Comox Valley local government elections ramping up for Oct. 15 vote

Comox Valley local government elections ramping up for Oct. 15 vote

by | Aug 25, 2022

Photo Caption

Comox Valley local government elections ramping up for Oct. 15 vote

By

In just 49 days, Comox Valley voters will decide who they want to form our local governments. At stake are seats on four municipal councils, three rural electoral areas, the school board and Island Trust representation for Denman and Hornby islands.

The official “nomination period” for candidates to declare their intention to seek public office starts Tuesday, Aug. 30 and closes on Friday, Sept. 9. That leaves about five weeks for the campaign because Election Day is on Saturday, Oct. 15, although there will be advance voting days.

General election advertising rules have already come into effect on July 18 and will extend through Election Day. The regulations governing candidate and third-party spending limits start on Sept. 17.

So, in just a few weeks, the public will know who’s running for what. But why they are running, well, that’s something else. You’ll get the usual candidate statements published in the local media that are carefully crafted to hit all the right notes without revealing the authors’ true voices.

We’ve decided to revive a version of Decafnation for the next couple of months to shine a little extra light on some of the candidates so that at least readers of this website will have some deeper insight into who they’re voting for.

We won’t be doing long investigative pieces, although we will interview some candidates. In the main, we’ll provide commentary on the issues and where candidates actually stand on them and, later on, provide our endorsements.

 

WHO WE THINK IS RUNNING

Many incumbent candidates and a few new challengers have already announced that they will seek re-election.

For the Courtenay City Council, we believe David Frisch, Wendy Morin, Melanie McCallum, Doug Hillian, Will Cole-Hamilton and Mano Theos are running. Newcomers Evan Jolicoeur and Michael Gilbert hope to get one of the six council seats. Brennan Day is also running again, he ran unsuccessfully in 2018 and also for MLA as a BC Liberal Party candidate in the last provincial election.

Former city council member Erik Eriksson plans to make another bid for Courtenay Mayor, opposing incumbent Bob Wells.

In Comox, Nicole Minions, Alex Bissinger and Jonathan Kerr will most likely seek re-election. Incumbent Stephanie McGowan’s family has moved to a Courtenay address, although that doesn’t prohibit her from running for a Comox Council seat. We’ve heard that Jenn Meilleur may run for council.

We expect the three Electoral Area seats on the Comox Valley Regional District board to receive some extra attention this year, but all we know at the moment is that incumbents Daniel Arbour (Area A) and Arzeena Hamir (Area B) are running again and that it’s likely Edwin Grieve (Area C) will also seek another term.

And incumbent Cumberland Mayor Leslie Baird says she’ll seek a fourth term leading the Village Council. At the end of the current term, she will have logged 32 years of continuous service in public office. It’s possible Baird will have a serious opponent this time if you believe the rumour that incumbent councillor Vicky Brown is leaning toward a run at the mayor’s chair.

And, finally, we’d be surprised if Jesse Ketler doesn’t run again for Cumberland Council and possibly return as chair of the CVRD, where she’s been a neutral force between the warring Comox and Courtenay representatives.

 

ISSUES IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS

Some of the issues most likely to emerge from the candidates during the 2022 local government campaign haven’t changed from 2018: housing affordability, access to green space, the livability of our valley and issues around local employment.

Some of the issues from 2018 have been resolved. Courtenay adopted a new Official Community Plan. The regional district won its battles with 3L Developments over violating the Regional Growth Strategy and finally, thankfully, disbanded the Economic Development Society.

But some issues still linger, chief among those would be the fate of Shakesides, the historic home of Hamilton Mack Laing. The Town of Comox has dragged its feet – and broken an ethical and fiduciary trust – on resolving this issue for the past 40 years, but never so disappointingly as during the last four.

All the incumbents pledged during the 2018 campaign to resolve the Shakesides issue (except Jonathan Kerr, who was only elected in the 2021 by-election). But they haven’t, despite Mayor Russ Arnott’s fury in 2019 to get the building torn down.

And there are big new issues waiting for the next local government officials. At the top of that list is a required review of the Regional Growth Strategy, which will be followed by an update to the Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan. Myriad contentious issues live within those few words and we have no doubt that the 2022 election campaigns will only be the start of the debate.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More

City CAO David Allen focuses on sustainable asset management

Courtenay Chief Administration Officer David Allen was part of a small group in 2008 that developed this system for managing public assets that provides for service and financial sustainability. It is now used by almost every municipality in British Columbia.

The Week: Doing it right on the wrong side of town, CVRD gets a good result for wrong reasons

The Week: Doing it right on the wrong side of town, CVRD gets a good result for wrong reasons

by | Mar 8, 2021

The Week: Doing it right on the wrong side of town, CVRD gets a good result for wrong reasons

By

As voters and taxpayers, we hope our elected officials always do the right thing for the right reasons.

The Comox Valley Regional District did the right thing last week by terminating its contract with the Comox Valley Economic Development Society (CVEDS). But they did it for the wrong reasons.

The Economic Development Society was a poorly run service that clothed itself in secrecy, reported to no one but a few self-appointed friends and spent a lot of money for questionable community benefit. And in doing so, the society managed to disappoint, frustrate and antagonize broad sectors of the Comox Valley community.

That was the right reason to terminate this contract.

Hornby and Denman islands and the Village of Cumberland pulled their financial support for the CVEDS service many years ago because those taxpaying elected officials realized how little value they were getting for their money.

Regional directors from Courtenay and Areas A and B might have gotten there, too, but they were making a good faith effort to transform CVEDS into a modern and more relevant organization through — for the first time ever — serious oversight.

But the CVEDS contract was not terminated for its obvious lack of performance. It wasn’t terminated because it had lost its way many years ago by spending almost a third of its budget on a seafood festival that added nothing to the economic sustainability of local businesses beyond a slight uptick in restaurant reservations.

The society’s contract wasn’t terminated because it often claimed responsibility for things on which it actually had minimal impact. It wasn’t terminated because the society shunned accountability or that it failed to comply with requirements under the Societies Act. Or that it had trouble managing its money.

No, the regional district terminated the CVEDS contract because Comox council members objected to increased oversight and scrutiny. Comox councillors didn’t like the regional board setting goals for the society that targeted current problems, such as affordable housing for low-wage employees and familys’ access to child care.

Comox Councillor Ken Grant summed it up when he lectured Courtenay Councillor Wendy Morin about how elected officials should manage arms-length societies.

“That’s the thing about the independent governance model, you don’t get to tell them how to do their business. That’s been the problem from day one,” Grant said at the Feb. 9 regional board meeting.

Grant couldn’t have been more wrong.

When a local government creates an organization — as the regional district did by forming CVEDS in 1988 — that exists only because it receives more than $1 million in public funds annually, then the elected officials absolutely get to say what they want for their money. In fact, taxpayers expect their elected officials to set the big picture goals and to hold people accountable for achieving them.

Grant was right about one thing. The independent governance model has been the problem from day one. Day one being back in 1988. Since then the society has happily taken the public’s $1 million-plus every year and did whatever it wanted with the money. Past elected officials didn’t seem to care what they did.

What is truly amazing is that this bad example of political oversight took so long to blow up.

 

But don’t celebrate just yet

Just because the contract for economic development services gets voided later this year doesn’t mean Comox Valley taxpayers are off the hook.

The regional district wrote CVEDS a $400,000 check in January. That’s one-half of its 2021 funding. The expectation is that the society will continue to fulfil the majority of their 2021 work plan items, including the ones the Town of Comox finds so distasteful.

But, of course, the regional district has no means of ensuring that all or even most of the work will get done satisfactorily. What recourse does the CVRD have? The contract will terminate on Aug. 26 whether the work gets done or not.

The second half of the $800,000 CVEDS 2021 budget is scheduled for July. Will they automatically get another $400,000 for their last two months? Not necessarily, according to CVRD Chief Administration Officer Russell Dyson.

“CVEDS has various commitments in place to deliver services for economic development, tourism and visitors services, and destination marketing. The termination notice provides service to CVEDS for eight of the 12 months in 2021, therefore the second payment for 2021 will consider any adjustments to annual allocation for this adjustment, noting that some costs are annual whether the contract is terminated part way through the year,” he told Decafnation via email.

Dyson confirmed that the regional district would not be responsible for any severance pay for CVEDS employees because they are not CVRD employees.

But Comox Valley taxpayers might become responsible for the Visitors Centre, which some people call the “drum” building and others call the White Elephant.

According to Dyson, “Upon the wind up of CVEDS, the net assets after payment of liabilities is transferred to CVRD and the participant member municipalities. The ongoing ownership and operation of the Visitors Centre will be a key consideration of the service participants in determining future service priorities.”

Dyson says the CVRD and municipal partners will be meeting and working with CVEDS staff the next few months to “encourage” that the work plan priorities are delivered and to encourage a smooth transition to a future service delivery determined through the service review.

“The second payment amount will be determined through this collaborative work over the next few months,” he said.

 

So what will rise from the ashes of CVEDS?

How will local governments provide destination marketing, handle visitor services, manage the hotel tax money and encourage economic vibrancy?

Given that Cumberland and the islands are doing just fine managing their own economic prosperity in-house — as most other communities on Vancouver Island already do — the ideal scenario now is that Courtenay and Comox will hire their own economic development officers.

The CVRD should also hire an economic officer to focus on the three electoral areas because it’s too easy for the rural areas’ needs to be overshadowed by the municipalities. They may all feel strongly about food security, but there are different projects that need to take place in different areas.

Then all four of the Valley’s economic development officers can meet monthly to share information and work together where it’s possible.

Meanwhile, all local governments should agree to share the contract for destination marketing and visitor services to Tourism Vancouver Island (about $260,000 per year). The City of Courtenay economic development officer should have input to Tourism Vancouver Island about how local MRDT funds are spent because all of that money comes from the city.

 

Every community’s needs will evolve over time

But no matter how our elected officials propose to meet those needs, they must always favour transparency and accountability and ensure their objectives are being met without favouritism and for the benefit of the greatest number of people.

 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More

Comox Valley local government elections ramping up for Oct. 15 vote

Comox Valley voters will elect new councilors, mayors, regional district representatives, school board members and Island Trust reps on Oct. 15. Find out who’s running for what … and why. Decafnation returns to shine more light on local government issues and candidates

Regional District terminates CVEDS contract, opposing views were too entrenched

Regional District terminates CVEDS contract, opposing views were too entrenched

by | Mar 1, 2021

Decafnation archive photo

Regional District terminates CVEDS contract, opposing views were too entrenched

By

This story was updated March 2 to include a reaction from Area C Director Edwin Grieve. Comox Councillor Ken Grant and Comox Mayor Russ Arnott did not respond.

After almost a year of public discussions, in-camera meetings and mediated workshops that were often divisive, the Comox Valley Regional District will terminate its contract with the Comox Valley Economic Development Society on Aug. 26.

In an email to CVEDS Chair Deana Simkin sent Feb. 25, board Chair Jesse Ketler said the regional district was invoking Section 22 of the current service agreement signed just seven months ago on July 27. The section provides for early termination of the contract with six months notice.

A press release issued by the regional district this morning made the termination public knowledge.

The 33-year-old Economic Development Society will now almost certainly fold without a contract that provided local public funding in excess of $1.2 million annually in recent years in exchange for economic development and destination marketing services, and management of the Visitor’s Centre.

In this morning press release, Chief Administrative officer Russell Dyson said, “the CVRD with their municipal partners (City of Courtenay and Town of Comox) will continue reviewing the economic development service to provide a path forward on how economic development will be delivered within the region.”

One possible path that Comox Council has already discussed is for the town to hire its own economic development officer, as Cumberland did in 2016. Comox could still continue to participate in regional funding for destination marketing and Visitors Centre management.

Regional directors made the decision to terminate the contract at an in-camera session following the Feb. 9 full board meeting, which had become heated over the Economic Development Society’s 2021 work plan and budget.

The Comox Town Council has been at odds with the majority of regional district directors over how to manage the CVEDS contract and over its fundamentally opposing view about what constitutes economic development.

The board majority comprising directors from Courtenay and Electoral Areas A and B have pressed to make CVEDS more financially accountable and to modernize its view of what drives the local economy.

Comox Director Ken Grant made the Town Council’s position crystal clear at the Feb. 9 meeting.

“With all the angst around this, I don’t see any way how this relationship with CVEDS can continue,” he said. “So it’s time to cut our ties with CVEDS and stop pouring good money after bad.”

He said the society’s 2021 workplan included seven projects specifically requested by the board “that, in my opinion” have nothing to do with economic development. That’s taking us down a road our community really isn’t interested in.”

Those seven items included, among others, efforts to help create broader access to child care to enable women to return or enter the workforce and addressing the need for affordable housing to accommodate employees of local businesses.

Grant said the regional board has been “interjecting our decisions into their board … in an independent governance model you don’t get to tell them how to do their business,” he said. “That’s been the problem from day one.”

 

NOBODY WAS HAPPY

Comox Town Council wasn’t happy with the board’s new vision for economic development. The board majority wasn’t happy with how CVEDS operated, especially its lack of transparency and what it considered an outdated approach.

It appears both sides had become tired of the conflict.

Some observers believe Comox developed its own economic development strategy last year when the differences of opinion looked irreconcilable and they didn’t have the votes to prevail.

Town Chief Administration Officer Jordan Wahl recently spoke about hiring its own economic development officer as Cumberland did after withdrawing from the regional service five years

The town hired Lara Greasley, former CVEDS marketing manager, last year and now there is speculation they might hire CVEDS executive director John Watson.

That would leave Courtenay and the electoral areas to form their own economic development plan.

But there might still be room for a regional-wide destination marketing service and management of the Visitor’s Centre, both of which are currently under contract with Tourism Vancouver Island.

 

REACTION TO THE TERMINATION

Area A Director Daniel Arbour said the ongoing service review will allow the municipalities and rural areas to discuss how to support economic development in each respective community. He said it’s clear there are a variety of needs, some which may be best addressed in each jurisdiction, and some through regional collaboration.

“For Area A, CVEDS has worked primarily on the promotion of the shellfish sector for years. Without CVEDS, as chair of the Baynes Sound Ecosystem Forum, and AVICC local government representative on shellfish issues, I look forward to continue to grow the relationship with the businesses, BC Shellfish Association, and K’omoks First Nation on the promotion of sustainability initiatives in and around Baynes Sound,” he told Decafnation.

“Ultimately, in the years ahead, the most important economic consideration in Area A will be to properly manage growth in and around Union Bay, and to make thoughtful decisions around infrastructure requirements and integrated community planning,” he said.

Area B Director Arzeena Hamir said she has been advocating for more support for the farming sector ever since she was elected in 2018.

“Supporting farmers to increase their incomes per acre and create a vibrant food economy has always been at the forefront of my asks of our Economic Development Service. I hope to continue pushing for that,” she told Decafnation.

“I do also support more childcare places and I do see the direct connection between the vitality of the workforce and the ability of that workforce to return to work without having to worry about who is taking care of their kids,” she said.

Hamir added that she is looking forward to a transformed Economic Development Service.

“It’s been a long haul. We did try to work with CVEDS under the new contract but I felt we weren’t getting the deliverables we agreed to and CVEDS continued to make decisions (like the contract to Tourism Vancouver Island) without even informing the CVRD in advance,” she said.

Area C Director Edwin Grieve thanked the “incredible list” of volunteers who stepped up and donated so much of their time and expertise to serve on the CVEDS board. He noted past presidents Richard Hardy, Ian Whitehead, Justin Rigsby, Deana Simpkin. He also gave recognition to John Watson and Geoff, Lara, Arron and others from the staff that worked magic and doubled every public dollar.

“In this, as in so many Comox Valley endeavours, it was the volunteers, societies and not-for-profits that made this such a great place to live,” he told Decafnation. 

 

WHAT’S NEXT

It was the Comox Council that unanimously voted to request a formal review of the economic development service. That review with a hired consultant began on Jan. 17 but has so far resulted in only one in-camera meeting, which primarily focused on the process and procedures for the review.

The next meeting of the review committee is scheduled for mid-March but does not appear on the regional district’s website because they have closed the meetings to the public.

The review committee comprises representatives from Courtenay, Comox, the three electoral areas and the regional board chair.

 

 

 

 

Read Decafnation’s extensive coverage of the Economic Development Society, it’s history and how the shifting political climate foreshadowed its demise 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Regional District terminates CVEDS contract, opposing views were too entrenched

Survey finds Areas A-B happy with regional board, directors, little interest in schools

by | Feb 15, 2021

Photo Caption

Survey finds Areas A-B happy with regional board, directors, little interest in schools

By

Just over halfway through their first terms in local government, regional district directors Daniel Arbour and Arzeena Hamir have earned high approval ratings from the respondents to a Local Government Performance Review conducted recently by Decafnation.

Decafnation initiated the survey to measure how satisfied voters were with the performance of the councillors, directors and trustees they elected in 2018.

The first article summarizing the survey’s findings published earlier this week took a close look at the Courtenay and Comox municipal councils and individual council members. This second article focuses on the rural electoral areas of the Comox Valley Regional District, as well as the District 71 school board and Island Trust representatives from Denman and Hornby Islands.

Electoral Area A Director Daniel Arbour received the highest approval rating of all the Comox Valley’s 33 elected officials reviewed in the survey. Eighty-nine percent of Area A respondents said they were either very satisfied (61%) or satisfied (28%) with his performance so far. That was also the survey’s highest ‘very satisfied’ rating.

Affordable housing the top issue in Areas A and B. In Area C, it was protecting the Regional Growth Strategy

Electoral Area B Director Arzeena Hamir was close behind Arbour with a 65 percent approval rating from respondents, including a 58 percent approval rating in the top ‘very satisfied’ level.

Respondents from electoral areas A and B also said they were satisfied with the work of the Comox Valley Regional District board of directors.

But veteran electoral director Edwin Grieve didn’t fare as well. Fifty-seven percent of electoral area C respondents said they were dissatisfied with his performance at mid-term, including 30 percent who said they were very dissatisfied.

Despite Grieve’s low approval rating, the survey found that Area C respondents were still mostly satisfied with the regional board as a whole, although their satisfaction level (38%) was the lowest of the three electoral areas. Also, the number of Area C respondents who gave the board a neutral rating (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) was the highest of the three rural areas.

The survey results also show that most residents in the municipalities and rural areas were ambivalent about School District 71 school board trustees as well as Island Trust representatives. With a few exceptions, most of these elected officials’ received the neutral rating of neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

A neutral rating usually indicates the survey respondent doesn’t have enough information to form a strong positive or negative impression or that they are indifferent to, in this case, the school board and Island Trust issues.

Denman Island’s Laura Busheikin received the strongest satisfaction rating (54%) among the four Islands Trust representatives from Denman and Hornby islands. But both Busheikin and Denman’s other representative, David Critchley, received a significant number of written comments.

All four Islands Trust trustees received high neutral satisfaction ratings, probably because twice as many Area A residents live in the Royston to Fanny Bay portion of the district as on the islands. Those residents are not as likely to follow Denman and Hornby civic issues.

“Although a Hornby Islander, Daniel Arbour is doing a good job of representing both the “Big Island” and “Little Islands” parts of Area A.”

The survey also asked respondents to identify the top issues elected officials should address before voters go back to the polls on Oct. 15 of next year.

Although the list of top issues varied in each jurisdiction, areas A and B choose affordable housing as the number one issue. In Area C, the top issue was protecting the Regional Growth Strategy, quite possibly a reaction to the multi-year controversy over a large subdivision proposed by 3L Developments.

The survey was conducted over a three-week period via Survey Monkey and the results independently analyzed by community volunteers not associated with Decafnation.

Respondents could choose among five levels: very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied or dissatisfied, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied. For this story, in most instances, we have combined the top two satisfied ratings and bottom two dissatisfied ratings and refer to them as simply satisfied or dissatisfied.

Most of the 314 survey respondents included written comments to help explain their satisfaction ratings. These can be found elsewhere on the Decafnation website.

Here’s a closer look at the results for the Comox Valley Regional District Electoral Areas, school trustees and Island Trust representatives.

 

CVRD ELECTORAL AREA A

Almost two-thirds of survey respondents from Area A (61%) said they are satisfied with the regional district board. That was the highest approval rating of any local government surveyed and may be a reflection of respondents’ satisfaction with CVRD Director Daniel Arbour.

Arbour not only received the highest approval rating in the survey (89%) but he also had the lowest disapproval rating (7%) and the fewest number of indifferent respondents (4% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied).

Area A respondents’ satisfaction level with the regional district board – click to enlarge

One respondent said they were very satisfied with Arbour because, “Although a Hornby Islander, Daniel Arbour is doing a good job of representing both the “Big Island” and “Little Islands” parts of Area A.”

“He has a good media presence so I see things he is trying to do. Shares information on Facebook. Connects with locals about rural concerns and get what it’s like to live rurally,” said another respondent.

You can find all of the regional district, school trustee and Islands Trust comments here.

District 71 school board Chair Sheila McDonnell, who represents Area A, received the highest satisfaction rating (29%) of any school trustee and a low dissatisfaction rating (5%).

But survey respondents across the Comox Valley gave all of the school board trustees, including McDonnell, and the four Islands Trust representatives overwhelmingly indifferent ratings. Sixty-seven percent of Area A respondents said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with McDonnell.

Respondents said they “have no kids in school, so not an interest,” and “No idea what she’s up to.” While another respondent said, “Sheila has been very receptive to feedback and concerns about the school board processes.”

Few Area A respondents said whether they were satisfied not with the Denman and Hornby Island Trust representatives.

Denman’s Laura Busheikin topped the survey for most responses and respondents also gave her the highest satisfied rating (54%) and also the lowest indifferent rating (37%).

“Laura is by far the best Islands Trustee we’ve had in the 31 years I’ve lived on Denman Island. She’s smart, hard-working, and faultlessly ethical despite being cast, in some Islanders’ minds, as a foil to Local Trust Committee members whom they regard as “elitists,” said one respondent.

Area A respondents’ top issues – click to enlarge

Only about 20 percent of Area A respondents said they were satisfied or dissatisfied with Hornby trustees Grant Scott and Alex Allen and Denman trustee Dave Critchley. But respondents did have several conflicting comments about Critchley

“Trustee Critchley is a lawyer and performs his LTC job officiously. He tends to take a conservative position on certain issues, particularly housing which has become a hot-button again as the IT Council has decided to crack down on non-conforming dwellings and has been issuing eviction notices since last winter. These “illegal” dwellings have existed on this Island for 47 years—ever since the imposition of the Islands Trust. They exist because they are critically necessary: the AVERAGE age on Denman is 61 years old and younger workers of every sort are needed—and need places to live. Trustee Critchley has tended to support the recent crackdown on non-conforming dwellings. About 20% of our population lives in these,” said one respondent.

And when it came to the top issues Area A respondents want Arbour to address before the end of his first term, Affordable housing topped the list (66%). Next was mental health and opioid addiction issues.

 

CVRD ELECTORAL AREA B

More than twice as many Area B respondents to the survey say they are satisfied (53%) than dissatisfied (20%) with the regional district board. And 65 percent say they are satisfied with the performance of Director Arzeena Hamir. Just 13 percent said they were dissatisfied.

Area B respondents’ satisfaction level with the regional district board – click to enlarge

“Arzeena Hamir is an outstanding director. I highly respect her for her willingness to speak up and be vocal about issues she feels strongly about. She communicates professionally and thoroughly researches issues she’s addressing. She has been unafraid to speak publicly about CVEDS, and other challenges the CVRD is facing,” said one respondent.

“Have been very impressed with Director Hamir in every way. Particularly appreciated her support of Curtis Road residents in our difficulties with the Sewage Treatment plant,” said another who echoed other respondents’ comments.

The comments from Area B respondents, which can be found here, included these:

“On the whole I am pleased with how the CVRD has handled things this past term. I’m especially happy that they are putting CVEDS through their paces and bringing them to task for the years of secretive operations and inadequate service to the area as a whole,” said one.

Area B respondents’ top issues – click to enlarge

While another said, “I think that personal relationships seem to trump community greater good when it comes to decision making for Director Edwin Grieve. Very satisfied with Daniel Arbour and Arzeema Hamir.”

Survey respondents were dramatically indifferent about school board Trustee Michelle Waite. Ninety percent of Area B respondents said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, because, according to one respondent, “No idea how that is going.”

Another respondent said, “The school district does a poor job of getting its news and information to the public. Sometimes this feels intentional.”

The top issues Area B respondents want to be addressed are affordable housing and the Regional Growth Strategy. But they also noted support for the farming sector and climate change as top issues leading up to the 2022 civic elections.

 

CVRD ELECTORAL AREA C

Of the Comox Valley’s three electoral districts, Area C is the most unhappy with their regional board representation, and the least happy with the CVRD board itself.

Area C respondents’ satisfaction level with Director Edwin Grieve – click to enlarge

Area C respondents said they were decidedly dissatisfied (56%) with the performance of Director Edwin Grieve.

“Grieve appears to support the visions of CVEDS and the Exhibition Grounds Committee that are not in keeping with more sustainable, grassroots, community-based values. BIG is not necessarily beautiful. Input from local growers and the community at large should be valued and respected, not minimized or criticized. Time for him to join many of the other “old boys club” members and step aside,” said one respondent.

All of the survey’s written comments about Grieve, the regional district and their school board trustee can be read in their entirety here.

But 30 percent of Area C respondents were also satisfied with his performance.

Area C respondents’ top issues – click to enlarge

“Edwin has been between a rock and a hard place for a long time, what with 3L being in his grill for so long. Director Grieve seems to be a conciliator personality type and is not his own best advocate. I think that many times what he does is not actually understood by the electorate and the press,” according to another survey respondent.

The recently appointed school trustee for Area C, Cristi May Sacht received equally small numbers of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents and 81 percent who said they didn’t know enough about her or were indifferent to school issues.

Protecting and updating the Regional Growth Strategy is the top issue (65%) that respondents from Area C want their director to address in the last half of his term. Respondents ranked affordable housing second (52%) and then economic development and climate change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOW YOU RATED ELECTORAL AREA DIRECTORS, SCHOOL TRUSTEES AND ISLANDS TRUST REPS

Cumberland school board trustee Sarah Jane Howe’s result derives from only three respondents, two who gave her a neutral rating and one who gave a satisfied rating.

 

 

SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION

 

 

SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY AGE GROUPINGS

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More

City CAO David Allen focuses on sustainable asset management

Courtenay Chief Administration Officer David Allen was part of a small group in 2008 that developed this system for managing public assets that provides for service and financial sustainability. It is now used by almost every municipality in British Columbia.

Electoral Area A Comments

by | Feb 15, 2021

These are the written comments made by Electoral Area A residents who participated in Decafnation’s Local Government Performance Review. Comments that breached our journalistic standards have been eliminated. All other comments appear as entered into the online survey platform. Click on each image to enlarge the view.

Daniel Arbour

⇒ He seems committed to the work and is a very good speaker.

⇒ Admirable!

⇒ He has a good media presence so I see things he is trying to do. Shares information on Facebook. Connects with locals about rural concerns and get what’s it’s like to live rurally.

⇒ Has done a good job of reaching out to residents

⇒ I respect his stand with BCF although it did not really get us anywhere.

⇒ Daniel has made an effort to reach out and provide support and advocacy for a number of Denman Island community projects.

⇒ He’s accessible and sympathetic – this is great for us.

⇒ High profile, gets on with it. He is most approachable. Is sincere in what he says.

⇒ Seems smart and very involved which is great.

⇒ Although a Hornby Islander, Daniel Arbour is doing a good job of representing both the “Big Island” and “Little Islands” parts of Area A.

⇒ hard-working, clear communicator, approachable, makes things happen, engaged, ethical

⇒ Takes the area concerns seriously and is very good with keeping us informed.

⇒ He has done an exceptional job of keeping the community informed and obtaining feedback.

⇒ Good one you for speaking up! even when it makes them uncomfortable. Be the politician that speaks truth.

⇒ Who? Where is his media presence letting the public know how things are.

⇒ This guy is great! One of our very best area directors

⇒ Daniel reaches out to the community much more than our previous director. He works to keep us informed.

⇒ He’s good at communicating.

⇒ Any emails or short Meet Your Area Rep has always gone well. Daniel Arbour is a hard worker and wants to do his best.

⇒ Very approachable, helpful, accessible and informative.

⇒ Hard working director.

⇒ I appreciate that Daniel uses Facebook to communicate with constituents.

⇒ He has failed Union Bay with his Developer friendly attitude. The Developer is screwing with people’s lives.

Area A Comments on CVRD

⇒ Not familiar with enough of the issues to assess their work.

⇒ Not sure what they are responsible for, what they do.

⇒ Suggestion that the financial reports of tax funded committees on Denman Island should be more readily accessible to the residents. Thanks for the new stairs at Denman West, and other work on trails.

⇒ Other than Daniel A. , I’ve not yet had any dealings with any of them.

⇒ We Denman and Hornby Islanders used to have our own Regional District Area but have since been rolled back into Area A. Luckily Area A elected a Hornby Islander, Daniel Arbour.

⇒ Haven’t followed closely enough to offer a judgement.

⇒ Unsure of their performance, except Daniel Arbour is the only one I’ve followed, and he has a good lick of practicality and seems quite “real” about whats going on. Appreciate his efforts and hope he keeps speaking truth to power.

⇒ Have not heard anything from any one in the district during Covid.

⇒ Too much favourism among the Directors

⇒ They seem to be doing an okay job.

⇒ We have one person looking after CVRD A which encompasses a large area with a diverse population. I hope most of the residents are reasonable people and approach their elected official respectfully. I know some things take long to progress but we also need to remember it’s different levels of government who may have more power in doing things.

⇒ We’ll see as time goes on, Union Bay is in transition.

⇒ So far so good, from what I’ve been able to glean from Decafnation and Daniel’s Facebook page.

⇒ What do they do for Union Bay?

Area A Issues

⇒ Taxes on the Valley’s highest emitters could be redirected to support local decarbonization strategies. Anyone in the Valley driving an F350, towing a boat, and driving quads and Skidoos should pay steel registration fees. The collected revenue put into active transport infrastructure etc.

⇒ The Comox Valley is doing a great job at pushing the hard-working people in low-income jobs out. If you don’t deal with the disgusting rent and housing costs you will have no service people left.

⇒ Internet access: high speed (>25 Mbs), equally accessible and affordable.

⇒ Just get stuff done in a timely manner.

⇒ Never mind relations with first nations. And low-income housing ?? What spend the money and time on infrastructure that benefits the island. And make the complaint system disappear, please. Turning people against each other. Clean up the trailer, buses and shacks. Islands trust doesn’t fund low-income housing. The low-income housing application have both been on lands that have a better use. Alr and forestry. Application NEEDS to be on residential lands.

⇒ Please pay attention to the upcoming census as Denman is changing rapidly and this will reflect in needs of the Islanders.

⇒ Consistent application of bylaws to ensure the quality of life for all.

⇒ COVID recovery and response

⇒ Thanks for making this available. Thanks for asking.

⇒ Affordable housing is by far the biggest issue on Denman Island, especially since the ITC has decided to impose a crackdown on non-conforming dwellings that have existed here for nearly 50 years. The Regional District has jurisdiction over building permits, inspections, etc, but delegate this to the LTC even though the Island is not a municipality (which are customarily delegated such jurisdiction). The problem is, the LTC does not provide building inspection (the province provides septic and electrical inspection only) —I suppose as a sop to residents who objected to the imposition of the Islands Trust in 1974; as a result, non-conforming dwellings (and a large proportion of conforming ones) are substandard, potentially unhealthy and unsafe despite the BC Building Code being in effect on every square inch of the province. However, we need to house workers employed at the various businesses here or who provide many services our generally geriatric population needs. This issue is becoming extremely contentious as the new bylaw enforcement officer has been handing out eviction notices with zeal unlike we’ve ever seen before. The new Bylaw Enforcement Notification system is an attempt to insulate the IT from court costs —that is, it deprives —or claims to, at least—residents’ of their day in court to settle bylaw disputes (the BEN system apparently substitutes for a number of failed attempts to implement a municipal-style ticketing system which, because the ITC is not responsible to is electors, is unconstitutional—beyond the IT’s jurisdiction in the same way the IT may not levy taxes, requiring the CVRD to do it in its stead as per the English Bill of Rights 1688/89, its derivatives in Common Law enshrined in the British North America Act 1867 and, now, the Constitution Act 1982). Many residents feel the BEN system is unfair and imprudent, if not unconstitutional. Naturally, the IT is precisely that: a trusteeship like any other, meaning its Trustees represent the special mandate of Islands Trust Act to residents—residents are not represented to the IT. In other words, our two elected Trustees (the ITC chair is a Trustee elected by residents of Bowen Island) are responsible to the narrow mandate of the IT Act only, not to their electors. Thus, because the LTC has sole authority over land-use zoning, we Islanders have few democratic tools to solve the severe housing shortage here—even though, ironically, we have four jurisdictions to which we elect officials whereas most BC citizens have only two or three. This mounting problem is not the fault of any elected representatives but, rather, of conflict between the IT mandate and residents who also elect representatives to responsible governments which cannot respond to their electors because of the restrictive IT mandate. It is a systems problem that has been assiduously ignored since 1974–which is why non-conforming dwellings are so common here, a sort of detente because almost everybody either knows someone who lives in such a dwelling, lives in one themselves, or provides such for someone: if anybody makes an official (anonymous) complaint, it risks a storm of tit-for-tat retaliation, suspicion and unneighbourliness that would affect nearly everyone here. Apparently, the IT Council (which is not elected by residents) is willing to take that risk—at the expense of humanity, peace, happiness, neighbourliness and prosperity on our Island. The position of Islands Trustee on Denman Island (and, presumably, on other Islands in Trust too) is therefore fraught with difficulty and, often, rancour. That’s why many residents here vote for and are thankful to have an energetic Trustee in Laura Busheikin who works tirelessly with the utmost integrity to find compromises within this strange, restrictive kind of jurisdictional conundrum that is not responding to an urgent problem: the lack of affordable housing. This could be solved if secondary dwellings were generally permitted on all properties (save ALR, about 50% of our Island, which has its own restrictions in this regard that trump the IT)—a possibility only Trustee Busheikin has shown any interest in. This issue is getting very, very hot here. It hasn’t been a healthy situation for a long time but looks to get even less so if something isn’t done soon about how we residents are represented to responsible governments. We already have affordable housing, such as it is, we just need it to be legal, healthy and safe.

⇒ Climate change, sustainable economics, and affordable housing are at the top of my political agenda, but I don’t think local and regional representatives have the power to deal meaningfully with them. They all urgently require fast, decisive provincial, national, and international action.

⇒ Provide the needs of the citizens at a reasonable cost. Don’t waste money on pet projects. Unless infrastructure is addressed, that includes ferries and bridges, we do not need more growth.

⇒ Policing in rural areas

⇒ People are suffering, it is getting worse, and those of us who are trying to help by housing (illegally) those who lack housing are now being targeted by bylaw enforcement. We will have a tent city in no time if something doesn’t happen now.

⇒ Fix the problems. We need to repave roads, more help for mental health persons, we need to keep our green spaces and stick to the growth plan. Stop big developers from tearing down and destroying green space. Upgrade the run-down areas and increase density in pockets rather than urban sprawl that only helps the realtors and developers.

⇒ All of the above. I would like to see some more concrete action with the people who seem to need to heat their homes with wet wood. Dry wood is still bad for everyone regardless. The burning in the back yards is awful and spreads the smoke all over the neighbourhood. I know there is a committee/forum on it and incentives to switch to alternatives. Tougher laws are needed. Help those of us who have difficulty breathing and everyone else whose health is impacted whether they know it or not.

⇒ What about COVID?

⇒ Oh man, I wanted to tick everything. The global climate crisis is having a knock-on effect on so many other variables … We really need to be thoughtful about our growth strategy. The Weekender Effect has taken hold and it’s a crying shame. I keep saying that the barometer I use is how “dog friendly” our communities are. Can’t believe someone asked me to leash my dog when we were walking up Forbidden the other week – man oh man, it wasn’t so long ago that you could go up Becher with your pack of dogs, and not see a single other party on the trail. We have to be very mindful of the culture we develop as Vancouver moves in.