Make Shakesides a community project

by George Le Masurier | Jul 8, 2016

By voting unanimously last week to demolish Shakesides, the home of noted Canadian naturalist Hamilton Mack Laing, the Comox Town Council has failed to recognize a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build community cohesiveness.

Hamilton Mack Laing was a naturalist, photographer, writer and noted ornithologist, whose work from the Comox waterfront since 1922 earned him worldwide recognition.

Laing gave his waterfront property, his home and the cash from his estate to the Town of Comox “for the improvement and development of my home as a natural history museum.” The town accepted the money and, therefore, the terms of the trust.

Laing’s own letters, now preserved in the B.C. Archives, show that prior to his death in 1982 he held discussions with Town of Comox officials, and that he was satisfied they would follow-through on the instructions in his Last Will.

But 34 years later, the Town of Comox has done little to satisfy his last wishes and mishandled the money Laing left, raising serious ethical and legal questions. You can read about those here and here.

Those matters may ultimately be resolved in court when the town applies to change the terms of the trust, and effectively negate Laing’s last requests.

But, the ethical and legal issues aside, the Town Council should have heeded those who believe Laing’s importance and his last wishes deserve something better than yet another forgettable viewing platform.

It’s not too late to change course.

The renovation of Laing’s home into some form of a nature interpretive center, and the preservation of his legacy, is an opportunity to strengthen this community by honoring its past, and by bringing people together to rebuild and respect Laing’s legacy gift. This project would undoubtedly inspire Comox Valley people.

Community service groups, such as Rotary, look for opportunities like this to support with funding and volunteers. Many building trades have already agreed to donate their expertise and time to restoring Shakesides. Businesses would surely donate materials. Other volunteers would provide labor and raise the necessary funds.

Approached in this way, Shakesides would become a source of community pride. After all, Laing’s home is an important piece of Comox history. Without history, how do people ever acquire a sense of place, of belonging? Our First Nations people understand this better than the rest of us.

But, instead of inspiring volunteers to collaborate for the common good, the council unanimously chose to perpetuate divisiveness. It’s a discouraging lack of vision and leadership.

Faced with similar dilemmas, other communities have done far better.

A decade ago in Campbell River, for example, that City Council considered demolishing the small waterfront cottage where Sybil Andrews, one of Canada’s important artists, did some of her best work. The cottage had fallen into disrepair. It had no foundation; it sat directly on sand.

Led by the Campbell River Arts Council and the Sybil Andrews Heritage Society, citizens convinced the city to restore the cottage, which they did collaboratively.

The community project inspired the city to create a Heritage Registry (Comox does not have one), and they made the Andrews cottage its first entry.

Today, Sybil Andrews Cottage thrives as a gallery to display the works of local artists and as a site for programs of visual and performing arts. Campbell River’s museum and tourist groups promote tours of the cottage as a community attraction. You can read about it here.

Let’s urge the Comox Town Council to reconsider its options. Let’s hope they will work with the Mack Laing Heritage Society, the Comox Valley Naturalists Society and the community at large to take on a project that strengthens our community’s identity and preserves an important part of our heritage.

For more on this issue go here and here and here.

Was Shakesides’ advisory process flawed?

by George Le Masurier | Jul 8, 2016

When he died in 1982, well-known Canadian naturalist Hamilton Mack Laing left his possessions, his property and house,and his money to the Town of Comox. His Last Will specified that some of the money be used to create a natural history museum in his house and to invest the other funds.

The town has not fulfilled either of those wishes, raising serious ethical and legal questions.

Why didn’t the Town of Comox follow the terms of Hamilton Mack Laing’s trust after the naturalist’s death in 1982, and turn his Shakesides home into some type of natural history museum? Why didn’t that council immediately invest the $45,000 that Laing left for the town to fund those terms?

Has the town spent money from the trust on items that aren’t authorized by the trust’s provisions? If the town had no intention to follow the terms of the trust, why did it accept Laing’s money?

We can ask these questions of every Comox Town Council and mayor since 1982, because they have all had the opportunity to fulfill the terms of the trust.

But the current Comox Town Council hopes to convince a B.C. court to change the terms of the trust to allow the demolition of Shakesides and relieve the town from restrictions on how to use Laing’s money.

Councillors might reasonably argue they are following the recommendation of an advisory committee report that concluded, on a 3-2 vote, the house should be demolished. But two members of the advisory committee say the process was flawed, and they issued a minority report.

The minority report, signed by Angela Burns and Mark Ouellette, presents a picture of a corrupted process that did not address two of its three assigned goals. In fact, they claim the committee chair refused to allow discussions related to those terms of reference. You can read the minority report here and draw your own conclusions.

Laing would be disappointed that what he intended as a wonderful gift to a community he loved has turned into a sordid affair.

But the Town Council has created an impression that they don’t care about getting to the bottom of this story. They don’t question why the money was mishandled or how it was spent. And no councillor has fully addressed the ethical issues.

A reporter has quoted Mayor Paul Ives as saying, “That was then, this is now.” It’s a foolish statement meant to deflect any moral imperative to correct the wrong perpetrated by the Town of Comox for 34 years.

If the federal government followed this logic, Ottawa would try to ignore the land claims by Canada’s First Nations people. By accepting the money from Mack Laing’s estate, the Town of Comox accepted the terms of his trust. But, to date, the town has mostly ignored them.

It’s understandable that the town wants to move forward and bring this saga to a close. But it has a responsibility to consider all the reasonable options. You can read about one idea here, or here.

Council believes a modern interpretation of Laing’s ideas can be accomplished by returning the property to its natural state, because, they say, he was a naturalist.

It’s a silly means of justifying the demolition. If the town actually returned the land to its “natural state,” they’d rip out the bridges, walkways, signs, stairs and other human additions and let the property go wild. That’s it’s true natural state.

Vancouver author Richard Mackie lived in the Shakesides house for several months following Laing’s death. A friend of Laing’s, Mackie packaged up Laing’s drawings and writings and notes. He said the house at that time was “beautifully maintained.”

The Town of Comox, however, says Laing didn’t leave enough money to convert the house into a museum in 1982 and maintains that contention today. The town has done few, if any, repairs over the years. They say the house is in such bad shape that it’s unsuitable for public use and must be torn down.

Responding to letter from Citizen of the Year Ruth Masters in 2001, Comox financial officer Steve Ternent (at the time of the letter) wrote to administrator Helen Dale, in part, that “No natural history museum involving the house has been established to date because the house is old, inadequately powered, poorly insulated and subject to flooding in the basement. It would not be suitable for the use suggested in the will;” that is, a public use.

In Ternent’s description, the house sounds horrible and inhabitable. But that didn’t stop the town from renting the house for 31 years, right up until 2013 — another 12 years after Ternent’s description.

Or, has the town exaggerated the condition of Shakesides to make its case for demolition? A visual examination by a structural engineering firm in December of 2015 found that despite issues related to 34 years of neglect, the structure “has performed adequately to date.”

The firm concluded that, “Provided the building envelope is repaired, structural repairs completed and the loads on the building are unchanged, the building structure will continue to perform adequately in the future.”

However, it appears that the Laing Trust has funded trails, stairs and walkways, none of which Laing referenced. Now the town may use Laing’s money to modify the terms of his trust. And they’re threatening critics that any money the town spends on defending its actions will just drag the fund down further.

But isn’t that in itself a misuse of the funds?