington and then onto the Galloping Goose has been a plan of the City of Victoria's since the June 1992 Burnside Neighbourhood plan. You would go from the end of Maddock on Balfour through to Doric and then through to Washington at the head of Cecilia Street and the access to the Galloping Goose.
The need for this connection was reiterated in the August 28, 2003 Greenways Plan. The city adopted the recommendation that this be initiated by the city as properties become available. I know of at least two relevant properties that became available after the plan was adopted.
The city then allowed the best part of the Cecilia Creek Ravine Park to be built on. The upper meadow had the Burnside Gorge Community Centre built on it. In 2008 the City agreed to delist the Ellice Street Park to allow for the Streetlink shelter to be built there. The was a promise at that time that the city would acquire more parkland in the neighbourhood. One would think this means they would move forward on their planned commiment from 1992 and 2003 for the Maddock - Cecilia connection.
The City also passed their Pedestrian Master Plan in October of 2008. All the major issues listed in this report clearly indicate the neighbourhood with the biggest problem is the Burnside one and that the connection from Maddock to Cecilia is the most important one foe the whole city.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Johnson Street Bridge - sources of information
View Larger Map
In general I seem to have managed to locate a fair amount of information that the City and others have made available about the bridge, but i know there is information out there that has not been made public, or at least I have not been able to find it.
One aspect I have not been able to find out much about is the Citizen Advisory Committee the City created for the project. I have no idea how often they are meeting and what they are talking about at those meetings. The City project website has almost no details on it at all. If you drill down through some of the pages, you eventually find some of the background detailed work.
What I have still do not know or have not seen are the following:
- What are the terms of the contract with the MMM Group Limited? Are they financially on the hook if the project were to go over budget?
- After the stimulus funding was no longer available, why was no timeline made public?
- Did the City make any requests of the Province for money?
- The design for the replacement, has it been fully designed? Are the designs ready for construction? All I have seen are nice looking pictures and no engineering drawings.
- Who will decide on the company to build the bridge? What process will be used to find the company to build the bridge?
- What methodology was used to come up with the price tag for the project?
An Opportunity for the City of VIctoria
With the big success of the counter petition with respect to the Johnson Street Bridge the City of Victoria gains one thing that most local governments do not have - a public that is now interested in what is going on at city hall and wants to consulted with respect to plans.
A big problem with local government is that only a tiny fraction of the public actively pays attention. In the Capital Regional District this is further hampered by the fact we live in either one or three cities and not 13. If I were on council, I would see this ground swell of anger over the process related to the bridge as chance to get a lot more people to interact with the city and express their opinions.
The City of Victoria has a draft Engagement Strategy and want input on it by the end of February. Given the badly run process around the bridge, this would be a great chance for the council to go out to the people involved with the counter petition and ask them to highlight what they saw as the flaws in the process.
The council needs to step back and try to understand what it is that they did to make the public react as it did to the Johnson Street Bridge project. Clearly something was done wrong by council because there was this unprecedented response to the counter petition. It was a problem with process in my opinion.
A process of self reflection by the council and then some frank discussions with people who were upset by the bridge project would be a healthy and productive direction to take. It all nicely fits with the civic engagement project they sit has been working on. Because there were problems with the bridge project, the public will be able to express concrete real world examples of the problems with process.
Part of my business is working on consultation and public engagement. The City process to develop an engagement strategy is a very good idea, but the public input into the process has been weak because most people have very few concrete thoughts about how they want government consulting with them. It is only when they feel ignored or slapped in the face that the public realizes it does matter to them.
One aspect of modern engagement is using online tools. For those of you interested, the City of Victoria has a facebook page. There is a discussion page there and you can join the conversation.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
2010/11 SD#61 Greater Victoria School District Budget Process
The GVSD does not make it easy to find the information about their budget process online. The budget timeline is here. The Board of Education will pass the budget on April 21st.
If you want to formally make a presentation to the trustees on the budget, here are the guidelines you need to follow.
This is the 2009/10 budget. The school district oversees a budget of close to $170 million a year. The majority of money goes towards salaries and benefits. There are 2005.44 full time equivalent staff for 18,584.8 full time equivalent students.
Meetings on the 2010/11 budget are at the following times and locations:
If you want to formally make a presentation to the trustees on the budget, here are the guidelines you need to follow.
This is the 2009/10 budget. The school district oversees a budget of close to $170 million a year. The majority of money goes towards salaries and benefits. There are 2005.44 full time equivalent staff for 18,584.8 full time equivalent students.
Meetings on the 2010/11 budget are at the following times and locations:
- Feb 3rd 7 pm at SJ Willis 923 Topaz - Roundtable discussion on priorities
- Mar 24th 7 pm Tolmie Boardroom 556 Boleskine Road - Public presentation of the budget
- Mar 31st 7 pm SJ Willis - Public input meeting
- Apr 7th 7 pm SJ Willis - Public input meeting
- Apr 12th 7 pm SJ Willis - Public input meeting
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Victoria is the largest ferry dependent community in North America
There is no other location in North America that has as many people as Victoria and is ferry dependent. Overall Vancouver Island is the majority of ferry dependent people in North America.
There are close to 750,000 people in on Vancouver Island, all of us need the ferries to get on and off the island or to get the goods we buy. The next largest ferry dependent location is Newfoundland Island with 480,000 people.
There are a total of 1.45 million people in North America that live in ferry dependent communities. Not all of them are islands. In BC and Alaska there are a number of mainland locations that are only accessible via ferry.
Here is the full list of ferry dependent communities in North America with more than 2500 people:
- Juneau - 31,000
- Sunshine Coast - 25,600
- Powell River - 19,600
- Ketichikan - 14,000
- Kodiak - 13,900
- Manitoulin - 13,000
- Magdalen Islands - 12,500
- Saltspring Island - 10,500
- Sitka - 9000
- San Juan Island - 6800
- Petersburg - 6700
- Haida Gwaii - 4800
- Orcas Island - 4500
- Unalaska - 4300
- Santa Catalina Island - 3700
- Bowen Island - 3600
- Quadra Island - 2500
BC Ferries serves 56% of the ferry dependent communities in North America.
I am posting all of this here to give people a different way to view the place we live in and how we are very unique.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Higher density needed near UVic
UVic is no longer a small undergraduate university, it is now one of Canada's major universities. Having it still sitting in the middle of the suburbs and there being no redevelopment around it makes little or no sense.
UVic has 16500 undergrad students, 2400 graduate students and 5500 faculty and staff, a total of 24400 people. This is a large number of people that need to be housed somewhere in the CRD, very few of them are in Gordon Head.
Admittedly many of the undergraduate students still live with their parents. There is also space for 3400 people to live at the university, still this leaves a large number of people going to UVic every day that could live closer. Something on the order of 15,000 people need to commute to UVic.
The time has come for Saanich to consider allowing dramatically higher density along the 1 kilometer of Mackenzie that runs from Shelbourne to Gordon Head Road. This is an area of about 15 hectares of land and it redeveloped as four to six story condos or apartments, there could be space for 2500 units of housing and a large amount of street level retail. This would be housing for 4000 to 5000 people.
Not everyone living in these units would be connected to UVic, but if 75% of them were, this would reduce the daily traffic to UVic by as much as 20%. Given the rather crowded buses going to the university and the lack of parking, this added density would alleviate some of the problems.
Even though there is an on campus population of close to 3500 people, the location of the these people is not really within walking distance of the local retail options. Also many of the students in residence do not cook their own food and therefore have no need for local shopping.
Given the nature of universities as business incubators, it would make sense for Saanich to rezone some of the land near UVic for office use. There are another 25 or so hectares of land bounded by Gordon Head, Mackenzie Edgeflow and Finerty that offers a good location for offices and more high density housing. I know UVic has the Vancouver Island Technology Park, but it is rather far from UVic and anything else.
Concentrating more people into the areas around the university will increase the demand for local retail services which will improve the options for the people already living in the area. It will improve traffic levels through out the region. It will also being Saanich more property taxes.
Saanich needs to think into the future and about how it will work with what is already there, close to 25,000 people connected to one location for work or school should be the heart of a density cluster.
UVic has 16500 undergrad students, 2400 graduate students and 5500 faculty and staff, a total of 24400 people. This is a large number of people that need to be housed somewhere in the CRD, very few of them are in Gordon Head.
Admittedly many of the undergraduate students still live with their parents. There is also space for 3400 people to live at the university, still this leaves a large number of people going to UVic every day that could live closer. Something on the order of 15,000 people need to commute to UVic.
The time has come for Saanich to consider allowing dramatically higher density along the 1 kilometer of Mackenzie that runs from Shelbourne to Gordon Head Road. This is an area of about 15 hectares of land and it redeveloped as four to six story condos or apartments, there could be space for 2500 units of housing and a large amount of street level retail. This would be housing for 4000 to 5000 people.
Not everyone living in these units would be connected to UVic, but if 75% of them were, this would reduce the daily traffic to UVic by as much as 20%. Given the rather crowded buses going to the university and the lack of parking, this added density would alleviate some of the problems.
Even though there is an on campus population of close to 3500 people, the location of the these people is not really within walking distance of the local retail options. Also many of the students in residence do not cook their own food and therefore have no need for local shopping.
Given the nature of universities as business incubators, it would make sense for Saanich to rezone some of the land near UVic for office use. There are another 25 or so hectares of land bounded by Gordon Head, Mackenzie Edgeflow and Finerty that offers a good location for offices and more high density housing. I know UVic has the Vancouver Island Technology Park, but it is rather far from UVic and anything else.
Concentrating more people into the areas around the university will increase the demand for local retail services which will improve the options for the people already living in the area. It will improve traffic levels through out the region. It will also being Saanich more property taxes.
Saanich needs to think into the future and about how it will work with what is already there, close to 25,000 people connected to one location for work or school should be the heart of a density cluster.
This is what I would love to see all councilors do
John Luton of Victoria city council has a blog and recently responded ther to some comments I had about the decision making process of the city. While I do not agree with everything he asserts and interpret some of the data differently, what impresses me is that he took the time to write the posting and it does a good job of explaining how he came to his decision on the Johnson Street Bridge.
If many more elected officials took the time to explain how they came to a decision on an issue, there would be a lot less confusion or feeling of `conspiracy`. It is not important to me the point of view of the posting, but it is important that I can understand the motivations for the decisions being made.
In the process with the Johnson Street Bridge, I truly could not understand how the council came to the decision that they did in the time frame that they did. I know there were others that felt out of the loop on what was happening and how fast it was going.
It is 2010 now, in BC we have the best educated and best informed electorate of any place on earth. With this comes an automatic cyncism because so many politicians have not treated the public with honest respect. It is postings like John`s that will go a long way to reducing that sort of view of politicians even if one does not agree.
I encourage everyone in the City of Victoria to read John`s blog and I encourage all local politicians to take some time to blog.
If many more elected officials took the time to explain how they came to a decision on an issue, there would be a lot less confusion or feeling of `conspiracy`. It is not important to me the point of view of the posting, but it is important that I can understand the motivations for the decisions being made.
In the process with the Johnson Street Bridge, I truly could not understand how the council came to the decision that they did in the time frame that they did. I know there were others that felt out of the loop on what was happening and how fast it was going.
It is 2010 now, in BC we have the best educated and best informed electorate of any place on earth. With this comes an automatic cyncism because so many politicians have not treated the public with honest respect. It is postings like John`s that will go a long way to reducing that sort of view of politicians even if one does not agree.
I encourage everyone in the City of Victoria to read John`s blog and I encourage all local politicians to take some time to blog.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Draft Saanich Urban Forest Strategy
Today is the final day for comments on the Draft Urban Forest Strategy for Saanich. This is my quick review and comments
The goals of the Saanich Urban Forest Strategy are:
Coming out of this are six priorities
The document then outlines details of what is needed to achieve the goals through existing ongoing actions and recommended new actions. There is a very long list of recommended new actions, more than I can get into reading in detail this morning. What I can take away from it is that if adopted it will be much, much harder to take down trees.
The document notes that between 1986 and 2005 tree cover with a density of more than 50% had fallen by 583 hectares, about 12% of the total forest cover. There are a host of reasons this could be and this measure is not necessarily a useful one as many of the urban trees in Saanich are in locations without a dense tree canopy.
The more interesting statistic is impervious surfaces in Saanich went from 911 ha in 1986 to 1023 ha in 2005. Impervious surfaces are buildings and pavement, anything which covers the ground completely - rock counts as impervious. Increased impervious surfaces means concentration of pollutants in run off, impacts on the water table, impacts on water flows and water courses, and reduction of ground growing any plants.
Urban areas suffer from too much land being covered over. Saanich sits at the headwaters of many of the small creeks in the core of Victoria and has a significant impact on them if the ground is sealed.
Interesting that the draft strategy keeps mentioning the planting of fruit and nut trees. Sounds nice, but left to their own without supervision many of these sort of trees do not thrive. My experience is that few people are willing to pick fruit off of 'public' trees.
Issues With the Draft:
Is there really a need for a stronger tree preservation bylaw? Are their not enough public lands to plant trees on to compensate? One only needs to look at most of the school grounds in Saanich and see how empty they are. Tillicum School has a single tree on a whole city block. Coquitz has acres of grass and no trees. It seems a diversion to focus on single trees on private properties.
My ongoing concern is that the local government wants to off load the costs of public policy direction from the public sector to the private sector. This is the effective impact of a tree bylaw.
No focus on indigenous trees and imported varieties concerns. Many of the trees planted are not local. There should be no restriction on removing trees that are not local. Saanich should develop a policy to remove all non-native species from public lands and replace them with native ones.
No focus on trees being killed in parks by invasive species - the number of Douglas Firs that I have seen been choked by ivy in Knockan Hill, Cuthbert Holmes and Mount Douglas Park is huge. Instead of stopping homeowners from taking down individual trees, Saanich should look at expending much more energy and resources on combating the parks that are being destroyed.
In the case of Cuthbert Holmes, there are many acres of blackberries that need to be eradicated and should be replaced with Douglas Firs and Garry Oaks. Saanich management of Cuthbert Holmes could at best be described as neglect. Saanich should dedicate two to three full time parks staff, and enough equipment, to this one park. This one action will have much more impact on the urban forest than all the time and energy spent on tree bylaws.
Leaving invasive species removal to volunteers is really Saanich abrogating responsibility. Volunteers working by hand are not nearly as effective as a team of people working with power tools and equipment able to cart off the waste. Saanich should look at dedicating a much larger sum of money to urban forestry issues.
Within the urban containment boundary there are still some agricultural lands. Saanich should consider purchasing these lands and returning them to a natural forest state. a 10 hectare farm property could provide as many trees as 3000 to 6000 private properties. A forest is a much higher and better use for the community and environment of all farm land in this region.
The goals of the Saanich Urban Forest Strategy are:
- Goal 1 Protect trees and expand the forest canopy
- Goal 2 Respond to the changing environment
- Goal 3 Engage the community
- Goal 4 Promote effective management
- Goal 5 Regulate arboricultural practices
Coming out of this are six priorities
- Priority 1 Inventory the urban forest
- Priority 2 Amend the Tree Preservation Bylaw, 1997, No. 7632
- Priority 3 Coordinate urban forest management between District departments
- Priority 4 Develop Urban Forest Design Guidelines
- Priority 5 Protect and enhance Garry oak and their associated ecosystems
- Priority 6 Increase community awareness, education and stewardship opportunities
The document then outlines details of what is needed to achieve the goals through existing ongoing actions and recommended new actions. There is a very long list of recommended new actions, more than I can get into reading in detail this morning. What I can take away from it is that if adopted it will be much, much harder to take down trees.
The document notes that between 1986 and 2005 tree cover with a density of more than 50% had fallen by 583 hectares, about 12% of the total forest cover. There are a host of reasons this could be and this measure is not necessarily a useful one as many of the urban trees in Saanich are in locations without a dense tree canopy.
The more interesting statistic is impervious surfaces in Saanich went from 911 ha in 1986 to 1023 ha in 2005. Impervious surfaces are buildings and pavement, anything which covers the ground completely - rock counts as impervious. Increased impervious surfaces means concentration of pollutants in run off, impacts on the water table, impacts on water flows and water courses, and reduction of ground growing any plants.
Urban areas suffer from too much land being covered over. Saanich sits at the headwaters of many of the small creeks in the core of Victoria and has a significant impact on them if the ground is sealed.
Interesting that the draft strategy keeps mentioning the planting of fruit and nut trees. Sounds nice, but left to their own without supervision many of these sort of trees do not thrive. My experience is that few people are willing to pick fruit off of 'public' trees.
Issues With the Draft:
Is there really a need for a stronger tree preservation bylaw? Are their not enough public lands to plant trees on to compensate? One only needs to look at most of the school grounds in Saanich and see how empty they are. Tillicum School has a single tree on a whole city block. Coquitz has acres of grass and no trees. It seems a diversion to focus on single trees on private properties.
My ongoing concern is that the local government wants to off load the costs of public policy direction from the public sector to the private sector. This is the effective impact of a tree bylaw.
No focus on indigenous trees and imported varieties concerns. Many of the trees planted are not local. There should be no restriction on removing trees that are not local. Saanich should develop a policy to remove all non-native species from public lands and replace them with native ones.
No focus on trees being killed in parks by invasive species - the number of Douglas Firs that I have seen been choked by ivy in Knockan Hill, Cuthbert Holmes and Mount Douglas Park is huge. Instead of stopping homeowners from taking down individual trees, Saanich should look at expending much more energy and resources on combating the parks that are being destroyed.
In the case of Cuthbert Holmes, there are many acres of blackberries that need to be eradicated and should be replaced with Douglas Firs and Garry Oaks. Saanich management of Cuthbert Holmes could at best be described as neglect. Saanich should dedicate two to three full time parks staff, and enough equipment, to this one park. This one action will have much more impact on the urban forest than all the time and energy spent on tree bylaws.
Leaving invasive species removal to volunteers is really Saanich abrogating responsibility. Volunteers working by hand are not nearly as effective as a team of people working with power tools and equipment able to cart off the waste. Saanich should look at dedicating a much larger sum of money to urban forestry issues.
Within the urban containment boundary there are still some agricultural lands. Saanich should consider purchasing these lands and returning them to a natural forest state. a 10 hectare farm property could provide as many trees as 3000 to 6000 private properties. A forest is a much higher and better use for the community and environment of all farm land in this region.
The Johnson Street Bridge and Provincial Funding
A number of members of the City of Victoria council that are known to have strong NDP connections and the NDP MLA Rob Flemming have complained the provincial government has not provided funding for the Johnson Street Bridge Project. I just realized I have no idea what funds the city had applied from the province and been turned down for.
We know the province could not offer joint stimulus funding because the project was not a shovel ready stimulus type of project. The Federal government would not offer money from the stimulus pot either. There are various provincial capital infrastructure cost sharing programs did they all come up with no money?
Given the lack of detailed design and the lack of a budget for the project, frankly all federal and provincial sources of money should turn down the Johnson Street Bridge project.
It feels like BC New Democrats are looking for a way to attack the provincial government more than finding provincial funding for the bridge. I know that the opposition MLAs are supposed to attack the government and use whatever is at hand for ammunition, but it seems to me wrong to have city councilors blame the province for what I suspect are their own shortcomings on the project.
I really am curious as to what funding the city applied for and did not get from the province? Does anyone know what money was applied for from the province?
We know the province could not offer joint stimulus funding because the project was not a shovel ready stimulus type of project. The Federal government would not offer money from the stimulus pot either. There are various provincial capital infrastructure cost sharing programs did they all come up with no money?
Given the lack of detailed design and the lack of a budget for the project, frankly all federal and provincial sources of money should turn down the Johnson Street Bridge project.
It feels like BC New Democrats are looking for a way to attack the provincial government more than finding provincial funding for the bridge. I know that the opposition MLAs are supposed to attack the government and use whatever is at hand for ammunition, but it seems to me wrong to have city councilors blame the province for what I suspect are their own shortcomings on the project.
I really am curious as to what funding the city applied for and did not get from the province? Does anyone know what money was applied for from the province?
Johnson Street Bridge - Council Created a Perfect Storm of Opposition
The counter petition process was successful as it was signed by more than 15% of the eligible voters. The people of JohnsonStreetBridge.org managed to get more voters in Victoria to sign the counter petition than voted for anyone elected to the current council. The council had to either put the borrowing bylaw to referendum within 80 days or drop it. In their wisdom, the council dropped the borrowing bylaw - there is no way the public would have voted for the borrowing bylaw.
Council is choosing to take a couple of steps back and examine more information about what can be done for a crossing at that location. It now that the council can show it is chastened by events and reduce the tension and anger they have created.
The troubles with the bridge have been brought onto the council by itself, effectively the city council created a perfect storm of opposition through their actions.
Applying for the federal stimulus money for the bridge project was a huge mistake at the start of the process. There are numerous pots of money out there for local governments to access money for capital projects so using one that was not appropriate was a misuse of time and money of city resources. The project was by no definition "shovel ready" and was clearly not going to be completed in the timeframe of the funding.
Trying to get a brand new large project ready for the federal stimulus money meant that the council moved forward faster than they should have. They made the decision to replace the bridge without consulting with the public. Effective consultation is a legal requirement with First Nations and is rapidly moving in that direction with respect to the general public. The speed of the decision also meant that the council was deciding to move forward with the project without a design for the bridge or budget for the bridge - how can you have a budget for the bridge if you do not have a design in place.
This early and pointless haste in the council decision making process starting pushing the buttons of the public. The council could not and did not justify the decisions they made so quickly without public input.
When the answer for the federal stimulus funding was no, why did the council not go back and do the process properly? There was no urgency any longer leaving enough time to develop a full design and cost it out. There was also time to consult with the public about replacement or refurbishment.
Not properly exploring the options and costs of refurbishment of the bridge left a large number people in the city without the understanding of why it could not be done. Council should have been aware by the summer that there was a large constituency of people wanting to retain the bridge. Without more information to know what it would cost to refurbish the bridge, details on the state of the bridge, and what a refurbished bridge would look like, the council was setting the stage for people to see some sort of conspiracy by the city. It was clear there were people that cared about retaining the bridge, not bringing them well into the loop created an angry opposition.
It worries me that council was willing to move forward with the project by borrowing the money when they had not yet figured out what the actual cost of the bridge would be. Council also wanted to borrow the money before knowing how much anyone would charge to build the bridge that had not yet been designed. This sort of fiscal imprudence scares the bejesus out of me. It also surprises me given what I know of the majority of the council that they went forward with this.
I can understand why Lynn Hunter does not like referendums, they are not normally used by the senior levels of government in Canada and they tend to be very problematic with complex issues. With local government long term borrowing by referendum is the norm. Legally there is a strong case to be made that since local governments have no legal standing, they need the active consent of the public to bind the citizens over the long term.
Local government borrowing referendums are also not complex issues. The project is a clearly defined one and the money needed is also clearly defined. It is the right time and place for a referendum. The attacks y Lynn Hunter on referendums is directly opposite to the democratic tradition and practices of local government. Her comments may be heart felt by her, but they are a disturbing change in attitude for someone at the municipal level.
Lynn Hunter was not alone in making the decision to use the Alternative Approval Process instead of going to a referendum, she simply was honest in stating her views.
In the end the way the council went about the bridge replacement project put enough noses out of joint to make it possible to mobilize such a large portion of the public to sign the counter petition and be a body of people angry at council.
Can the council ride out this storm? Much depends on how they now engage with the public. If the council comes forward with humility and admits they badly mismanaged the process I would expect they will be able to recover. If they simply use the time now to justify a decision they made that was badly done, then they are going to have a very uncomfortable time between now and November 2011. Yesterday I heard some people on council express contrition for the process they went through, but I also heard others thinking they had done nothing wrong.
Borrowing for the bridge will have to go referendum. If the council does not shape up they will cause people to vote against the borrowing just to spite the council. If that borrowing referendum were to fail the city would have a hard time going forward with the bridge project in any different manner without public consent. If they did try, there is a very strong case for the public to seek an injunction against any work on the bridge without public consent. There is a danger would could end up with an impasse and have nothing happen with the bridge for years. We could even end up with bridge that is closed and no longer in use.
Council is choosing to take a couple of steps back and examine more information about what can be done for a crossing at that location. It now that the council can show it is chastened by events and reduce the tension and anger they have created.
The troubles with the bridge have been brought onto the council by itself, effectively the city council created a perfect storm of opposition through their actions.
- The council rushed the process to try an apply for funding that was not designed to be used for the bridge.
- The council did not properly debate the options for the bridge.
- The council did not slow down the process and properly consult with the public once it was clear there would be no federal stimulus money for the bridge.
- The council did not seek to gather proper design and budgetary information to move forward with the project.
- The council moved forward with a borrowing bylaw and did not take it to a referendum. This is a break with normal procedure for local government in BC. The Alternative Approval Process is designed to only be used when there is a clear and strong community support for the borrowing.
Applying for the federal stimulus money for the bridge project was a huge mistake at the start of the process. There are numerous pots of money out there for local governments to access money for capital projects so using one that was not appropriate was a misuse of time and money of city resources. The project was by no definition "shovel ready" and was clearly not going to be completed in the timeframe of the funding.
Trying to get a brand new large project ready for the federal stimulus money meant that the council moved forward faster than they should have. They made the decision to replace the bridge without consulting with the public. Effective consultation is a legal requirement with First Nations and is rapidly moving in that direction with respect to the general public. The speed of the decision also meant that the council was deciding to move forward with the project without a design for the bridge or budget for the bridge - how can you have a budget for the bridge if you do not have a design in place.
This early and pointless haste in the council decision making process starting pushing the buttons of the public. The council could not and did not justify the decisions they made so quickly without public input.
When the answer for the federal stimulus funding was no, why did the council not go back and do the process properly? There was no urgency any longer leaving enough time to develop a full design and cost it out. There was also time to consult with the public about replacement or refurbishment.
Not properly exploring the options and costs of refurbishment of the bridge left a large number people in the city without the understanding of why it could not be done. Council should have been aware by the summer that there was a large constituency of people wanting to retain the bridge. Without more information to know what it would cost to refurbish the bridge, details on the state of the bridge, and what a refurbished bridge would look like, the council was setting the stage for people to see some sort of conspiracy by the city. It was clear there were people that cared about retaining the bridge, not bringing them well into the loop created an angry opposition.
It worries me that council was willing to move forward with the project by borrowing the money when they had not yet figured out what the actual cost of the bridge would be. Council also wanted to borrow the money before knowing how much anyone would charge to build the bridge that had not yet been designed. This sort of fiscal imprudence scares the bejesus out of me. It also surprises me given what I know of the majority of the council that they went forward with this.
I can understand why Lynn Hunter does not like referendums, they are not normally used by the senior levels of government in Canada and they tend to be very problematic with complex issues. With local government long term borrowing by referendum is the norm. Legally there is a strong case to be made that since local governments have no legal standing, they need the active consent of the public to bind the citizens over the long term.
Local government borrowing referendums are also not complex issues. The project is a clearly defined one and the money needed is also clearly defined. It is the right time and place for a referendum. The attacks y Lynn Hunter on referendums is directly opposite to the democratic tradition and practices of local government. Her comments may be heart felt by her, but they are a disturbing change in attitude for someone at the municipal level.
Lynn Hunter was not alone in making the decision to use the Alternative Approval Process instead of going to a referendum, she simply was honest in stating her views.
In the end the way the council went about the bridge replacement project put enough noses out of joint to make it possible to mobilize such a large portion of the public to sign the counter petition and be a body of people angry at council.
Can the council ride out this storm? Much depends on how they now engage with the public. If the council comes forward with humility and admits they badly mismanaged the process I would expect they will be able to recover. If they simply use the time now to justify a decision they made that was badly done, then they are going to have a very uncomfortable time between now and November 2011. Yesterday I heard some people on council express contrition for the process they went through, but I also heard others thinking they had done nothing wrong.
Borrowing for the bridge will have to go referendum. If the council does not shape up they will cause people to vote against the borrowing just to spite the council. If that borrowing referendum were to fail the city would have a hard time going forward with the bridge project in any different manner without public consent. If they did try, there is a very strong case for the public to seek an injunction against any work on the bridge without public consent. There is a danger would could end up with an impasse and have nothing happen with the bridge for years. We could even end up with bridge that is closed and no longer in use.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Assessments are out
Assessments are out here in Victoria and they are up again. If you have any concern about the value placed on your home, I suggest you appeal your assessment. You have until January 31st to file an appeal and it costs you nothing. You can also drop it before it comes to the review panel - about 90% of appeals are dropped before they reach the review panel.
I spent a number of years on the Greater Victoria Property Assessment Review Panel for residential properties. I am happy to help anyone understand the appeal process and if there is a case for an appeal. Just drop me a line at bernard (at) shama.ca, I am happy to help.
I spent a number of years on the Greater Victoria Property Assessment Review Panel for residential properties. I am happy to help anyone understand the appeal process and if there is a case for an appeal. Just drop me a line at bernard (at) shama.ca, I am happy to help.
Local Civic Watchdog Groups
In 2008 in the lead up to the municipal elections there were a number of civic watchdog groups that came into existence. We had the Saanich Civic League, Steve Hurdle had Inside Langford, right after the election there was the Victoria Voter's League. All of them have been quiet for some time.
I am not surprised that the Saanich Civic League has gone dormant. I did not see the energy and drive there that launched the Guelph Civic League in Ontario. The SCL was clearly a partisan group which decided what the public wanted before asking them.
The Victoria Voter's League had a lot of energy right after the election, though strongly from people that ran from council and did not do that well.
Steve Hurdle has not been extracting much interesting news from the Kingdom of Langford and his majesty Stew the First. Is this is sign that things are better in Langford and the public seems closer to the council? Certainly I am not hearing much from the opposition minority any longer.
Sue Stroud did much of the same sort of thing in Central Saanich, but she has been rather quiet since the summer. She has been the one person watchdog for farm land and trees in the area.
The various neighbourhood groups continue on, but even on that level I am hearing less from the ones that I pay closest attention to - Burnside Gorge and Tillicum Gorge.
Other than Jim Legh, there is almost a complete silence on the amalgamation front. The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce has been absent in in any sort of civic issues for most of the last year.
The only civic watchdog group in all of greater Victoria that I can find that is active is JohnsonStreetBridge.org - though I expect that group to diminish as the issue changes. The bridge seems to be the only issue that has managed to get anyone interested.
The Green Party was active in the last municipal elections and even elected two members to Victoria City Council, but the Greens do not seem to be doing anything on the ground.
Vibrant Victoria, the main online place to discuss issues of civic politics in this region has seen the level of traffic drop off. It is now only a small core that are regularly taking part in discussion. Yes, I am one of those geeks expressing an opinion there.
Civic engagement seems to at a rather low level in this region at the moment, this does not bode well for good local governance and for an engaged and lively local election in 2011. Anyone have any idea why civic engagement has dropped off so much lately?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick note on my comment of Ross Crockford being well placed to run for mayor - he was over for dinner last night and made it entirely clear he has no interest in getting elected to anything. He has several books to write.
I am not surprised that the Saanich Civic League has gone dormant. I did not see the energy and drive there that launched the Guelph Civic League in Ontario. The SCL was clearly a partisan group which decided what the public wanted before asking them.
The Victoria Voter's League had a lot of energy right after the election, though strongly from people that ran from council and did not do that well.
Steve Hurdle has not been extracting much interesting news from the Kingdom of Langford and his majesty Stew the First. Is this is sign that things are better in Langford and the public seems closer to the council? Certainly I am not hearing much from the opposition minority any longer.
Sue Stroud did much of the same sort of thing in Central Saanich, but she has been rather quiet since the summer. She has been the one person watchdog for farm land and trees in the area.
The various neighbourhood groups continue on, but even on that level I am hearing less from the ones that I pay closest attention to - Burnside Gorge and Tillicum Gorge.
Other than Jim Legh, there is almost a complete silence on the amalgamation front. The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce has been absent in in any sort of civic issues for most of the last year.
The only civic watchdog group in all of greater Victoria that I can find that is active is JohnsonStreetBridge.org - though I expect that group to diminish as the issue changes. The bridge seems to be the only issue that has managed to get anyone interested.
The Green Party was active in the last municipal elections and even elected two members to Victoria City Council, but the Greens do not seem to be doing anything on the ground.
Vibrant Victoria, the main online place to discuss issues of civic politics in this region has seen the level of traffic drop off. It is now only a small core that are regularly taking part in discussion. Yes, I am one of those geeks expressing an opinion there.
Civic engagement seems to at a rather low level in this region at the moment, this does not bode well for good local governance and for an engaged and lively local election in 2011. Anyone have any idea why civic engagement has dropped off so much lately?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick note on my comment of Ross Crockford being well placed to run for mayor - he was over for dinner last night and made it entirely clear he has no interest in getting elected to anything. He has several books to write.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Johson Street Bridge Petition
Well it seems like there were more than enough signatures were collected in the Alternative Approval Process to stop the $42 million borrowing by the City for the new Johnson Street Bridge. The City needs to decide now if they want to put the borrowing to a referendum or if they want to try and develop a better process for making a decision on what to do with the bridge.
Not only did the people at JohnsonStreetBridge.org collect the needed 6343 signatures, they delivered more than 10,000 to city hall. It is not clear how many petitions were sent directly to the City and it is also not clear how many of the signatures will not be valid ones, but it seems more than obvious that the volunteers collected more than enough signatures. Collecting this number of signatures is astounding given the time when the counter petition process was running. Christmas and New Years hardly make it easy to get signatures.
It is also astounding when one considers how many people signed when compared to how many people voted in 2008. The total number of votes in 2008 was only 17,080. Compare that to 10,000 to 11,000 people signing the petition forms. The petition got more support than anyone elected to the current City council. That fact alone should be a very sobering fact for the sitting councilors.
The council has a decision to make now. Going to a referendum is not a smart idea as I am almost 100% certain that it will fail. The council should listen to the counsel of Geoff Young and go back a number of steps in the process and develop a much more detailed analysis of the options.
My big concern remains the lack of detail in City plans. The council was willing to go ahead and borrow $42 million to build the bridge without having a budget. They were also willing to go ahead without a competitive tendering process for the construction of the bridge, a recipe for large cost increases. There was a complete lack of any fiscal prudence. As a council they have a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the people of Victoria. I have not seen that in the process with the bridge.
Personally I would be happy with a new bridge though what I want for a bridge is unlikely to happen. I really would like to see architectural landmark for the bridge, one that would be an international image of Canada. I know that is not going to happen.
The other aspect I remain concerned about is the ongoing talk of a rail aspect to the bridge. The use of the rail line is extremely low and there is no indication that in the next generation the use will be any higher. Building now for rail is a waste of money and resources. Should there be some sort of rail transit in this region, which is highly unlikely to ever happen, the Johnson Street Bridge is in the wrong location for rail line.
I know many people will disagree with me, but I do not see the heritage value is this bridge at this location. If it fit with the look and feel of the old town that would be something different, but the bridge is about thirty to forty years newer than the buildings in the old town.
The success of the petition is not good news for the sitting council. The council members could suffer an electoral backlash in 2011 when we next vote. Lynn Hunter will have trouble getting re-elected with the YouTube videos out there saying she opposes referendums. No matter how much her view makes sense from a political science point of view, it is political suicide to say it publicly.
Mayor Dean Fortin is danger of only being remembered for the bridge issue and being seen as intransigent. His image has been badly tarnished in this process. He will be hard pressed to win another term unless he finds something new to mark his term as mayor.
Another implication for the next election is that there is a group of volunteers out there that have worked together and had success. They figured out how to mobilize enough people to win an election. If this group holds together to some extent, it is not unrealistic to see a number of the core people elected to council in 2011. Ross Crockford is the obvious choice as a candidate for mayor from this group and is at this time the front runner for mayor in 2011 if he chooses to run.
Not only did the people at JohnsonStreetBridge.org collect the needed 6343 signatures, they delivered more than 10,000 to city hall. It is not clear how many petitions were sent directly to the City and it is also not clear how many of the signatures will not be valid ones, but it seems more than obvious that the volunteers collected more than enough signatures. Collecting this number of signatures is astounding given the time when the counter petition process was running. Christmas and New Years hardly make it easy to get signatures.
It is also astounding when one considers how many people signed when compared to how many people voted in 2008. The total number of votes in 2008 was only 17,080. Compare that to 10,000 to 11,000 people signing the petition forms. The petition got more support than anyone elected to the current City council. That fact alone should be a very sobering fact for the sitting councilors.
The council has a decision to make now. Going to a referendum is not a smart idea as I am almost 100% certain that it will fail. The council should listen to the counsel of Geoff Young and go back a number of steps in the process and develop a much more detailed analysis of the options.
My big concern remains the lack of detail in City plans. The council was willing to go ahead and borrow $42 million to build the bridge without having a budget. They were also willing to go ahead without a competitive tendering process for the construction of the bridge, a recipe for large cost increases. There was a complete lack of any fiscal prudence. As a council they have a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the people of Victoria. I have not seen that in the process with the bridge.
Personally I would be happy with a new bridge though what I want for a bridge is unlikely to happen. I really would like to see architectural landmark for the bridge, one that would be an international image of Canada. I know that is not going to happen.
The other aspect I remain concerned about is the ongoing talk of a rail aspect to the bridge. The use of the rail line is extremely low and there is no indication that in the next generation the use will be any higher. Building now for rail is a waste of money and resources. Should there be some sort of rail transit in this region, which is highly unlikely to ever happen, the Johnson Street Bridge is in the wrong location for rail line.
I know many people will disagree with me, but I do not see the heritage value is this bridge at this location. If it fit with the look and feel of the old town that would be something different, but the bridge is about thirty to forty years newer than the buildings in the old town.
The success of the petition is not good news for the sitting council. The council members could suffer an electoral backlash in 2011 when we next vote. Lynn Hunter will have trouble getting re-elected with the YouTube videos out there saying she opposes referendums. No matter how much her view makes sense from a political science point of view, it is political suicide to say it publicly.
Mayor Dean Fortin is danger of only being remembered for the bridge issue and being seen as intransigent. His image has been badly tarnished in this process. He will be hard pressed to win another term unless he finds something new to mark his term as mayor.
Another implication for the next election is that there is a group of volunteers out there that have worked together and had success. They figured out how to mobilize enough people to win an election. If this group holds together to some extent, it is not unrealistic to see a number of the core people elected to council in 2011. Ross Crockford is the obvious choice as a candidate for mayor from this group and is at this time the front runner for mayor in 2011 if he chooses to run.
Beaver Lake General Store
The Beaver Lake General Store on West Saanich Road is in danger of demolition. The picture to the left is of the store back in 1979 when it still functioned as an actual general store.
The current owners are proposing building a new commercial and residential building on the site and only retaining a facade of the building. The Saanich planning process has given the green light for this to go forward. I am sure they are trying to be as sensitive to the heritage as they can afford to be, but I am still saddened to see some more of the history of this region disappear.
View Larger Map
The development plan for the site calls for the facade of the building to be retained though moved to a different location on the property. I can understand why the owners want to redevelop the site, the existing building is not well situated on the property and is not a very functional building. The owners want to put in a vet clinic on the ground floor and living space above it.
The building is a registered heritage building but it has been allowed to decay significantly over the years. The building has not been desginated a heritage building. Saanich has both a registry of heritage buildings, a wider list that affords less protection and it has a heritage designation process.
There really needs to more discussion in our community about our past before we lose it.The Beaver Lake Store it is in a bad enough state now that it seems that demolition is the only real option that makes economic sense. This building highlights a problem with heritage buildings, unless the owner is willing to make the effort to look after a building there is a strong likelihood that the building will not be maintained. It is too easy to let a building decay and not face any sanction for doing so.
The building was in regular use and functional as of 1990 as the above picture shows, though the store was no longer is use as general store, but as a invocation of the Gods of kitsch. Given how retail works these days and the limits of the building, it is not a surprise that is has been under used for sometime now.
The core of the building was built in 1905 and moved to the present location in 1933. Like many old buildings in rural BC, the building was added to over and over again down through the years - sort of like the house I lived in in Lillooet. It is the sort of small local rural general store that was once pervasive all over BC but is now a very rare sight. As far as I know, only the Kilby General Store has been preserved.
Saving the facade is something, but I think we would be better served if the building was moved off of the site and clustered with some other heritage location. To this day I am very disappointed with the facade around the Bay Centre in downtown. Only on Fort Street does the saved facade seem to work and even then it does not feel like old town buildings, they still feel like modern reconstruction to me.
If one were to move the building, where would be a good location? Heritage Acres of the Saanich Historical Artifacts Society would be a good location. Though this would take a lot of money and there is no obvious source of the funds needed. Saanich may want to consider development of some sort of a heritage park in rural Saanich to preserve some buildings and create a living museum. Burnaby has done something like this with the Burnaby Village Museum. I have been there and I am impressed with what they have done. Given the tourism focus of so many people in this region, I would think here would be a lot support for something like this.
In the end, another one will bite the dust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)