This is the last of three columns on the process used to approve the Marina Garden Estates modification application. In the last column I reviewed how the public hearing process had been managed so that local residents did not effectively express their opposition to the proposed development.
The Delta council vote on the application saw Mayor Lois Jackson and councillors Robert Campbell, Bruce McDonald and Jeannie Kanakos vote in favour and councillors Ian Paton and Sylvia Bishop vote against. (Coun. Scott Hamilton, who should resign, abstained.)
All the votes in support were from North Delta councillors (Campbell lives in South Delta but his political support is in North Delta) and the two votes in opposition were from South Delta councillors. (I suggest we get more South Deltans on the next council.)
This vote was foreseeable, with the exception of Paton, who ran with Jackson's team. The North Delta group has a social agenda to maximize the population of Delta by approving very dense housing developments with few or no compensatory infrastructure or recreational amenities. This agenda appears to have substantial public support in North Delta and minimal public support in Tsawwassen. Ladner is equivocal or doesn't care.
The residents of Marina Garden Estates vote at Neilson Grove Elementary. Only 38 per cent of eligible voters at this poll voted in the 2011 municipal election. Of these, 42 per cent voted for prodevelopment Jackson for mayor (and 74 per cent for all major pro-development candidates), while only 26 per cent voted for anti-development candidate Krista Engelland. (The labels are simplistic for brevity.)
Similarly, Neilson Grove voters supported the six candidates for council that were elected. Paton received the most votes, being the only candidate from Ladner. However, McDonald and Hamilton, who were likely to support the development application, received more votes than Bishop, who was not likely to support it. Further, I don't recall Marina Garden Estates being raised as an election issue, in contrast to Tsawwassen where the Southlands development always is.
From the foregoing I argue that residents who opposed the application for a modified development should not have been surprised that a pro-development council approved it. The surprising thing is these residents voted preferentially for this council.
If the matter were important to them, then why didn't they raise it as a campaign issue and why did they vote for candidates who would likely vote to approve it? I admit that I don't follow the political scene north of Highway 17 too closely, but I do know you usually get what you vote for.
I conclude from the Marina Garden Estates process that: (1) Council should not approve development applications for a period more than five years out; (2) the public hearing process used by this council marginalizes real residents unless they are very proactive; (3) residents should vote and should know the agendas of council candidates on local issues of importance to them; and (4) the residents of Ladner need to develop a consensus on what they want.
It's equivocal to oppose largescale developments but vote for candidates who support them.
