Editor:
The council vote following the recent public hearing on the proposed townhouse development on a small unutilized portion of Beach Grove Golf Course illustrates a serious flaw in the Local Government Act and the Community Charter governing such votes.
With three votes in favour and two opposed, the motion failed and the proposed development was defeated. This is a consequence of the legislation apparently requiring an affirmative vote of “a majority of all council members” on any required amendment, however minor, of the Official Community Plan, regardless of whether some members are ineligible or unable to vote.
With a mayor and six elected councillors, the required majority is four of a total of seven. Yet the mayor, as a member of Beach Grove Golf Club, declared a conflict of interest and quite properly recused himself.
I understand Coun. Lois Jackson was on an authorized leave of absence from council, so, her participation as a member of council is suspended, and she was unable to vote. That left only five councillors capable of voting. With four affirmative votes required, a mere two negative votes out of a council of seven was sufficient to defeat the project proposal. This seems to me, by any reasonable democratic measure, a perverse outcome and likely not what was intended in these circumstances by the relevant legislation.
Coun. Dan Copeland offered three reasons for voting “no.”
He was concerned about the impact of the project on the Beach Grove community, a community that is (and has been for decades) in constant change as older cottages and small homes are torn down and larger, contemporary homes built. But he gave no detail whatsoever of what those adverse impacts might be. He claimed approval would be the start of a “slippery slope” towards further housing development on or near the golf course, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. He also indicated the golf course should become a public course. Why that is relevant to this application, and why he feels a new for-profit golf course should be treated more favourably than a non-profit club with a 92-year history on the site, remains a mystery.
Coun. Alicia Guichon said only that she could not support the loss of greenspace – presumably the building footprint of the proposed housing. I question whether, given the present housing shortage and unaffordable prices, we can realistically expect to limit all new housing to the redevelopment of existing housing only, without accessing vacant, unused land to some extent.
Very likely both councillors voting “no” were much affected by a petition filed with the names of many Beach Grove residents. Many of them would live out of sight of, and quite removed from, the proposed new housing. The proposed development is much closer to the commercial/apartment developments on 56th Avenue than to most of Beach Grove. Neighbourhood opinion is highly relevant, but it should not necessarily determine the outcome of new housing proposals, particularly in the current housing crisis.
These applications are not decided by referendum, and if they were, many more residents across Tsawwassen would be eligible to vote as these developments have a community impact broader than a few blocks. The applicable legislative standard is clear. The main driver is community impact, and “community” is a broad concept, geographically and otherwise.
I found the reasons given for the negative votes very thin and unpersuasive. The applicable voting rule effectively treated a recusal for valid ethical reasons and a leave of absence as “no” votes, permitting two negative votes among a mayor and council of seven to defeat a very worthy project.
Maybe the Acting Mayor in the matter, Coun. Jeannie Kanakos, will exercise her power to call for a reconsideration and proper criteria will be applied to the decision. At the least, the provincial government should consider amending the relevant legislation to recognize in similar circumstances that council members who cannot vote should not be treated as having voted “no”.
Paul Lowry
