After finding no consensus for its new regional-growth strategy, the Capital Regional District board has punted. The issue is being returned to the provincial government for resolution.
This is, of course, not the first time the CRD has failed to get agreement among its member municipalities on a matter of importance. The board鈥檚 original sewage plan fell apart after Esquimalt council refused to sign on.
But the fate of the growth strategy is particularly troubling. Five years were spent developing a blueprint that, in the end, seven out of the region鈥檚 13 local governments could not support.
Worse still, rather than asking the minister responsible, Peter Fassbender, for binding arbitration, the board suggested mediation. This might mean a year鈥檚 delay, with possible costs for each participating municipality in the $60,000 range. That could add another $780,000 to our property-tax bill.
The CRD鈥檚 chairwoman, Barb Desjardins, had this to say: 鈥淚f we go directly to binding arbitration right now, I fear 鈥� this will increase the divide.鈥�
No doubt it will. But how can a mediator find common ground when none exists?
The real issue is that the CRD is not a genuine regional government. Rather, it is a creature of its member municipalities.
With three exceptions, the board鈥檚 24 members are either local mayors or councillors. And those mayors and councillors aren鈥檛 elected to the board, they are appointed by their councils. That means their loyalties are local, not regional.
The mayor of Sidney is there to speak for Sidney 鈥� as his voters would expect. The others are likewise concerned primarily with what鈥檚 best for their district. That is their job.
But when it comes to preparing a truly regional plan, inevitable disagreements will emerge. What works for Highlands might not work in Oak Bay.
There was perhaps a way around this. Instead of preparing a document that read like a list of commandments, CRD staff might have tried to prepare a list of suggestions. There probably was some common ground, so long as it was not expressed in overly prescriptive language.
However, that simply papers over the problem. A plan composed in this manner would merely amount to 13 different municipal visions, stapled together. But that is where non-binding mediation is likely to lead.
By contrast, a genuine growth strategy would embrace interests wider than those of any one municipality. For example, we badly require a regional transportation system, even if some local governments are opposed. And we will never have enough affordable housing, if individual districts refuse to allow the necessary volume of construction.
If we want a change in direction, there are only a couple of options.
The first is to remove the requirement that plans such as the regional-growth strategy require unanimous approval by all member municipalities. Had the province not insisted on unanimity when the CRD presented its original sewage proposal, the installation would be half built by now.
The second option is to reconstitute the CRD as a fully elected regional government. Its scope might have to be restricted, to prevent undue incursions on matters that are properly decided at the district level.
Like the first option, this would probably still result in some issues being decided by majority vote. But at least the board members would be freed from their loyalties to local councils, and might be willing to take a broader view.
Both of these choices would require the province to amend one or more statutes. But perhaps, when this latest failure by the CRD lands on the minister鈥檚 desk, it might concentrate his mind.
If we go on like this, we will never have genuine regional planning.
