A8 The Delta Optimist May 28, 2014 Opinion Page Published every Wednesday & Friday by the Delta Optimist, a division of LMP Publication Limited Partnership #207 - 4840 Delta Street, Delta, BC V4K 2T6 Phone 604-946-4451 Fax 604-946-5680 www.delta-optimist.com Publisher: Alvin Brouwer abrouwer@ glaciermedia.ca
Outsiders able to take step back
General Manager: Dave Hamilton dhamilton@ delta-optimist.com Distribution: 604-942-3081 distribution@delta-optimist. com Classified: 604-630-3300 Fax: 604-630-4500 classifieds@van.net Editor: Ted Murphy editor@ delta-optimist.com Sports: Mark Booth mbooth@ delta-optimist.com Reporters: Sandor Gyarmati sgyarmati@ delta-optimist.com Dave Willis dwillis@ delta-optimist.com Jessica Kerr jkerr@ delta-optimist.com Photographer: Gord Goble ggoble@ delta-optimist.com Sales Representatives: John Gallinger jgallinger@ delta-optimist.com Ruth VanBruksvoort rbruks@ delta-optimist.com Features Manager: Bob Ferguson bferguson@ delta-optimist.com Office Manager: Trish Factor pfactor@ delta-optimist.com Sales Support: Linda Calendino lcalendino@ delta-optimist.com Canadian Publications Agreement #212490
CANADIAN COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER AWARD 2012
Wednesday’s circulation is 16,493 Friday’s circulation is 16,943 This paper is made of 40% recycled newsprint and printed using vegetable inks
Entire Contents © 2014 The Optimist. All Rights Reserved
The Delta Optimist is a member of the British Columbia Press Council, a self-regulatory body governing the province’s newspaper industry. The council considers complaints from the public about conduct of member newspapers. Directors oversee the mediation of complaints, with input from both the newspaper and complainant. If talking with the editor or publisher of this newspaper does not resolve your complaint about coverage or story treatment, you may contact the B.C. Press Council. Your written concern, with documentation, should be sent to B.C. Press Council, 201 Selby Street, Nanaimo, B.C., V9R 2R2. For further information, go to www.bcpresscouncil.org
TED MURPHY
MURPHY’S LAW As the seemingly never-ending Southlands saga inches toward an honestto-goodness conclusion, it was eye-opening to see it viewed through a regional lens last week. Thanks to the magic of live streaming on the Internet, I watched last Friday morning as Metro Vancouver directors debated the application in a big picture kind of way. Given pretty much all of the discussion up to now has been on the impacts, both good and bad, any type of Southlands development would have on Tsawwassen, it was interesting to see how those in the rest of the region look at the issue. Several directors noted that Delta is not a municipality that takes development lightly, while others remarked, in an almost disbelieving way, about the inordinate length of time the issue has been before municipal politicians. The gist from these folks seemed to be that any project that emerged from such an exhaustive process in a place known to be hard on developers must be worthy of support. When you detach yourself and look at it that way, it’s hard to argue with the logic. Some directors expressed concerns over setting a precedent that would lead to increased land speculation in the region, while the loss of farmland was a sticking point for others, particularly those from that agricultural hotbed of Vancouver. In the end, however, the pragmatists ruled the day. During last Friday’s discussion it was acknowledged that some land zoned for agriculture would be lost should the project move forward, but most saw that drawback far outweighed by gains that would be made on the farming side. With the Century Group funding $9 million in drainage and irrigation improvements for the rest of the site, it means land that has been fallow for decades will become viable for soil-based crops. The idea of any farmer investing that type of money is clearly a non-starter, so if that land is to be productive in the foreseeable future, something needs to be done. Throw in the fact 80 per cent of the site would be deeded to the Corporation of Delta, which has pledged to apply to have a big chunk of that returned to the Agricultural Land Reserve, and most Metro directors viewed it as an innovative way to get more land into production than is the case today. There’s no doubt regional politicians have the luxury of looking at the issue in a far more detached manner, but there’s something to be said for taking that step back to arrive at the most logical conclusion.
Final chapter has finally been written on the Southlands BRAD SHERWIN
COMMUNITY COMMENT Well, it’s finally done. The Southlands proposal received approval by the Metro Vancouver board last Friday, ending any further roadblocks to the development. Delta council will give it a final rubber stamp, and the project will get underway. I have to admit, Friday’s vote was a bit of a surprise. I thought that after Metro received feedback from TransLink saying it didn’t support the development from a transportation standpoint, that might change things. TransLink’s letter stated, “It appears likely that Southlands will move the region farther away from the goals and targets set out in the (regional transportation strategy), ultimately making those goals and targets more challenging to achieve in the long term.” Apparently, that didn’t matter. I thought that after Metro Vancouver staff recommended against the proposal that might
change things. They recognized the development had limitations based on the Regional Growth Strategy in a number of areas, not just losing agricultural land or the precedent it would set. Quoting from the staff report, “When considered through the regional lens, staff’s professional opinion is that on balance, despite the fact that Delta’s amendment request is to accommodate an innovative development application with many community benefits, there is not a sufficiently compelling reason to support the proposed amendment.” That didn’t seem to matter, either. I read through the letters received by other cities and municipalities, most of which said they had no objections. Maybe it’s just government verbiage, but I didn’t see any say they supported it, only that it didn’t have an impact on their constituents. The feedback from the public hearing Metro held was consistent with all of the feedback that had been received before from the public. When asked, through a couple of surveys, public hearings and letters to council, the message typically came back that two-thirds of people were opposed to the proposal. For the Metro Vancouver public hearing, 78 per cent were opposed.
The Optimist encourages readers to write letters to the editor. Letters are accepted on any topic, although preference is given to those on local matters. The Optimist reserves the right to edit letters and the decision to publish is at the discretion of the editor or publisher. All letters must be signed, dated and include the writer’s phone number
Oh. And when it came time for the vote, which required a two-thirds majority, three board members were absent, representing 12 votes. The most important issue we have faced in South Delta in decades, and they didn’t show up to be counted. Had they voted no, it would have been very close. OK, I’m disappointed, not because it was approved, but because of how it was approved. Maybe the powers that be are smarter than most of us, maybe they know something the rest of us don’t. If that’s the case, and I’m sure it is sometimes, at least let me know that you heard my voice and the voices of so many others who spoke. I can handle a decision I don’t agree with, as long as I feel my concerns were heard and considered. You did ask, after all. I read a tweet last Friday that said “collaborative community planning at its best.” If that were true, I’d hate to see it when it doesn’t go so well. Regardless, it’s done; there is no more uncertainty. We won’t know the true outcome for some time, but the South Fraser Perimeter Road wasn’t the disaster some thought it might be. Maybe that will be the case here. It’s time to turn the page.
(not for publication). The Optimist will not print “name withheld” letters. Copyright in letters and other materials submitted voluntarily to the publisher and accepted for publication remains with the author, but the publisher and its licensees may freely reproduce them in print, electronic or other forms.