Mark Holland responds to Charnal Macfie

[Editor's note: In early May 2010 CITinfoResource.com posted a letter by Charnal Macfie of Parksville, directed to Mark Holland. Ms. Macfie was in part responding to articles by and interviews with Mark at CITinfoResource, but she was also expressing concern about the kinds of things that sustainability "experts" – and Mark in particular – are saying when they work in her community. You can read Ms. Macfie's open letter to Mark here. What follows is Mark's response. We look forward to hearing more from our readers, whether you are land use & sustainability "experts" or "lay people," you are what the Real Estate Foundation of BC's Tim Pringle calls the "land use practitioners," people wrestling with the real challenges facing our communities.]


Charnal:

Thank you for the thoughtful letter. You raise a good question regarding the challenge of taking a position on growth in a specific (small) geographical area such as a community or the Island.  It is one that brings up several conundrums and some logical and some counterintuitive observations.

These thoughts are of course my own opinions as are all positions on these issues – there is no consensus on these issues nor necessarily a true right or wrong as each position will have likely have tradeoffs.  Moreover, none of us can know “the truth” because the number of elements in the systems we are speculating about are far more complex together than our brains can ever know – and therefore it’s all educated guesses, speculation and the drama of emotions – particularly “fear” in the minds of many.

As you will know from the discussion we had at the Qualicum workshops, I believe deeply in the concept of carrying capacity at the global scale, but don’t believe that the global discussion of carrying capacity applies to any small area, because the scientific assumptions behind a calculation of carrying capacity don’t hold out when discussing humans, as opposed to nearly every other species.  As a species, we are unlike all others.  We can import (with renewable energy/technology) food and other things we need from many areas and we are the only species with advanced “tools” and the ability to massively change behaviour consciously to change our impact on our surroundings significantly, etc…  Other species generally are geographically bounded and operate in manners with limited flexibility and few/no “tools” – and as such, calculating the food supply, water supply, breeding ground, etc… is something we can do, and thereby derive a carrying capacity.   We can’t really do this for humans except at the global scale.

Once we begin to acknowledge that in the real world, we won’t be able to supply all the fuel, fiber, food, pharmaceuticals, steel, glass, plastics, TVs, furniture, building materials, computers, solar cells, wind generators, etc… that we on Vancouver Island need/want within the geographical limits of the Island and the nearby Lower Mainland (etc), then we begin to accept that we will be shipping things in and out of Vancouver island – at which point the issue of carrying capacity becomes something quite different.  It becomes a question of levels of impact.

There is a sense of “panic” emerging in society today based primarily on the environmental agenda that we have to become cave-people immediately – stop everything we are doing, start “culling the herd”, stop using any resources, stop all waste, etc….  The sense of panic is both unwarranted and highly unwise – and only primarily shared by highly educated, highly affluent individuals from the most industrialized countries – who interestingly generally refuse to reduce their quality of life in line with their fears, but continuously increase their personal impact on the world.   I think that while we can’t continue to do what we have been doing, we need to separate “impact” from population or economic wealth.

We do need to start taking action right away to reduce impact, but we have many decades to achieve the change we need.  Over the next 40 years or so, we need to invent and deploy a basically carbon neutral economy / lifestyle – very challenging but probably doable.  We need during that time to shift our energy supply to nearly fully renewable sources.  We need to change our food supply to being likely 75% within several hundred miles, noting we’ll always bring in food from elsewhere (eg: a powerful part of economies for thousands of years), and the list goes on.   If we think it’s not possible and ask ourselves why, we’ll likely come up with the observation that we know its possible technologically with off the shelf technology today – the reason we might be pessimistic is that we don’t think it politically will happen.  Sustainability isn’t a technology/impact issue – it’s a human nature and governance issue.

Regarding growth on Vancouver Island, we are in a bit of a conundrum here.   We have built out the Island at unsustainable low densities and the result is we will be very challenged with only our current population to achieve a sustainable urban/community system and infrastructure in nearly any community on the Island.  We need actually more people not less in order to hit the economies of scale for good transit, local businesses, demand for local food systems, district renewable energy systems, etc…

Regarding the fear of “massive impact” of these people, that is mostly a question of the technology we use to house and move our selves.  If we adopt a more sustainable approach, then we can hold a lot more people and actually have less impact.   For instance, we can build up to 6 storey wood apartment buildings that will reduce people’s housing emissions and impact by almost 30% immediately, and by 80% if done innovatively, but most people in Vancouver Island communities fight like hell to block anything over single family or 2-3 storeys in size – actually thereby making themselves less sustainable, rather than reducing the environmental impact on their communities.   The untended result is also that developers study the market and find that everyone wants single family homes – and therefore they don’t’ build higher density on the island – and therefore the trades don’t learn how to do it, banks won’t finance it, etc…  And what we get is the ubiquitous island sprawl we see everywhere.

Regarding food, fuel, etc… We can grow a staggering amount of food on the Island even through very low yield industrial agriculture approaches.  More intensive, sustainable artisan agriculture could put us awash in food – so food is not a constraining factor, and may never be.  While it feels that the area on the island is small, a very tiny fraction of it is actually impacted by settlement or agriculture.

Regarding forestry, if all major forest areas of the Island were managed in the way that Wildwood is, we’d have a sustainable supply of timber and fiber that would exceed any possibility of even a doubled population on the Island of every using – and we’d be continuing to ship it away to others who have less.

An effective train and local micro-electric vehicle transportation network on the eastern seaboard of the Island where everyone lives would reduce our transportation impacts by likely easily 80%, putting us where we need to be by 2050 – with no loss of quality of life.
And the list goes on.

The conundrum can be summed up in my mind the difference between 21st century sustainability thinking and 1970s environmentalism-thinking.  Sustainability is focused on how humans can best fit with the planet and its ecosystems given that we’re here and are biologically mandated with surviving and maximizing our environmental niche – and are doing it in a rather ignorant manner now.  Environmentalism is anti-human at its most core, and therefore any human impact is seen as horrible and untenable.

The irony of many policies and approaches based on “environmentalism” is that it is based on a paradigm of the “pristine natural world” without any significant presence of humans.  The irony of this attitude is that it has given us an environmental regulatory approach that focuses only on protecting areas, or keeping humans out only when we find ourselves facing species extinction or species at risk – meaning we can do anything stupid we want until then and we only consider things when the species are already failing fast (and only occasionally recover). The “preservationist” paradigm when delivered by humans, corporations and governments whose DNA is the maximizing of human interests, ironically is programmed to fail from the start.

What we need instead is a new ethic of human stewardship where we accept we will dominate the earth for the next epoch (or go extinct or nearly so ourselves through ignorance)and that we need to manage ourselves to be stewards of this planet.  That is hugely challenging and all the environmentalists who read this who hate people will launch many eloquent rants about our inability to have done this in the past  - rants which lead us nowhere but to nihilism – which is only the purview of the wealthy and spoiled.

I personally work on “sustainability” because I believe an anti-human stance is untenable and frankly disingenuous – especially coming from all of us in North America who are the biggest sinners on that front and who continue to not-change our ways – even while we know our lifestyle is damaging - driving, flying, shopping endlessly, owning a big home, having huge closets full of shoes/clothes,  - and most importantly, highly resource/energy intensive computers that we use to dialogue and spread our self-loathing.  And I believe these actions are hardwired biologically into humans as part of our niche-maximization mandate as advanced mammals – a state we can only overcome through consciousness, learning, and strategic collective governance.

I believe that on Vancouver Island (and everywhere) we either have to be honest and personally chose and seriously go back to a 19th century way of life (95% local food, local woven clothes, animal based transportation, etc…) or we need to move forward to build a 21st century lifestyle that offers a great quality of life but has about 75-90% less negative impact on the planet than now.  We have only those two choices.   And when we consider its not really about Vancouver island in this question, but rather about China, India, Pakistan, and others, then I believe that with every nation on the planet currently living in or emerging from the 19th century lifestyle as fast as they can, that we have no honest, ethical choice at all – we must pursue the 21st century sustainable model.

We have put people on the moon and invented the electron microscope – we can certainly build a sustainable economy.  It isn’t rocket science – it’s just grappling with human nature – and we have 4 decades to achieve our goal – many govt budgets, business cycles, changes in vehicles, etc...

If we put our minds to it, we can manage our species’ impact on the planet so that we can live effectively with all other species and be good stewards  - and we can do it within 4 decades if we work hard at it.  However,  If we take a stance that is pro-environment in a manner that is anti-human, we will make almost no progress and ultimately, work against the very thing we are trying to achieve.

…and it is why I have structured my life, company and work around dealing with communities, developers and growth because I believe we can become sustainable.

By the above, I don’t intend to change your mind on anything, but rather to outline my thoughts on the good issues you have raised in your questions in your letter.


Regarding your last question, the role of OCPs in impacting resource extraction -  it is almost impossible to use an OCP to do so.  Firstly, local governments (who use OCPs) only have jurisdiction over small areas and their powers are limited in what they can do.  For instance, the “right to farm” legislation makes it very difficult for a local government to stop a farmer from farming their land – and likewise forest companies, mining companies, etc…   Large resource management issues are the purview of senior governments (prov/fed) and as such, legal challenges can be levelled at local governments that try to stop their activity in most cases.

The BC project of developing Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) for most of the rural areas of the province may have some insights into how to interface resource management and local communities, but I am not an expert on those processes.

Generally what I find more effective is developing a powerful compelling exciting vision and partnership with resource companies about how they can work with the community and help the community achieve their goals / quality of life, while taking steps to be responsible and innovative in their practices.

Respectfully,

Mark Holland
May, 2010

Related articles

• Letter to Mark Holland: Sustainability and Vancouver Island communities (CITinfoResource.com)
• Mark Holland talks about his Resilient Cities Manifesto (CITinfoResource.com)
• Gene Miller talks about Gaining Ground and Sustainability #2 (CITinfoResource.com)

Creating more effective rural economic development in bc

by George Penfold

Following the successful Reversing the Tide conference in Prince George in October 2008, the Real Estate Foundation of BC hosted a follow up workshop in March of 2009.  Approximately 40 folks representing a cross section of organizations and agencies working in rural BC met in Vancouver. Our purpose: to talk about possible follow-up and next steps.

It was clear from the conference that there are “missing pieces” of rural strategy and programs in BC, pieces that are in place in other jurisdictions and that are having some success in rural development. Over the last year those missing pieces have been discussed. A summary is included, below. 

On behalf of the larger post-conference group, I presented this summary at the BC Rural Summit in Port Hardy in March 2010.  

Based on the best practices research and the international success stories, the actions required to provide the focus, resources, and tools necessary to ensure that rural regions and communities have an opportunity to reach their full economic potential include:

1. Create a Rural Strategy and Strong Rural Advocates for BC

BC needs a meaningful provincial Rural Strategy and the creation of strong rural advocates within and outside of government.  Both the provincial and federal governments must provide additional supportive policies and financial resources to facilitate rural development in BC.

2. Create new Rural Development Catalyst Organizations and Programs in BC

Best Practices from other jurisdictions have demonstrated the critical role that rural development catalyst organizations (e.g. RUPRI – Rural Policy and Research Institute; Rural Development Initiatives of Oregon; etc.) play in increasing knowledge, skills and practices to facilitating rural revitalization and development.

3. Create new Regional Development Organizations in Rural BC

To achieve the critical mass required in today’s global economy, rural communities must strategically collaborate and work at both the local and regional level. Best practices from other jurisdictions have demonstrated the critical role that regional rural development organizations play in rural revitalization and development. Regional organizations do not replace the need or role of local economic development agencies; instead they work at the regional and sector level where the magnitude of impact that is required can be obtained through economies of scale and focused specialized interventions.

4. Create a New Venture Capital Fund and Supporting Entrepreneurial Management Assistance

Venture capital is available in urban areas, but rural entrepreneurs have limited access to that capital and expertise. We need an equivalent fund that focuses only on companies and entrepreneurs in rural communities

5. Facilitate the Strategic Use of Public Lands and Resources for Regional Development in Rural BC

Rural BC communities are culturally and economically linked and dependent upon the lands and natural resources which surround their communities. These lands and resources will play a critical role in their future economic development.

6. Retain and Reinvest a Greater Proportion of Wealth in Rural BC

To adequately address the systemic barriers that limit innovation and economic growth and diversification in the rural regions of the province, rural BC needs new forms of dedicated multi-year financial resources that are controlled by rural regions themselves.

7. Maintain Viable Rural Communities in BC

Given the current economic and population challenges faced by many rural BC communities, a commitment to implement new or enhanced strategies and tools to maintain viable rural communities in BC is required.

If you have any comments or suggestions on these ideas, send them to me at Selkirk College, or to Tim Pringle at the BC Real Estate Foundation of BC.

– 30 –

About the author:

GEORGE PENFOLD is the Regional Innovation Chair (RIC) in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College in Castlegar, BC and Adjunct Professor at the School of Business and Economics at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. In 2005 the Real Estate Foundation of BC contributed $100,000 to the RIC endowment fund at Selkirk College as part of its support for sustainable community planning and informed development in the greater Kootenay region. George is a regular contributor to CITinfoResource.com.

Related articles 

• MaureenLeBourdais talks about BC's Rural Summit (CITinfoResource.com)
• Research and development of sustainable tourism in BC's rural communities (CITinfoResource.com)
• Local Food and Agriculture: Six Questionable Assumptions (George Penfold, CITinfoResource.com)
• Karin Kirkpatrick talks about changes at the Real Estate Foundation of BC (CITinfoResource.com)

Gene Miller talks about Gaining Ground and Sustainability #2

This is the second in a series of conversations with Gene Miller (recorded in January 2010) about the Resilient Cities, the October 2009 Gaining Ground summit (GGRC09). View the first interview here.

Gene is the visionary behind the Gaining Ground series of summits on sustainability, which have had strong support from the Real Estate Foundation of BC. CITinfoResource editor hanspetermeyer talked to Gene in his Victoria apartment about the impact of GGRC09 and where the Gaining Ground summits may be headed.

This is part of a series of conversations at CITinfoResource with GGRC09 participants about how that conference is changing lives and communities in BC.

Related articles 

• Doug Makaroff talks about Resilient Cities, Gaining Ground 2009 #GGRC09 (communitytransition.blogspot.com)
• Resilient Cities and Regenerative Regions (CITinfoResource.com)
• Mark Holland talks about his Resilient Cities Manifesto (CITinfoResource.com)
• Barry Brown-John talks about Gaining Ground, real estate, sustainability, and the Kootenays (CITinfoResource.com)
• The Challenge of Gaining Ground: Bringing the Resilient Cities Conversation Home (development-issues.com)

Welcome to the May 2010 postings from the Communities in Transition (CIT) Information Resource

An initiative of the Real Estate Foundation of BC
When Tim Pringle pulled together the people who are involved in CITinfoResource he had a vision: to create a vehicle for "stimulating and supporting the conversation about land use, conservation, and sustainability amongst BC land use practitioners." Since the fall of 2008 we think we've been doing that. And as we get more people responding – see some of the comments to recent posts, or Charnal Macfie's "letter to Mark Holland" in this issue, not to mention the many verbal and email comments we get – this conversation is becoming more vital.


This energy reflects the intention of the Foundation Governors, when establishing the CIT initiative in 2004, to respect and support the needs of non-metro communities as they address challenges related to settlement change in their regions. The CITinfoResource offers wider engagement to locate and discuss issues and solutions.


Online communications can't replace what happens face to face. They may, however, be a way to bridge and foster communities of interest – including the many non-profit organizations and local government bodies who are stewards of the land across BC's rural and small city landscape. 


The Real Estate Foundation has invested in over 1500 projects across BC in its 22 years of grant-making. More than half of these have gone to communities outside the Lower Mainland and Victoria. CITinfoResource is one way that the Foundation is extending the reach of these projects, recirculating it through CITinfoResource via our blog, Facebook, and Twitter posts. Let us know if we're having an impact on the conversation about land, conversation, and sustainability in your region or organization. 


We encourage you to reproduce our materials for educational and non-profit purposes. Please let us know if you're using our materials. And please, tell us if we can be doing things differently. We look forward to hearing from you.


The May 2010 Issue
As mentioned in March, we've moved to a posting schedule that allows us to be more responsive and active. We will continue to provide a 6-times-a-year summary and editorial wrapper, but posts will now happen on an almost weekly basis. For example, in early April we posted an interview (audio) with Tim Pringle about "performance" and "prescriptive" approaches to sustainable land use policies. This is part of a series of conversations about local government approaches to sustainability that started in February when we talked to Kim Fowler (Director of Sustainability, City of Victoria). 


Later in April George Penfold (Regional Innovation Chair in Regional Economic Development, Selkirk College) wrote about "6 questionable assumptions" he is seeing in the current discussion about food and sustainability. This adds another piece to the ongoing, and lively, discussion about food production and community that has been a regular feature at CITinfoResource (see September 2009, November 2009, February, and March 2009 posts). Also in April, Maureen LeBourdais (Manager of Smart Planning BC [we did an overview of this initiative here, in May 2009], Fraser Basin Council) talks about the BC Rural Summit and outcomes of its March 2010 meeting in Port Hardy. This is part of a series of interviews on rural development that stretch back to the Reversing the Tide conference of October 2008. Since then CITinfoResource has talked to Victor Cumming (in March 2009 and again in May 2009), and in June 2010 will feature a brief report from George Penfold and Tim Pringle, as well as an audio interview with George about new rural development initiatives that the Foundation continues to be involved in.


CIT is about communities and change. It is also about organizations and change, as non-profit groups and local governments look for innovative ways to respond to a host of challenges and opportunities related to the land base. More communities are looking to sustainability strategies to answer longer term questions about future prosperity and well-being. Dialogue within communities is an important part of this process. CITinfoResource editor hanspetermeyer challenges citizens and elected leaders alike to consider new approaches when engaging in these increasingly important "sustainability conversations."


The Real Estate Foundation of BC, as an organization, is also responsive to changing circumstances. In 2008 and 2009, a number of events took place that will have long term consequences for the Foundation and its various activities, including the Communities in Transition program and the CITinfoResource. First, Tim Pringle stepped down from his position as the Foundation's Executive Director and took on his current role as Director of Special Programs; second, the Board of Governors selected Karin Kirkpatrick as new Executive Director; third, financial and real estate markets fell (and with them, income – and hence grants); fourth, the Governors initiated a strategic planning process to address these changes. In late April and early May, approximately a year and a half after these events, CITinfoResource interviewed Karin Kirkpatrick and Board of Governors' Chair Jack Hall about their respective perspectives on changes taking shape within the organization. 


hanspetermeyer
Editor,
CITinfoResource




©Real Estate Foundation of BC / 2010. We encourage the reproduction of articles on this website for non-profit educational purposes. Please notify the Foundation and the author of all reproductions, including in-house uses.

Engaging the "sustainability conversation"

I've been involved in sustainability related topics since the mid-90s. Back then, local governments were wary of "sustainability" – the "3-legged stool" of economy, social, and environment was threatening to the "old business as usual" approach. Only a few organizations – one of them was the Real Estate Foundation of BC – seemed to understand that talking about sustainability was a way to get past ideological growth vs. no-growth polarizations.

We've come a long way

Sustainability isn't a dirty word anymore. Asking questions about growth, where and how it happens, whether or not it's sustainable – these are now part of what most politicians, civic staff, citizens, and even developers see as due diligence.

On the road to the "mainstreaming" of sustainability, however, we seem to have lost some of our passion for public meetings on the topic. Last year, for example, my once highly-charged, highly-participatory community by and large failed to get excited by a region-wide sustainability strategy process.

Apathy and its discontents

Do we fail to fill the halls because of process burnout? Or process suspicion – "they" never follow through on what we've wanted in the past, why should I participate now? Or is it because things like "sustainability" and "regional growth strategy" are just too vague, too far removed from the everyday issues most of us are dealing with?

I'm not sure. But, as one of my mentors used to say, "Local government is the 'hell's kitchen of sustainability." Engagement with local processes is how we do real work around sustainability. It's how we protect our investments in our families, homes, neighbourhoods, and communities. We can't afford to stay away from the kitchen, no matter how hot the fire, for a number of reasons:

• because we the citizens are footing the bill for expensive planning processes;
• because we the citizens as taxpayers deserve better results than we're getting;
• because, if we don't get better results, we the citizens (as taxpayers) will be footing expensive bills for failing infrastructure, for inadequately preparing our communities for the impact of climate change preparation; and, finally,
• because – as homeowners – if we don't engage meaningfully, we aren't protecting our investments in our homes and properties.

You can't spin authenticity

That said, I don't see any quick fixes on the road to civic participation. Open houses, public meetings – I'm not the only person they fail to engage. But I don't think we should stop using them. Face to face, real-space contact is important. But as recent case study work for the Real Estate Foundation of BC is showing, there are many ways to engage people when it comes to planning the future of our communities.

One of these ways is via new technologies and media. When these are applied to civic engagement they tend to be labelled as GOV2.0 or OPENGOV. Across the globe there are exciting examples of governments are using new technologies to share information and, generally, make real-time conversations between government and citizens possible. But they aren't a silver bullet. As far as I can see, there is no short cut to animating people and getting good information and ideas into the flow of governance and decision-making. Whatever we do, it'll take time – and "authentic" investment in trust-building.

This means that local governments can't expect miracles from either a consultant or a sexy new technology. No consultant can use social media to deliver engagement if local government isn't committed to being honest, open, and "authentic" online. You can't – as one of my communications mentors puts it – "spin" authenticity.

When it's real... it's about leadership, not technology

I work with local government on an ad hoc, as-needed basis to provide various communications related services. I'm watching examples of GOV2.0 grow and change in a host of places across the globe. What am I learning? That GOV2.0 isn't just about using social media. And it certainly isn't about having a consultant drop in and set up online presence for 3-12 months.

GOV2.0 – where it's real and working – is about civic leadership. It's about chutzpah and starting real conversations in a variety of places. It could be through a regular column in the local newspaper. Or a regular blog online. Or a regular online video on YouTube. Or a regular podcast.

Regular. Consistent. Every week, or every month. In a space that encourages (ie. makes it super easy) for we the citizens to comment and respond. And (this is critical), responsiveness. To respond to every (every!) comment. Promptly. As in, Now.

What if local government isn't taking the great leap forward?

If your local leaders aren't stepping into the risky business of authentic engagement there is still a lot that citizens can do to generate the needed conversations about sustainability in community. The regional sustainability strategy (rss) in my area is an example. It may not work in all communities; in our region it generated an informing parallel conversation to the rss. More than that, it's continuing to stimulate conversations about sustainability months after the official process finished. We now have a number of lively conversations about buildings, land use, conservation, transportation, and the future taking place across a variety of (mostly Facebook) sites.

Meet people where they are. Speak with your own voice.

Are more people going to turn up for public meetings related to sustainability in the Comox Valley because of this? I don't know. Conversations take place in different venues, through different media. Some take place in open houses. Many take place via letters to the editor in the local paper. Growing numbers are online. The beauty of online venues is the opportunity for authentic, direct conversations that aren't heavily structured or mediated, and that can't be "managed."

Civic engagement is the blood that flows through the veins of our governance structures. If we're serious about meeting sustainability challenges, we need healthy flow. Local governments can help by using a range of media to talk about changes in the community, about possible responses, and about policy directions. If people are not coming to meetings, don't expect them to come to meetings. If they're talking about sustainability online, join the conversation online.

Yes, this is risky. But the return on investment of honest, open engagement is proving to be high in jurisdictions that are taking the risk. Which is why local government needs to be doing it's own social engagement. Sure, hire someone to help walk you through the process, maybe even to kick things off. But in the end, high visabilityz folk need to be active (sometimes it's the Mayor, or a Councillor, or a CAO or Director or Planning). Then, when the sustainability roadshow comes to town, the channels are already open and conversation bubbling. There's no trick to it.

...and in the end... stop fretting!

Let's stop fretting about empty chairs at public meetings. Instead, let's get active in other ways of engagement, from local newspaper columns to cable TV columns to the wide and expanding options online. If local government isn't picking up the GOV2.0 ball, lets create our own channels and invite them in. I like what people like Councillor Michele Rule in Kelowna, Arjun Singh in Kamloops, Naomi Devine in Whistler (to name a few) are doing online and in real-space. Take a look at their various channels.

Be inspired, not disappointed. We have new tools. People are making them work in lots of places. And they're fun to use!

hanspetermeyer

Editor, CITinfoResource

Related articles

• The Challenge of Gaining Ground: Bringing the Resilient Cities Conversation Home (development-issues.com)
• Letter to Mark Holland: Sustainability and Vancouver Island communities (CITinfoResource.com)
• Tim Pringle talks about "performance" and "prescriptive" approaches to land use and development (CITinfoResource.com)

Letter to Mark Holland: Sustainability and Vancouver Island communities

[Editor's note: The following letter, from Parksville resident Charnal Macfie, was received at CITinfoResource, and directed to Mark Holland, partly in response to Mark's recent contributions to CITinfoResource on the subject of community sustainability. Ms. Macfie's comments are symptomatic of concerns that many of us have about our communities, especially as we grapple with what exactly "sustainability" means for our communities. Thank your letter Charnal. We look forward to hearing from you about how your community is coming to grips with the various challenges – ecological, social, and economic (among others) – to your community's future.]

Hi Mark,

After attending 2 planning sessions in Qualicum Beach and reading an item in the local paper about Qualicum's plans for a sustainable community, there still exists, for me, a conflict in the basic premise of sustainability that is being presented to the community.

A Decembler 11, 2009 news item quotes you:

"Water comes up often with communities...... it can be possible to have no net loss to your quality of life while reducing our use of water from 30 to 50 percent. That translates into a population issue, because if you can reduce your use by 50 per cent you can actually absorb twice as many people on that water supply."

The conflict I'm referring to is found in your above remark. Doubling the population of our communities just isn't sustainable. Even if every individual changed their lifestyles and reduced their waste, emissions, and consumption habits by 30 to 50% (which is very unlikely for ours and the next generations), can Vancouver Island support another 750,000 people? How would an additional million people impact our environment, our ecosystems, our water sources? Do you know what is the maximum number of people this island could support while not negatively impacting our environment, resources and ecosystems?

Image via Wikipedia

The contradiction in many sustainability plans is that they promote sustainability, but ignore the negative consequences of growth - both economic and population growth.

Like the Comox Valley sustainability plan, the Qualicum Beach sustainability discussions include topics such as:

• lifestyle changes,
• targets,
• alternative transportation,
• green buildings,
• food security, and
• growth.

Continuous population growth and economic growth are simply not sustainable. These sustainability plans are about accommodating growth, about striving for prosperity (a word often interpreted as material wealth?) while trying to retain a quality of life we have enjoyed in the past. I prefer to use words like healthy or strong communities and economies rather than prosperous.

Do you really believe that we can continue to grow without having a negative affect on our environment?

Qualicum Beach OCP has a population cap. Some of the residents of Qualicum have commented on the importance of securing this population cap in the OCP or even reducing the number. I hope your final summary to the public will include this important aspect of Qualicum's sustainability plan. It may be the most useful, practical, easily implemented tool we have to begin creating a sustainable community.

Another issue that I'm curious about is how communities can integrate strategies, guidelines, bylaws, or policies into their sustainability plans and OCP documents that help the community combat man made environmental threats to their communities and region. For example, destructive logging practices in watersheds, coal mining, forest land reserves that are sold to developers, and other economic development projects by large corporations. Has this issue ever come up in any of your community projects?

Regards,

Charnal Macfie

Parksville, BC

Related articles

• Mark Holland talks about his Resilient Cities Manifesto (communitytransition.blogspot.com)

Governor Jack Hall talks about changes at the Real Estate Foundation of BC

Jack Hall is Chair of the Board of Governors at the Real Estate Foundation of BC. He's been on the Board of Governors since 2005. In that time he's been actively involved in many aspects of the Foundation, including two separate terms as Chair, and participation in Convening for Action on Vancouver Island (part of the Foundation's Green Values Vancouver Island initiative).

The period since 2005 has also seen many changes take shape at the Foundation. These include:

• the semi-retirement of long-time Executive Director Tim Pringle (he's now Director of Special Programs with the Foundation – listen to Tim talking about one of his current research projects here);
• the selection of new Executive Director Karin Kirkpatrick (she took over in November of 2008 – you can lister to Karin's perspectives on changes at the Foundation here);
• a significant change in revenues (and, subsequently, grants) due to changes in the financial and real estate markets;
• and a strategic planning process that is giving the organization focus during this time of change.

Jack has been a significant part of these changes. He talks to CITinfoResource editor hanspetermeyer about his experience with the Foundation, and what these changes mean for this dynamic organization.

©Real Estate Foundation of BC / 2010. We encourage the reproduction of articles on this website non-profit educational purposes. Please notify the Foundation and the author of all reproductions, including in-house uses. Thank you!

Related articles

• Tim Pringle talks about "performance" and "prescriptive" approaches to land use and development (CITinfoResource.com)
• Barry Brown-John talks about Gaining Ground, real estate, sustainability, and the Kootenays (CITinfoResource.com)
• Transit Girl: Karin Kirkpatrick talks about the transition to transit (CITinfoResource.com)