In my last column I suggested the current municipal council be replaced in the November 2014 election. The column elicited a positive response from the handful of known regular readers, and even from random members of the public.
However, Community Comment colleague Brad Sherwin noted that wholesale replacement might not be optimal since valuable experience and expertise might be lost. I want to respond to his point. Sherwin is aware there's not much opportunity for nuance in a 500-word column, so you have to try to make your point without much digression.
In response, I want to augment my last column to say I think Ian Paton has performed much better than I expected him to and (at this time) is worthy of re-election.
Indeed, if he continues to consider his constituents' best interests and to make up his own mind on issues, then I'd also consider him for mayor. The folks in Ladner are fortunate to have him looking out for them.
On the same subject, in a recent letter to the editor, S. Patterson recommended Greg Hoover run for mayor. This proposal is worthy of serious consideration. Paton and Hoover are two good candidates for council; we need five more for the November 2014 election.
Having dealt with feedback, I wish to devote the remainder of this column and the next two to what we can learn from the Marina Gardens development application process now that it's concluded.
I begin with a simplistic chronology: In 1996 Delta council approved a multiphase development involving both high and lowdensity components. The developer built the low-density phases first, thereby creating an agreeable community of single-family homes to which the residents became accustomed.
Seventeen years having passed, the developer did not consider the pre-approved high-density phases appropriate to the current market,
and applied to modify the approval to replace a hotel with very highdensity row house residences (of the type beloved by the Delta planning department and Mayor Lois Jackson).
The application for the modification required a public hearing and council approval. The developer could have built the exact scheme approved 17 years ago, but it was unlikely that it would.
The first thing we can learn from this is that things can change a lot in 17 years, and that it was unwise for the council to provide an approval in 1996 for such a long time horizon. I suggest we can look ahead realistically about five years, maybe 10 at most in some cases. No phased project should be given an approval longer than this time horizon.
In the case of Marina Gardens, the residents were aware that future phases were approved, but thought they would be dealing with a hotel amenity and had become accustomed to living in a quiet, singlefamily community.
Now they can anticipate years of construction followed by a nonconforming high-density row house zone. I will discuss how and why further in the next column.
