Getting things done on Salt Spring
These follow-up questions came by email. The reader’s name has been omitted.
The questions
In brief:
- Which two outcomes would you prioritize in your first 18 months, and how should residents judge success?
- What could the Salt Spring LTC improve itself, what needs wider agreement, and what would you pursue in the first year?
- How would you work with a trustee whose views differ from yours, and where could you find common ground to get started?
Read the full questions
You’ve identified several priorities for the coming term. One way to rebuild confidence in government is to focus on a small number of areas where there is broad community agreement and demonstrate that government can deliver. If you had to choose just two outcomes to accomplish substantially in your first 18 months, what would they be, and how should residents judge whether you had succeeded?
You’ve discussed how the Trust and LTC should operate. I’m particularly interested in implementation: What changes could the Salt Spring LTC itself make to improve consistency, transparency, and procedural fairness, and what changes would require Trust-wide agreement? What would you realistically try to put in place during your first year?
Neither elected Salt Spring trustee can accomplish much alone. How would you build a productive working relationship with the other trustee if they had a significantly different view of the Islands Trust? Is there an issue—perhaps housing, water, or wildfire risk—where you can already see enough common ground among the candidates to move quickly from agreement to implementation?
My response
Thanks for the followup questions. Overall, the two things I’d most like to change are how difficult it can be to get a clear answer from the Trust and how hard it is for people to find a home they can afford here. But I'll answer each of your questions in a bit of depth, as I've had quite a bit of time to think about these issues over the past few months:
1. Where I’d start, and how to judge the results
People should be able to find out what they can do on their property, what an application requires, and why a decision was made without having to become experts in the Trust. That’s why I built LTC Explorer, my Bylaw Checker, and my OCP Analyzer. As a trustee, I’d want clearer requirements, written explanations, and a way for people to follow their applications to become part of the everyday process.
Within 18 months, I’d want those practices in regular use. Residents should be able to see what’s happening with an application and who needs to act next. We should also report processing times and why files are delayed, so people can judge whether we’re reducing repeated requests and avoidable delays.
On housing, I’d focus on smaller, year-round homes and compact housing near services, where water, wastewater, access, and environmental conditions support them. I’d seek a decision on Bylaw 537, the accessory dwelling unit proposal, in the first year, with First Nations engagement completed properly. I’d also pursue targeted changes to Land Use Bylaw 355 for housing on suitable land near services.
For a more in-depth discussion, see Making it Possible for People to Stay and Renting, ownership, and a future on Salt Spring.
Residents should judge that work by which rules have actually changed and whether people can use them. We should track homes permitted and homes occupied separately, and be clear about which have enforceable affordability provisions. If the rules change and little housing follows, we need to understand what’s still getting in the way.
Water is a big part of this. In my first six months, I’d begin working with water providers and the CRD to understand what coordination has already been attempted, where it has stalled, and how we can move it forward. I’d want that conversation grounded in evidence about available capacity, the needs of existing users and ecosystems, and what could responsibly increase supply.
Longer term, I’m hoping we can move towards desalination to supplement our freshwater supply. I’d like us to start looking seriously at what that would involve here, including the cost, energy use, and effects on marine life.
2. What we can do locally
The LTC can set its planning priorities, make land-use decisions, and improve how it explains and follows up on those decisions. Trust-wide staffing, budgets, and procedures need wider agreement. Bylaw changes also require Executive Committee approval, and OCP amendments need provincial approval under the Islands Trust Act. Changes to the Trust’s statutory powers are a provincial decision.
At the first available committee meeting, I’d bring forward a proposal for clearer application requirements, written reasons, and a public record of decisions and outstanding work. I’d work with staff on the cost and timing, with the aim of getting those basics into regular use during the first year. The application tracker and service targets would need to be worked out with the people responsible for maintaining them.
I’d also like to try a pre-application pilot in one permit category where staff see repeated problems. Applicants and staff would establish the requirements before a full submission, and we’d measure whether that reduced resubmissions and delays. I’d aim to have it designed within six months and running in the first year.
If new evidence changes what’s required, people deserve an explanation and time to respond. That’s a basic part of the fairness I’d want us to improve.
3. Working with the other trustee
I’d want to understand what they most want to accomplish and where they think my proposals need work. I support the object of the trust, but I think the status quo needs substantial change. We don’t have to share the same view of the institution to work together on a particular problem.
Water is where I’d suggest we begin. I’d ask whether we could work together on understanding capacity and assessing improvements to supply. We may disagree about desalination or where additional housing should go, but we can examine the evidence together and start with the work we both support.
Where we disagree, I’d want to understand the specific concern. If it’s about habitat, cost, or whether housing will actually remain affordable, we should see whether the proposal can address it. I’d expect some of my own proposals to change through those discussions.
I’d include the appointed chair in that work and seek agreement on what we intend to accomplish in the first year. I’d also report quarterly on my own commitments, including what’s been completed, what’s delayed, and what hasn’t received support. The tools I’ve been building go a long way to helping us make progress down this path already.