Welcome to the Nanaimo Visitor Boycott website

Nanaimo – An Un-healthy Community

by Rory Rickwood, Recipient of the Nanaimo's Volunteer Stewardship Award (2001)

It is clear that there are many significant and sometime intractable issues facing the residents of Nanaimo. As a community that seems to be in constant crisis, Nanaimo is reflected well in its street map where it shows a history of haphazard development and an urban design that has allowed unsightly sprawl through thoughtless spot rezoning. While it is possible to point to many wonderful community assets, there has been a real failure by Nanaimo City Council to correct a civic planning process and management culture that is deeply flawed, to apply best management practices, and to support the principles of a healthy community.

This critique explores the root causes that make Nanaimo an un-healthy community. And more importantly, presents ideas on how we can achieve a healthier community. This essay is based on the community experiences of the stewardship group, Friends of the Cat stream as they demanded procedural fairness and principled decision making during the land-use planning and subsequent development at the Nanaimo’s Third Street Property, which is home to Jingle Pot Marsh and a government established Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI). It is hoped that useful lessons can be learned from this critique and that Nanaimoites will become proactive in helping our community to become healthier.

What “Is” a healthy community?

The World Health Organization has defined healthy communities as "communities that are continually creating and improving those physical and social environments and expanding those community resources which enable people to mutually support each other in performing all the functions of life and in developing to their maximum potential."

Based on the above definition, we can likely see that a healthy community is one that is always moving toward “equilibration”, in which there is a state of balance in municipal and community functioning. Reaching equilibration in a healthy community would likely see everyone actively following the principles of mutual respect, fair play, and effective conflict resolution by actively advancing a civic structure that promotes municipal transparency, the well being of people, a supportive community, and a stable ecosystem.

Based on the above definitions and personal observations, I have learned that the underlying cause that makes Nanaimo an “unhealthy” community is activities of Nanaimo’s Old-boys Club. Symptoms or indicators become clearer when our community is in a land-use development process. The core of Nanaimo problems can be better understood by reviewing the outcomes of what makes it unhealthy. Consider the following:

The influence of Nanaimo’s Old-boys' Club

When saying there’s an influential Old-boys Club in a Nanaimo, I’m not referring to a men’s social club, but a group of people operating under code of behaviour that ensures local power and control over important community issues. This involves active members of our community who are motivated to work together for either personal gain, to help someone move into a position of power, to do favours, or to influence others to comply with deals by fostering their patriarchal view of what they see as best for the community. Membership into this club is as simple as being accepted by the club’s peers, and having similar interests generally aligned with meeting the needs of those active in urban development. It is their basic believe that big development leads to community prosperity, and that it is acceptable to drag concerned residents, kicking and screaming into their vision of a prosperous future.

Usually an Old-boys Club operates as a loose network with an axis of influential people at
the helm. Its membership and vast network operates to influence, and their word travels fast. People with community status, in positions of power, and politicians usually have immediate membership because of their status and capabilities. The game of influencing involves closed door “deal” making, cronyism, cultivating local media reporters as allies, pressuring non-members or groups for support, safeguarding special interests of developers, and hiding or distorting what they are really doing and the consequences of their behind-the-scene decisions. There is a political approach instead of a principled approach to issues. This results in an community planning process that appears to be open but is very much closed, and creates an overall culture of how and who to go to in the community to get things done. Many formal groups can form to receive municipal funds, but accountability is thrown out the window because it is usually a small number people oversee the disbursement of those funds. As this becomes engrained in the community consciousness, the community can develop a wilful blindness to injustices and un-principled decision-making.

For the most part, an Old-boys Club requires several members who have political influence. This becomes dynastic because the Old Boys’ recruitment starts soon after our municipal election is over and when long-term politicians and bureaucrats start the training process for new council members. That means the new recruits who are getting a pat on the back accept the concept of compliance, backroom deal making, and the engineering of public consent. These new recruits are likely introduced to pre-council meetings (non-public) designed to deal with proper in-camera items, but can likely discuss non-in-camera items in order to air views and to set the approach when dealing with the public portion of municipal council business. This has the effect of curtailing debate or generating less candid debate because it was already done in-camera. It is likely a politician with loads of integrity, who asks the hard questions, who shuns the Old Boys’ way of doing business will be chastised, snubbed, or demoted. In this context the definition of a “gaffe” is a politician who tells the truth.

Old-boys are usually more assertive behind the scenes than in the general public, therefore creating a disproportionate influence over municipal decision-making. A community’s economic policy can be constantly manipulated from behind closed doors with the public being denied essential information. Some have seen the system of Old-Boys behaviour operating more like a developer/politician cabal. It is they who call-the-shots in a secret Nanaimo. This culture of doing things can also influence the community’s civic managers to develop a fiefdom attitude to their own decision-making and fosters in our civic politicians an attitude that they have some kind of providence to manage any community development while ignoring healthy community checks and balances. The down side of these attitudes is the weakening of civic administrative due diligence; and, long-term municipal managers and politicians may become disconnected from the provisions of their Official Community Plan.

When Old-boys have enough power they can influence the media to have a slavish loyalty to their interests and goals. If they can get an editor under their wings, they can ensure there will be sanitized versions of news stories, suppressed stories or outright censorship. The outcome is a public that does not have essential information to make informed decisions or to get angry over an important issue. Instead of fair and balanced reporting, the media develop a minion-like behaviour as gatekeepers of information and will manipulate public opinion in a direction that is favourable to the Old-boys’ position. They act to defuse public controversy by stimulating discussion on issues of secondary importance, which give the public the illusion that they are participating in the decision-making process.

Compromised Public Hearings and the Engineering of Public Consent

Our community has seen many of sad examples of compromised public hearings and poor land-use decisions and over the years. Many local residents could share some interesting stories. One big example was the attempt to build baseball fields on Malaspina University-College property. However they used Malaspina’s heavy equipment program to carve fields out of a thin aquifer. This resulted in the aquifer being punctured causing a release of deleterious substance (sediment) into the Cat Stream, which had a harmful effect on the environment and the small Coho fry living in stream. Malaspina pleading guilty in Provincial Court and was fined. The partners for the field construction (the Nanaimo Minor Baseball Association, the Rotary Club of Nanaimo North, and Malaspina University) were told they could not construct their fields at that campus location. So the partners’ eyes focused across the street toward the open lands of Jingle Pot Marsh.

It became an imperative to purchase the Third Street property at 1651 Jingle Pot Road and after a strong lobby the City of Nanaimo acquired the property from the BC Assets and Land Corporation in September of 2000. Complicating the purchase of the Third Street Property was that it contained 39 acres of critical wetland and fish habitat, known as Jingle Pot Marsh. Also within the property is a government registered Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI), one of Canada’s highest densities of migratory Virginia Rails, and that any development in a transition zones between aquatic and upland habitats is environmentally problematic because of its hydrological regime. For the developers to address this complication, we see the planning and engineering of public consent unfold.

The development of the City’s Third Street property is well documented by the Friends of the Cat Stream. In order to get into the Jingle Pot Marsh area, the Nanaimo Minor Baseball Association had to give up on a wonderful vision for a single-use, 9-field complex with an active baseball school. The City previously studied the viability of the Third Street property by commissioning JC Lee and Associates in 1997 to conduct an environmental assessment for possible recreational use. The JC Lee and Associates report identified many environmental issues and specifically stated, “the greatest concerns with playfield development adjacent to the wetlands are noise and the effects of night lighting” on wildlife.

Up until 1999, the Third Street property was rightly identified as future parkland and not for active recreational use because of its environmental sensitivity. The question for the developers was “how do we get past that environmental stuff?” The answer was to form a Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee. On July 26, 2000 the Parks Recreation and Culture Commission formally started the process for a steering committee to start in the fall with the following terms of reference:

1. The steering committee will develop a detailed park plan to address the long-term
use and development of the lands and present recommendations to the Commission;

2. The steering committee will provide the background information and local knowledge to insure that all aspects in developing the plan are addressed;

3. The steering committee will develop recommendations through consensus, if it is not achieved, staff will forward options to the Commission.

The Friends of the Cat Stream are connected to the Third Street property through their activities and group’s mission: “to restore, preserve, and promote the environmental health
of the Cat Stream and its watershed (Jingle Pot Marsh); and through our stewardship we will ensure a pristine habitat for fish, wildlife, and future generations.” After a favourable recommendation from the City’s Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE), the Friends of the Cat Stream were recommended to have a representative on Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee. However the answer was a resounding “No”, and instead the parks manager decided to double up the representation from the Nanaimo Minor Baseball Association (Mr. Greg Entwistle and Mr. Brian Chatwin).

An obvious effort by the City to engineer their desired outcomes was questioned on Nov. 7, 2000 in the Nanaimo Daily News, when Editor Peter Godfrey wrote an editorial that stated:

“Something smells fishing and it’s not the Cat Stream. Nanaimo Minor Baseball is pushing for the development of ball diamonds in the newly acquired jingle Pot Marsh. The marsh is a nursery for salmon and the Cat Stream is a designated salmon stream. A special steering committee set up to develop a park plan for the marsh has two members from the Nanaimo Minor Baseball, yet turned down a request from the Friends of the Cat Stream for representation. It appears the little group is rather heavily stacked in favour of finding for the ball diamonds.”

In a healthy community, groups like the Nanaimo Minor Baseball Association and the Nanaimo Rotary Club (North) would have ethically stood up to challenge the staking-the-deck on the steering committee because it was not fair or representative nor created a level playing field for receiving “local knowledge” from a group with a mission for the area. In an unhealthy way, those groups remained silent and complicit to the committee’s unfair makeup. It is even more ethically important for the minor baseball association because they have a role to teach our children about fair play and good citizenship.

The first meeting of the Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee was held on Oct. 2, 2000 with the mandate to recommend a detailed park planed and to address the long-term use and development of the marsh area. If Friends of the Cat Stream could not serve on an important steering committee, then we had to be effective in our stewardship role. We use the booklet, “Stream Stewardship – A Guide for Planners and Developers” (federal/provincial publication), which guides us in our community stewardship role as an “Environmental Watchdog” with responsibilities to inform and influence. Over the next few months we viewed the steering committees activities from the outside and began to research good science and how to best mitigate the impact of the field development on the environment.

To assist the steering committee, the Friends of the Cat Stream contacted Dr. Courtney Conway, foremost expert on the Virginia rail and author of Birds of North America. After reviewing diagrams of Jingle Pot Marsh, we received the following sound science from Dr. Conway’s for the creation of a natural buffer to allow Virginia Rails to have a safe home range to forage from waters edge: “If you use the 2.41 ha winter home range (perhaps more appropriate for your situation), a circular home range of 2.41 ha would have a radius of about 80m and a diameter of about 160m.” We received this information on January 11, 2001 and quickly presented to the parks manager for the steering committee’s consideration because it would reduce the size of the footprint for the development – supporting only four sports fields instead of six. Using an expert’s advice that an 80-metre watercourse setback was necessary because it provides contiguous natural corridor for Virginia rails, we felt it was the correct environmentally action to take. Instead, the parks manager curtly informed us that the 30-metre watercourse setback has been set and it was not going to change.

Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee sponsored a community seminar on February 15, 2001 to receive community input. During the seminar the park manager presented a draft report through a power-point presentation. Then the meeting went to pot. Irate steering committee members stood up and vocalized that the draft report prepared by staff included elements that did not reflect the Committee’s views. Evidence of behind-the-scene political lobbying made its way into the draft report (e.g., the arena) that was not discussed by the steering committee. Many pointed out the steering committees mandate was to consider playing fields and how to protect the environment. This event led to a division between the park manager and the committee – and a request that there be no longer be any direct City staff participation. The parks commission agreed and the steering committee model was revised.

The re-structured steering committee with the same committee members held their first meeting on April 3, 2001 with Chair J. Whiteaker outlining the ground rules. The minutes of the meeting shows that all committee members agreed that the rules were good and that they would follow them, and that they would develop “a consensus recommendation so as to aid the Commission and Council in the decision-making process for the Third Street Property; Definition of consensus: General agreement in opinion; For example, ‘I can live with that’.”

When the Chair surveying the 9 committee members that were present, 6 stated they were “committed to habitat”, while 2 (Mr. Greg Entwistle and Mr. Brian Chatwin) stated “supports habitat”. When surveying their opinions on constructing a facility on the property, 6 committee members clearly “objects to facility” while one said he could “support facility” (Jack Little), and Mr. Entwistle and Mr. Chatwin said, “no objection to facility”.

The April 3, 2001 Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee meeting discussions also explored the issue that pro-fielders and naturalists have different interpretation of an appropriate footprint for the fields. Minutes show that no one brought up the concern from the Friends of the Cat Stream that they had good science that shows an 80m leave strip was needed to protect wintering Virginia Rails or that environmental consultant JC Lee and Associates had great concerns about putting noisy playfields next to the wetlands. That meeting did go on to pass the following motions:

Motion 03 – Moved by Guy Monty and seconded by Commissioner Burden that if an environmental impact study allows for development of ballfields in the western, developable portion of the property, the fields should be single use (with no us from October 1 to February 29) – the Motion Carried unanimously; and,

Motion 04 – Moved by Jack Little and seconded by Brian Chatwin that in relation to the M.C. Wright map (December 2000), that a 75 metre X 50 metre facility be designated for the southeast development area. – the Motion was Defeated.

The new steering committee met again on April 17, 2001, and after strong lobbying and a great deal of discussion, a compromise was reached that nothing larger than a small field house to meet the reasonable needs of minor baseball should be developed. It was moved by Guy Monty and seconded by Jim Whiteaker “that no building of greater stature than what has been described by Nanaimo Minor Baseball for a field house be developed on this site.” Everyone supported the motion except for Brian Chatwin, Greg Entwistle, and Jack Little. It was further agree that the committee would give a written explanation and environmental warning regarding the environmental impact of an active field house when drafting the recommendation.

On April 19, 2001, the Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee submitted their report the Parks, Recreation & Culture Commission, with Chair Whiteaker writing:
“The nine recommendations in the report accurately reflect the research, interests and concerns of the stakeholders represented by the Committee members. These recommendations are the fruits of considerable dialogue and negotiations which has occurred over the last six months leading to a number of fundamental agreements.”

The following are excerpts of some of the steering committee’s recommendations:

“Recommendation 03 – If an environmental impact study allows for the development of ballfields in the western, developable portion of the property, the fields should be single use (with no ‘organized’ use from October 1 to February 29)”. (Note: the area they are
referring to is where the present Mariners Field is located.)

“Recommendation 05 – The Steering Committee suggests that the Commission reconsider their position of multi-use fields and not include them on this site. The Committee believe that ‘multi-use’ invites a volume of year round use that is not consistent with the City’s expressed intention to preserve wildlife habitat.

“Single use fields are recommended over multi-use fields because summer time use will have less overall impact on the environment and will especially leave the area relatively undisturbed during the winter months, which is the most sensitive time for wildlife on this property.

“Recommendation 08 – No building of greater stature than what ha been described by Nanaimo Minor Baseball for a ‘field house’ should be developed on this site. Exclusion of ‘public facilities’ is recommended because of the immediate and long-term disruption to this sensitive environment associated with both construction and continuous operation. Not only does the physical impact of a building and parking lot go against the overall intention to preserve habitat, but also year-round use of such facilities introduces a level of density to the property that would most certainly have a lasting and irreversibly negative impact on the sensitive wildlife habitat environment. It is not so much that the actual ground where a facility has been proposed is particularly sensitive. It is that using this relatively small area for high-density activity is certain to have an adverse spill over effect on existing wildlife in the rest of the property.

“The Steering Committee appreciates that if and when additional public facilities are required in the City of Nanaimo, the exclusion of this property for such a facility may require that the City purchase some other property for those purposes. However the Steering Committee feels that it is in the long-term best interest of the entire community to proactively protect this property from direct exposure to the high-density active associated with a public facility.

“Recommendation 09 – It is the strong opinion of the Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee that due to the extreme environmental sensitivity of this property, which is known to be a rearing area for Coho Salmon and Cutthroat Trout, and is perhaps the most significant habitat in Canada for wintering Virginia Rails, any development should be approached conservatively, undertaken with utmost care, and managed to ensure minimal long-term impact from use.

“Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee recommends that the Commission and City Council endorse the work of the Committee by accepting this Report.”

It was reported in the local media that City staff didn’t agree with the recommendations. The City of Nanaimo development process required that the proposed Third Street development had to proceed to a public meeting. That public meeting was held at John Barsby Community School on May 17, 2001. The Friends of the Cat Steam were told no signage would be allowed in the meeting and that they could only speak for 3 minutes at the microphone. The meeting started with the baseball association rolling out a large pro-field banner and their NMBA President was first to the microphone and was allowed to speak for 10 minutes while others were restricted to 3 minutes. City officials allowed the skewing of the rules to favour the pro-development stance. Many local stewards call the City’s approval processes a sham and that the city was trying to manipulate public debate in a chosen direction. But far worse was the behaviour the baseball association modeled their behaviour before the kids that were present – it is ok to break the rules and not to play fair. This event was mentioned in the Harbour City Star on June 9, 2001, when columnist Nick Kelly’s wrote, “Accounts of the May 17 meeting regarding the proposed baseball fields on the property between Second and Third streets indicate an unprofessional proceeding verging on farce.”

The public doesn’t know how many back-room discussion happened over the next 4 weeks, but a serious of amendments to the 9 recommendations of the Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee were developed behind closed doors.

On Monday June 18, 2001 City Council received the Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee report and proceeded to amend it to reflect the wishes of the developer. A “Third Street Land Use Plan” was adopted by motion minus important community-develop provisions for protecting the environment. Steering Committee Recommendation 3 was re-written to permit year round use of sports fields (gone was closing down the fields from October 1 to February 29 of each year). Gone were Recommendation 5 (need for single use fields) and Recommendation 8 (only a single-use small field house should be built). It is important to note that Malaspina University-College was always in the wings and signed a field use agreement with the City to use the fields in the Fall and Winter, and the field house has now evolved into a public facility with a concession and offices for Nanaimo’s Rotary Clubs. Local environmental stewards’ cried “fowl”, and the minor baseball association did not object to the unfair changes the land use principles they helped create. A good question to ask is which stakeholders conducted behind-the-scenes lobbying to get what they wanted?

The thwarting of the Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee’s valid recommendations was wrong. The City of Nanaimo development process was not transparent enough for the public to know that the Land Use Plan set of principles would later be ignored because they are not legally binding (unless passed as a bylaw). A number of development outcomes vary greatly from the principles outlined in the Land Use Plan. It has been a concern that when community-designed principles are not used to guide decision-making, then it follows that Nanaimo City Council is involved in un-principled decision-making.

Un-principled Decision Making

As outlined above, the engineering of public consent for a development involves an established civic process, but inherent in the Nanaimo process is ample opportunity for the developer to thwart the will of the community. I believe the decision to accept behind the scenes lobbying to change the Third Street Property Master Plan Steering Committee recommendations was un-principled. A better examination of this issue is to review Nanaimo’s Land Use Plan (LUP) process.

On the surface, the Nanaimo Land Use Plan establishes a set of community-based principles that should guide the developer during the development phase. However, I feel Nanaimo’s use of LUPs and its principle is just a convenient tool to appease concerned citizens when a LUP is being developed. It turns out that when a LUP is not adopted as a bylaw, it is not binding on the developer, council or city staff. It is not Nanaimo City Council’s practice to pass LUPs as bylaws. This can result in development outcomes that widely vary from what is shown in a LUP, and can lead to un-principled decision-making. The following anecdotes from the Friends of the Cat Stream can show this.

As volunteer stewards for the Jingle Pot Marsh area and Cat Stream, we were dismayed when the Parks, Recreation and Culture Department condoned the activity of a fishery technician consultant planting over 600 fir trees in the Marsh to create, what the technician called, “Fairview Forest”. As stewards for the area, we were not consulted regarding the tree planning. There were two major problems with this activity, with one being the conversion of marsh habitat to forest habitat. We witnessed fir trees being planted right up to the edge of Hank’s pond and within 15 metres of the leave strip to bodies of water. This activity was in direct contravention of the LUP Principle No. 6, which clearly stated the protected area is “the most significant habitat in Canada for wintering Virginia Rails, any development should be approached conservatively, undertaking with utmost care and managed to ensure minimal long-term impact from use”. There was a lack of “care” because growing fir trees changes marsh habitat, food sources, and would have a long-term impact on the Virginia rails.

The other major problem about planting anything in the marsh was the principle in LUP No. 8, which states, “the habitat areas of the Third Street property should be left as is (with no improvements or enhancements of any type) after the required mitigation and development”. That principle was further acknowledged when parks director Tom Hickey informed us in writing that the final report of Ursus Environmental (Consultant, Joe Materi), was important for determining proper enhancements because, “the study was to determine how to best preserve and, if possible, enhance the habitat of the two natural areas for the Virginia Rail”. It was also explained to us that a vegetation plan was going to be developed that would support the habitat needs of the Virginia rails. Joe Materi was contracted by the City to develop a vegetation plan, so why was the City condoning inappropriate planting?

The contravention of the Land Use Plan principles and harmful planting of fir trees in the preserved areas for the Virginia rails was so important that I addressed the February 22, 2006 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission. I reported our concerns about the planting of fir trees before a city commissioned study to determine what should be planted in the area to support the Virginia rails. The Parks Manager, Richard Harding responded at the meeting to inform the commissioners that he saw nothing wrong with planting the fir trees and that there are many views out there on what should be planted there. I expressed that we need to listen to a bird biologist (Ursus Environmental) and not a fisheries technician. The Commissioners choose not to address the issue I raised and the Chair, Larry McNabb in a dismissive manner closed the discussion on the topic. I believe it was an unprincipled decision for the Commission to decide not to stop the fir tree plantings.

Local environmental stewards were incensed by the Commission’s inaction, and it was exactly at this point, I came to belief that Nanaimo was an unhealthy community because of a series of unprincipled decision-making and wilful blindness to the provisions of a Land Use Plan (LUP) that I later express a personal view that visitors should boycott an unhealthy Nanaimo to the media, which surprisingly became a front-page story in the Nanaimo Daily News. When Joe Materi released his vegetation plan to support the Virginia rail, it recommended a long list of marsh flora, which excluded fir trees that the City allowed to be planted.

The LUP had an attached drawing that showed a small trail system that would allow the public to quietly enter the marsh area to view nature. Our stewardship group, the Third Street steering committee, and the public agreed to a 1.5 meter raised boardwalk during the community engagement process to develop the LUP for the Third Street Property. In the LUP drawing, a raised wooden boardwalk is shown to run between the East and South Marsh, through the protected area for the Virginia rails, and across a government registered Sensitive Ecosystem inventory (copy of the drawing is below). A nature corridor exists between East and South Marsh, so a raised boardwalk is a design that allows marsh critters to travel between the marshes by going under the raised boardwalk, especially when mating calls encourage the movement of many animals during spring time.

However, the City of Nanaimo made the unprincipled decision to put in a 3-meter wide asphalt trail across the marsh from 2nd Street and connect it to the Trans Canada Trail Pavilion on 3rd Street. It is my belief that when Nanaimo City Council adopted the Third Street Property Land Use Plan it obligated city staff to follow the plan. However, other interests thwarted the LUP provisions and to this day still contravene the city council LUP motion adoption because council did not amend their LUP motion to allow an asphalt trail to replace a boardwalk. An asphalt trail inhibits or puts marsh animals in harms way when crossing trail designed for high human traffic. One of Canada’s top scientist said using asphalt in Nanaimo marsh trail is a “travesty” because asphalt can leach harmful chemicals directly into the wetland habitat we are trying to protect. It is clear that putting a 3m wide asphalt trail across the area is equivalent to putting a four-lane highway across it. So much for the LUP’s promise that the City would approach this development conservatively and undertaken with utmost care.

Another environmental impact was the City installing a page-wire fence that flanked the asphalt trail, even after Joe Materi put in his environmental report that fencing could contribute to the death of Virginia rails. As stewards for the area, we were not consulted regarding the monster asphalt trail and harmful fencing. Placing asphalt across a marsh and Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory ignored government guidelines that encourage municipalities not to do such developments.

The alarming disconnect to the LUP and failure to follow government guidelines created a controversy that embarrassed the City of Nanaimo because our local story was published in the Globe & Mail and the Times-Colonist newspapers. Local stewards send an environmental petition to the Auditor General of Canada. Even federal Environment Minister John Baird waded into the Nanaimo environmental controversy stating: “The existing paved trail through the wetland poses a potential risk to wildlife and may impede movement of wildlife, including species at risk” and further wrote, “fencing may impede movement of the low-flying Virginia Rail. Environment Canada would have preferred that there be no fencing.”

Acts of Diminishment and Isolation

Acts of Diminishment can best be defined as setting limits as to what people can do, the devaluing of people/groups, isolation, mean spiritedness, neglect, poor communication, confusion, and community powerlessness. Does this sound familiar here in Nanaimo?

Just look at the treatment of community-based groups that happen to confront the City over development issues. The Friends of Heritage Trees group was very active in our City about nine years ago. They took a strong stand and opposed to the chopping down of huge Black Locus trees along Third Street when the City and Ministry of highways were widening 3rd street. It is not that a group stops functioning when they loose a battle, but it is how they are treated in a community process that has negative results for our whole community. It is not surprising the where Heritage Trees group stopped functioning. Nanaimo seems to lack a meaningful supportive and collaborative climate for community groups to function healthily. The Nanaimo Naturalists were very passionate about giving input into the Jingle Pot Marsh development issue. They too seem to be on the verge of winding-up. I believe acts of diminishment also serve as a community-group buster.

Another sad example of diminishment occurred during the swearing in of the 23rd City Council (2005). It was no secret that re-elected Nanaimo City Councillor; Loyd Sherry was prone to ask tough questions and was opposed to the non-transparent elements of the New Nanaimo Centre development. To the consternation of many local residents, Mr. Sherry was unceremoniously dumped from the regional board, which he served on for over a decade – he said in the media that it was like being, “kicked in the groin”. On this issue, the Nanaimo News Bulletin editorial astutely wrote, “A good city council needs naysayers. They are the people who ask the tough questions, who force a council to be accountable for its decisions”.

There have been many negative consequences as a result to the Nanaimo City Council decisions, even to the point a frustrated community member aptly wrote in a letter to the editor: “It is time methods change at city hall and the democracy granted us is fully and forthrightly engaged by both citizens and officials.” Another Nanaimoite share his views by writing: “Such is Nanaimo – a truly pathetic developer-dominated political culture that at times is a striking insult to basic and crucial important democratic values.” Nanaimo residents are continually calling on the City of Nanaimo to be more open and transparent it all of its dealings and to change it political culture.

Un-healthy Community Interactions

A sad example of un-healthy community interactions are ones that have targeted my family because of my hard work to stop an inappropriate development next to Jingle Pot Marsh and to point out that the land-use approval process was flawed. This happened when the worst elements of the pro-field development went to visit by brother and threatened his livelihood if he didn’t get me to back off my “save bird habitat” campaign. I didn’t respond to this kind of bullying. It then advanced to the point that flyers were put in car windows saying “boycott Rickwood’s Menswear”. My brother was greatly disturbed that people would stop doing business with him if I didn’t back off my community volunteer work to protect wildlife habitat.

On July 28, 2005, Bill Merilees and I met with Malaspina University-College Executive because they announced they were now involved in expediting Phase 2 of the sports development. Phase 2 specifically overlaps into crucial wetland habitat that we are trying to safeguard from this intrusive development. Bill and I addressed the meeting in a professional and respective manner by presenting points for collaboration and agreement. I was confident that the Malaspina Executive would listen to us and foster a partnership because their mission statement says they will foster a strong community connection. I was surprised that the President chose not to respond to our written proposal, but aggressively lectured that he won’t allow Malaspina to get “slagged” in the media and warned that my actions could have serious ramifications for my family and me. Those reprehensible comments were conveyed to the Board of Governors through a formal complaint.

Fostering a Healthy Community in Nanaimo

There are other anecdotes that show Nanaimo is truly in an un-healthy state. Creating a healthy community takes leadership and legitimate leadership is built upon trust. Imagine Nanaimo having a progressive Mayor and Council focused on leading cooperative structures that allow informal groups and the local government to work effectively with a wider consortium of principled and caring people.

Since Nanaimo has major issues it begs the question, “What can we do?”

We can start by encouraging healthy interactions and change Nanaimo’s culture that tolerates the Old Boys activities and way of doing things. This means informal groups (from the well-established to informal) need to change their compliance behaviour and sever the nexus they may have with the Old Boys Club.

It is very obvious that Nanaimo does not have civic leadership that is willing to stand up to the Old-boys’ way of doing things. It should not be about power, developer interests, and control. We need to elect a higher quality of principled politicians who are committed to smart policy making. We need to know that our Mayor and Council are in control of a true community agenda.

I am encouraging our various community groups in Nanaimo to be active in creating new community-based coalitions to jointly discuss issues. I further encourage all groups to support the following draft set of principles & codes, and require our civic leaders to publicly adopt them as a sign they want a healthier community.

Based on several points from a policy brief developed by Marc Saner at the Institute on Governance (http://www.iog.ca/publications/policybrief20.pdf), I promote the consideration of following community principles and codes:

Guiding Principles to Govern:

Always operating from an “outcome-oriented code” with a value-based perspective. The fundamental feature of a value-based approach is that it provides broad guidance for decision-making by:

Serving on the City Council Team by agreeing to:

Serving as City Councillor by aspiring to:

Conclusion

We have become a community in constant crisis because of a powerful Old-boys Club and the perception that our democratic process is being constantly compromised. The activities of the Old-Boys Club will continue to undermine a community’s social systems that should support and sustain a healthy Nanaimo community.

As a growing municipality, we need our Nanaimo community to adopt sustainable practices, a meaningful official community plan, and better rules for community planning to ensure better predictability in land-use planning. We need to strengthen our community and make it more sustainable in terms of our natural environment, civic infrastructure, culture, and transparent decision-making processes. With community well being in mind, we can create a healthier community that can effectively manage its complexities and internal conflicts.

It is up to us – the Nanaimo community – to ensure our vision of a healthier Nanaimo prevails. I encourage all of us to work together to create a healthy community by rejecting the Old Boys’ system by sharing this article with a friend, by actively talking about the issues raised, communicate through letters, blogs, protest websites and challenge our elected officials to adopt the above guiding principles to govern.

If we don’t collectively shape our community, an un-healthy community will continue to shape us.

Helpful Information

See engineering of consent at:

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51961#fn047#fn047

Jingle Pot Marshhttp://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlifeactreview/feedback/5.html

(click image to view full size)

 

 

[Close This Window]