Development Issues

Top Issues in the Upcoming Comox Valley November 19 Municipal Elections

2011-10-30T20:05:00.000-07:00

The following list of 6 issues was put together by the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy as part of their campaign to educate and advocate for effective protection and enhancement of natural systems and human quality of life in the Comox Valley. They've identified issues, why they matter, some facts, and provided questions for candidates. Take a look. Ask the people in your town who are running for Mayor, Councillor, and/or Regional Board seats where they stand. CVCS has called these "environmental" issues, but as I think you'll see, they have implications for long term financial and social sustainability as well.

There's a lot of talk about "common sense" and "cutting taxes" as the ways to deal with local government (and senior government) challenges. Don't be fooled. As this article in a recent issue of Walrus Magazine illustrates so well, by avoiding smart investments in community quality of life, we end up paying big time as tax payers and as residents, in the long term. Be smart. Ask your candidates to be smart. Vote smart!

1. Land Use

Why it matters: As land is developed, the natural balance of water ﬂow, drainage, soil type,

tree cover and wildlife habitat is altered. We must minimize the impacts on the ecosystems

and their services that support all forms of life in the Valley.

What are the facts: From 1992 to 2002, 42% of the Comox Valley's rare, sensitive areas

we re lost, reduced or fragmented. The CV Sustainability Strategy (CVSS), the Regional

Growth Strategy (RGS), and the CVCS's Nature Without Borders all urge change in the

wa y we design our communities: increased densiﬁcation, preservation of agricultural lands,

and protection of sensitive ecosystems are recommended. Though all local governments

endorse these plans, most development continues to take place on and in natural areas.

Question for Candidates: What will you do to stop and reverse the continuing loss

and fragmentation of natural areas?

2. Climate Change

Why it matters: Climate change is resulting in rapidly melting ice caps and glaciers, rising

sea levels, more severe weather events, ﬂoods, droughts, and is altering life cycles of

ma n y species of terrestrial and marine wildlife.

What are the facts: The Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy set a clear goal of a 33%

re d u ctio n in 2007 GHG emissions by 2020, as mandated by the BC government, and an

80% reduction by 2050. The majority (55%) of GHG emissions in the Valley are caused by

transportation. However, we continue to approve new developments that do not increase

housing densities to levels that would support higher public transportation usage and few

me a su re s to reduce GHG emissions have been implemented.

Question for Candidates: What will you do to reduce GHG emissions and meet

these targets?

3. Transportation

Why it matters: A low density sprawl pattern of land use that separates residential areas

from commercial and business areas, along with limited public transit requires most Valley

re sid e n ts to rely on their cars to get around. Increased automobile use increases pollution,

vehicle congestion and expensive road infrastructure costs.

Wh a t are the facts: Transportation causes 55% of GHG emissions in the Comox Valley.

Many cyclists do not feel safe commuting around the Comox Valley due to a lack of safe

bicycle routes. Many BC communities today are developing systems of walking and cycling

ro u te s. However, in the Comox Valley, few, if any, examples of pedestrian and cycling-

friendly developments exist.

Question for candidates: What will you do to reduce automobile use and develop a

system of walking and cycling routes in the Comox Valley?

4. Unfunded Infrastructure Liability

Wh y it matters: The long term costs of maintaining, upgrading and replacing existing infra-

structure (lifecycle costs) such as sewer and water lines, landﬁll sites, roads and bridges in

the Comox Valley are estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Low density

la n d use patterns and "curb and gutteC infrastructure choices increase costs and damage

wa te rsh e d health.

Wh a t are the facts: The initial cost of infrastructure is only about 20% of the lifecycle cost;

the other 80% represents a future unfunded liability that falls to the taxpayer. Infrastructure

lia b ility can be reduced and watershed health maintained during development by utilizing

green infrastructure, higher densities, and by directing new development to inﬁll areas,

wh e re existing infrastructure already exists.

Question for candidates: What is the total cost of the unfunded infrastructure liability

in your jurisdiction and how will you address this problem?

5. Monitoring/Accountability

Wh y it matters: The best strategies and plans are only effective if properly implemented.

Mo n ito rin g of the progress made toward reaching targets and goals set out in the Regional

Growth Strategy, the Sustainability Strategy and Nature Without Borders, will lead to better

transparency and increased accountability.

Wh a t are the facts: Despite the excellent directives offered in these various plans and

strategies, developments continue to be proposed and approved that do not follow these

documents. Little or no monitoring of the implementation of these plans and strategies is

done to ensure that targets and goals are achieved.

Question for candidates: What will you do to ensure the Regional Growth Strategy

and the Sustainability Strategy have effective monitoring in place to measure how

we ll they are implemented?

6. Conserving Nature

Wh y it matters: Natural systems underlie and support our communities and their economic

and social functioning. They are responsible for a wide variety of services including the

provision of clean water and air, pollination of food crops, absorption and decomposition of

wa ste , and maintenance of healthy ecosystems.

Wh a t are the facts: Local watersheds and marine ecosystems are under increasing stress

due to alteration of natural systems through development, expanding human population,

lo ss of habitat and sensitive ecological areas, and climate change.

Question for candidates: How will you work to ensure that local government land use

decisions are based on an understanding of the value of natural systems and how

they can be protected?

Vote: Comox Valley Civic Elections - Saturday, November 19, 2011

For more information, visit the CVCS website at www.CVConservationStrategy.org

An Open Letter to the Village of Cumberland re: Big Time Out 2011

2011-07-28T09:08:00.000-07:00

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I just had a bit of a shock: Cumberland Village Council recently denied The Big Time Out’s permit to hold the festival in Cumberland Village Park, the festival's home for the past seven years.

This really doesn't make sense to me. Your community is needing young people – not kids, but people aged 25-45 with families, businesses, energy, and creativity – to invest in it. I often work outside the Comox Valley, with people in this demographic. What do they know about the Comox Valley? It's the location for Big Time Out. I know people who've moved here because of their BTO experience.

Big Time Out is a huge part of Cumberland's positive image within the Comox Valley – and particularly outside of it. The young people who will be the future of Cumberland (and the Comox Valley) see it as the premier music festival of its kind in BC and Pacific Northwest. The impact of this event is significant. It attracts exactly the kind of people Cumberland (and the Comox Valley generally) need to thrive – maybe even to survive: young families, businesses, and investors.

We've got looming financial issues in the region, and Cumberland particularly. Our population is aging. We have huge infrastructure upgrades needed. Our "industrial strength" jobs have largely disappeared, and the service/retail sector is not replacing those jobs or dollars. Our region needs the kind of energy and image that Big Time Out presents to a younger generation in the outside world.

The economic stimulus that Big Time Out represents needs to be acknowledged and supported. You've got a jewel here, one that many small communities envy. I want to see it stay, because I want to see the benefits come to Cumberland, and then trickle down the mountain to the rest of us here in Comox Valley. We need them.

Please reconsider your decision to ban the festival from Cumberland Village Park. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Hans Peter Meyer

Building sustainability news channels for the 2011 civic elections

2011-01-23T22:38:00.000-08:00

“I'd like to see several of the groups I'm participating with better using …the social media universe to publish and comment on each others issues, questions, requests and initiatives. … I'm sensing that we now have the technology and the critical mass of interest…” Curtis Scoville, Black Creek and Oyster River stewardship

In a video conversation I had with Curtis Scoville, about his involvement in stewardship activities (search: curtis scoville conservation), he makes this point: even those of us who don’t or can’t get our gumboots into a stream can still play a very important role. We can use the new media tools to connect the dots about why stewardship matters beyond the stream.

I agree. But first we need the leaders in the conservation and sustainability circles to communicate as leaders. Most of us don’t understand how, for example, smarter infrastructure spending relates to cleaner water, lower taxes, and quality of life. Tell us. And use the new tools to tell us, so we can share the knowledge. Not just for the newts, but for the sake of the qualities that all of us enjoy in our communities, even if we don’t see ourselves as conservationists.

Now is the time to create the news channel that matters to you.
Not everybody has replaced the morning paper with 15-20 minutes of Facebook over coffee. But more and more of us are. We are creating and consuming our own “news channels” with media like Facebook and YouTube.

The “live feed” of posts from friends, family, and acquaintances that we get on Facebook and Twitter is a snapshot about what matters to the folks who matter to us. Sometimes it’s dumb. Sometimes it’s cute. Whatever. It’s real. It’s also by and about the people we’re close to.

Traditional media (local papers, informal networks) are still dominant ways that information is shared in most of small towns and cities. But this is changing. If you’re passionate about an issue: get familiar with the new media tools.

It’s winter, 2011: a good time to spend a few minutes a week getting familiar. Take 15 minutes Monday morning, 15 minutes Wednesday at noon, and 15 minutes at the end of the day on Friday with the medium of choice. That’s what social media consultant Sean Kerrigan suggests to clients new to new media. Every 15 minutes you invest is an integral part of developing active, local online conversations about sustainability, conservation, and quality of life.

Saturday, November 19, 2011
This is the date of civic elections in communities across BC. The day we get to pick our Mayors, Councillors, regional district Directors, and school board Trustees. Wouldn’t it be grand if:

All of us who value the qualities of clean air, water, walkable communities, green jobs – were using our new media channels to question and support candidates?
Sustainability topics were the debatable issues at leadership forums?
People were connecting perennial election issues like public safety, taxes, and the needs of an aging population to things like better urban/suburban design, public transit, proper functioning streams and wetlands?

We have the tools and the smarts to do this. But it’s up to the folks who are already the leaders in the field (and stream) to step into your roles as communicators. Take a few minutes out of your week to tell your story. Promote the good works of your colleagues – and particularly how they relate to things beyond the fish in the stream. You know this stuff. Share it with the rest of us.

Connecting to quality of life
I like the fish in the stream. But most of us don’t fish. Most of us don’t identify ourselves as “environmentalists” or “conservationists.” Many of us have little or no connection to the beautiful green places beyond our neighbourhood. Does keeping a watershed intact makes a difference to what I or my child experience in the neighbourhood? Tell me how. Does it make taxpayer sense to “daylight” a creek? Tell me why. Does it make “quality of life” sense to not build a multi-million tax dollar bridge or roadway? Tell me why.

As leaders in your neighbourhood and community, you have tremendous social capital. People respect what you do, even if we think you’re nuts for spending your weekends in the creek rather than out shopping or on the golf course – or out dancing. Connect what you’re passionate about with what you see the rest of us being passionate about. It’s rarely obvious to us. We need you to lead, and to communicate.

How to join the conversation
Wherever it’s happening, if people are talking about things like: conservation, stewardship, land use, development, quality of life … count yourself in. Then invite others into that conversation.

That means: chiming in on... letters to the editor in the local papers. Some have good online forums and comments options. Use them. Let others know when you’ve posted something – in print or electronically. We’ll do our part in sharing the message.
Find the places where people are talking online. What are they in your region? Here are some examples from my region (Comox Valley):

The Comox Valley Land Trust is on Facebook, Twitter, as a webpage with a blog, and with a YouTube channel (start at www.CVLandTrust.ca)
TideChange is a news portal for stewardship and sustainability matters (www.TideChange.ca);
the CVConservation Strategy is active on Facebook and on YouTube (start at www.CVConservationStrategy.ca);
Comox architect Tom Dishlevoy has a wealth of insight and ideas on his blog, on Facebook, and Twitter (search Tom Dishlevoy);
the “sustainability” channel at CV2050 is active as a blog, on Twitter, and on Facebook (start at www.CV2050.com).

A “get out the sustainability vote” challenge
Once you’ve figured out where you’re comfortable, and you’ve figured out how things work, start actively liking, comment - and sharinginformation and ideas that are important to you. Consider this small contribution to making a difference to the November 2011 civic election:

Commit to finding and sharing 3 pieces of local, sustainability and/or conservation-related material per week;
Share with people inside your usual sustainability / conservation circle;
Create a personal list that grows by 3 people per week outside your usual sustainability/conservation circle (your kids, parents, cousins, squash or soccer team, etc), and share with them.

By election day you will have potentially connected 100 people with new ideas and information important to all, related to the quality of life in your community.

Let’s get the sustainability vote out in our communities. Step into your already acknowledged role and reputation as a respected community leader on sustainability issues. Use the new media tools. Tell us why the streams and woods and smarter choices about growth and development matter to the quality of our lives.

Community Development as Reality TV

2011-01-06T21:10:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to both the Rossland Learning Centre Project and to the Nelson Skate Park project for making it to the finalist stage of the Aviva Community Fund Competition. Good luck in the finals.

Over the last few weeks I have received several requests a day to vote in this competition. The initial requests came from Rossland. I did start voting for the Rossland project, and then on day 2 or 3 of the semi finals, I received an email from a friend who asked for support for the skate park proposal in Nelson. While I was dealing with “do I support community education or a skate park” dilemma, another email arrived asking for support for a mobile health clinic for migrant farm workers in the lower mainland, yet another great idea. I could only vote once a day, and if I voted for the clinic, or the skate park, I couldn’t support Rossland. That realization led me to take a more careful look at all the semi-finalist projects. What a fascinating collection of community initiatives, 95 in total, all designed to help the communities they represent in some way. They were all “competing” for a total of $1,000,000. Last year that prize was split between 8 small, medium and large scale projects. Only one of those winners was in a rural community.

Volunteers for the 6th largest insurance company
I did vote a couple of more times after that, but found myself feeling very uncomfortable about it. The last time I voted, I supported a project in a small community in Nova Scotia. Based on their low vote count, they clearly needed some moral support. Then I stopped voting altogether. Why?

This competition is a clever advertising campaign funded by the 6th largest insurance company in the world. They are listed on both the New York and London stock exchanges. Last year Aviva had $95 billion in sales with $4.5 billion net.   I tried unsuccessfully to find information on Aviva executive compensation, but the industry average is about $1.2 million per year. In return for an approximate 1 in 200 chance of winning money for a community project, Aviva engages community activists in spreading the Aviva brand in the communities those activists represent, or as the web site says to “reach out to your friends, family, the media, and anyone and everyone” and ask you to go to the Aviva web site and vote daily to support their community project.    I didn’t know about Aviva Insurance prior to this competition, but Aviva is now permanently tattooed on my brain, in the “good guys” section, because after all, this is about community. With those two critical pieces in place, the final advertizing payoff in the form of a “find a broker” button is right there on the front page of the Community Fund Competition website. What a brilliant corporate marketing strategy. Both the “cost effective advertizing” and the “corporate responsibility” boxes get checked at the same time!

A competitive free-for-all
This initiative puts both communities and project ideas in competition with each other. Because there is no initial screening based on proposal quality, project type, or scale of community, stray dogs and cats get to compete against the homeless (both people and cats), playgrounds for kids, the health of migrant farm workers, youth suicide prevention, community education, ecological restoration and 500 baby songbirds; Rossland, the Township of Asphodel-Norwood and the Village of Utopia get to duke it out with Etobicoke, Surrey and North Vancouver. And, according to the Aviva web site, all of this competition will “make Canada an even better place to live!”

There were 1,725 contestants this year, with 95 making the semi final voting stage and 30 making the final “judged” competition. For each winner in this competition, assuming there will be 8 again this year, there will be 215 losers.   This is a popularity contest, at least until it gets to the final “top 30.” It is heavily biased toward urban areas and those communities that already have the resources, population and capacity to be competitors. So, homeless cats in Toronto will make it to the top 30 and a playground for kids in Hodges Cove, NL won’t. No contest really. Most of the smaller rural communities that could have used the financial help, like the Redfish School for Change in New Denver, had already fallen by the wayside before the semi finals, and those left in the competition had a very slim chance of making it to the finals. But that makes sense for Aviva. There are a lot more potential clients in urban areas.

This competition is open to all sorts of wild and wonderful ideas, and some of them in the original 1,725 did border on wacky! I must admit that I'm not overly concerned about not seeing some of them in the top 30. But most project ideas in that “loser” list are good ones, and I do wonder how many of those communities still have project momentum. I’ve talked with friends in Rossland and Nelson who believe that even if their projects don’t win in the finals, they have gained a lot of traction through this process and will continue to look for other avenues of support. I hope that has happened in other communities as well because if this competition uses up the available community goodwill and volunteer energy in a losing cause, then I'm not sure the total pain of the many is really worth the gain of the few.   I don’t see how that pain makes Canada an even better place to live.

Communities deserve better than a popularity contest
As far as I can see, this is Canadian Idol applied to community development. I stopped voting because I don’t want to participate in a program that turns great community ideas and initiatives into “losers” because they can’t win a popularity contest based on vote count. I believe communities are too important to be treated like contestants in a reality TV show, especially in the interests of Aviva corporate branding. They deserve better than that, especially the smaller rural communities that didn’t have much of a chance to begin with. They have already lost so much in the larger day to day political and economic competition.

If Aviva is truly interested in making Canada an even better place to live, they could drop the advertizing campaign and like many other socially conscious businesses, set up an arms length trust to administer these funds and to screen project proposals based on merits such as project quality, community need, or impact in the community. Many projects would still not get funding, but at least that decision would be based on their relative merits and community benefits rather than on popularity contest. That would give smaller rural communities a better chance of being successful. That approach, however, wouldn’t be nearly as effective in helping Aviva’s bottom line.

about the author:

George Penfold is a frequent contributor to development-issues.com, a long-time land use and community planning consultant, and he is currently the inaugural Regional Innovation Chair in Community Economic Development at Selkirk College in Castlegar, BC.The RIC at Selkirk College is one of several in the provinces regional post-secondary institutions. Others include the Chair in Cattle Industry Sustainability at Thompson Rivers University and the Regional Innovation Chair in Tourism and Sustainable Rural Development at Vancouver Island University. Dr. Vaugeois also posts to her Rural Tourism Development Blog, and more information about her project is available at the Tourism Research Innovation Project website.

Where is the sustainability conversation in your community?

2010-12-02T12:34:00.001-08:00

Image by SayZu (cc) hanspetermeyer.ca

by hanspetermeyer

As I write this, climate change folks are huddled together in Cancun for COP 16. A year ago it was Copenhagen. With much closeted discussion, public protest, and – eventually – disappointment. How does this high-level hoopla connect to what's happening in your region?

In the past year my community hosted a sustainability strategy, a regional growth strategy, and an ongoing conservation strategy. Are any of these being used to connect our everyday lives with bigger challenges - like the reality of climate change?

Everyday reality: getting the kids to school, public safety, more and better-paying jobs, traffic, the cost of housing. These aren't separate from the global sustainability chatter in Cancun, or the various strategies unfolding in my region. But in my town – and similar small cities and rural areas – we don't have non-partisan venues or public leadership connecting the dots.

Connecting the dots...
Most of the work I've done over the past 15+ years has been about connecting the dots in rural and small town BC. When I worked with the Real Estate Foundation of BC I was talking to, and learning from, land use practitioners across BC. They were doing good stuff on sustainability, real estate development, housing, stream stewardship, land trusts, NGO-government collaborations – and lots more. Very inspiring stuff.

The problem is that people and organizations doing inspiring stuff often aren't very good at telling their stories. So knowledge, experience, insight – and great examples – aren't being shared, aren't inspiring others. Again: a problem of connecting the dots. Housing connects to streams connects to public safety connects to climate change and long-term community quality of life. But if you're not telling your story, it's hard for others to "get" how it connects to them.

"The work" (building an emerging housing shelter, saving the woods from the axe) always seems more important than talking about it, so story-telling is hard to resource. This isn't new. "Marketing" and "communications" (what the pros call story-telling) isn't a popular place to spend money in any business, let along local government or the NGO sectors. When revenues drop, it's also one of the first things to get the axe.

Telling stories, sharing inspiration
But what is "the work?" If we're talking about sustaining a community, an organization, or a business the work is about growing through change - or closing the doors. Most of us are reluctant to close the doors on our communities. But how do we grow when resources are shrinking and challenges are expanding? We step outside our shrinking box. We engage others. We energize ourselves by engaging with the passions and commitment of others. We use the tools available to stimulate conversation and imagination – and, we change. Telling stories isn't the goal; it's part of the process of making the change that is making our communities better, more resilient places to live.

I get lucky on a regular basis. I always seem to have clients doing interesting and important stuff. The Comox Valley Land Trust and the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy are examples: good people doing good stuff, making my place a better place.

My job is to collect and share stories about what CVLT and CVCS are about, making it easier for others to connect the dots. What are they about? Figuring out how to be smarter with our land base and ecological systems. Smarter land uses means more likelihood that my region remains a beautiful, healthy place to call home, raise kids, run a business, play, and have fun. That's cool. It's also cool that by contributing to better quality of life in my neighbourhood, CVLT and CVCS are addressing something way beyond the neighbourhood: climate change.

The people I'm interviewing are doing one of the most concrete things any of us can do to keep our community healthy. By taking responsibility for a wee creek in the backyard they're also making sure that the trees are there, that the water in the creek and in the ground around the creekside, is clean. They're protecting habitat for animals – including us humans who appreciate a walk in the woods, fresh air, and clean water.

Local action and climate change
Here's the connection with climate change: predicted climate changes in our region are for more warm and wet. Yes, it's cold outside today, but research commissioned by the Real Estate Institute of BC strongly indicates that over the next decade or two our region is going to see significantly more rain. That means the natural hydrological systems – how the land handles downpours, for example – are going to be taxed. When Brian, one of the stream guys I interviewed recently, does his "save the salmon" thing on Millard Creek, he's also helping everyone who lives in the watershed. A "properly functioning" stream is part of a hydrological system that absorbs water, stores it, releasing it over time rather than flushing it as a degraded creek, river, or an expensive big-pipe system does. In other words, if Brian is your neighour, he's helping your backyard stay where it is, not in Comox Bay.

Brian's story is an example of how one guy's commitment to place and willingness to put his feet in the water ripples out into greater community resiliency. When we look after a creek we also look after individual homes. Looking after individual property values means local taxes aren't dealing with so many crises, and maybe some dollars can be spent on things like dealing with public safety and housing issues. Investing our tax dollars in basic social supports reduces the opportunities for criminal investments in poverty. Making our communities more resilient makes them attractive places to outside investors – retirees, young families, businesses. In the context of big changes, resiliency means sustainability.

Like I said, I get lucky a lot: a number of my projects involve story-telling about making change – sustainability communications. But I'm still looking for leadership in our small town and rural BC communities to create the non-partisan spaces for these conversations. Are our sustainability/growth/conservation/economic development strategy dead letters to the future? Or do they live and change in the context of a community conversation?

A recent "scrape" of the Twittersphere with SayZu showed what the conservation conversation looks like for 160km around the Comox Valley (see figure at top of the page). I'm curious: Where does the sustainability conversation live in your community or region? What does it look like?

The BC Pot Conundrum

2010-11-25T00:51:00.001-08:00

by George Penfold

BC dodged a major bump in the road to economy recovery recently, when Proposition 19 in California, a proposal to legalize marijuana, was narrowly defeated in the US mid term elections. If Proposition 19 had passed, it would have allowed individuals to legally possess 1 ounce (28.5 grams), and have 25 square feet of space dedicated for growing. It would have also allowed municipalities to permit commercial growing and sales, and tax both. The potential tax benefits to the state were estimated at $1.2 to $1.4 billion and that was, and – in the fiscal mess many jurisdictions at all levels find themselves – will continue to be a major force pushing legalization.

The implications of Proposition 19 for BC's economy?

Estimates of the economic value to BC of the illegal marijuana trade are in the $6 to $8 billion range, with about $4 billion in exports. That’s a lot of business; in fact it’s comparable in scale to the value of primary forestry sector and in softwood trade to the US prior to the recession.

The impact of legalization would have seen the street value for marijuana in California plummeting; some estimates were by as much as 80% to 90%. That would have made the street value in California about half of price currently paid to BC growers. Moving into other markets would be very difficult for BC product as it’s hard to imagine that in a legalized environment, California would not have become a major producer and supplier to other states. It’s also much easier to cross state lines than international borders. The BC industry would have been seriously hurt, perhaps fatally, had Proposition 19 passed.

Who benefits from BC's pot economy?

So what you might say, isn’t that a good thing of the BC pot industry goes bust? It’s only gangs that benefit anyway! Well, yes and no. It would hurt gangs. Exporting $4 billion worth of illegal product is big business, and by definition done by criminal elements. They would definitely have felt the pain. But, so would the legal economy.

Folks involved in crime also go to restaurants, get haircuts, go skiing and golfing, buy houses and cars, all the things that the rest of us do. They just get to pay for it in cash! And, it’s not just about gangs. A lot of marijuana is grown by our neighbours who have a day job and a room in the basement that makes them another $40k or more a year. And the contractor who does your home renovations during the day may be doing grow-op conversions for cash at night. There are also the legal “gardening” stores and other services that supply the industry. Most of that would be gone with legalization. Just the regional market would remain, and that’s only a small fraction of what is currently produced in BC.

Under the Proposition 19 radar, two other states – Arizona and South Dakota – voted to support medical marijuana, so there were a couple of more “baby steps” toward legalization in the mid terms. So, it may be that legalization of marijuana is more about when, rather than if.

Addicted to the benefits of the pot economy

A question I was asked in a recent interview about Proposition 19 was, “How can we prepare for the possibility of legalization and the impact on our economy?” My response: "Create more resiliency in the legal economy." But the more I think about it, the hard truth is – we can’t. Why? Because, we can’t seem to find a way to talk about this as a serious issue. Ask anyone about pot growing in BC, and I’ll guarantee you that the first response will be a joke or laughter.

In many ways, marijuana is socially more legal than cigarettes or alcohol. It’s common to see pot smoking and even trading in public places. If you tried to do the same with beer or liquor you’d be asked to leave, or the police would be called. So we focus on gangs as the issue rather than our neighbours, or even our own or our kid’s behaviour or involvement in the industry either directly, or indirectly as consumers. We rarely talk about our dependence on the marijuana trade as a support for the health of our retail and services sectors. It’s only recently, for example, that I’ve seen commentary that part of the reason for high real estate values in BC might be marijuana industry incomes.

Our best hope?

We are all in a very real way addicted to the benefits of pot economy and are complicit in its continuing existence. But because it’s illegal, we can’t engage with producers and distributors, and can’t have an informed discussion about the possible decline of the industry. We can’t discuss the need for “Pot Renewal BC” or “The Pot Action Coalition,” as we have done in forestry. We don't sit down with growers, pruners, or gang members and talk about “job transition training.”

Getting off our dependence on the illegal marijuana industry “cold turkey,” as would have happened had Proposition 19 passed, would be a major shock to our economy. Our best hope is that legalization continues to move forward in small steps so we can adjust as those small steps occur, and slowly reduce our dependency on and addiction to the benefits it provides.

about the author

GEORGE PENFOLD is the Regional Innovation Chair (RIC) in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College in Castlegar, BC and Adjunct Professor at the School of Business and Economics at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC.

For Generations to Come: Food Security, Land Use & Affordable Housing in Rural Communities on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands

2010-11-25T00:01:00.000-08:00

Trina McDonald

by Trina McDonald
Note: This article was originally posted on: http://www.vifood.info/, September 22, 2010.

Resilient Communities in Changing Times
On a daily basis we see and hear about changing weather patterns, peak oil, greater food insecurity, and loss of ecological diversity. More and more people are making important changes at the personal level, such as recycling or planting a garden, but these actions can be slow to address some of the larger, more pressing problems we face, such as the loss of farm land and the lack of affordable housing. As members of our communities we may wish to be informed about and to participate in changes to the policies and practices that effect how we live and build on the land. This paper provides information about some strategies that are helping to address the social, ecological and economic concerns of people living in rural communities on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands and provides some resources that can help individuals get involved in making these changes.

Food Security, Affordable Land and Housing
A number of challenges are currently affecting regional food security, ecological diversity, and the health of rural communities on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. Among the most notable effects are: the lack of affordable land and associated housing for those who have traditionally farmed the land, as well as for people of diverse ages and socio-economic status (Stevenson, 2009); and the decline of rural economies due to the loss of jobs in resource extraction.

With the growth in regional populations and the resultant rise in market value of land, agricultural and forested areas are being developed into subdivisions and vacation properties that are unaffordable to many rural residents. While the agricultural land reserve (ALR) has protected some agricultural land in BC, much of the prime rural and agricultural land in Southern BC has been excluded or removed from the ALR and is being lost to development (Curran, 2005). With these kinds of developments comes a loss of both ecological diversity and the population diversity required to keep essential services (ie: schools, volunteer fire departments, farms) up and running. The loss of people to work the land is further exacerbated by the fact that many farmers and land owners are reaching the age of retirement (the average farmer is nearing the age of 60 ( TLC, 2009) ), and there are very few young farmers in a position to take their place. New policies are needed to discourage the loss of rural lands by subdivision and development and to encourage appropriate housing for farm workers and community members of many different socio-economic backgrounds.

A Sign of the Times
The following policies and practices are being taken up or considered in various locations on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. Alone or in combination, these policies may help to slow the suburban sprawl in order to protect farm land and forest, create new sources of income for rural residents and additionally to mitigate and address concerns such as climate change, housing, transportation, education and food security:

Zoning Bylaws
Zoning bylaws are developed and enforced by municipal governments and set out the restrictions and allowances for use of a particular piece of land, including use restrictions to limit development in rural areas. Unfortunately, rural zoning designations do not allow for enough appropriate housing to be built on a piece of land to house multiple farmers and their families, making the land affordable to them. This often has the effect of inadvertently encouraging property owners to subdivide and develop agricultural land. The most affective way to protect land may be to focus most new development within urban centres (Curran, 2003). However, in order to increase food security, zoning is needed that will provide affordable housing on land that can be farmed.

One of the many use’s of land

Several new zoning bylaws have been created to provide alternatives to conventional subdivisions. These special zones tend to cluster housing more closely together and thus require fewer roads, water systems, and septic tanks. The result is more land being left intact for farming (or conservation). These higher density rural zones may also encourage a variety of other sustainable practices such as:

mixed land uses (ie. agriculture, residential, educational/institutional, and commercial) on one piece of land, decreasing a community’s reliance on outside resources, automobile travel, and potentially creating multiple streams of income and employment;
protection of sensitive ecosystems;
green energy production;
“zero waste” strategies;
local food production;
and green building only on previously impacted land.

Current examples of these zones include:

CVRD R-4 Rural Community Residential – This zone came about through work done by the founder of O.U.R Ecovillage, Brandy Gallagher, and the Board of Directors at the Cowichan Valley Regional District. The multiple uses and increased density that this zoning allows is well suited to the needs of an Ecovillage.
Highlands Net Zero Zone – This is a new zone recommended to the Highland Council by their Sustainability Task Force. It encourages mixed land use, increased densities and protective covenants to achieve sustainable buildings and lifestyles.
Cortes Island Community Land Stewardship Zone – This zone was created to protect forests slated for clear cut logging, creating small residential and mixed use zones (the purchase of which pays for the land), and protecting the rest through covenants.

Conservation Covenants
Conservation covenants are agreements between a land owner and a conservation organization, such as The Land Conservancy of BC (TLC), which limit land uses in order to help owners protect their land in perpetuity. The agreements made are legally binding and are attached to the title of the land forever, no matter who owns it. Covenants may set out stipulations for conserving particular areas or features of a parcel of land, such as quality farmland or ecologically sensitive areas. Alternatively, convenants may be used to regulate the activities that are permissible on a piece of land, such as only allowing sustainable building techniques or keeping the resale value of land restricted.

Sustainable Management of Water, Waste and Energy
There are now some sustainable, safe, and practical solutions available to replace our common yet wasteful and polluting methods of water, waste, and energy management. Examples of sustainable alternatives include:

water catchment systems that decrease the strain on ground water;
composting toilets which decrease the flow of drinkable water and effluent into the oceans and ground waters while recovering resources;
gray water systems which filter and recycle water;
and a variety of sustainable energy production and energy efficient technologies.

Using these more sustainable methods may also increase the viability of clustered housing on farm land, as the increased density will not necessarily cause the increased strain on the land that may be seen in conventional developments. Financial and policy support from municipal governments and regulatory bodies, such as the Vancouver Island Health Authority, are needed in order to undertake pilot projects and to subsequently develop these potential solutions into policies and bylaws. The following is and example of a policy that supports sustainable water and waste management:

The “Flush Toilet Ready” policy has been recommended to the Highlands Council by their Sustainability Task Force. This policy works within the building code while enabling home owners to sustainably manage waste, allowing new homes to be constructed with the necessary infrastructure to install a flush toilet (a covenant on the septic field, black water pipes, etc) but to instead allow the installation of a composting toilet in its place.

Community Farms and Commons
In order to purchase and protect rural land, communities are looking for and finding creative solutions. The Community Farms Program Feasibility Study prepared for Farm Folk/City Folk and the TLC, looks at opportunities and barriers for protecting agricultural land. and provides many examples to show the diverse ways community-based farms have been or could be established (TLC, 2009 ). The resulting conservation opportunities range from land being bought by land conservancies with long term leases given to farmers (Madrona Farm), to the formation of cooperatives (Glen Valley Organic Farm), to community ownership of land held as commons (Gabriola Commons).

This paper provides just a small sampling of the policies and practices on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands that are changing in order to increase sustainability in rural communities. Finding ways to protect productive lands and also to house diverse populations on the land in ways that use fewer resources may help to ensure food security and keep small communities thriving in the face of economic challenges like the loss of rural resource extraction jobs. There is much work to be done, but there are many examples to highlight the possibilities for us to live on this land while protecting its beauty and liveability for generations to come.

For more info:

Conservation covenants, go to The Land Conservancy: http://blog.conservancy.bc.ca
The Community Farms Program, go to Farm folk/ City Folk: http://www.farmfolkcityfolk.ca/programs/farm/cf/feasIntro.html
Natural Building and Related policies go to, Anne and Gord Baird’s Eco-sense website: http://www.islandnet.com/~anngord/
Eco-Forestry Communities go to Living Forest Communities: www.livingforestcommunities.com/
Gabriola Commons: www.gabriolacommons.ca/
O.U.R Eco village: www.ourecovillage.org/
Madrona Farm: http://madronafarm.com/
Glen Valley Organic Farm Coop: glenvalleyorganicfarmcoop.org/
Islands Trust: http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca
Capital Region District: http://www.crd.bc.ca/
Cooperatives go to, Centre for Cooperative and Community Based Economy: http://www.socialeconomynetwork.ca/
Research related to food security on Vancouver Island go to, Office of Community Based Research: http://web.uvic.ca/ocbr/
Vancouver Island Health Authority: http://www.viha.ca/
The Transition Towns sustainability movement: www.transitiontowns.org/

References:

Curran, D. (2005). Protecting the Working Landscape. West Coast Environmental law.

Retrieved August 2010 from, http://wcel.org/resources/publication/protecting-working-landscape-agriculture-smart-growth-direction-municipalitie-0

Curran, D. (2003). Smart Bylaws. West Coast Environmental Law. Retrieved June 2010

from, http://wcel.org/resources/publication/smart-bylaws-summary.

Sustainability Task Force. (2009). Highlands Sustainability Task Force: Final Report.

Retrieved July 2010 from, http://www.highlands.bc.ca/planning/documents/SustainabilityTaskForce_FinalReport.pdf

Stevenson, J. (2009). Islands Trust Housing Needs Assessment. Retrieved June 2010

from, www.islandstrust.bc.ca/news/pdf/newsfeb042010.pdf

The Land Conservancy (TLC). (2009). Community Farms Program Feasibility Study.

Retrieved may 2010 from, http://www.farmfolkcityfolk.ca/programs/farm/cf/feasIntro.html

Many Thanks to: Maeve Lydon, Charlotte Charlie and Linda Geggie from the Office of Community Based Research at the University of Victoria for sharing information and pictures and for supporting the process; Victoria city council member Phillippe Lucas for providing feedback and editing, to Deb Curran for interviewing, and to Ann Baird for sharing the work she has done as part of the Highlands Sustainability Task Force.

about the author:

Trina McDonald is a 4th year Social Work and Environmental Studies (University of Victoria, BC) student with a passion for food. She is currently working with the Office of Community Based Research on increasing Food Security on the University campus and during the summers she lives and works on a small farm on Salt Spring Island.

Gene Miller talks about Gaining Ground 2010

2010-11-04T09:03:00.000-07:00

Gene Miller is the founder of the Gaining Ground summit series on sustainability. He talks to me about this year's summit, which took place in Vancouver in early October of 2010, about rural and urban dynamics around sustainability learning, and next year's Gaining Ground summit.

For more information about Gaining Ground, visit www.GainingGroundSummit.com. For more information on my work with rural and small town sustainability issues, visit www.Development-Issues.com.
Thanks for your interest!

hanspetermeyer
November 3, 2010

Naomi Devine, The Inconvenient Truth, and sustainability in BC communities

2010-11-02T09:59:00.000-07:00

I interviewed Naomi Devine on her way to train with Al Gore as part of his extension of the work started with the Inconvenient Truth. I'm republishing it here because the training is about getting into people like Naomi into our BC communities and talking about sustainability, climate change, and what we're doing about it. Given that my town, the City of Courtenay, is about to host a discussion about plans to reduce GHGs (greenhouse gases), and given that one of my mentors from a previous life, John Talbot just asked me about my thoughts on good examples of sustainability planning in BC, I thought it was a good time to repost this conversation with the person I sometimes call BC's "sustainability queen." Enjoy!

(this interview was previously posted at CITinfoResource.com in Sept 2010, and hanspetermeyer.com in June 2010)

Naomi Devine talks to me about her trip to Nashville, Tennessee to train with Al Gore as part of the Climate Project. What's the Climate Project? From their site..."The Climate Project supports more than 3,000 diverse and dedicated volunteers worldwide who have been personally trained by former US Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore to educate the public and to raise awareness about

Who is Naomi Devine, and why would I want to talk to her?
I met Naomi last year in May 2009 at the Media that Matters conference on Cortes Island, BC. She's one of a number of active and creative people who attended that version of the annaul MtM conference. Along with people like Kris Krüg (who's just been in Cochabamba, Bolivia to cover the alt-Climate-Change talks, and is currently preparing for #TEDxOilSpill in Washington, DC - see his National Geographic photo essay on the Gulf Oil Spill), and most of the crew who worked on the Journey to Midway project (Chris Jordan, Jan Vozenilek and BillWeaver) Naomi inspires me and supports me in the work I do. Thanks to all the MtM alumni!

And so, who is Naomi Devine when she's not at Media that Matters?
I've lifted this from her bio at BCSEA (BC Sustainable Energy Association): "Naomi is a climate change and sustainability policy advisor who is responsible for overseeing the Whistler2020 community process and working on Whistler’s Official Community Plan review. In her previous position as the Sustainability Coordinator for the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) she worked on the creation of the Carbon Neutral Operations Plan, and created the Climate Action Innovation Fund, which directs carbon tax money into commercial and municipal emissions reductions projects. Prior to this, Naomi worked in the University of Victoria’s office of Campus Planning and Sustainability, creating the university's first sustainability policy and action plan.

"In November 2007, Naomi was appointed to British Columbia's Climate Action Team, which offers the Government’s Cabinet Committee on Climate Action policy advice on measures to achieve legislated greenhouse gas reductions. She is a co-founder of Common Energy at the University of Victoria, an organization that works to move organizations 'beyond climate-neutral' and is a co-author of the report: Building on Progress: A Plan to move the University of Victoria Beyond Climate-Neutral. Naomi is currently a Director with the BC Sustainable Energy Association, and founding chair of the Victoria Chapter."

What's next?
When Naomi returns to BC she'll be looking for opportunities to practice what she's learned: giving a version of the Al Gore "Inconvenient Truth" climate change presentation to communities in BC. She'll be wanting to connect the larger climate change picture to what's happening in our communties, in terms of the kinds of changes we'll be seeing, and also the kinds of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies we're putting together.

If your community has gone through, or is about to start a sustainability planning process you might consider getting in touch with Naomi. She's a smart, dynamic, and passionate individual with lots to add to whatever sustainability conversation is happening in your community.

Contact stuff...
One of the best ways to get a handle on who Naomi is and what she does is to follow her on Twitter - that'll give you a way to get in touch with her too.

hanspetermeyer

(cc) hanspetermeyer.ca / 2010. I encourage non-commercial sharing of my materials (blogs, fotos, audio, etc). Tell me how you use them at http://ht.ly/25kfR
Related articles …

Collaboration+NGO Leadership=Sustainability

2010-10-24T12:11:00.001-07:00

by hanspetermeyer

I just got back from a three week working holiday in northern Europe. Besides family and tango, I did manage to squeeze in a couple of sustainability stops – and I was always being inspired by the matter-of-fact approach to getting on with the job of lowering CO2 emissions.

Compared to North America there's no wasted breath, debating the chicken-egg of climate change. There's just an awareness that we can do things smarter – whether it's transportation, housing, energy, the social safety net. Back in the "land of plenty," we're still fogged in by the apparent abundance of clean air, water, and land. Climate change seems an abstraction. We'll simply muddle through.

In the meantime, and in the absence of political leadership – at almost every level of government here in Canada – our muddling through is helped by leadership in the NGO sector. Particularly, it's helped along by leadership that is willing to collaborate. That means, leadership more interested in achieving common goals than in building profile.

Collaboration is sexy – and it works
It's no secret that "collaboration" is a sexy word for me. I think it's got a natural affinity with sustainability. And I get excited when I see organizations – NGOs, government, businesses – working together towards a common goal. I'm also excited about it because I've seen it achieve remarkable things through the work of a friend, mentor, and collaborator: Tim Pringle.

I've had the pleasure to learn from and work with Tim since the mid-90s. He's been Executive Director, and more lately Director of Special Programs, with the Real Estate Foundation of BC since the late 1980s. Several years ago I researched and wrote about the Foundation's first 20 years. What I learned was that across the province Tim and the Foundation had established a far-reaching but understated reputation for sustainability leadership – and for the promoting the value of collaboration.

The results of Tim's leadership don't wear a bronze plaque with his name – at least not yet. They do, however, wear the stamp of his involvement. Three examples: the South Okanagan-Similkameen Conservation Partnership (SOSCP), Convening for Action Vancouver Island (CAVI), and the Comox Valley's Conservation Strategy. In all three, many hands – including a wide range of often fractious local governments, NGOs, provincial, and federal departments – are making the work of stewardship and sustainability a little lighter. It's called working smarter – or maybe it's just the "new business as usual?"

Collaboration isn't just about the conservation side of things. In his recent editorial for the new Truck Logger BC magazine, north Island logger and Truck Logger Association President Graham Lasure focuses on the need for collaboration in the private sector. "As a small business operator... I am used to having control over my business and making my own decisions. However... I have come to realize that collaboration is the best way to affect positive change for the entire industry." I like this: a private business guy championing the need to make common cause for the long term benefit of an industry, and the millions of lives that are financially connected to that industry.

A third recent input on the collaboration topic comes via Nancy Lublin. Her column in Fast Company business magazine is always a delight, and I'm a fanboy. Lublin always suggests new – and fun! – things that NGOs can do to, as she puts it, "get more bang for less buck." She recently sent me a review copy of her book on this topic: Zilch – the Power of Zero in Business. It's an inspired bit of writing and thinking; it's inspiring for anyone looking for ways to recharge batteries with their business or NGO.

Lublin on more bang, less buck
Nancy's premise is that, at a time when the US economy is struggling, business has a few things to learn from what the NGO sector has been doing for decades. That is, learning how to achieve incredible results with next-to-nada for financial resources. Besides the constant need to change one's sense of limitations/opportunities, there's the consistent theme of collaboration.

Lublin is pitching her book to the private sector, suggesting the NGO sector knows a few (or more) useful things. I think it's a good pitch, even here in Canada. Our private sector is, generally, in better shape than south of the 49th, but as Lasure's editorial on the coastal forest industry makes clear, new approaches are needed if we're serious about the economic sustainability of coastal communities.

My big concern, however, is with the NGO sector in our region. We've had a very different relationship to government and to entrepreneurialism than Lublin and her peers in the US. And we're (generally) naive about how markets and policy work. Things that Lublin takes for granted in the US NGO sector aren't quite so evident in the Canadian context. We've got some catching up to do. Her book is an excellent read. I'm hoping it turns a few heads (and minds) to more creativity and collaboration in a sector that badly needs it.

Collaboration contest ~ Win this book!
Interested in Zilch? Please send me a short note (at CollaborationContest <at> gmail.com) about 1-2 cool NGO collaborations in BC by December 1, 2010. In mid-December I'll draw a name and one of you (or more if I can twist Nancy's arm ;-) will get my copy of Lublin's lovely little book. In 2011 I'll follow-up on these notes and write about the way that NGOs are making a difference through collaboration.

Collaboration isn't the One Big Answer to "solving" the issues we're facing in our communities. What Lasure says about the confounding challenges of the BC forest industry is as true for things like climate change and affordable housing: "It is important to understand that working together does not always mean coming up with singular solutions, and that one size does not fit all." If we're serious about sustainability, we need to open up to new ideas, new approaches, and a diversity of actions. Collaboration is a way to do this opening.

October 24, 2010

NGOs, Imagination, and Nancy Lublin's ZILCH: Win this book!

2010-10-19T13:14:00.000-07:00

I'm a big fan of Nancy Lublin. She writes an inspiring (and inspired) column about NGO / NPO (that's Non-Govt Organizations, or Non-Profit Organizations) topics for Fast Company magazine. She's also CEO of DoSomething.org, among other things.

Via an email exchange of emails earlier this year Nancy sent me a review copy of her new book, Zilch: The Power of Zero in Business. Like her columns, it's inspiring (and inspired). The basic premise: that businesses in the "for profit" world have much to gain by looking at how "not-for-profit" organizations manage to do so many cool and important things, with very little financial capital.

Nancy's message is both cool and critical, especially for small businesses and for NGOs in regions where financial resources are scarce. I'm thinking about non-urban, non-metro regions. Living outside the big centres, where there is both an abundance of cash and an abundance of imaginative capital, we have to be especially creative to get things done. From my observations, we also have to be very good at creating relationships – collaborations – with local government, businesses, other NGOs that are "outside the box."

I like Nancy's book a lot. I want to pass it on to someone who is "working in the trenches" in rural or small town BC. I'm going to do that by drawing a name out of a hat (I have lots of hats) in mid-December.

To enter, all you have to do is send me a short note by Wednesday, December 1, 2010. Topic: the coolest collaboration you've been a part of in a small town or rural BC context. I'll be following up on the examples I receive, I'll write about it and publishing a blog post about it in 2011.

Know anyone who's got an interesting collaboration? Who likes what Nancy does in her Fast Company column? Who's up to their eyeballs in NGO management tasks and might benefit from a little (or a lot of) inspiration?

Looking forward to hearing from you!

hanspetermeyer
for development-issues.com

October 19, 2010

Gaining2010 conversations: Gil Yaron of Lighthouse talks to hanspetermeyer about "green" building

2010-09-23T16:09:00.000-07:00

Gil Yaron is Senior Business and Policy Advisor with Lighthouse, Canada's "premier sustainable building centre." He's also one of the presenters at a panel on "green building" at the upcoming 2010 Gaining Ground Summit.

I talked with Gil prior to #Gaining2010 (that's how it's being "tagged" on Twitter and other online channels), to take place on October 4-7, 2010 in downtown Vancouver. Gaining Ground is one of the most important gatherings in BC – perhaps all of Western Canada – for professionals, government officials, elected officials, and sustainability advocates on topics related to "gaining ground" on sustainability practices. Much of the discussion is focussed on urban centres. I asked Gil how his work relates to communities (rural and urban) outside BC's metropolitan centres.

As an aside, if you can't make #Gaining2010, follow the tagged posts on Twitter. Just search for: #Gaining2010, and you'll find some interesting chatter. Last year's tweets provided a thoughtful and lively commentary on events as they were taking place, giving all of us a kind of condensed set of "notes" on the event. Here's a post I wrote after Day 1 of GG2009 using Tweets as my source.

hanspetermeyer
September 23, 2010

Barry Brown-John talks about Gaining Ground 2009, real estate, sustainability, and the Kootenays

2010-09-16T23:32:00.000-07:00

Barry Brown-John is past-Chair of the Governors of the Real Estate Foundation of BC. He has been active in the real estate industry for over 30 years in the Kootenay region, during which time he has also become involved in various land use and conservation projects.

In this audio post, Barry talks with hanspetermeyer as part of a series of interviews done on behalf of the Real Estate Foundation of BC, about the real estate market, sustainability, and particularly the Gaining Ground Summit series and its importance to non-metro BC communities. This interview was conducted in March 2010, as part of a series of conversations with participants in the 2009 Gaining Ground Summit.

©Real Estate Foundation of BC / 2010. We encourage the reproduction of articles on this website non-profit educational purposes. Please notify the Foundation and the author of all reproductions, including in-house uses.

Local Food and Agriculture: Six Questionable Assumptions

2010-08-10T22:08:00.000-07:00

This post by George was originally published by the Real Estate Foundation of BC on their Communities in Transition program blog in April 2010.

by George Penfold

Over the last few months I have attended several public events in the Kootenay region that have focussed on economic development. Invariably, local food and agriculture is part of the conversation. As I listen to comments, I hear several implicit and sometimes explicit assumptions made about local food and agriculture that need more careful consideration.

1) Local agriculture means local food.
This is a big assumption and one that is most questionable in my mind. Farmers are business people. Unless there is some agreement, through a Community Supported Agriculture initiative for example, I see no reason why farmers won’t continue to sell their products to the highest bidder, wherever they might be located. Food will move from one locale to another, based on market factors, other things being equal.

2) Local food will be less expensive.
Food is energy. As long as we have enough economic and political stability to have functioning markets, food prices will follow energy and the overall food “market” prices.

3) Local agriculture will result in local food security.
Agriculture is always vulnerable to disease, pests, weather, drought, and markets. All crop failures are “local” in the region where they happen, and we are not immune to these disasters.

4) We can expand the agricultural industry under current market conditions.
This will be very difficult. High land values, insufficient returns, lack of access to land and water, lack of skills, insufficient interest in “food” farming – among other things – all stand in the way of expanded agriculture. Strategies such as community supported agriculture, farm gate sales, etc. can help, but many farmers aren’t interested in that form of marketing.

5) Growing local food is ecologically sound.
If BC is only 50% self sufficient in food, and if we maintain our current diet, tens of thousands of hectares currently in grass and trees will have to be opened up to cultivation, and much of it would have to be irrigated. That change would have significant ecological consequence, even with organic or other so called “environmentally friendly” farming methods.

6) Local e.g., "100 mile diet," is the best strategy
Not all areas of the province, or even Western Canada, have equivalent resources in terms of land, climate, and water. The lower mainland and the Okanagan are well off. But what do the folks in Prince George and area do for a full range of food? The best of our lands are well suited for growing fruits and vegetables. Wouldn’t we be better off to grow fruit and vegetables here and buy or trade grain (by rail with peak oil) with the Prairies?

These assumptions and the questions they raise are by no means specific to the Kootenay region. You can find them in many "locales" where food, economy, and community sustainability are being talked about. You'll see them showing up in the food discussion taking place at CITinfoResource.com, or – to cite another region – in the conversation online at Sustainable Food Vancouver Island on Facebook.

Is it about food security?
Although many local food initiatives use the term food security, the need for basic nutrition – think of Somolia or Haiti – is not the issue either now or likely in the future. We do not have a problem with basic nutrition; in fact more of us die from eating too much than too little. We are rich and as long as food is available somewhere in the world, it will be ours, albeit at a higher price when peak oil unfolds.

We have always seemed quite willing to eat well while others go hungry while they watch "our" export food grow in their back yard. I see no evidence that we are inclined to move up the moral ladder to higher ground, especially if we have a crisis. Even if we did move up the moral ladder, or lost import options as a result of oil prices, economic or political instability etc. we are nowhere near having a basic food security problem. When I look at the consumption figures in Canada, it’s pretty clear that by changing our food lifestyle to include less processed grain in the form of meat, dairy, etc., and growing some of our own in our back and front yards, and if we reduced the amount of food we waste, we could be awash in food – especially grain – in one growing season (although we would likely have to develop "adjustment" programs for our dairy, beef and pork farmers, and put more dollars into CIDA to address the international consequences).

Or is it about protecting our "food lifestyle?"
More troubling to me is that some of the comments I hear seem to be about protecting our “food lifestyle,” a lifestyle based on the broadest range of possible choices. This food lifestyle is also highly energy consumptive and very injurious to the environment, land, and farmers in our own country and around the world.

We also seem to want to make sure that we can also have that lifestyle as cheaply as possible. It's more than food lifestyle, it's really lifestyle and food's role in it. Food for many is about status, entertainment, and convenience. Those values are a long way from a value set that would rebuild food and agriculture based on food as an integral part of lifestyle – hobby (gardening), social experience (community gardening, processing), social value (making sure everyone has enough), insurance (investment in food production in case things do go really sideways), and a more general focus on building more resilient regional economies.

Looking in the mirror
Perhaps the food conversation needs to shift focus? Maybe we should be talking less about farmers and agriculture, and more about our personal food lifestyle. This may turn us towards altering our food consumption choices and producing our own food. We need to look in the mirror; we need to look more critically at what is in our shopping carts; and we need to look at our own back (or front) yards, rather than looking across the fence at what farmers are, or are not, growing. That may be a much shorter and more feasible path to food self sufficiency and resiliency.

About the author:
GEORGE PENFOLD is the Regional Innovation Chair (RIC) in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College in Castlegar, BC and Adjunct Professor at the School of Business and Economicsat Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. In 2005 the Real Estate Foundation of BC contributed $100,000 to the RIC endowment fund at Selkirk College as part of its support for sustainable community planning and informed development in the greater Kootenay region.

PLEASE NOTE: This post was originally published by the Real Estate Foundation on their Communities in Transition blog. The Foundation has the following policy: ©Real Estate Foundation of BC/ 2010. We encourage the reproduction of articles on this website for non-profit educational purposes. Please notify the Foundation and the author of all reproductions, including in-house uses.

Mark Holland talks about his Resilient Cities Manifesto (prelude to Gaining Ground 2010)

2010-07-18T18:18:00.000-07:00

Mark Holland is a highly-regarded sustainability planner and thinker with a practice in Vancouver and Nanaimo. Mark and his colleagues have contributed significantly to the practice of sustainability in communities throughout BC, Canada, and internationally. He was invited to give a summary address to the October 2009 Gaining Ground summit on "Resilient Cities."

Mark talks to CITinfoResource editor hanspetermeyer about the Resilient Cities Manifesto (click to download a pdf) and its significance several months after GGRC09.

In October 2010 Mark will be providing the "moderator's introduction" to Day 3: Day Three: Community Engagement and Social Innovation: Healing Cities the 2010 Gaining Ground Summit in Vancouver. For more information visit the Facebook page here. For more information on Gaining Ground 2010 visit gaininggroundsummit.com/

This interview was originally published at CITinfoResource.com in March 2010 for the Real Estate Foundation of BC, one of the sponsors of the Gaining Ground Resilient Cities event. It was revised and republished at development-issues.com as part of the preliminary conversation to this year's GG2010 event.

Related articles

Thinking about the Rural/Urban Divide

2010-06-30T09:49:00.000-07:00

by hanspetermeyer

I live in Courtenay in the Comox Valley, on Vancouver Island. I write a lot about living in this small city in this rural context. It's where I was born, and where I've lived most of my 50 years. I love this place – the rural part of it, the small city part of it, and that it's not too far from the great urban experience of Vancouver. I am very fortunate to live with such a rich diversity of landscapes and social configurations close to hand. But every once in a while I'm reminded that what I see as a continuum – from deep rural to deep urban – is for others as a great divide: the city on one side, the country on the other.

Two romances...

There is a romance to rurality. Give me land, lots of land, under starry skies above. Give me a ride-on mower and chainsaw to manage it – and a four-wheel drive pickup to drive to town in. Above all, do not fence me in with the language of the town or the city or with pretty words about "protecting the environment" at the expense of my livelihood (and with it, by the way, your urban standard of living).

On the urban side, the romance is about the pastoral idyll or untouched wilderness. All that open land and starry skies stuff is there to be enjoyed for its own sake – an aesthetic respite from urban life, and as the source of ecological services (water, air) that make sustain our human settlements. I'll hug the trees – and protect the future of your kids and mine, rural and urban.

Romance and reality

These are generalizations. But living in rural BC does mean living with logging, mining, the mess and dirt and smell of farming. But this dirt isn't a smudge on the rural romance; it's "honest dirt," the mess and muck of producing livelihoods for families and wealth for the whole province, urban and rural.

We may not like how ugly and destructive our rural resource extraction practices can be, but our communities – urban as well as rural – are still hugely dependent on them. And here’s the lovely paradox or conundrum: as city dwellers, we want our high standard of living, but many of us also want to "protect" the beauty of the hinterland; and all of us have an interest in sustaining the natural systems that provide clean air, water, and mitigate the impact of climate change.

A shared – but complicated – romance?

I think there’s been some closing of the rural/urban divide in recent years. The romances haven’t changed; but we’ve started a new – and complicated one – built on food.

In the past urban dwellers complained about the odour of their ag neighbours. Nowadays there’s a certain cachet in being reminded of food production in the neighbourhood. The new "foodism" – a combination of concerns about "food security," "food sustainability," health, and gourmandism – is making a difference.

George Penfold, a friend of mine, a former Comox Valley resident, and currently BC’s Mr. Rural Community Economic Development at Selkirk College, has some interesting things to say about our recent interest in food. He's written on these topics, in May of this year and in September 2009 for a blog I edit and mange for the Real Estate Foundation of BC. What George says isn't always that easy to stomach. I may have grown up in a rural context and worked on farms as a young man, but today I’m loving and living a much more urban foodie life.

George's comments are echoed by people like Vancouver Island ag consultant Gary Rolston. I interviewed Gary in 2009 about "food sustainability and the Comox Valley." Gary suggested that our recent ag love affair is a bit shakey. For one thing, locals who support increased local food production are, by and large, entirely unaware of what this will mean for demand on our already taxed water resources. We also have an over-developed imagination when it comes to how much food can be realistically produced. As George’s withering comments on "food self-reliance" make clear, we will always be trading for many staples – unless we dramatically change our eating habits.

George sees several forces at play here: continued high dependence on food production that is subsidized by (short term cheap) fossil fuels, (short term) cheap access to land and water, a romantic and boutique approach to food purchasing, and a standard of living that supports the latter and is built on the former. The forces are at play; they may soon - as with Gary's water issue - be in conflict.

It's a good thing to support farmers' markets and local food producers; but this really doesn't get to the heart of what ails our agricultural economy. And as George and Gary's insights suggest, a lot of our new-found urban foodism is a cleansed urban romanticist version of what food production is really about. .

Nevertheless, I still believe that foodism is a bridge between urban and rural ways of looking at the land and our communities. Contact with food producers is opening our eyes (somewhat) to the messiness of production and rural life. There is an exoticism to this. But even exoticism can serve a purpose: it may be how we start to appreciate the experience of rural food producers – and their experiences as loggers, miners, etc. In short, food becomes a doorway to an interested rural/urban conversation, something that wasn't there a generation ago.

Getting visible

The rural/urban divide is a problem of conflicting romantic stories about what "rural" means. It's also a problem of invisibility. Our busy and self-contained town and city lives don't have much of a view of the rural areas on which we depend for food, fresh water, our ecological systems of support, not to mention the resource industries that support us financially. Typically, our trips into rural areas are about recreational or spiritual retreat: we want and see only the pastoral idyll that gives nourishment; we ignore or reject the messiness.

People from outside the city are often also afflicted with a blindness – not to urban ugliness, but to the many good things that cities and urban neighbourhoods have to teach us about living together and about sustainability. Our shared romance with food is creating an opportunity to actually see a richer, more complicated relationship between urban and rural realities. If we're serious about the future of our communities – urban and rural – we need to be looking for and appreciating this richness in each other's realities and in each other's romances.

30 June 2010

Note:

A version of this article was published here by the Real Estate Foundation of BC at CITinfoResource.com.

(cc) hanspetermeyer.ca / 2010. I encourage the reproduction of articles on this website non-profit educational purposes. Please notify me of all reproductions, including in-house (ie. photocopied) uses.

Changing the way we are engaging the "Sustainability Conversation"

2010-04-17T12:31:00.000-07:00

The picture at the right was posted on Facebook by Arjun Singh. His caption: "Too many empty chairs at Sustainable Kamloops Forum."

Almost immediately people responded. Kelowna City Councillor Michele Rule chimed in, "Too bad – if I were in Kamloops I would be there!" Jennifer Jones: "Yikes! That's terrible!"

Arjun noted that his photo was selective, that the "Front rows [were] more full, but this is disappointing to me."

Disappointment and its discontents
And that's the key point for me: the feeling of disappointment. When something as important as "sustainability" is (finally) being taken seriously by our local governments, and we, the people, should be showing up in droves to participate. Shouldn't we?

On the face of it, Yes. As citizens charged with voting for councils, Mayors, and regional district boards, we should take a keen interest in processes that will have a long term impact on quality of life, affordability, taxes, etcetera in our communities.

But are public meetings a good way to participate? Is participation at public meetings a good measure of how much any of us care about the specific aspects of this thing called sustainability?

I'm inclined to answer, No. To both questions.

I've been involved in sustainability related education and planning and research since the mid-90s. Back then, local governments were pretty wary of "sustainability."

We've come a long way.
Sustainability isn't a dirty word anymore. Questioning growth – or at least managing the shape and rate of growth – is now more or less mainstream. Asking questions about sustainability is now part of what responsible politicians, civic staff, citizens, and even developers see as due diligence. More or less.

On the road to mainstream acceptance of sustainability, however, we seem to have lost some of our passion for public meetings on the topic. Maybe it's simple process fatigue. My community has gone through innumerable and exhaustive public processes on a range of land use related topics in the past 15 years. Last year our once highly-charged and participatory community by and large failed to get charged when local governments surprised us by hosting a region-wide sustainability strategy process.

Did we fail to fill the halls because of process burnout? Or process suspicion – "they" never follow through on what we've wanted in the past, why should I participate now? Or is it because things like "sustainability" and "regional growth strategy" (that's also happening) are just too vague, too far removed from the everyday issues most of us are dealing with?

As I said in my reply to Arjun's post: I'm still a big proponent of engagement and participation processes; but I think the methods we use to reach and engage people need to change.

No quick fixes on the road to civic engagement
Frankly, I'm a lousy participant when participation means going to an open house, or sitting in a public meeting. Which doesn't mean I think we stop this medium of engagement. It works for some folks. But I do think we need to find more ways to get citizens who care, and who care about how our tax dollars are being spent (and how they're being invested so that our communities and our personal bits of real estate sustain their value in the long term), involved.

It's not a quick fix situation, unfortunately. There are, however, some things that can be started right now that will have medium and longer term impact. These strategies are proving themselves elsewhere, and local governments need to be moving on them. Why? Because we the citizens are footing the bill for expensive planning processes, and we the citizens as taxpayers deserve better results than we're getting.

Here's a little story about the wrong approach:
Local government: Here's a wheelbarrow of $ to do the plan. And by the way, we want you to use the magic of Facebook and YouTube to really engage our community.
Consultant: Do you have an established presence on Facebook or YouTube?
Local government: No, it's too risky for us. We want you to set that up for the planning process and run it and be successful with it. You can do that in 6 months, right?

The correct answer? No, the consultant can't deliver what local government wants.

Why is this an example of the wrong approach? For the same reasons that people are not turning out in droves for public meetings and open houses: because we the citizens and taxpayers are not experiencing "authentic" engagement with the people we are paying to look after the future of our communities. No consultant can use social media to deliver something that local government isn't doing in a real way. The hired gun can't engage people in an honest, open, "authentic" way if you're not doing it yourself. You can't "spin" authenticity.

I work with local government on an ad hoc, as needed basis to provide various communications related services. I'm watching the amazing and exciting examples of what's called GOV2.0 grow and change in a host of places across the globe. What am I learning? That GOV2.0 isn't just about using social media. And it certainly isn't about having a consultant drop in and set up online presence for 3-12 months.

GOV2.0 – where it's real and working – is about civic leadership. It's about chutzpah and starting real conversations in a variety of places. It could be through a regular column in the local newspaper. Or a regular blog online. Or a regular online video on YouTube. Or a regular podcast.

Regular. Consistent. Every week, or every month. In a space that encourages (ie. makes it super easy) for we the citizens to comment and respond. And (this is super important), for local government to be responsive. To respond to every (every!) comment. Promptly. As in, Now.

What if local government isn't taking the great leap forward?
Those of us who care about engagement (ie. a functioning democracy) can still do a lot. One example is what me and two of my pals did last year during the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy (CVSS) process. It may not work for Arjun in Kamloops, but I think it's worth looking at – if only for how it's spinning off into other conversations about sustainability.

Here's the story: the CVSS was heading into the home stretch, but the consultant was concerned about civic engagement and the post-CVSS legacy. To address their concerns they did a couple of things: hired local facilitation talent with good knowledge of our community, its personalities and resources; proposed spending some of their own money on an honorarium for parallel engagement activities. The local talent got together with two collaborators (me and another pal). We dreamt up CV2050.com.

CV2050 didn't "solve" the CVSS engagement problem. And it wasn't meant to directly inform the CVSS. It is, however, leaving a CVSS legacy, but not necessarily at CV2050.com. The conversations online are spinning off into other spaces and channels. Are more people going to turn up for public meetings related to sustainability in the Comox Valley because of it? Maybe. But I doubt it.

Conversations take place in different venues, through different media. Consultants – and especially local governments – need to be using a range of media to talk about changes in the community, about possible responses, and about policy directions. If people are not coming to meetings, don't expect them to come to meetings. If they're talking about sustainability online, join the conversation online.

Meet people where they are. Speak with your own voice.
Some conversations take place in open houses. Many more take place via letters to the editor in the local paper. Growing numbers are online. The beauty of online venues is the opportunity for authentic conversations that aren't heavily structured, and that can't be managed.

This is scary for most organizations. But that's why it's so important to get "out there" and start building crediblity. (Remember: Regular, responsive conversations.) Start getting used to being in dialogue, not monologue.

Which is why local government needs to be doing it's own social engagement. Sure, hire someone to help walk you through the process, maybe even to kick things off. But in the end, high viz folk need to be active (sometimes it's the Mayor, or a Councillor, or a CAO or Director or Planning). Then, when the sustainability roadshow comes to town, the channels are already open and conversation bubbling. There's no trick to it.

...and in the end... stop fretting!
This was supposed to be a short post in response to Arjun's photo. It's gotten way longer than it should have. But I do get excited about this stuff. Voter turnout is way down, and it's lowest at the local government level. Which is where I think it needs to be highest.

Let's stop fretting about empty chairs at public meetings. Let's get active in other ways of engagement, from local newspaper columns to cable TV columns to the wide and expanding options online. If local government isn't picking up the GOV2.0 ball, lets create our own channels and invite them in. I like what people like Michele in Kelowna, Arjun in Kamloops, Naomi Devine in Whistler (to name a few) are doing online and in real-space. Take a look at their various channels.

Be inspired, not disappointed. We have new tools. People are making them work in lots of places. And they're fun to use!

hanspetermeyer
17 April 2010

Investing in community quality of life

2010-03-05T15:28:00.000-08:00

by hanspetermeyer

I was just reading a column by Nancy Lublin about burn-out in the NGO sector. That got me thinking about PnPPs (Public non-Profit Partnerships).... and the neglected status of NGOs.

What do NGOs do?

NGOs invest in quality of life in our communities. PnPPs make this work more effective, long-lasting. But how many people understand what NGOS do in our communities? Here's the short version: We've experienced a generation of senior level government downloading; this has left our neighbourhoods and communities vulnerable; responsibility for community quality of life is now pretty much squarely on the shoulders of our NGOs.

Historically, it's been through voluntary and NGO sector investments that have given soul and character to our hamlets, towns, and small cities. Public parks were – and still are – often donated. Festivals, trails, benches, ornamental tree-planing is often carried out by volunteers. Water systems are often directly developed and managed by residents. Dance halls and recreation facilities are usually the product of a dedicated association of dancers, gymnasts, swimmers and their parents. This is how NGO sweat and financial equity turns into investment in community quality of life. At some time, management and care of facilities is either shared with (in a PnPP) or assumed by local government. The history of my favourite community dance hall, the Native Sons Hall in downtown Courtenay, is an excellent example of this kind of PnPP development and process.

Why should we be thinking about NGOs and PnPPs now?

As we look to the challenges of replacing eroding infrastructure, mitigating and/or adapting to climate change and an aging population, private-public partnerships are hailed as a solution. Indeed, the private sector should be engaged as we look at the (significant) challenges we're facing. And, we should also be engaging the proven capacity, passion, and energy of the non-profit sector – and of PnPPs. Particularly with things that the private sector is unable or unwilling to do, like stream stewardship, child/teen/family programs, and neighbourhood watches that don't have a profit angle.

It's important to note that while most NGO activities don't have profit angles, NGO sector activity already has a positive impact on the private and public sectors. NGOs, on their own, but particularly through PnPPs, make investment for long-term community well-being and quality of life. Financial reward is not an anticipated return on investment (ROI); safer streets, seniors' housing, and proper-function salmon habitat, are, however, expected and demonstrated ROIs.

Private and public ROI on NGO and PnPP investments

NGO and PnPP investments do, however, show up positively on private and public sector balance sheets. Proper-function stream systems mean less insurance (and other mitigation) costs related to flooding, higher real estate values for homeowners adjacent to greenways and streams, and higher property tax revenues for local government. Until recently, little of this was appreciated. Even less was measured or evaluated. Which is why the nP/NGO sector is often neglected, or even dismissed as resource. This is beginning to change.

An example: In many communities PnPPs are already established to provide for a range of housing needs. This is contributing to community quality of life. And that, as BC's real estate professionals have formally recognized, is something that has a positive impact on the value of real estate sales and equity.

Another example: amenity migration – people moving to locales with well-preserved/protected environmental amenities. It's a curious paradox of the development industry: resistance to business-as-usual growth and development sometimes preserves the values (environmental, social, aesthetic) that, in turn, make communities more attractive and of higher value in the marketplace. A smart developer in the Kootenays, Okanagan, or east coast of Vancouver Island sees stewardship groups as partners in adding or sustaining financial value in the land.

How can we support these investments?

NGOs are a good thing for our communities. PnPPs are ways to leverage and enhance the good things NGOs do. How then can we make sure that the individuals working in them, and the organizations themselves, don't burnout as they help deal with the challenges our communities face?

An example is given by the Real Estate Foundation of BC. I love to work for this Foundation. In 20+ years they've made sustainable land use practices a focus of what they do. They've also shown a commitment to actively working with NGOs to get better, more effective ROI. An example of this kind of collaboration and investment is the South Okanagan Similkameen Conservation Partnership (SOSCP). Another is the Comox Valley Land Trust (CVLT). SOSCP is explicity a PnPP. A good part of its work involves coordination of and capacity-building within government agencies. CVLT engages in informal PnPPs, particularly through its Regional Conservation Strategy. Both initiatives are having an impact on how the public and private sector are understanding long-term regional sustainability. These PnPPs are positively shaping the long-term quality of life in the respective regions.

Keeping the fire alive

While good things are happening for NGOs (and for PnPPs), generally speaking, the sector is not in good shape. As Ms. Lublin makes clear: People burn out because their passion and commitment to community isn't being fed. It's the same at an organizational level: NGOs (and PnPPs) are important, but their value isn't recognized. They are not understood for what they are: caretakers of our communities' sustainability, quality of life, the soul and character of the places we call home.

Ms. Lublin's suggestions for addressing personal burn out are good ones. For organizational level challenges, we need to better understand, measure, and communicate the ROI of NGO investments. With that information we can start making our own investments – as individuals, families, businesses, and taxpayers. For example: every year my four kids get $100 to "invest in their world." It's not a lot of money, but I'm hoping it gets them thinking about what's important in their life, how they can support it. Sometimes it goes to farm animals in Africa. Sometimes it goes to supporting cancer research. Sometimes it goes to the local land trust. It all goes into NGOs that are building quality of life. And that makes my kids' world a better place.

- 30 -

The Challenge of Gaining Ground: Bringing the Resilient Cities Conversation Home

2010-02-16T19:27:00.000-08:00

Is the slice half-eaten, or half-about-to-be-eaten? Is " sustainability" doable - or not? The Gaining Ground Summits keep showing how it is. (cc) hanspetermeyer.ca via Flickr

by hans peter meyer

In October, just a few months ago, the Gaining Ground team did it again: delivered "Resilient Cities" as an amazing, sobering, and inspiring conference on how we are, in many places, "gaining ground" on the global "sustainability project" – making our communities better places to live. This shouldn't have any of us feeling smug, however. Voices from around the world keep telling us (and the voices were passionate and intense in the lead-up to December's Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change), we're not in good shape.

The right stuff IS happening
Resilient Cities (GGRC09) did show how there is lots of the "right stuff" happening, much of it not particularly expensive or difficult. It just takes doing it. Now. Right now. In my town and yours. Did I say "now?" I'll say it again: Many of the things that need to be done for our communities to "get resilient" and become sustainable are doable and they need doing now. Right now.

And that's the challenge: How to take the energy and insights of 3 conference days and make it real in a place like Whistler, Kelowna, or the Comox Valley? How do we take this stuff home and apply it, when so many people are just struggling to deal with 2008's moment of financial reckoning?

Government requirements as an opportunity for positive, necessary change
The provincial government's push to have municipalities be carbon neutral by 2020 is an opportunity. Many places are scratching their heads on how they're going to get there. GGRC09 had lots of good ideas about this. We need to find ways to have the conversations in our communities about what GGRC09 was about. Conversations about sustainability can be sobering; but they are also about making our neighbourhoods and communities richer, more vibrant places.

In my community, the collection of small urban spaces and rural hamlets known as the Comox Valley, we have a golden opportunity. For a number of reasons we have... a Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy (CVSS), Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), a Regional Conservation Strategy (RGS), and a regional water planning process (don't know the name or the acronym of that one). When opportunity rains it pours here.

In this context, GGRC09 is a rich resource for any of us who attended. However, there weren't a lot of us Comox Valley folks taking advantage of the GGRC09 banquet of ideas. Jack Minard from the Comox Valley Land Trust was there (listen the CITinfoResource interview with Jack here). So was Chris Bowers (he did some very cool video interviews with participants – take a look here). Anyone else? Raise your hands all ye citizens of the Comox Valley, particularly you from local government – staff or elected folks: Did you make it to one of the richest sustainability learning events of the year? Well, please make it a priority for next year. (You might want to listen to what Kelowna Councillor Michelle Rule said about this year's GGRC09 and why she's hoping more staff and pols attend the next GG summit.)

Taking the conversation out of the policy context, looking for leadership
I write about sustainability, land use, real estate, and community development topics. It's what I've been doing on and off for about 17 years. I'm also connected to some good folks here in my town, people with lots of energy and imagination. With their help I pitched a project about "stimulating the conversation about sustainability in the Comox Valley" – and we're doing it! I look at this as my opportunity to carry the GGRC09 conversation home. You can find it on at CV2050.com, Twitter (at @CV2050), but the most active conversation is taking place on Facebook. Other online conversations about the Comox Valley are springing up, some inspired by CV2050, some not.

It's a curious little venture, this thing we're doing with CV2050. It's related to the CVSS, but not part of it. It was seeded the CVSS consultant, but outside the CVSS budget.

Why is it this way? Because my imaginative friends suggested that, irregardless of the outcomes of the CVSS, its legacy and that of the many, many volunteers who put many, many hours into CVSS would depend more on an extended, generalized conversations about sustainability in the community than on a strategic document that local government might or might not pay much attention to. It's a bit of what Majora Carter referred to at GGRC09: too many great strategic and planning docs sit gathering dust because there isn't the leadership to push them to happen.

So we're taking the "conversation about sustainability in the Comox Valley" outside the policy process. Online. Over lunch and dinner. Outside of "official communications." As the property and responsibility of us as residents, taxpayers, and citizens of this place.

Immediate and collective action needed... Right now!
We're at an interesting time right now in terms of "leadership" and "responsibility" in our communities. We need immediate and collective action on changing behaviours and assumptions about how live in our corners of paradise. Traditional forms are slow to respond and awkward. At the same time, we have communications tools that enable rapid exchange and development of ideas, knowledge, and action: the extension of word-of-mouth that is "social media."

It's not magic. It's just a conversation. With the help of YouTube, Facebook, blogs, Twitter, etc we're able to sit around a "campfire" with our friends and acquaintances. We swap stories and anecdotes, we share pictures of family adventures, talk about our passions – and concerns. But we get to do it across huge gaps in space/time. I take part in "conversations" that span hours or days, and bridge tens or thousands of miles. It's word of mouth to the power of 10. When I hear through people I know and trust that they're taking action on climate change because they're connected to someone on the Maldives whose island is sinking... well, it means more to me than if I watch it on TV. Is word of mouth more reliable than the network news station? In my guts, yes. And it's in my guts that real change starts to take place.

Growing the campfire circles
Our little Comox Valley project is about building a campfire conversation about sustainability in our community. We're using video and audio interviews, posted all over the 'net. We came up with a simple, replicable process. We encourage people to pick it up and play. As they pick it up, do their own interviews, tag them (so all of us can find them and participate in them), and post them online they're making it a bigger, more inclusive campfire convo.

There is no end-point to what "sustainability" is or means to any one of us our community. We talk about it, or various aspects of it. We do some things. We learn a few things. And then we talk and do and learn some more. We move towards a better, more wholistic relationship to the ecological systems on which our lives, our families, and our communities depend. We become more resilient and responsive as we participate in the conversation. As we take into our guts what those we know, love, and trust tell us is important to them. That's how we figure out what is right to do, and what is right to do now.

Thanks
Thanks Gene Miller, to you and your crew. The campfire you lit several years ago with the first Gaining Ground summit is a good fire. And with over 600 of us taking embers from this year's event, I'm imagining many campfire convos all around the province, sparked by the ideas, knowledge, and connections generated by #GGRC09. I'm imagining that these conversations will lead to myriad and diverse actions and changes, all of it helping us "gain ground" on the sustainability project we all need to be working on.

My take-away from Resilient Cities? To extend the convo about sustainability from the GGRC09 campfire circle to the campfire circle called home, to make our fire burn brightly, inspiring many voices – and many actions, large and small!

note:
This column was published originally by The Island Word (December 2009) and online at CITinfoResource.com (November 2009).

reBlog from Communities in Transition Information Resource: Local Government and Social Media – Use me. Please.

2010-02-09T16:43:00.001-08:00

There is a movement inside government at all levels in Canada to become more transparent – and cost-effective. It's called GOV2.0, and developments are very uneven. In spite of the unevenness, however, the implications are generally positive for community sustainability.

hanspetermeyer, Communities in Transition Information Resource: Local Government and Social Media – Use me. Please., Feb 2010

Interested in GOV2.0, NGOs, social media? You should read the whole article.

Sustainability 3: Mark Holland on learnings from the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy

2009-11-08T10:22:00.001-08:00

Mark Holland talks with hanspetermeyer about his insights into what he's learned from the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy.

Mark Holland is a principal with the HBLanarc sustainability planning firm (Vancouver/Nanaimo). Mark and his company are currently working with local governments, community organizations, and residents on the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy. He talks to hanspetermeyer about sustainability planning and community strategies for meeting the future.

In this interview Mark reflects on the challenges of thinking about and planning for sustainability at a community level when we don't have a clear sense of what the future is going to b ring.

This series of interviews is part of a collaboration with OurBigEarth.com's coverage of the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy.

Sustainability 2: hanspetermeyer's 2nd interview with Mark Holland

2009-11-07T22:25:00.001-08:00

Mark Holland is a principal with the HBLanarc sustainability planning firm (Vancouver/Nanaimo). Mark and his company are currently working with local governments, community organizations, and residents on the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy. He talks to hanspetermeyer about sustainability planning and community strategies for meeting the future. In this interview Mark answers the #3x2x8 series of questions that are part of the CV2050 "all about sustainability and the Comox Valley" project initiated by hanspetermeyer, David Stapley, and Meaghan Cursons.

(cc) hanspetermeyer.ca / 2009

Sustainability 1: hanspetermeyer's first interview with Mark Holland

2009-11-07T19:15:00.001-08:00

Mark Holland is a principal with the HBLanarc sustainability planning firm (Vancouver/Nanaimo). Mark and his company are currently working with local governments, community organizations, and residents on the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy. He talks to hanspetermeyer in three video conversations about sustainability planning and community strategies for meeting the future. This series of interviews was initiated as part of a collaboration with OurBigEarth.com's coverage of the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy.

#3x2x8 – Kick starting the "sustainability convo" in the Comox Valley #CV2050

2009-10-29T23:02:00.000-07:00

The Comox Valley is an amazing place. Visually stunning. Socially alive. Culturally vibrant. Politically entangled. A set of human/natural/historical circumstances that confounds newcomers, exhausts those who butt their heads against the status quo. A can of worms that doesn't want to get opened. Yet always shifting, and capable of great – sometimes surprising! – shifts.

One of these is the current Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy (CVSS). I'm not going to go into all the history and the political machinations that led to this... (let me tell you folks, it's been stewing for at least 16 years) I'm just happy that there is a CVSS, a regional conversation on what "sustainability" might mean in this place.

I'm also tickled that I get to play a small role in stimulating this convo. The deal? I've got a teeny tiny contract to do something I love, related to this place I love, about a topic I think is ¡muy importante!

With a couple of long time friends and fellow Valley-lovers/crazy people, we cooked up a project and called it #3x2x8. Lucky me (I'm not being ironic – I feel pretty blessed right now), I get to interview people about "sustainability." I get to do my social media schtick with these interviews (that means I'll be using YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc and tagging it all with #3x2x8 and #CV2050 so you can find it). I get to talk to people about stuff that matters to me in a way that means something to me (and isn't just more policy/public meetings stuff – frankly folks, if I have to go to one more public meeting it's one too many). With #3x2x8 I get to cut through some of the noise around "sustainability." I get to make it a little momre real, tangible, and accessible.

Sorry if #3x2x8 sounds like geek-speak. In real-time/real-space, #3x2x8 means this: some folks who love the Comox Valley (that's David Stapley, Meaghan Cursons, and me) wanted a simple, straightforward way to stimulate and deepen the conversation about sustainability in the Comox Valley. We also wanted something that would sustain and change over the coming months and years as all of us work towards making this place a more resilient and thriving home. It looks like this:

3 = 3 questions / 2 = 2 community leaders / 8 = 8 pillars of sustainability

3 questions...
1. What part of the CVSS excites you?
2. What will be the challenges in implementing the Sustainability Strategy in the Comox Valley?
3. In what ways do you think your community organizations / business / local government / neighbourhood
can work with local government /neighbourhood / business / community organization
...to help create a sustainable Comox Valley?

I'm already off and running with #3x2x8. I've been doing video interviews of 16 community leaders (2 leaders x 8 pillars) and posting them to YouTube and Facebook.

The 16 Community Leaders...
How did we come up with our 16? This was tough. In a community like ours, choosing only 2x8 "community leaders" is a challenge. Politically risky. We have lots of great people in "community leadership" roles – and very poor mechanisms for mentoring/laddering them into "useful" positions. (I can't help digressing here: Folks, this is not rocket science. One of our neighbouring communities is quite successful, in part because it uses a civic "committee" system to bring fresh ideas/blood to the Council table. They're building community capacity/leadership/resilience. We waste our leadership talent – but we've got so much we don't even notice!)

We just plunged in with our choices. We invited folks who've taken a lead in being involved one of the 8 pillars of "sustainability" in our community. But we think you'll disagree with some of our choices... and....

....This is what I love about the #3x2x8 project: we're only kick-staring the convo. We KNOW you'll see the gaps in our leadership roster (it's true, there are more than 16 perspectives on what sustainability in the Comox Valley looks like – amazing, but true). Given the means of production (a simple digital camera, access to a YouTube and Facebook and Twitter account) and our #3x2x8 template, we WANT YOU TO PICK A BONE WITH US.

Democracy in action... or something messy like that
We hope you'll go and interview the folks we've missed (your neighbour, for one; your spouse for another). All that we ask is that you post them to Facebook or YouTube or VIMEO. Tweet about them. But, above all, we ask that you TAG THEM: #CV2050 #3x2x8. Why? Because then anyone in the Comox Valley can search and find the convo – and your contributions will rank as high or low as ours, maybe higher if you've got lots of readers/followers/etc. Democracy of the media.

Reasons for being...interested in sustainability in the Comox Valley
Why are we doing this? The big motivation behind the whole #3x2x8 thing (and the #CV2050 convo that preceeded it) is about trying to stimulate an important discussion that doesn't stop at a civic policy document. It's something that Señor Stapley, Ms. Cursons, and I have been working on in our different ways for years now (15 for me). Muy cool that we get to connect – and connect to something like CVSS.

But #3x2x8 is just a start. I'm just doing 16 interviews. Asking 3 questions. That's 48 responses. In a region with about 62,326 folks (that's from BC Stats).

Help!
I want your help. Take the template. Run with it. Play with the process. Interview your sister, your father, the guy who delivers the mail. Buy your boss a beer and ask him the 3 questions. Video it. Make an audio podcast. Write it up. Post it to our CV2050.com website. Or our CV2050 Facebook page. Follow the convo at our CV2050 Twitter account.

This is serious stuff.

But it's also something to play with.

People in the Comox Valley know how to get things done, and we know how to dance, sing, throw parties and festivals – we know how to make things happen and how to have fun doing it. I think it can be the same with "sustainability."

The important thing is that people are talking about and thinking about what kinds of changes do we need to make, to ensure that in the next decade (2020), or at 2050, there's a beautiful place to live in what we now know as the Comox Valley.

hpm
October 28, 2009

GGRC09: Resilient Cities ~ Day 1, Part 1

2009-10-20T12:55:00.000-07:00

OK. Almost 4 hours into the 2009 version of Gaining Ground, Resilient Cities.

Highlights? Too many to count right now. The presentation we just got from #teamadams (that's the tag that Portland Mayor Sam Adams is using to track comments about what he and is team are doing with one of the most sustainable cities in the US) was inspiring. I especially liked the "friendly rivalry" being generated between Portland ("most sustainable city") and Vancouver ("greenest city"). This was also appreciated by lots of twitter folks in the crowd. Here's one from @NaomiDevine: "Mayor of Portland: My challenge is 2 make sure my city doesn't think we've made it yet. There's more 2 do. http://yfrog.com/0p3w1j"

Earlier, Cam Brewer of SmartGrowth BC did a great job of rolling out some Smart Growth success stories, particularly the enthusiasm of Prince George City Council for the downtown plan. Here's @jamesglave quote, a pithy synopsis by Brewer: "We cannot effectively address climate change if we do not get the land-use planning piece right."

I also like that @jamesglave caught this one and posted it (let me grind my axe here about my town's desire to build yet another bridge!): "We are bemoaning high cost of healthcare + spending millions on highways /bridges." It's also exciting that the Canadian Green Building Council is working with Smart Growth BC to connect the dots on things like buildings, transportation, land use. Together these areas account for about 80% or more of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) – what we have to reduce substantially in the next few years to mitigate some of the impact of climate change. Or, as @granvillemag put it: "Smart Growth BC partner w Canada Green Building Council 2 reduce silos btwn building, planning & infra"

Paul Hawken's presentation before the morning break was wonderful. I was near to tears. I'm not familiar with this guy. Maybe a bit of a reaction to the kind of popularity he's generated. Now I know why. As @granvillemag said, "totally inspired after Paul Hawkin's speech! Very human focused http://bit.ly/XCB6s "

Here are a few other twitter-bits that relate some of my remembrances of Hawken. @phillipdjwa: Hawken's summary - We are using more of what we have less of to use less of what we have more of...

@foglio: Hawken praises Nobel for Ostrom as recognition of ecological economics. Hopefully Herman Daly will be next.

@mediathtmatters: Hawken talking about singing reminding us that we define one another. Process, communication, dialogue will transform us.

@planningpool: Paul Hawken ~ Cities are the most effective context for addressing climate change!

@ryanrutley:"We could have save it but we were too goddamned cheap." Vonnegut

@CITinfoResource weighed in by connecting local planner Janine de la Salle's comments to a CIT post: Hawken on urban agriculture - connects to Janine de la Salle's comments on our recent post on food/sustainability http://ow.ly/rLsS.

And, one of my favourites:

@michelerule: Paul Hawken "Cities are good birth control"! [Hawken's comment was that increasing quality of life in high-density living situations reduces birth rates, to the point that we're expecting to have "only" 2 billion humans on earth by mid-century... Did I get that right? Seems a short time to see such reduction.]

Before the tour de force that was Hawken, we had His Worship Mayor Gregor Roberston, captured by @foglio: Me and "his worship" mayor Gregor Robertson http://twitpic.com/m9gur. Mayor R's 10 year plan to make YVR the "greenest" city inspired lots of tweets. @zannalyons summed it up with this: Vancouver will be a mecca for green enterprise, eliminate dependence on fossil fuels, lead green building design n construction.

Finally, before I break for a much-needed lunch (nothing to eat since late last night when I had a very, very lovely meal at Campagnolo on Main Street), a couple of reminders via twitter:

@hummingbird604: While we are having the smart growth conversation at #ggrc09 I would LOVE if Canadians stopped thinking that they have lots of water!

@NaomiDevine: Sustainability. Not just for hippies anymore

hasta luego sustainabilitistas!

hpm

Development Issues

Top Issues in the Upcoming Comox Valley November 19 Municipal Elections

An Open Letter to the Village of Cumberland re: Big Time Out 2011

Building sustainability news channels for the 2011 civic elections

Community Development as Reality TV

Related articles

Where is the sustainability conversation in your community?

Related articles

The BC Pot Conundrum

Related articles

For Generations to Come: Food Security, Land Use & Affordable Housing in Rural Communities on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands

Related articles

Gene Miller talks about Gaining Ground 2010

Related articles

Naomi Devine, The Inconvenient Truth, and sustainability in BC communities

Collaboration+NGO Leadership=Sustainability

NGOs, Imagination, and Nancy Lublin's ZILCH: Win this book!

Gaining2010 conversations: Gil Yaron of Lighthouse talks to hanspetermeyer about "green" building

Related articles by Zemanta

Barry Brown-John talks about Gaining Ground 2009, real estate, sustainability, and the Kootenays

Related articles

Local Food and Agriculture: Six Questionable Assumptions

Related articles

Mark Holland talks about his Resilient Cities Manifesto (prelude to Gaining Ground 2010)

Thinking about the Rural/Urban Divide

Related articles…

Changing the way we are engaging the "Sustainability Conversation"

Related articles

Investing in community quality of life

by hanspetermeyer

Related articles by Zemanta

The Challenge of Gaining Ground: Bringing the Resilient Cities Conversation Home

reBlog from Communities in Transition Information Resource: Local Government and Social Media – Use me. Please.

Sustainability 3: Mark Holland on learnings from the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy

Sustainability 2: hanspetermeyer's 2nd interview with Mark Holland

Sustainability 1: hanspetermeyer's first interview with Mark Holland

#3x2x8 – Kick starting the "sustainability convo" in the Comox Valley #CV2050

GGRC09: Resilient Cities ~ Day 1, Part 1