With our Official Community Plan (OCP) coming forward shortly for final approval, and much of our land having applications for residential development imminent, no doubt many in Squamish have put some thought into what our future holds.
In many political discussions, the language around climate mitigation is tossed around without many implementations or appropriate funding. Much of this work must be tackled through the budget, and planning, which must include financial reasoning and plans for a low carbon future.
There is no doubt that infrastructure resilience takes strong decision-making. In Squamish, we now have residential applications covering most of our land. Squamish has set aside land to accommodate the expected tsunami of seniors; however, there are residential applications on greenways, employment, and seniors’ lands. I have concerns that we are giving away too much.
As we grow, are we making sure that we are doing so responsibly? Are we growing in the appropriate areas and with the correct amount of density to be able to afford future infrastructure needs such as Brennan Park? Schools? Sidewalks? When a community considers building on sensitive habitat, while ignoring the input of the public to a newly formed Official Community Plan and claims it is only a ‘guideline,’ one must at some point ask how we became so indebted to such a false economy.
At what point do we augment relatively uninformed biases from our decisions and add in expert opinion? How do decision makers avoid biases that form when community groups strapped for cash are promised funding in exchange for development advocacy? This has proven to make decisions to change OCP zoning more difficult.
It is an economic principle that scarcity creates unaffordable outcomes in communities with restricted building areas.
In other words, the scarce land has become expensive. Squamish was unknowingly built upon very sensitive land, subject to climate and geophysical disasters, including floods and debris flows. We built our town on an estuary, which we now know is a massive carbon sink, and therefore a natural resource. Before high density, this seemed reasonable.
We know how long pipes last, how much they cost, and how much density is required to pay for future infrastructure. We know how to plan neighbourhoods, and understand long-term cost and environmental impacts. Informed decisions can be made.
While urban environments that can afford to are moving their housing and economy out of areas that may be damaged by rising sea levels and increased climate-related events, Squamish has embedded high density in low lying areas within the Official Community Plan. Growth management is new for Squamish but needs to include principles of science including predicted climate disruption.
Do we believe that putting people in ecologically sensitive areas is a good idea? What impact do growth boundaries have on affordability? When do we measure carbon value and stop trading sensitive habitat for a quick profit?
On March 12th and 13th, the public is asked to comment.
The OCP is not just a guideline. It is democracy.
