The Gabriola election campaign
A short drive around Gabriola will remind you that we’ve got an election coming up: Eric Moeller has campaign signs here and there, and Jordy Alexander has lots and lots of signs up. (Odd, though, that Jordy didn’t respond when the Flying Shingle asked him for information. I wonder what’s up with that.)
Now look what’s opened at Folklife Village: a Maggie Mooney campaign office, staffed with volunteers, and sporting campaign literature that points readers to the Maggie Mooney.com website. Wow. That’s pretty organized! (Is this campaign office a first for Gabriola?)
Maggie’s website asks for volunteers, some of whom may opt for going door-to-door with Maggie or a key campaign team member to discuss the election and the issues with your neighbours
.
Door to door? On Gabriola? Eek. I hope they skip my neighbourhood. Door to door stuff is too much like religious proselytizing for my taste.
Anyway. Of the candidates who are running for election on Gabriola at the moment, Sheila Malcolmson and Maggie Mooney seem to be the only ones with websites.
Filed in Gabriola Island,Gabriola people,Islands Trust,politics,RDN 108 Comments so far
108 Responses to “The Gabriola election campaign”
specialk on 27 Oct 2011 at 9:58 pm #
I am not in the demographic who would enjoy a visit from people going to door to door. In fact it may likely achieve the opposite desired effect.
Am I alone here? Would anyone else not vote for a candidate who showed up at the door with volunteers?
Gabriolan on 28 Oct 2011 at 8:26 am #
specialk – When my doorbell rings, I want to find a friend or neighbour on my porch. Not somebody selling things, not the local JWs who want to convert me, and not representatives from some political campaign.
I wouldn’t completely rule out voting for a door-to-door campaigner, but such a visit would be a negative thing in my view.
Jeff Molloy on 28 Oct 2011 at 10:58 am #
Wow, that surprises me. If someone has the gumption and is willing to make that kind of effort to engage me at my front door about issues that effect me, they would get my vote. The thing is…it is your neighbour showing up at your door, here on this tiny Island we are all neighbours and we need to take care of each other. Nobody is trying to sell you anything.
Anon E Mouse on 28 Oct 2011 at 12:40 pm #
I’m totally on the side of those who don’t want to find a politician or political supporter on their doorstep. I’m trying to remember if I’ve ever voted for a political candidate who did this, and I’m pretty sure none of them have ever gotten my vote. I can’t imagine what standing on my doorstep (usually with a stupid brochure which I’m going to throw out immediately, because I’ve already gotten the relevant information some other way) could ever do other than annoy me.
pericat on 28 Oct 2011 at 4:41 pm #
We were in Raven getting dog food and an impromptu political discussion happened, specifially turning on the extra-splashy advertising Jordy’s doing. I am not thrilled to see that kind of thing, as I don’t think it’s made an improvement in provincial or national politics, and think local office candidates are better advised to spend a few days hanging out in the Village and maybe writing a letter to the editors of the local papers.
What I heard was that Jordy is a pro-business development kind of fellow, and that Maggie was more pro-environmental, for what that’s all worth. If they come around banging on doors, I’ll stand for it if it’s the candidate, and they want to come in for a cup of tea and aren’t creepy, but I don’t so much care for the walking talking commercial effect.
So, candidates be warned! :) It’s a minefield out here. Might do yourselves more harm than good, and wear out a good pair of shoes doing it.
John P on 28 Oct 2011 at 5:47 pm #
I am interested to read the comments from those who don’t support door-to-door campaigning. My take is that some people feel that’s too much like where they came from – meaning city or suburbia. What about a telephone call – as long as it is not at meal time? Is that also intrusive? Otherwise how can a new candidate sell him/herself and gain some name recognition and discuss the issues?
Gabriolan on 28 Oct 2011 at 6:51 pm #
John P — I don’t want phone calls, either, thanks.
>Otherwise how can a new candidate sell him/herself and gain some name recognition and discuss the issues?
Good question. If you were a candidate asking me, I’d advise you to:
Contribute content to local papers. (Jordy’s failure to do that, when asked, makes me think he’s not a serious candidate.)
Attend all-candidates meetings. If none are organized, then take the lead and set one up.
Create a website. Not just an website, but a site that explains your position on a myriad of topics. I want to read that site and figure out where you stand on all the issues I care about. (Sheila Malcolmson does a good job at this.) I want to understand how you’re different from the other candidates.
Include your URL (website address) in promotional materials, posters, and submissions to island newspapers.
Submit something to Gabriolan.ca. (Ask for details.)
Offer casual opportunities for interaction. For example, post your hanging-out schedule. Tell us that you’ll be at Harvest Thyme for lunch every day at 1:30, and that you’ll be at Mad Rona’s on M, W, and F from 2 to 4pm, and at Silva Bay for beer on Thursday evenings. Invite us to come find you for a chat. (I think most people would ignore these invitations as far as showing-up goes, but would be impressed nonetheless at the candidate’s creativity and willingness to engage. And hey, some people would show up.)
You might even let your supporters organize dinners for you – how about potlucks? Nice and informal, eh? We’d be able to come for dinner, share food, and talk about issues. I would love that.
Publish your phone number and email address; invite people to get in touch.
Mention that you’re happy to drop by and visit people if they’ve got questions for you. That way people who would like to see you on their doorsteps can get you there.
Does anybody else think this would be a good plan? Or have I come up with an approach that only I love?
Gabriolan on 28 Oct 2011 at 7:11 pm #
pericat — I don’t care much for the either. And those signs? Maybe I’m the only one, but I look at those and think, well, that’ll go straight to the landfill once the election is over! I think I prefer a no-sign approach.
Gabriolan on 28 Oct 2011 at 7:16 pm #
Jeff – with a population of 3,000+, not all of those who live on Gabriola are my neighbours. Some are people who live rather a distance from me and have never crossed my path. Fellow-islanders, sure, but not neighbours.
Political door-knockers are trying to sell you on the idea of voting for their candidate. Gumption is a fine-enough trait, but I’m not going to vote based on door-knocking gumption. I want to know where a candidate stands on issues I care about, and I want to find that out without answering the door. :-)
Daniele R. on 28 Oct 2011 at 10:57 pm #
I personally feel that it might better if the candidate expressed an interest in the operations of the government they want to be elected to, such as volunteering for membership on a government committee or attending a few meetings, before running for election. Positive name recognition usually comes with achievements or participation. But if you haven’t done that, then the less-intrusive the better. :)
nick on 29 Oct 2011 at 9:19 am #
Like Daniele, I find it odd that some candidates only show up for pubic meetings a few weeks ahead of the election. How do they learn what’s involved I wonder?
Anon E Mouse on 29 Oct 2011 at 10:52 am #
Gabriolan – Those are awesome suggestions. I hope the candidates take note.
Gabriolan on 29 Oct 2011 at 10:52 am #
nick and Daniele R – of the current candidates, are there any that have been going to the relevant public meetings all along — not just for the last few weeks?
Daniele R. on 29 Oct 2011 at 11:26 am #
Of the current candidates, Gisele Rudischer has attended almost every Trust Committee meeting in the last 3 years (despite being the RDN director), and Sheila has attended every meeting, of course, being the incumbent. Of the RDN candidates, I’m not sure any have been regularly attending RDN meetings, which are held in Nanaimo, but some candidates have more of a history of local political participation than others.
Sheila Malcomson: http://www.sheila-malcolmson.ca/
Maggie Mooney: http://www.maggiemooney.com/
Gisele Rudischer: http://giselerudischer2011.com/
Howard Houle: http://howardhoule.wordpress.com/
Jordy Alexander and Eric Moeller don’t seem to have webpages at this time.
Gabriolan on 29 Oct 2011 at 12:57 pm #
Thanks, Daniele. I’ve added those links to the list of candidates page.
Allergison on 29 Oct 2011 at 11:35 pm #
I’m with those who would not enjoy someone coming door-to-door, or even giving me a phone call. If I’m interested to learn about your campaign I’d rather do it on my own time. I like the Gabriolan’s ideas about contributing to the paper and providing your URL.
To be honest I don’t like anyone dropping by unexpected. I like to be comfortable in my home, and sometimes that includes hanging around in my pajamas. To me, someone coming door-to-door is intrusive and would turn me off voting for them, even if I agreed with some of their ideas.
Gabriolan on 30 Oct 2011 at 8:11 am #
More on door-knocking, etc, now that I’ve thought about this some more:
When I deal with people (especially kids), dogs, corporations, etc, one of my guiding principles is this: do not reward behaviour you don’t want to see repeated. Kid throws temper tantrum? Don’t reward that, or you’ll get more of the same. Dog jumps up on you? Don’t reward that unless you want more jumping up in future.
If a political campaign is conducted in such a way that it annoys me, I will not vote for the candidate responsible. Because if I do vote for that candidate, I’m rewarding that campaign behaviour, which means that we are likely to see more of the same in future.
If your campaign is intrusive, in-my-face, on my doorstep… well, you’re offering behaviour that I don’t want to reward.
Tom C on 03 Nov 2011 at 9:38 pm #
Thanks to gabriolan.ca for hosting this Gabriola election blog. The initial post was humorous and informative. I banged out the infamous volunteer sign-up sheet that stimulated so much discussion here. It was changed the next day! Door-to-door calling is a no go. Last night Charlotte and I hosted an irregular gathering of friends to share a DVD and meal. We watched a very good movie titled Don’t Come Knocking funny eh? The movie is available at the Coop.
Maggie and volunteers will be talking to friends and neighbours in full Gabriolan mode including potlucks and teas. In this era of cynicism around politics, I find it refreshing to feel the energy and enthusiasm of the people coming through door to the heart of our campaign in the Folklife Village.
– Tom C with the Maggie Mooney campaign team.
Gabriolan on 05 Nov 2011 at 6:13 pm #
Tom C- Thanks for your comment. So relieved that there won’t be door-to-door calling! Thanks for letting us know about that.
Eric P. Moeller on 07 Nov 2011 at 9:28 am #
Hi electorates. Here is my website.
http://www.gabriola.org/moeller/
Cheers
Eric
Gabriolan on 07 Nov 2011 at 9:45 am #
Eric P. Moeller – thanks! Have added a link to your site in the list of candidates .
Penelope on 07 Nov 2011 at 11:50 am #
First off: A big thank you to Gabriolan.ca for this discussion.
I too would not like a candidate phoning or dropping by. No one mentioned that many people work at home and it is annoying to have your work interrupted. I find being interrupted by anyone—save a friend, who understands my hustling them along if I feel I have to—is a no-no in my book. It is simply too presumptuous. What I love about the internet (not having call display, nor a great memory for numbers) is that I can chose when to read and reply; it doesn’t wake me up or ring at me. However, I do not mind a campaign headquarters, or signs overly much as long as they come down and are recyclable. I must admit here, “mea culpa”, that I haven’t checked Maggie’s sign for plastic/paper content. I agreed to have it on the edge of my property as I felt it was going to be hard for a new candidate to compete with the long-term public profiles of incumbents. If she is elected, she should be well-enough known next time.
Tom C: Thanks for your response and for listening to the majority of opinions on this blog.
Daniele R: I don’t think it is enough to turn up at meetings to have a public profile. I don’t always remember names or faces. I work with the public and I see too many familiar faces and can’t always match them with where I have seen them! Names aren’t always stated at public meetings in any case. Especially, if one is there to listen and learn. I don’t think history in and of itself is a reason to believe that someone will govern well. Everyone starts somewhere and sometimes history is baggage.
If I may digress a bit here, I am also not averse to seeing the little sandwich boards that promote home-based studios/businesses! We are rural, we are not primarily residential with design police telling us what kind of fence or signpost we can have by the side of the road. It’s great that home-based businesses are allowed, but it’s not great to stop them from showing visitors how to find them! In fact, it is counter-productive. I know of a couple of such ‘businesses’ who have seen fewer weekend drop-ins as a result of them having to take down their signs. I would like to know what the IT candidates feel they can do about amending the by-law that restricts the use, or placement, of signs and sandwich boards.
May I also say, that it is wonderful to have three candidates for the IT that I am proud to know. That it has made my choice hard is a sad by-product; but that it has brought discussion and forced us lazy electors to think is bloody marvellous. Perhaps we have been too lucky in the past, and have become too lazy, which in turn has recently allowed for too many acclamations at all election levels here on Gabriola. What is happening in the rest of Canada is a wake-up call to us all.
Hope to see you all at the meeting tonight, even if I won’t know who many of you are!
nick on 08 Nov 2011 at 9:20 am #
One of the advantages a candidate would have by showing up at a few meetings before deciding to run would be the acquisition of the ability to answer questions come election time. In one embarrassing moment at the all-candidates meeting last night, one candidate appeared not to even understand the question despite it being on a core and controversial rezoning policy issue that has been around for years. [Are you in favour of amenity rezoning? - allowing developers to increase density in exchange for a community benefit other than a density-neutral land swap.]
mars on 08 Nov 2011 at 12:52 pm #
There are always going to be people out there that want us to believe that the details are what matter. My experience has taught me the opposite. People often get caught in details and never see the big picture. I’d vote for someone with good values and integrity over an encyclopedia every time.
nick on 08 Nov 2011 at 4:11 pm #
There’s a candidate out there that doesn’t have “good values and integrity”? You can be sure the developers have a good command of the details and they and their lawyers will make mincemeat of anyone that doesn’t.
mars on 08 Nov 2011 at 7:06 pm #
Don’t worry Nick, anyone that reads will have the details as well. So I think we’re safe no matter who gets elected.
nick on 08 Nov 2011 at 11:42 pm #
Oh right mars, I was forgetting. Pick a card, any card, and if you don’t like it, you can always throw it out later. Great system, I agree. Not taxing at all. And no surprise that we keep electing wildly popular and successful governments.
I just have to learn to stop wanting a candidate campaigning on introducing new ideas to actually come up with one.
Daniele R. on 09 Nov 2011 at 9:56 pm #
Penelope:
Really? You don’t think that someone’s history doing the job they’re running for is any indication of how well they will do at that job? If that isn’t a good indication, then I don’t know what is.
And history is definitely baggage if you didn’t do the job well — mistakes will and do come back to bite you in the butt. But when you’ve done good work, there’s proof of your ability and aptitude. I find that new candidates often run on a platform of newness without actually specifying much they think needs to be changed, or bringing any real innovation to the table.
Innovative ideas come from knowledge because you have to know the rules in order to think outside of the box. Anyone can come up with completely outlandish, impossible ideas, but what’s the point if there’s no way to implement them?
skadhu on 10 Nov 2011 at 9:08 am #
I’m writing this in haste before going to work, so I hope it makes sense….
At the last election I was a newcomer to the island and didn’t know anything about any of the candidates, so I carefully read their statements and voted based on what they said they stood for. As it happens, Giselle and Sheila were among those I voted for.
On the whole I was pleased with the results and inclined to cast my vote for them again, but when I attended the all-candidates meeting I had not decided definitely on my vote for this election—I wanted to hear what Maggie had to to say before making up my mind. I wanted to see what new ideas she brought to the table.
I thought all the candidates did a good job at the meeting and I’m delighted that they all have stood for office. In the actual debate the benefits of political experience sometimes showed to one or another candidate’s advantage, but that’s to be expected.
As things stand now, I won’t be voting for Maggie, for a very simple reason: I don’t know what she’s offering that’s different from what Sheila and Giselle are offering. I don’t know what she stands for.
Before the meeting I read through the material on all the candidates’ websites. Sheila is very clear about what she thinks is important and what she stands for. Giselle’s site isn’t as methodically organized, but her views on specifics are still generally pretty clear. Maggie’s site doesn’t give much information beyond some generalized statements, which is one of the reasons I wanted to go to the meeting.
What I want to know is this: exactly where is Maggie’s platform different from that of Giselle and Sheila? What are the problems with their approach, how is Maggie’s approach different, and why is it better? I don’t get any answers on the website, and I didn’t get any at the meeting. Maggie’s answers were still generic, and honestly, could have been said by any candidate. Everyone supports the environment, everyone supports affordable housing, and so on.
The problem with this is that a generalized answer can be interpreted in many different ways, and the differences between interpretations are important. For example, if I recall rightly Maggie talked about the importance of process and of bringing new voices into the discussions.
Well, what is meant by process? Are we talking about what happens in meetings? Are we talking about the differences between Roberts’ Rules and consensus? (Having served extensively in organizations that have used both systems for decision-making, I have strong opinions about both and when they are and aren’t useful and how they can be gamed.) Or are we talking about changing decision-making processes in some way? Is that even possible? Or are we talking about people being left out of the process? Who? What are the proposals for bringing them into it?
Those new voices—who are they? Who is not being represented? Why is the status quo not working? Why will Maggie’s approach be different and better?
That’s what I’m getting at when I say that I don’t know what Maggie stands for. A big picture is great, it’s what provides vision and holds the details in context, and it’s critical to have it. But the details are important too, not just something to dismiss. The details are what defines one candidate in relation to another. The details are also, to my mind, in many cases what defines whether a goal can be achieved. I won’t vote for a candidate who won’t go into details.
(Yes, Maggie has said “Come and talk to me.” But my reality right now is that I’m working 7 days a week, mostly off island, and I’m only on Gabriola for 2 days of the week, and working during that period—I don’t have a lot of time to spare, so I’m not going to be meeting with any candidates. Attending the meeting was a chance to hear what everyone had to say at the same time, but it didn’t give me what I needed to know. And in any case I shouldn’t have to have a private meeting with a candidate in order to figure out what they stand for.)
But worse, the meeting gave me a reason NOT to vote for Maggie. When asked a direct question about specifics relating to some of these issues, she evaded. That was a misstep. Although there may be good reasons not to go into extremely specific details (e.g. because it would be inappropriately divisive and distract from larger issues) she should have had an answer that gave a context for that refusal to deal with specifics while giving a sense of what she’s offering.
I was left with the feeling that there was a grievance about the status quo, but I still haven’t got a clue why. I don’t know the background, and I’m not a mind reader. The fact that I haven’t been told and, worse, that there seems to be an effort to avoid talking about specifics, makes me wonder why these things can’t be talked about. I don’t take things on faith, and I don’t trust anyone who asks me to do so. I strongly believe that it is possible to present specifics, in context, without getting into levels of detail that would be distracting.
I would still like to hear what Maggie offers that’s different, and an explanation of how it’s different and why her approach is better. I hope that she makes it all clear.
John Hudson on 10 Nov 2011 at 10:10 am #
I returned from a business trip to find the campaign in full swing, and quickly noticed a number of differences between this campaign and the one three years ago. Maggie Mooney’s campaign seems to me a ‘game changer’, although perhaps not in the ways her supporters here have suggested. The professional graphic design of the posters and other campaign materials, the campaign HQ at the Village, the impression of a campaign organisation behind the candidate, the campaign song, the visible presence of volunteers and supporters, the widely presumed institutional support (see below): all raise the level of campaigning. [Jordy Alexander's campaign also shares some of these elements, although it is difficult to say whether he is following the Mooney model or intended from the beginning to campaign in this way.]
I have a few concerns about this. The first is a personal view: I prefer the low key campaigning of previous elections, focused on issues rather than on image. I preferred to see candidates campaign on policy rather than on generalisations and vague talk about change. So I’m concerned that if Maggie Mooney is elected, if this campaign model is perceived to have succeeded, then in future elections all the candidates will feel obliged to campaign in this fashion. [The 'maggie' campaign probably lost my vote from the outset, on the principle of 'Don't reward behaviour you don't want to see repeated'.]
The second concern regards campaign financing and disclosure. Leaving aside the fact that if this model of campaigning becomes the norm for future elections then a higher economic baseline becomes the minimum requirement for mounting a candidacy with any hope of success (as we have seen at other levels of government), the fact that such campaigns require more financial resources raises questions of how much money is being spent and where it comes from. We’re unlikely on Gabriola to ever see the levels of expenditure of city elections, let alone provincial or national ones, but the principle is the same. I was surprised to find that there don’t seem to be any regulations requiring RDN and Islands Trust candidates to disclose campaign finances. Perhaps in previous elections the amounts were presumed to be so small as to not pose a concern. But as I say, things seem different this year.
The third concern, related to the second, regards disclosure of affiliation. It seems no secret on the island that the Mooney campaign is strongly supported by PHC. Indeed, I overheard one person on the ferry describing Maggie Mooney as ‘the PHC candidate’. Whether this perception is accurate or not, it seems strange to me — with speculation so widespread — that no one, to my knowledge, has publicly asked Maggie Mooney to clarify the nature of the relationship between her candidacy and PHC. As ‘skadhu’ indicates, some people are uneasy, sensing that there are things they are not being told about this campaign. This feeling might not be justified, but it does suggest that despite the glitz there are aspects of the Mooney campaign that are not being well managed when it comes to communication and transparency.
Sheila M on 10 Nov 2011 at 1:17 pm #
In case it helps the conversation, candidates ARE required to disclose what they raised/spent, but this isn’t on the public record until 4 or so months after the election date. The 2008 forms can be seen here: http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/contact/candidateListing.cfm
nick on 11 Nov 2011 at 1:21 pm #
Maggie Mooney is, or was, on the Board of the People For a Healthy Community on Gabriola Island. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, it’s very much to her credit. It just strikes me as odd that at the all-candidates meeting when asked about her own views on amenity zoning, she was confused; yet, in a letter sent to the LTC on May 18 (on public record), signed by her on behalf of the PHC Board and herself, there was advocacy for amenity zoning (using those words) for affordable housing (comments on Section 2.4). Again, nothing wrong with that in itself; it’s a perfect legitimate point of view. But then why not say that’s what you stand for when asked, or if it isn’t, why not say that too?
In my own view, any blanket statement to the effect that under no circumstances whatsoever should amenity zoning be considered is, like most absolutes, foolhardy, because one never knows what may turn up; however, as people acquainted with the political history of the island well know, this issue is not to be taken lightly. Even though I wasn’t living here at the time and was following things from afar, it is perfectly plain talking to those who were here, that nobody ever again wants to go through as painful and shameful a controversy as happened in the early 1990s.
It was a good question and it deserved an honest answer.
klang on 13 Nov 2011 at 12:09 pm #
Nick in regards to your comments about the PHC letter of May 18. I did look it up (on Trust web site) and it appears you did not understand the import of the letter.
The letter proposes a change to paragraph (b) of section 2.4 of the Official Community Plan (OCP). Note that the reference to paragraph (b) should have been paragraph (c ).
The proposed change to the paragraph, as I understand it, simply asks that the current provisions for affordable housing for seniors and special needs persons be extended to low income families. It does not suggest that amenity zoning be used for low income families or for any group for that matter.
Paragraph (c ) of the current OCP reads as follows:
The amenity zoning provisions of Section 904 of the Local Government Act shall only be permitted to be used on Gabriola to facilitate the provision of Multi-dwelling affordable housing for seniors and Special Needs residents.
The PHC letter cited this paragraph of the OCP and proposed that the words “for seniors and Special Needs residents” be deleted. The citation of the paragraph simply omitted part of the paragraph (note3 use of …..) for the sake of brevity I assume.
Thus, in my view, your statement ” there was advocacy for amenity zoning (using those words) for affordable housing” is not accurate. I believe the confusion partly arises from the current phrasing of the OCP which uses the phrase “amenity zoning provision of Section 904…” .
Section 904, in my view, speaks to 2 reasons for increased density : amenities and affordable housing. See extract immediately following:
Zoning for amenities and affordable housing
904 (1) A zoning bylaw may
(a) establish different density regulations for a zone, one generally applicable for the zone and the other or others to apply if the applicable conditions under paragraph (b) are met, and
(b) establish conditions in accordance with subsection (2) that will entitle an owner to a higher density under paragraph (a).
(2) The following are conditions that may be included under subsection (1) (b):
(a) conditions relating to the conservation or provision of amenities, including the number, kind and extent of amenities;
(b) conditions relating to the provision of affordable and special needs housing, as such housing is defined in the bylaw, including the number, kind and extent of the housing;
(c) a condition that the owner enter into a housing agreement under section 905 before a building permit is issued in relation to property to which the condition applies.
The OCP phrase “amenity zoning for affordable housing” is inaccurate as “affordable housing” is not a subset of “amenities”. They are separate reasons for increased densities.The OCP currently allows increased densities for affordable housing but not for amenities.
So, in my view, PHC had not proposed amenity zoning as you cite.
Secondly, I would add that Trustees, current and past, have not read section 904 in the same way as I do. A review of the OCP is definitely needed.
deb on 13 Nov 2011 at 7:44 pm #
thank you for doing this topic…I can’t add much, I was at the all candidates meeting and too felt Maggie had not answered some questions that were straightforward. I also felt that once she introduced the topic of how the island is not inclusive of some folks…and that more conversations need to happen…that my instinct was these conversations were going to introduce controversy…not compromise ( esp when she would not give any more details, that seemed downright secretive). Many of you discussed this topic to its full extent and better than I would have parsed it…so again, thank you, it help clarify my uneasiness about the jordy and mooney campaign styles which I did feel were too much and too large of a footprint (at least for gabe).
the idea of door to door would not be a good one…and really is too labour intensive and intrusive…we have websites and emails for detail oriented discussions. Todays technology allows a lot more freedom and a lot more ease…might as well take advantage…glad to hear most of the candidates have their websites up for islanders to take in at their own convenience.
the papers and the all candidates meeting give a lot of details and allow the community to interact publicly with the candidates…and this is very telling…I enjoyed this session …it was well done and the questions were awesome…I loved seeing the candidates live and unscripted (at least the latter portion).
I think the conversations this community needs to have can be done via the computer…why have more meetings…and really an email can suffice…as a vote for whatever issue…more people need to send them into to RDN and IT when they have something to say. IF live meetings make you sweat…give the computer a try:)
Maggie Mooney on 13 Nov 2011 at 11:52 pm #
I appreciate the range of voices and opinions here, and am also happy to see that important information about local fungus and birds hasn’t been completely eclipsed by election conversations.
This note is to let you know that I’ve posted some notes on what I think are important policy issues on my website (http://www.maggiemooney.com). I’m going to be in the office in the Village as much as possible all week — I hope many readers of the Gabriolan will come by to have talk about the election issues that most concern you.
I hear that voter turnout at the advance polls was high. This is great news — I hope the trend continues on election day, and all eligible voters get out to vote.
Gisele R on 14 Nov 2011 at 1:46 am #
Klang –
With regards to your comments that current and past trustees have not read Section 904 in the same way as you do, I beg to differ.
The OCP adopted in 1997 Section 2.4 b) reads “The provisions of Section 904 of the Municipal Act shall only be permitted to be used on Gabriola Island to facilitate the provision of affordable seniors and special needs housing”. This was meant to allow an increase in density for affordable seniors and special needs housing and also preclude the use of the amenity zoning provision that would allow an increase in density for an amenity.
The wording of this policy was changed in the recent OCP review to read “The amenity zoning provisions of Section 904 of the Municipal Act shall only be permitted to be used on Gabriola Island to facilitate the the provision of Multi-dwelling affordable housing for seniors and special needs”.
I agree that the use of the term “amenity zoning” is incorrect but it doesn’t change the meaning which is: increases in density shall only be allowed for affordable seniors and special needs housing.
A misunderstanding of the the term does not alter the fact that increases in density were recommended in return for the provision of affordable housing for low-income families. Had these been allowed there would have been no need for the recommendation.
Gisele R on 14 Nov 2011 at 2:45 am #
Penelope…
On Signs:
The sign regulations allow any number of signs on most residential property provided they are no larger than 1.5 sq. m. (16.1 ft.) in total. Property zoned for Seniors is allowed a total of 2 signs for a total area of 4 sq. m. (43 sq. ft.).
Home businesses are allowed one sign no larger than .3 sq. m. (3.2 sq. ft.) which must be included in the 1.5 sq. m total area allowed and not in addition to it.
Although signs are regulated according to zones and zone boundaries extend beyond property lines, the number of signs and the sizes allowed are expressed in terms of lots. It remains unclear to me if those provisions in the bylaw extend to road allowances.
If home businesses located on side roads are unable to advertise on main roads I’m sure their businesses would be negatively affected.
Temporary signs are unregulated except for real estate signs which must be located on the subject parcel and must be removed within two weeks of sale.
It seems that it might be a good idea to clarify these regulations when the Land Use Bylaw is reviewed.
FYI – The last time anyone on Gabriola came to office through acclamation was in 1999. In the previous four elections over the last twelve years there have been numerous candidates.
klang on 14 Nov 2011 at 11:00 am #
Gisele, Thanks for your clarification. I stand corrected with regard to my statement that the past trustees read section 904 differently. Your point about the prior wording of section 2.4 is correct- I forgot that 2.4 had been changed recently.
However, the term “amenity” generates a strong reaction on Gabriola.
Consequently, when I read Nick’s statement that PHC (and Maggie) had pushed for for use of the “amenity” provision of section 904 for increased density I felt it warranted a rebuttal.
fay on 14 Nov 2011 at 11:03 am #
I would like to respond to John Hudson’s desire for specificity. It is important that comments do not become personal criticisms and I appreciate the conditions this blog puts on people’s comments. My guess is that in that same spirit it is difficult to go into specifics about how people are feeling unheard and dismissed when they engage in community issues. Many of those working on Maggie’s campaign and those indicating support for Maggie are people who have been actively engaged, volunteering numerous hours in the community on a wide range of issues. I heard someone suggest that people just needed to speak up if they felt they weren’t being heard. I would suggest that it is the people that have been speaking up that are being ‘unheard’ and there are many more who are no longer willing to speak up because of past experiences. If the OCP is truly supposed to be about a community vision but only certain voices are allowed to be heard then it really isn’t a community vision.
nick on 14 Nov 2011 at 1:28 pm #
On the sensitivity of the term “amenity” in connection with the permitting of zoning density increases, I note that the term doesn’t often appear in the literature of other jurisdictions dealing with essentially the same issue. The Social Planning and Research Council (SPARC BC), for example, prefers the term “Density Bonus”, which it defines as “…zoning bylaws that enable developers to build additional units in return for public amenities such as affordable housing, public art, parkland, and daycare facilities”.
Seems to me, and I’m no expert, Gabriola’s OCP simply says: “no density bonuses unless there is overwhelming public demand, or the bonus is pursuant to the provision of housing for seniors and residents with special needs”. The “unless…public demand” clause phrase here reflects the change the LTC had to make to the OCP (Bylaw 260) in order to accommodate the recent IN4 rezoning for the Medical Health Clinic.
Does the issue need to be put more complicatedly than this? (…he asks innocently) and if not, isn’t it pretty simple to say whether you support changing the OCP or not?
skadhu on 14 Nov 2011 at 3:31 pm #
Be warned—this is a really long comment, I like thinking about things like this. My apologies if it feels like being hit over the head with a wall of text.
In response to fay’s comment—I’m really glad you posted this, and have brought up the issue of people feeling unheard and dismissed. I think it’s an important discussion in a much wider context than simply this election.
I’m not John, and he can certainly speak for himself, but as another person who asked for specificity, I’ll repeat my point that it’s necessary in order to distinguish between candidates where everyone is in agreement about the importance of major issues but there are potential differences in the interpretation of what is discussed and the implementation of subsequent policies that are developed.
As far as what was said about people feeling unheard and dismissed goes, I think that it’s important for a candidate to be able to represent some concrete issues while still respecting individual privacy and avoiding specifics that would identify people. In order to evaluate what Maggie (or anyone else) proposes as a solution for people not being heard, we need to know what is meant by not being heard. That doesn’t mean saying, “So-and-so told me that they were dissed by so-and-so in a meeting about issue X, and here’s what was said,” it means providing a general context for understanding what people are upset about: “People presenting view X have told me that they don’t feel that their views are taken into consideration during process Y,” or something like that.
Moving to a more generic discussion….
I do think the issue of voices being represented is an important one, but I also think it’s very complex. Fay, you commented that people don’t speak up because past experience has given them good reason not to. There are a lot of reasons why people may think that they’re not able to speak or to be heard, but there are differences between those reasons. My personal responses to complaints would vary depending on the details of how and why people feel unheard. I don’t know which reasons you’re referring to, so I’ll address all of the ones I can think of.
(BTW, I’m going to use “you” and “I” in the following, it doesn’t mean you-fay or me-skadhu, it is meant more generically to represent changing points of view.)
Attacks
One reason people may feel unable to speak is that they’ve been attacked or felt attacked as a result of speaking up in the past. There’s polite discussion that challenges differences in opinion, and then there’s gratuitously vitriolic attacks. Unfortunately a lot of statements that fall somewhere in between those extremes probably feel polite to the people who say them and vitriolic to those who receive them. Equally unfortunately, the response to being treated disrespectfully is often to be just as nasty back, and feel justified in it. Once that cycle starts you can say goodbye to actual discussion of an issue, it’s all just scoring points in a Who-Is-Most-Disrespected competition.
I personally believe that people should be free to express opinions without being attacked for them on a personal or ad-hominem basis. I do think that people should also be free to strongly challenge opinions that are expressed, provided they address the issues and do so without gratuitously attacking the person expressing the opinion. And I think that it’s important to enforce courtesy in political discussions.
But one problem I’ve encountered in non-Gabriolan contexts is that there are some people who see disagreement, even if it’s polite disagreement, as an attack. I disagree with that point of view, and see no reason to protect anyone against polite disagreement—to do so would be to cripple democratic process entirely.
Lack of response
Another reason for feeling unheard is that you say what you think and nobody pays any attention. There are several possible explanations for this: (1) no one heard the message, (2) no one understood you, and (3) no one agreed with you.
If the reason for the lack of agreement is that no one heard your message, the solution is finding ways to increase accessibility to mechanisms that will allow you to be heard. This is a challenge that’s concrete and relatively easy to deal with. Is it simple public visibility? We’re lucky in having two newspapers on Gabriola, and even just a letter to the editor can help get a message out. If that’s not enough, maybe other venues could be developed. Is the problem visibility at political levels? Maybe that can be dealt with by re-organizing existing communication structures or introducing completely new mechanisms or opportunities for input. That’s harder, but I think it can be done.
If the reason for not being heard is that no one understood you, you need to find a way to make your points more clear. It’s your job as a communicator to communicate clearly. Work with others to frame the things said to be as clear and understandable as possible. Find ways to set up 2-way communications to create a dialogue with those who don’t understand. Again, this is a fairly straightforward problem with fairly concrete solutions.
Fay, your comment said, “if… only certain voices are allowed to be heard.” If you meant it as it was phrased, could you explain more? Do you mean that the media won’t print material from certain points of view? That people holding political office literally won’t hear presentations from certain points of view? Or…? I ask because I see a big difference between being heard and being responded to. It sounds from other things that you said that your complaint is that the people who’ve spoken up aren’t having their concerns responded to.
If the problem is that no one responded to you because they didn’t agree with you—it’s more complicated. First of all, it’s a problem with binary thinking: seeing things in terms of yes/no. That influences the way we make decisions. It’s also a problem with democratic process. The democratic process requires people to make choices. If the majority choose one option, the problem is not necessarily that the views of the other side weren’t heard or understood, and it’s not likely that being more visible or vocal is going to make a difference.
Secondly, democratic process can of course be gamed (so can collective/consensual process, but that’s a separate issue). You provide a mechanism for people to speak, then you ignore everything they say without really listening to it, while saying that you’ve listened to them. If that’s what’s going on, it’s hard to fix, but I believe it can be done if there is goodwill on all sides. But it can be very hard to distinguish “not listening and therefore not responding” to “listened but majority didn’t agree and therefore not responding.”
Finally, there’s the related problem with emotional process when people disagree. It’s easy to believe that there was no genuine process when people don’t respond the way you want them to when in fact it’s simply a matter of people going through the process of fairly listening and considering, but then deciding against you. If the majority disagrees with me and I believe in the rightness of my position, it’s easy for me to think at first that they Just Didn’t Understand, because Anyone With Half a Brain would have understood my logic and agreed with me. But that’s not necessarily true. If people persist in disagreeing with me, it’s easy to feel that I’m being dismissed with contempt, even if the arguments are polite.
There’s no simple solution for this. Being heard and being in agreement are not the same thing, and it’s a mistake to conflate them. When that happens, what is being asked for is not “listen to what I’ve got to say” but “do what I want you to do.”
I also think that a lot of problems in negotiating disagreements happen when there’s a disjunction between what appears to be going on and what’s actually going on, and that kind of dissonance can make problems worse. For example, if discussion is about “being heard” then the other side may point to all the ways in which input is collected and what they’ve listened to and say with genuine, well-meaning frustration, “Look at all the ways we let you speak! What more do you want of us!” But if the real problem is that people are feeling emotionally disrespected, that response won’t deal with it, and in fact will make it worse.
—-
I don’t know to what extent any of these things play into the reluctance of people to talk about specifics relating to our election issues. I think that some of the problems that can cause reluctance could and should be addressed. I think that others are more immutable, and inherent in the process of arguing different positions on a subject and then implementing subsequent process. I hope that these issues get discussed more, not just during the campaign but also after it.
skadhu on 14 Nov 2011 at 7:12 pm #
Also, thanks to Maggie for posting the new material on your site and advising us about it here. (Frankly, if politics can overwhelm fungus I think it will be very temporary.)
deb on 14 Nov 2011 at 7:40 pm #
Thanks Skadhu…that was about the best discussion about “community communication” I have ever read. Very well put! I can say without a doubt that sometimes meetings on Gabriola can degenerate into negative outbursts or feelings of distrust are sowed because the passion that some speak with overwhelms the others dramatically. Not sure if this always happens but it may be why some voices aren’t speaking anymore.
I also think the conversations that are not happening may be because the same people show up and voice their passion regularly while others don’t bother anymore. and this in itself becomes repetitive esp in a small community ( but that is simply my opinion)
what I like about an online dialogue and why I think its important for more people to join them…is voices can be heard that normally dont get a chance to speak and that people have to spend time writing thoughts out carefully…less opportunity for disrespectful behaviour to be condoned or expressed.
Now with that all said…I love that many people take the time to show up to community meetings and hope that will always be the case but with more people showing up to actual meetings sometimes there is less time for voices to actually be heard/or even speak.
so I hope a friendly online community can be continued and evolve…so we can learn about everyones positions in a safe environment.
I also love that our local representatives make themselves available in a variety of mediums. Were all lucky to have this on Gabe!
again well said Skadhu…you e-speak with eloquence and intelligence!
skadhu on 14 Nov 2011 at 8:03 pm #
Thanks Deb—I would love to see a friendly online continuation of these kinds of discussions. There isn’t nearly enough time in a face to face meeting to talk about everything, and I agree that it’s great that candidates are responding through other venues.
People can of course behave badly online, and often do because of anonymity, but whether anonymous or not, if one puts a bit of effort into how one says things and takes the time to respond respectfully there’s lots of potential for learning from each other.
penelope on 14 Nov 2011 at 9:09 pm #
@ Gisele: Thanks for the information about signs. Great info.
About acclamation; I thought some of the GFPID trustees had been elected by acclamation, so am happy to hear that I was wrong.
I wonder why this IT election is garnering so much more interest than the others.
nick on 14 Nov 2011 at 10:42 pm #
Gabriolan:
I do go to meetings, not all but some, but I don’t hold it against people for not doing so. I’m retired and have a keen interest in island affairs, but not everyone has the luxury of so much time, and some people have other things they’d rather be doing. Fair enough. But I do find it extraordinary that a candidate for office should virtually not attend any at all. If what Chris Bowers in her SHINGLE editorial says is true, Maggie has “attended perhaps two hours of LTC meetings in the three years she has lived here…. ….has never sat on the Advisory Review Commission, nor attended the meetings, went to none of the Volunteer Review Committee meetings, and we (?) don’t recall seeing her at the OCP review workshops”.
I’m just staggered. I suppose it’s all happening out there in some alternative forum that I didn’t have a clue existed. Quite weird, and scary.
Skadhu’s contribution is great. My personal experience is that in cultures, sub-cultures, families, among groups of friends where open disagreement is avoided, always taken personally, and where everyone is unfailingly nice to each other are less functional than those where you can go at it hammer and tongs, say exactly what you think, then go for a beer or whatever your equivalent of that is and reflect together on what you are arguing about and why. Where there’s lack of open disagreement is where you’ll most likely find suppressed anger and mistrust. But you have to share core values for frank discussion to be the best mode of interaction. If you don’t have those, then all you can do is try to be civilized, be pragmatic, keep your emotions out of it, and consider moving on. I’d love to think the island community is basically at peace with itself, but sometimes I wonder.
Gisele R on 15 Nov 2011 at 12:28 am #
Penelope…
You weren’t wrong. This thread is about the local government elections that are happening now for the Islands Trust and the RDN. It didn’t occur to me that you were referring to the Gabriola Fire Improvement District Trustee elections.
Although there have been no acclamations for positions on the Islands Trust or the RDN since 1999, there have been acclamations for some Gabriola Fire Improvement District Trustee positions. These trustees are elected at their annual general meeting by the ratepayers who show up.
penelope on 15 Nov 2011 at 12:33 am #
@ Daniele R.
I’m sorry, but I think you have read more into what I wrote, certainly more than what I meant to be there. Writing is so precise and perhaps that is why I shy away from it in general.
“I don’t think history in and of itself is a reason to believe that someone will govern well. Everyone starts somewhere and sometimes history is baggage.”
I stand by that statement … “in and of itself” being the qualifier. A good history is wonderful. And, some assumptions can be made on that history. Trudeau had a good history, but personally I think he stayed in politics at least one term too long (even though I voted for him a couple of times and continue to respect the man’s body of work tremendously).
So what I meant, and tried to say, is that history alone is not a guarantee of continued good government. I agree that the baggage I referred to would be a job badly done. Although, if one acknowledges and is accountable for one’s mistakes and can prove one has learned from them, I’d like to think another chance wasn’t out of the question.
Personally, I respect and like all three candidates and would feel comfortable with any of the combination governing for me over the next three years. So, my choice will be a tough one. They are all capable, discerning and caring women—two have had on-the-job experience and one has not. And, their campaign strategies differ. Comparing them and dissecting them is getting uncomfortable for me.
I didn’t mean to preach or convert. I apologize if I did; I simply meant to contribute. I like this blog. But, I don’t find writing easy and so I think I’ll exit here as gracefully as possible and just continue reading. Thank you.
@ Nick
I like what you had to say about voicing disagreement and healthy societies. If I feel that I have had an opportunity to present my case and that people have not only heard but listened, then even if the majority rules against me, I can feel a measure of ease. Probably because I have listened too, and maybe achieved a measure of understanding if not of agreement.
You won’t be surprised to learn that I personally find a heated exchange of ideas better in person that on paper; it is easier for me to read emotion and intent in person. Misconceptions can be cleared quickly and assumptions dealt with immediately. And it’s easier to discern opinion from judgement when face to face.
As for the drink and sharing afterwards? Oh yes!
deb on 15 Nov 2011 at 9:17 am #
Nick…I like that… a healthy community like a healthy family…clears the air instead of repressing it (meetings might become alot more interesting, esp if we film it and put it up on slice/reality tv…we can call it Community capers or Trust gangstas:)
and the alternate forum/internet universe people are perhaps talking on is Facebook though I think the discussions on this site are more involved and interesting than the FB community pages:)
skadhu on 15 Nov 2011 at 9:44 am #
Ah, there’s the one weakness with new types of social media—there’s still a problem with finding a way to hear from everyone. Much as I love new media, you won’t ever get me on Facebook—I don’t have an account and probably never will, if I can avoid it. It’s got to be a mix, face to face, online, whatever. The challenge is making sure it’s a full discussion, wherever it happens.
Gabriolan on 15 Nov 2011 at 9:46 am #
Glad to hear I’m not the only one, skadhu. You won’t find me on Facebook, either.
Gloria on 15 Nov 2011 at 9:56 am #
Worldwide people are genuinely discouraged by the combative way in which politics is undertaken and disillusioned by the authoritarian approach to leadership assumed by even those leaders elected through a democratic process. Gabriolans often commend ourselves for doing things differently—for engaging in community events and projects with a communal spirit and an openness to each other. For this reason I was discouraged that some members of the community chose to play combative politics at the recent forum for RDN and Trust candidates, challenging a candidate’s abilities because she would be a newcomer to the office (refusing to notice that everyone in every position has a first day on the job) and implying that good leadership consists solely in knowing the Trust or RDN handbooks. What I hear from those who don’t want “politics as usual” is that they want a leader who listens and is open to diverse views. An elected representative who is open and can listen can learn the details of the position. It is more difficult to acquire openness.
I will be voting for candidates for the Trust and RDN who demonstrate they know how to listen.
Sincerely
deb on 15 Nov 2011 at 9:56 am #
not to worry Skadhu and Gabriolan…the internet is vast…no need to be involved with commercialized social media sites…and isnt it just so “Gabriolan”…to create their own social site ( which I believe predates FB:) So thanks to our moderator for allowing the community to converse in this way ( without ads on the side:))
Bronka on 15 Nov 2011 at 10:58 am #
I will be voting for the people who have a clear and concise political platform, who have put in the hours and days and years of hard work and dedication. If a fresh new candidate has shown a committment, by regular and frequent attendance at public forums and special committees,etc, over the months and even a year or two prior to running, I might give them some thoughtful consideration as a potential trustee. I will be voting for the people who understand at the deepest level the politics of this fragile island. Disagreement and confrontation are sometimes necessary in the political area. This is realpolitic. This is the way the world runs! We especially need toughness and endurance and expertise at this critical time on Gabriola, and on all the threatened and vulnerable areas on this planet. There are always those with greater power and funds who will so easily and merrily run us over, if we spend too much time being “nice”.
mars on 15 Nov 2011 at 11:22 am #
I’ll be voting for a candidate that I see at community events not just at meetings. I want a trustee that puts time into the community not into lording over it.
Sheila M on 15 Nov 2011 at 11:44 am #
So interesting and helpful to read these conversations here.
I truly welcome specific details that illuminate how meetings and/or practices this past term were disrespectful or left people out of the conversation or discouraged participation or were dismissive. As Trustees, Deborah and I were completely responsible for meeting tone, and we really wanted people to give us their ideas and make it comfortable to give input. I don’t think we are intimidating, and we never received any feedback that accused us of discourteous, rude or insulting behaviour (which is what “disrespectful” means). At the All Candidates’ Meeting, this is the only thing Maggie said she’d change from what the trustees did, so I’m trying to understand this criticism.
How did we vote that didn’t reflect public input this term? Huge community support for the Commons – we voted YES to rezone it. 718 emails & submissions on the Urgent Care Clinic, largely in favour – we voted YES to rezone it. New climate change and greenhouse gas emission reduction policies we adopted were all provided by community. We funded a community group to assess Gabriola’s greenhouse gas emissions and adopted the resulting inventory entirely. Deb and I voted against each other on two ALR applications – reflecting the diversity of island views and the truly difficult decisions trustees have to make.
We could only take on four new Community Plan topics this term, and Deb and I tried to do what received the most cross-section of support. 1) We adopted the work of the grassroots cycle paths group in its entirety. 2) We adopted a new Community Vision, which was derived from an anonymous community survey and work-shopped at a public forum. No-one spoke against it at the public hearing (except to point out that wildlife were left out, which we fixed). 3) We enshrined new commitments to Snuneymuxw First Nation, identified early in the project scope as a significant gap in the old OCP. This admittedly didn’t arise from popularity, but is surely the right thing to do, and no-one suggested otherwise. 4) And finally, we greatly expanded multi-unit affordable housing possibilities, removing obstacles, and encouraging for the first time multi-dwelling unit developments for low-income families and single people if owners are willing to control rents. We didn’t go as far as some wanted on affordable housing, but we greatly expanded the possibilities, and went further than others wanted. Again, Deb & I found a balance along a range of community views we received.
That’s what trustees are elected to do; hear community voices, keep open-minded, and find a necessary balance between disparate views on what priorities to focus on, and what policies and regulations to adopt. It is very hard to make everyone happy, but I really thought we did our best to find good outcomes that reflected our responsibilities as decision-makers. Ultimately we do have to decide; listening alone doesn’t resolve different viewpoints.
For the benefit of improved community participation and for the crucial decision making that trustees are elected to do, sharing specifics and ideas on how to carry out community conversation that we can all debate and weigh in on is something I support and welcome, especially during an election campaign – the sooner the better.
Bronka on 15 Nov 2011 at 11:45 am #
In response to Mars, I agree, totally, that a full, integrated previous commitment to the community, long before the election is called, is imperative in order to prove to me that the candidate, for any level of local island governance, is serious.
Community events, yes, of course, but prior serious and studious attendance at frequent local government meetings and boards, etc. is even more important because that is where one learns the ropes , as it were. You get “educated”, you earn your credits. You find out how things work , in all the complexity and bewilderment that might entail.
I really don’t recall anyone “lording it over” in the community, at least any of our current trustees or RDN person, but maybe I have missed something! I would think that if one felt that an elected official might be “lording it over” the community (whatever that means??!!) then I think that comes with the territory and they are doing their job. However, I believe that these people are too busy, working away, often not in the public eye, for our benefit… A rather thankless task.. and a noble one I would think!
skadhu on 15 Nov 2011 at 12:11 pm #
Mars said:
I completely agree. Community involvement is important. So is involvement in developing governance, either directly or by attending meetings or otherwise contributing to the process. They educate us in different ways, but both are important.
I don’t see this phrase as helpful in facilitating any kind of respectful communication and discussion that might actually bridge differences. It’s extremely judgemental while simultaneously being so unspecific that it provides no context for the judgement.
mars on 15 Nov 2011 at 12:30 pm #
Ok let me rephrase it so that it is less contentious. I don’t want to show up at a meeting and walk away with the feeling of not being heard or that trustees minds were already made up before any input. This is what I’m referring to. I do think that Sheila and Deb did a good job of balancing complex issues but I’ve have never felt heard by Gisele at any meeting I’ve attended in past years. Nothing personal against anyone, I just want to feel a part of what happens here. For me, this is the biggest factor when it comes to voting this time around.
Steve O on 15 Nov 2011 at 12:44 pm #
First time on here. Interesting reading and insightful and thoughtful comments. A pleasure to see and read well-considered and respectful dialogue.
Must admit, like many of you, I’m not excited about the “urban” approaches to politics -ie: big signs, door-to-door visits and telephone calls. (Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.) One of the things I love about Gabriola is that I can learn about local politics and engage at a level that seems appropriate for our island. I have had ongoing discussions with Gisele and Sheila and Howard about local issues over the past eight years and have always found them to be available, willing to chat and well-informed. The job of Trustee in particular is one that entails an incredible amount of work and reading and study and commitment and I’ve seen that in both Sheila and Gisele (and Deb during the past three years.) They have my respect and my vote. I must admit as well, that having been involved in politics at many levels previous to moving to Gabriola, I know how difficult and personally challenging it can be to “get out there and sell yourself and your ideas” so I commend all six of the candidates for having the willingness and determination to tackle this.
deb on 15 Nov 2011 at 1:12 pm #
I want to thank Sheila M for putting her thoughts out about what her and Deb Ferens stood for the last three years…the community is benefited by your hard work and dedication…and I am glad you pointed out that many people do put their votes in about applications via letters and communiques…as I think unless the public is vocal about what they want and need…the trustees and RDN rep cannot mindread and have to go on OCP policies and trust policies. I dont attend the meetings but I do email my thoughts when necessary and I have always received a thank you!
I want to clarify ( I might be assuming here) but I believe when we are talking about disrespect at meetings…it might have nothing to do with officials…but just other community members who express themselves more …forcefully or with passion? I do believe where some people see commitment, polite disagreement or even passionate dissension…others view that as challenging, rude or inflexibility etc.
I know that my own personality sometimes comes across as intense when I certainly mean no disrespect …yet over the years I have been accused of being…ahem …cough “difficult” so I think I can only speak for myself…but when we see others behaviour…and it seems incredibly difficult…we can only try to understand where that person is speaking from…is it a place of fear, pain, or anxiety that makes them …act out. Best case…in any community meet…try not to take anything personally…if possible!
I also think the all candidates meeting…was a good one…many people challenged the candidates but if it got disrespectful (slightly) I noticed a few people told the person to sit down or quiet down…and that is community vigilance to make sure that the people running (don’t run right for the door:) No punches were thrown (which I believe has happened) no chairs became airborne (saw this on a community news channel once or twice) so we seem all and all, a pretty polite community these days and have come a long way. :)
Politics can get a tad messy…if people cringe at what occured this last all candidates meet…they might not be up for the job…it takes a tough exterior to stand in office…i commend them all for trying! I also saw Sheila M…listen carefully to the most convoluted question I have ever heard in my existence and give a go at answering it…atoms/plant biology topic…lol amazing!
I have to say my favourite person that night was Howard Houle…He is such a charismatic and smart man…it was incredibly cheering to watch him in action ( I had never seen such a relaxed candidate) and at the end…he looked like he had the best time of his life…and said he enjoyed that meeting…and I believed him. I think we can all learn from his example…he was smart, concise, polite, funny and he knew his domain…answering all questions to the best of his ability. Kudos Howard if you are reading this:)
JeanW on 15 Nov 2011 at 2:24 pm #
Well…I am delighted to be directed to this blog/comments. I was checking out the Community Facebook page and found some…well….slightly negative views on it by Jeff so thought I ought to check it out. I am not finding much in the way of out of line stuff here…some strong opinions to be sure (surely not, on Gabriola..:))
I wanted to just add my views regarding door to door, campaign managers and offices and tons of signs. It makes me nervous. When I look south and see the awful effects of $$$ on democracy…I will resist that influence as much as possible in my little corner of the world. I really agree with Jen Turners piece in the Sounder about the proliferation of campaign signs…I don’t like it and would prefer that NO signs be put up and that interested voters be forced to go to meetings, read the papers, check out the websites or just get in contact with the candidate and ask their questions. Otherwise, those with the biggest “machines” will start to win elections and that cannot be good. Anyway…great website and I will keep checking in.
skadhu on 15 Nov 2011 at 3:31 pm #
Thanks Mars, that’s the first time that I’m aware of that anyone has actually come out and concretely said what their issue is. I appreciate the directness.
Here’s the thing: not having been there, I don’t know if you were listened to or not. But making your statement makes more discussion possible. For example, if there is a difference in perception between what you see as having happened and what others see as having happened, at least now there can be discussion about why there are different perceptions. And maybe that could lead to avoiding similar problems in the future.
mars on 15 Nov 2011 at 5:08 pm #
Agreed skadhu. I can only speak for myself but I think we’ll have a better sense of peoples feelings on election day. Let the chips fall where they may. When the people of Gabriola speak I will accept the outcome either way. I’m not the kind of person that can’t maintain a friendship because I hold a different political viewpoint from a friend or neighbor. I don’t believe in divisive behavior. We can disagree and have a spirited conversation but hang onto the fact that we are both doing what we think is right.
I do want a Trust Council that is truly open minded and I will vote accordingly.
I also wanted to say that I also have the utmost respect for Deb Ferens, She is a very kind, compassionate and loving human and I wonder if that is why she hasn’t put her name forward for another term. I’ve seen bullying in this community and Community leaders are often the number 1 target. We can’t lose sight of the fact that who ever gets elected will be overworked, underpaid and under fire.
Michelle on 16 Nov 2011 at 8:32 am #
Thanks to the Gabriolan for providing this venue for election discussion, and to everyone who’s involved in the conversation.
I want to address the concerns about campaign methods and expenses expressed here and elsewhere.
If all candidates had an equal amount of visibility in the community or were equally well-known, you might expect that the campaign would look the same as it has always looked. It remains a closed circle. But if lesser-known candidates want to step up, they should be encouraged to use effective means to get out the word about them and their campaign — whether that’s lawn signs, an office that provides a venue for meetings and conversations, a website, etc. Communication is key to an election campaign, and while social media has become a key tool in the process it’s not used or accessible by everyone. If the rules are followed and the process respectful — e.g. lawn signs are only placed where they are permitted and removed immediately after the election — then I’m not sure they should be such a concern.
Second, If a candidate is self-funded, or funded by a single-interest individual or organization, that might be cause for alarm and careful scrutiny. But when a new candidate’s grassroots campaign is supported both financially and in terms of offerings of time and energy by a diverse collection of individuals — that speaks to a widespread desire for something or someone new. Every dollar donated to a campaign, every hour of time committed, every conversation or email with a friend or neighbour, every endorsement, are expressions of support. It means those supporters have confidence not only in the candidate’s ability to win the election, but also — and more importantly — they believe the candidate will do an effective job once elected, they have faith in the candidates values, skills, and experience.
Not only is the candidate taking all the risks involved in running for election, but her supporters are also taking their own risks, including a financial one. Kudos to all of them — candidates and supporters alike — for caring so much about the community and enlivening the democratic process.
fay on 16 Nov 2011 at 9:23 am #
Great conversation! I agree with Nick and Deb that we all learn from healthy debates if we are open to hearing other opinions. I also like the beer at the end.
I also agree with Gloria that listening is a specific skill required in our politicians if we want a certain kind of politics. There is a way of doing politics which is hierarchical with the assumption that those elected know best and are the experts (for example our current fire trustees and Energy Minister Rich Coleman) and there is another way of doing politics that acknowledges the wealth and diversity of opinions and knowledge in a community and has the skills to listen then synthesize that knowledge.
Just for the record – Sheila, you mentioned that Islands Trust funded the GHG inventory – it was actually carried out by volunteers with a small grant from Islands Trust that funded a local student to format the references.
Tosca on 16 Nov 2011 at 11:03 am #
I would like to direct everyone’s attention to the RDN director which no one seems to be talking about. I think that this is the most important part of this election. To my way of thinking, we have one candidate who is obviously in a fantasy land that is not Gabriola. The other is controlled by the 1% on this island. The one I will vote for is Howard.
I think everyone needs to look at these three candidates long and hard because there is a division on this island, started and funded by our 1%. If we don’t want this island to become a playground for the rich and corrupt, then give long and hard consideration to the RDN candidates. I can’t make you vote for Howard, but I sure hope you see things the way I do.
Bronka on 16 Nov 2011 at 11:55 am #
In response to Fay’s description of this new way of doing politics, as in not deferring to the “authority” of elected officials, but in allowing the larger range of interests in the community somehow be absorbed, contemplated and acted upon by one person, adept in listening skills…isn’t this really the same thing? There is still the person at the top, in that position of authority, who makes the final decisions.
Or are you talking about everyone who wishes to somehow “lead” and affect the decisions that impact an entire community?
Where has the type of governance been applied before?
mmmmmm….?
nick on 16 Nov 2011 at 1:18 pm #
Tosca
I’m more than a bit puzzled by your post on the RDN. I agree that Howard is the best candidate on the basis of his previous experience, well-known views, and approachability. I’ve voted for him and it was a pretty easy choice. At the same time, I was disappointed that Jordy who is the type of young enterprising person whom we should be encouraging to become involved in island affairs, as far as I am concerned, ruled himself out of consideration because of his business relationship with Dr. Rooks which would have taken his voice on important up-coming issues out of the equation. As for Eric, he runs a low key camapign, is involved, and in my experience has always responded to e-mails thoughtfully and with civility and is a valid choice. So who are these 1% that do all these awful things?
deb on 16 Nov 2011 at 2:14 pm #
I am interested in this idea of governance too as for the first time I really see how Gabriola can fall thru the cracks even with three levels of govt when something like the noise bylaws/neighbourhood complaints and the gun club is concerned. Since this was such a big issue and the election is tied to some of the resolving of that issue I was shocked to see how complicated it can get. Where the RDN defers to the province, and the province lobs it back to the RDN…and tennis anyone? I am fascinated that soo many bureaucrats can duck and cover too:)
* disclaimer my take and metaphors might be way off so feel free to set me straight:)*
Sheila M on 16 Nov 2011 at 3:12 pm #
Mars, I completely agree with you about Deb Ferens’ qualities. She is a gem. I haven’t heard her describe being bullied at all, but she can speak to her own reasons for not running this time.
My experience hasn’t included being bullied. It is hard work, no doubt – many of the decisions are really really tough. And arguably underpaid, although pay is leaping from this term’s pay ($10k/year) to $17K this coming term, which is terrific.
But the community is good to me – I’m thankful for the compassion, sympathy and gratitude islanders express. Although it happens in other communities, if people are levelling pot-shots at me, I’m missing them….. In the hot seat, yes, but not under fire, thankfully. I’m grateful to our community for that.
Tosca on 16 Nov 2011 at 3:13 pm #
Nick, the 1% on this island are anyone with a lot of money who appear to use it for good, but in reality the ultimate goal is their wishes and their pocketbooks. There are some people who should be looked at closely, and the use of titles also looked at closely. as well as their past.
Ode Howard on 16 Nov 2011 at 3:47 pm #
I’ll try to make this brief. I am voting for Howard Houle because he has been involved in local politics for many years, is on committees, has attended RDN meetings, has done research on the issues and does have positions on the issues. He is a potter and has no conflict of interest as an RDN director. He is a pro-rural candidate and will face developers head on. This doesn’t translate in to NO development, but does mean that development will be scrutinized closely. On the gun club vs peaceful neighbourhood issue Howard has been clear that he supports the neighbours’ right to quiet enjoyment of their properties. He was expelled from the gun club because he stated that it was disturbing the neighbours.
Jordy Alexander owns a construction company with six employees and is by his own admission under contract to Gabriola’s largest developer. Is this someone who should be making development decisions at the RDN level for Gabriola? He’s a nice guy but the potential for conflict of interest is real. Jordy has admitted that he may have to abstain from a vote if he is still under contract with said developer. Am I going to vote for someone who can’t vote on issues because of conflict of interest? NO! He’s a nice guy but that would be effectively throwing away Gabriola’s voice at the RDN on important development issues. He has said his “alternate” would have to vote in his place! Who is his alternate? Do we get to know that before this election because apparently we’re voting for the “alternate” too! Furthermore, Jordy has zero political experience. He has never been to an RDN meeting. On the gun club noise vs neighbours’ right to peace and quiet issue Jordy is all over the map. How couldn’t he be? His father is a director, ex-president, shotgun enthusiast and major force within the gun club. Jordy’s employer, Gabriola’s largest developer, is also a director of the gun club and a major influence on the club financially and in regards to the club’s direction. He may be able to stand up to these forces when it comes to vote at the RDN level on excess noise issues. As a neighbour of the gun club obviously I’m not overly confident he can. His construction company built new buildings for the gun club in the last 5 years and he was a member until a month ago. He didn’t resign his membership in protest of the club’s negative impact on the neighbours. He quit to run for the RDN. Forgive us neighbours for “jumping” to conclusions, but the choice for us is clear.
If you support our right to be free from recreational shotgun and military assault rifle noise pollution please vote for the candidate who defended the neighbours from within the gun club and was expelled for that stance. We feel he is our best voice on this issue. We also feel he is the best prepared candidate for the development applications Gabriola is and will be facing. Vote Houle for RDN.
ps. Perhaps in three years time Jordy will be clear of his potential conflicts of interest and will have done some research and attended some RDN meetings. At that stage I might consider him for office. If he’s still interested in politics, that is.
Jacinthe on 16 Nov 2011 at 5:13 pm #
First time on this blog. When I asked Maggie at the all candidates meeting if she supported amenity zoning, I had no idea that I would end-up apologizing for asking her an uncomfortable question. Amenity zoning has been a buzz word for years on this Island. The point is, I would respectfully like to know her answer to that question.
deb on 16 Nov 2011 at 6:27 pm #
Nicely put Ode…I totally agree and I also liked that Giselle worked at this issue during her RDN term and perhaps has set the stage for the next representative. I hope its Howard too as he really seems to be the most informed candidate of the three, even though Eric was quite intelligent and thoughtful, he did stumble hopelessly on the GunClub/noise complaint problem. He admitted that he had not been following it or know what direction it needed to go in. That was a major misstep for him, as a potential politician needs to have a sense of what is happening in their community and since this has been discussed in the news regularly he should have had the answers.
I have followed this noise complaint concern/ Gun club fiasco for the last few months intently as it seemed incredible that Gabriola doesnt get the same level of (legal)services or the same rules as other communities. I know that the issue is complex but still seemed to be something that needs to be addressed…how some clubs or gabe members are above the law? I think too what sometimes is forgotten…is how someone who enjoys this hobby is not just at the expense of their neighbours peace of mind/enjoyment…but their actual properties values being subjected to loss. I just cannot fathom how that doesnt set the whole island into a wakeup call!
I know alot of longtime islanders dont like rules or laws and feel its too citified…but at some point the idea to me is common sense…and that cant be legislated;)
deb on 16 Nov 2011 at 7:07 pm #
Hi Jacinthe…I thought your question was good, and I thought you phrased it well and respectfully and you didn’t know it was going to throw Maggie. If my memory serves me…she answered it using density zoning as an example (lockbay) and then when you replied no…and what the difference between was…you sounded polite and well informed …no reason for you to feel that it was out of the realm of what is acceptable…in fact it was a fair and reasonable question.
one misstep I felt is when Maggie grew somewhat flustered and said Well I could find that out in five minutes…she was right but it sounded dismissive of policy. with that my take…is …and Im going to quote Nick Doe (somewhat paraphrased my apologies Nick)
“you can bet the developers will know this and what the difference is and that we need candidates who are aware of this”
I will leave it at that…as I think its simply a learning curve and I’m sure any new candidate could learn the ropes and don’t want to rehash whats already been mentioned on this blog and I know Maggie as others could learn the policy book…but I think its important for them to know why…as armed with knowledge is important in politics…listening is good but so is developing strategies or implementing solutions within the framework we have.
deb on 16 Nov 2011 at 9:29 pm #
My apologies…I misquoted Nick Doe…disregard that quote as belonging to him…its my creation!
Carly on 16 Nov 2011 at 9:40 pm #
Without a good look at how our density transfers work this island will become a “playground for the rich” (tosca). As it stands the developer transfers the densities from a “less desirable” piece of land to a “more desirable” piece of land and then donates the less desirable to park (in a nutshell). So we as a community receive parkland (which is lovely) and in the case of the Legends property in return we grant the developer the possibility of 49 view properties that are higher end properties. Look at Lock Bay, if that proposal is accepted then we have 13 new high end properties and more park. I am all for park but I see a problem in the fact that the “new” properties being created are for the much higher income bracket. We in effect are taking care of the wealthy by creating pretty Gulf Island properties without taking care of the other side of the spectrum. The system is flawed.
I would like to determine why no Islanders barring a handful of perhaps 3-4 regularly showed up to the Official Community Plan meetings, why only the same 3-4 show up at Local Trust Meetings regularly, and why those same people again are the only ones showing up to the Advisory Planning Commission meetings. We can all make time for things that are important no matter how boring they are, how cold the space is, and how “busy” we all are. The public hearing for the Official Community Plan had a small handful of people there speaking their piece either for or against, how can you let the Trustees know your position if you are never there to tell them. (this is great “sitting by the fire on a stormy night” reading by the way, thanks to all for their input)
“The world belongs to those who show up.”
Jordy Alexander on 16 Nov 2011 at 11:22 pm #
Ode, thank you for being diplomatic. Most of your comments were spot on. I have never hidden who I am in contract with or who my father is, I am my own person and make my own decisions and plan to always have the best interests of the community in mind. The Gun Club issue is a major issue that I want to help resolve, but not the only one. There is a Huxley Park issue, I want my kids to be able to play there and not have to worry about needles, alcohol conatiners, garbage, broken bleachers and other hazards. I want to maintain safe beach access so that everyone can enjoy them, Public transportation, rain water harvesting/ ground water management issues. Encourage local business growth of all kinds including local farming and artists. There are a lot of issues to work on, most of which I will have no conflict of interest with. I have lived here since I was 12 so I think this makes me an Islander. I am sorry if signs and a campaign office were offensive to some people but I was just trying to make myself accessible and prove that I was serious. Those of you who know me know that I meant no harm. I plan on raising my family here as I was, and like all of us realize that preservation, protection and sustainability are keys to all of our future.
Sal on 17 Nov 2011 at 9:29 am #
Jordy, you have nothing to apologize for! You have been no more or less offensive than any of your competitors, in my opinion.
In fact, considering what you have had to put up with– the smears on your character, your age (your age!?), what you do for a living, and who is in your family– I can’t believe that you are still doing this. That you can let this roll like water off your back is a testament to your character. Politics is for politicians and you, my friend, are so much better.
deb on 17 Nov 2011 at 9:55 am #
Carly
I liked what you had to say. Economic Balance…excellent point!
As for meetings… I have mentioned a few times that I cant/dont show up for meetings, but with that said people in my position can read the agendas, the minutes and can rely on the stalwart few who do show up. I do commend them.I think many more voice their thoughts via letters when things grab their attn, but the OCP was quite important and you have made me understand a vital point. That like voting, its important to exercise our interest in what goes on and many of us should take more note and join in.
on some of the defense side of us “public meeting slackers”…I might mention that it could be many think they dont belong or feel out of their realm when they do attend. When I hear Jacinthe, Val or Giselle talk zoning, policy, or island meetings…I admit it sounds almost like Calculus and I worry about being skilled enough to follow the dialogue. When I first moved to the island it took me a long time to understand how islands trust governance works.
But with that all said…islanders need to find a way of grasping island governance even if its using cliff notes because you are very right…the world is there for those who show up and the ones who sometimes do…dont have altruism in mind for why they do!
Ode Howard on 17 Nov 2011 at 2:28 pm #
I think Gabriola and all the Gulf Islands have been well served by Sheila Malcolmson and Gisele Rudischer. Thank you both for all your work towards keeping the islands special. I travel a lot around B.C. as a forestry worker( silviculture) and the billboards and strip malls and tacky development and poorly thought out waterfronts and excess resource extraction images, the fast food big box cold cut soul less barebone clearcut strip mined vinyl sided logo inundated watercourse diverted animal habitat endangered golf course condo dragged out minimum wage directionless beatdown over exploited tourist tacky have mercy small towns throughout this province would do well to have people like you to represent them. Gisele is one reason we have the 707, the Commons, the Seniors’ housing, the timber frame school, the Hope center, the Gathering Place, the Theatre on Peterson Rd., the emergency dock, the new clinic, so many home-based businesses, a great OCP, etc.etc. Other candidates are calling Gisele to ask how the RDN can do this or that, or whether the Trust mandate can speak to this or that issue etc.!!! She has served at both Trust and RDN levels of government for many years and is a wealth of knowledge. This mantra for “new” and “fresh” over simplifies this election. If I were choosing a University to study at or a company to provide a service I’d be looking for “experience and knowledge”, not “new” and “fresh”. Let’s keep Gabriola different, real, local, wild, wonderful and compassionate. We’re all free to choose in this election and how fortunate we are for that. We all want to make educated choices in the vote and good for us for that too. Let’s all be sure to gracefully accept the outcome of the election and respect each other for our differing political views. We all have to live together when the dust settles. I would consider the “new” candidates in 3 years time when they are better prepared for the tasks at hand. All the candidates deserve a round of applause for stepping up to serve us. For me, I’m proud to have already voted for Howard, Gisele and Sheila! Cheers, Ode Howard
deb on 17 Nov 2011 at 3:46 pm #
Wow…give it to Ode Howard…everyone…fabulous!!!
*claps enthusiastically*
fay on 17 Nov 2011 at 4:17 pm #
Check out sustainablegabriola.ca – all RDN and Islands Trust candidates have provided some thoughtful responses to questions ranging from food security to transportation.
nick on 17 Nov 2011 at 4:22 pm #
…talk zoning and policy at island meetings…I admit it sounds almost like calculus.
Deb, calculus is easy; it’s philosophy that’s difficult. The prize for responding to questions on such topics in a way that made me feel that I don’t speak English was planner Chris Jackson. He was patient, but razor sharp. It’s easy to think, I suspect, that all LTC meetings are full of controversy and agonizing wrestling with difficult issues, but the fact is, and I’ve been to a few, some are quite routine and pretty boring. These are the meetings when almost nobody else is there that I have felt we should be thankful that we have such intelligent and knowledgeable people representing us who are prepared to wade through this mumbo jumbo – and they have to do a lot of homework – keeping those who want to bend or break the rules at bay, and doing so with good humour and sometimes very little appreciation. As far as I’m concerned, if they really want to do it again, then I’ll willingly throw my penny in their hat.
Old hippy on 17 Nov 2011 at 7:51 pm #
This is my first,and,considering the time frame for the local elections,only offering to this thread. I’m a long time resident (pre Island Trust) and was witness to the subdividing done by Wildwood Estates,the result being the preponderance of half acre lots and subsequent sewage and water challenges. I’m truly thankful that Gabriola was spared the unfettered growth that has happened in other highly appealing locales. I don’t think that this has been random chance,but rather the result of forethought and the willingness to sift through the minutiae that any new proposal presents. Like many others I’ve been content to sit back and let everything unfold with little more than voting every 3 years as my contribution to the future of this glorious place we live in.I say this with some shame, yet realize I’m living in a community that reflects what I hold to be valuable.How did this happen???……..
Sitting here,musing,it strikes me that the island we all (assumption) love to call home,has retained so much of its original beauty as a result of well reasoned stewardship,much of it under the watch of Gisele R.I want to own that I have known Gisele since 1973 and have always admired her candor and intelligence. It must be obvious to all that she has an eye for detail, yet not pedantic. I don’t doubt that she will attend every meeting,as our representative or otherwise,this has been the commitment I’ve witnessed over the decades .It has also been obvious that she is non partisan and truly hears those she represents. I think much of her activism was born of the contentious Weldwood proposal that stirred so much rancour…..a bylaw that was passed in spite of opposition from a majority of islanders. So much for listening to your constituents. She was not our trustee at that time,but was voted in the following term. To me “integrity” means you define yourself and follow through accordingly…. you know, walk the talk.
deb on 17 Nov 2011 at 8:26 pm #
Yes Nick..>>>> I think you are very right…that we have such dedicated and intelligent people representing us…I do think that committment allows many of us feel safe sometimes that our interests are being looked after…but I have made it a new years resolution to occasionally join in and sit at the back of these meetings and try to learn the language …I was never that great at philosophy but I used to have a fair decent grasp at calculus …I can at least listen and learn from the folks who do work so hard at keeping this island so wonderful! We all do need a challenge to keep us lively:)
*admits that if there was wrestling, hair pulling and chair throwing contests that controversy might sell the meeting ticket more…as we no longer have the romans to throw peasants in with the lions:P*
mars on 17 Nov 2011 at 11:34 pm #
No matter who gets elected I’m confident that the Island is in good hands. Every decision is scrutinized by a panel of 3 trustees and lengthy public process. We aren’t in any danger of strip malls, that’s just more fear mongering and misleading. I do agree however that when Gabriola speaks we should all listen. Vote as we may but we are all still neighbors and friends. I’ll be voting for change and I’m not into any big developments either.
deb on 18 Nov 2011 at 8:39 am #
I dont know if you would describe them as strip malls…but gabe does have 4 malls…which for our population seems incredible…and I guess its all what your version of beauty is. I think that instead of new buildings we should use or fix up what we have. I did like what the med clinic community volunteers accomplished but personally I wish they had fixed up a building that existed instead of building another brand new area…the professional center was close enough to the services they needed.
I think the trustees on that followed the direction of the majority of people, so its what what wanted, and I concede that it will be a huge benefit to the community but the next building that is proposed I hope that we dont have a huge rush to create…but lets try to recreate and recycle and fix up what already is in place!
Bronka on 18 Nov 2011 at 10:15 am #
Be careful who you vote for. Voting for change might not bring you strip malls but rather their subtle attractive twin or equivalent. Developers must salivate at the potential of this fragile island. I think the phrase ”fear mongering” is an easy way to dismiss the deep and impassioned concerns of many, many people here. They are fearful because they know that unless we have a very strong governance , we are in danger of losing forever much that we hold dear.
The only way we can be assured that we are “in good hands” is by voting for three people who, with their impressive credentials, their records of hard work, dedication and commitment to this island, their intelligence and energy , are prepared to withstand and do battle with (oops, combative term!) any powerful and wealthy pressures that would erode what we hold dear about our island.
At this critical and unprecedented time on Gabriola, we do not need “change” . The helm must remain in steady hands, not transferred to people, who, as well intentioned as they may be, do not currently have the skills and the strength that come from experience. We need seasoned veterans.
I , along with so, so many Gabriolans will be voting for Gisele, Sheila and Howard tomorrow.
Gabriolan on 18 Nov 2011 at 11:14 am #
Sustainable Gabriola asked candidates questions, and collected their answers. Here it is, in .pdf format: all the responses.
Does anything in that document change the way you’ll vote?
mars on 18 Nov 2011 at 12:51 pm #
Bronka, based on your statement nothing will ever change yet we know that change is the only constant. Once a person has a term under their belt they will always have more experience than a new candidate. Do we sit around and wait for a trustee to retire. Why even have an election? There will always be pressures from developers and there will never be a perfect time to mentor new people into the trust. I reiterate that any development has to get passed not 1 but 3 trustees and survive a public process. I disagree that developers are salivating at Gabriola, I would suggest that they are thinking, land prices are dropping, large numbers of people are having a tough go of it, shops are closing with no end in sight. I believe that if we don’t mentor new people into these positions and begin to make intelligent decisions with regards to our future we’re dead in the water. That’s why I’m voting for change…I don’t want to stay the course until we hit the wall.
Sal on 18 Nov 2011 at 1:07 pm #
After reading all the responses I actually think that all three of the candidates are thoughtful, earnest and would do a good job representing us for the RDN. My concern is the gun club issue, where two of the candidates will have to step back for conflict of interest. Yes two! Both Jordy and Howard will have to step aside on this, Jordy because of family ties and Howard because any proponent of the club can easily argue (and will I’m sure) that because of the way in which he “parted ways” with the club that he is not a neutral vote, and may in fact, have a hidden agenda. He won’t actually have a choice but to step aside, or let an “alternate” vote, like Jordy.
I don’t actually own a gun or live close to the range, but I sympathize with all concerned on both sides. Frankly, I’m appalled that we cannot solve our own little mess and now we are going to let off-islanders settle it for us.
Go Sheila, Gisele, and Jordy!
Sheila M on 18 Nov 2011 at 1:39 pm #
I really appreciate all the dialogue here.
I’ve seen the “shops are closing” comment a few times online, but I count nine new storefronts *opened* this term, mostly because of Madrona Mall. I’ve heard business owners say the biggest thing the LTC can do is not approve additional commercial zoning, and other than Folklife 2 (unbuilt) I haven’t. There was some community concern about approving the urgent care clinic, as it will leave empty space at Twin Beaches. That concern was heard by the LTC, but not taken up by the majority of people who participated in that rezoning, so yes that was a LTC decision that will exacerbate the problem, once the clinic moves.
What else could the trustees have done?
Shopping locally sure helps (I hope all the candidates printed all their signs & brochures on the island; I did).
BTW I don’t think the North Road restaurant had been open once since I moved here, and it was great to have A-Frame Restaurant while we did this term (in ’95 Windeckers and Silva Bay pub were the only options to eat out).
John P on 18 Nov 2011 at 2:12 pm #
Being open to considering change
I have been heavily involved in a number of community discussions because I want to improve our community fabric. Unfortunately, I have found a resistance to consider alternatives to be a frustrating undercurrent. Specifically, the current review of the OCP was designed to be a “targeted review” with only small changes welcome.
The current OCP was written 15 years ago by Gisele Rudischer and Gail Lund. It has served us well, but there are many places where it needs improvement and, in my view, major overhaul. Gisele is defensive about big changes because she takes such changes as a criticism of her work. As an author of peer-reviewed papers, one thing one learns is how to do is to take constructive criticism to heart, not as a personal negative criticism.
So for me the whole process of OCP was a change-limited exercise – many areas were not up for consideration, period. If I had a nickel for every time Sheila used the “targeted review” response as a way to not consider a good idea that had been proposed, well …
I do not mean to take anything away from the many, many positive contributions that both Sheila and Gisele have made, but their definition of being “open” does not fit my expectation.
In terms of intimidation, I would say that’s the dark side of Gabriola politics. Many credible voices have withdrawn because they have been shouted down. I understand this because I have been on the receiving end myself – usually comments that are subtle criticism by innuendo that can be denied if challenged. We all need to work really hard to raise the level of debate here so more people can feel safe participating.
I will say, having nominated Jordy, that he is his own man and is independent of anyone’s “influence”. The first thing we discussed when we talked about his running was his relationship with Dr. Rooks. He made it clear to me that there is no influence there, and I take him at his word. Yes, there is a conflict of interest re the Lock Bay discussion, but he has been completely open and forthright about that. I think that many of the comments about Jordy on this blog have been unfair and uninformed and therefore disrespectful.
This blog is the most constructive exchange of ideas on Gbariola that I’ve seen in a while. Kudos to all who have participated and been frank without many barbs (other than the comments about Jordy) buried in the implications and innuendos. I am hopeful that because of the healthy debate during this election campaign we as a community will do better in talking respectfully with each other and being open to considering alternative views, whomever is elected.
Bottom line – let’s celebrate the interest in this election, let’s all get out there and vote, and then … let’s remember to show up and participate in community discussions as much as possible over the next three years!
Bronka on 18 Nov 2011 at 2:26 pm #
hi Mars,
I seem to have hit a nerve!
Don’t you see, the developers might wish to promote Gabriola as an idlyllic getaway for the very wealthy There are always plenty of extremely well-heeled people around who would love to have a gulf island as their private getaway. We, the struggling 99ers, don’t figure in that equation. And the developers have ways, interesting and not always apparent ways, of making this happen, believe me!!
I think you are being naive and I strongly suspect that you have not really studied the lessons of history, on a both a small and larger scale. Money and power will always win over, unless we stand our ground.
As for” change always being a constant”, that is another catch phrase which can sometimes but not always apply. There is another expression, another catch phrase, if you will, that can be applied here , as a counterpoint. “It it ain’t broke , don’t fix it”.
I have to ask , what is wrong with our governance to date? What is wrong with the Islands Trust to date? What would be wrong in electing an experienced,dedicated, hard working, savy long- time islander team–Gisele, Sheila and Howard? Can you explain why change is needed?
Or are we coming back to this objection I keep hearing, that we need a “kinder, more diplomatic way” of doing things? What does this mean, exactly? As Deb S. has pointed out, we haven’t exactly been throwing chairs around, knocking each other cold in dimly lit parking lots.
Come on, this is politics and it isn’t always nice. To be in politics you must be a politician and I think that sometimes these people are born, not made. You have to be able to take the hard knocks. You might even have to give back a few vigorous taps. And you might do things that people don’t like all the time. Give and take, compromise, rubbing people maybe the wrong way at times. Tough, but real.
This election is not an exercise or a thought experiment in human self- realization, or a seminar in enlightenment and self- improvement. We are not talking about chicken soup for the soul, we are talking about the best way of standing on guard for the future integrity of this precious island.
Will a new, inexperienced, untried person, who has no political experience, be astute and clever enough to deal with all the stuff coming our way? Not. Definitely not.
I am not convinced and I ponder your motives, your real motives.
Carly on 18 Nov 2011 at 2:48 pm #
“Developers” do not make up the bulk of the population on this island as far as I can see and being that the community must be consulted in the terms of a rezoning application, density transfer, or zone creation then I would say that as long as the bulk of the island is against something and they SHOW UP and make THEIR voice heard then we are unlikely to be over run by developers. The trustees are elected to be OUR voice so they would still need the so called blessing of the populous before they give the green light to applications.
Sal on 18 Nov 2011 at 4:07 pm #
I would also like to add a thank you to Gabriolan, whoever you are, for moderating this forum. Cheers, Sal
deb on 18 Nov 2011 at 7:30 pm #
Carly… i agree with you that developers don’t make up the bulk of the island and I do see and agree with you about public process needing more faces…and John P wrote very astutely about needing to create an involved respectful community but let me add a bit of cynical flavour to this somewhat one sided idea…that the developers will not overcome paradise if the public speaks out. I believe public consultation needs balance and I do hear many people say this isnt happening!
As many have pointed out there are those who fear speaking out publicly or putting their name to emails, petitions or letters in case harassment occurs with regards to those on the opposing team. I have heard many folks say they have been bullied by others ( Ie med clinic stuff) in public areas or harassing phone calls at home. Eventually some folks fear saying anything in case they get hell for being a negative nelly or whatever the label is at the time.
what happens if( we now are officially in the land of my opinion)in the future a select few have handy email listservs to get others on their team…to write in supporting schemes or plans that the island trust vote on… This is all above board and is quite a good idea for the most part as many good things come of working together.
But what if said developers get a chance to influence the people the same way and every time they need this “group” to bulk up the pros on any consultation, they put out the word and get their emails/letters.
This is strictly a hypothesis on my behalf and I may be completely off the wall on this and I am certain that many will denounce me as paranoid but….many listserve emails went out in a flurry of concentrated effort to get the medical clinic on the lands it now stands…kudos to them all for being dedicated. Rob Rooks donated land and workers to this wonderful effort… of course cynical me can’t help but think the next situation whether it be lock bay or some other development…that this developer now has a whole host of very strong willed, intelligent, vocal and very literate people on his “team” who may take up every cause that he asks of them…as they feel soo benefited from his kind and generous land offers.
call me off base, or crazy but isn’t that what happens in corrupt political practices worldwide with lobbyists running around influencing naive, greedy or misguided politicians.
So my vote is for those I believe not influenced by making their living from development or in the employ of developers or looking for future developments (rumour has it a mental health clinic or rehab might be next). Jobs, healthy economy and low impact development sounds fine but I just dont want this line of zoning or voting to be controlled or heavily influenced by money.
I am strongly in favour for any politician who wants the thankless job of representing us as long as they are truly showing a strong history of integrity. I also want to say that Jordy is someone I do feel has a lot of great ideas, I believe he has integrity and like Nick Doe and Ode Howard have pointed out that if he was committed to getting involved politically I would consider him a good candidate in the future as I believe him when he says he would not allow the other outside influences to guide him…so my cynical words in this post arent really directed at him or about him at all…but instead about a changing force on the island who I believe want good things to be created on gabe but might do this at any cost!
Daniele R. on 18 Nov 2011 at 9:16 pm #
Mars,
You say there will never be a perfect time to mentor new people into the Trust. That may be true, but in my books, the middle of an important OCP review is a definitely a contender for ‘worst time’.
No one is expecting everyone running to be a former Trustee, but the ‘change’ candidate hasn’t attended any meetings, been on any volunteer or advisory committees, or shown an interest in the governance of Gabriola until running for office. There are plenty of ways to get experience and show commitment before asking the public to elect you to a position of leadership.
Regarding tough times, Gabriola is not a fishbowl. What is happening here is happening in many places across Canada. The housing market is inflated, job security is poor or non-existent, and wages aren’t keeping pace with the cost day-to-day life. Trustees can advocate and allow for increased economic opportunities, but zoning alone can’t create economic prosperity.
I find fault with your logic regarding the power of this single trustee position. On the one hand, it doesn’t matter if one of the trustees has no experience, because there will be three trustees making all the decisions. On the other hand, getting your one candidate elected will single-handedly stop us from running into a wall.
John P:
The review was targeted because a survey carried out at the start of the process showed that most people strongly supported the goals and values of the current OCP. Most policies were still sound and relevant. I know this was frustrating for you and many other members of the VRC because you made it clear that you felt we should undertake a complete rewrite, but that’s not what the VRC, as a committee, was asked to do by the elected Trustees (who were, I feel I have to point out, Sheila Malcolmson and Deb Ferens, not Gisele Rudischer).
Regarding political intimidation, who exactly is it who is doing the shouting down that you speak of? I can assure you that I certainly didn’t feel accepted or respected participating on the VRC with you and many other members of the committee. I was consistently made to feel small and inconsequential, and had to argue my way through every meeting because I didn’t agree with the majority point of view.
As a young person making their first foray into local politics, being marginalized and dismissed because people can’t seem to accept that I am not the same person as my mother did not exactly make me feel ‘safe participating’.
I find it ironic that the ex-VRC members supporting the candidate who’s platform heavily relies on listening skills and community conversations are the very same people who didn’t listen to me on the VRC.
jordy on 19 Nov 2011 at 1:23 am #
No matter what happens, this has been a positive experiance. Everyone has the right to vote, use it. If i don’t get your vote this time im sure that when you vote for me in three years from know you will think back and say “i should have vote for him last term”. Please remember and respect the no campaign signage (in your car or on your person) around the poles. There is also a child care service fro 10-4 in the multi-purpose room at the school. Lets have the highest voter turn out in the province, tell everyone you know to vote tomorrow. Don’t be afraid of sustainable change.
Tosca on 19 Nov 2011 at 9:51 am #
Sheila M. and Mars, if we could work effectively together as a community, all the shops that are now in Madrona would be in the Village or Twin Beaches and we would not have empty store fronts. Right this minute there are too many commercial buildings on this island. When the clinic leaves Twin Beaches it will be a “ghost” mall, won’t that be pretty?
Change always happens, but that does not mean all change is good. When I look at the building that is going on right now, and then look at all the already built houses that are for sale and I look at the empty store fronts, what I see is a place that is RIPE for more development, and I certainly don’t want any. I do see this island becoming a gated community for the rich if we are not very, very careful.
nick on 19 Nov 2011 at 11:10 am #
John P. “…I think that many of the comments about Jordy on this blog have been unfair and uninformed and therefore disrespectful.” I sincerely hope he isn’t including me in that. Although I’ve never met Jordy, I’m perfectly prepared on the basis of his public persona to accept that he is a man of the highest integrity. But that’s not the issue. Perceived conflicts of interest have a way of becoming controversies that do nothing but distract from the issues, which is why we have the rules to avoid them that we do. Also, it takes two to create a potential conflict and who knows what developer is going to come along in the next few years who will create exactly the same conflict as Jordy has over Lock Bay. I wish Jordy luck and sincerely regret not being able to encourage him with a vote, and I thank him for his contribution, but that’s the way it is in the less than ideal world of politics.
rick on 19 Nov 2011 at 11:56 am #
@Tosca
People need to realize that the commercial zoning on the Madrona / T+T property has been there since long before Sheila (and Gisele for that matter) probably ever heard of Gabriola. When zoning exists, the owner only need to get building permits and go for it. It is the same as with all of the existing residential lots — of which their are many hundreds still left undeveloped.
In fact, the Folklife village zoning came into being in the early 90′s.
That zoning was granted in exchange for the 99 year lease on Huxley park- something that today would be considered an outrageously cheap price to pay for the wealth created. Many poor choices were made in the past, but thanks to trustees like Gisele- we are much more aware of this than we once were.
@Daniele- you make me proud of our kids. Not only has your mom been instrumental in making a lot of very important things happen for Gabriola, she has raised an extremely astute daughter!
John P on 19 Nov 2011 at 2:13 pm #
Nick
Your comments have always been fair and respectful. Perceived conflicts of interest are a legitimate issue to discuss. Going beyond that to statements of “fact” which are in truth conjecture is where I have a problem.
Sheila M on 19 Nov 2011 at 8:53 pm #
Polls close so soon! Results will be posted a bit after 8 here for all the results http://www.rdn.bc.ca/cms.asp?wpID=2522
and http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/contact/electionresults2011.cfm
for just islands trustees.
exciting! and nerve-wracking….
murgatroyd on 20 Nov 2011 at 2:00 am #
John P, the last Plan was not written by the two Trustees, it was the result of a whole lot of input from Gabriolans, and any time a Gabriolan wants to let the Trustees or the Regional Director know what they want, all they have to do is write them an e mail or phone them. These people listen to Gabriolans – the ones who show up, that is. The world is run by those who show up.
I also wonder whether there hasn’t been a lot of under the surface gossip and scurrilous comments made, while the glossy public campaign goes on. Dirty pool. We live in a small community, and gossip usually gets tracked down to its source.
skadhu on 20 Nov 2011 at 7:34 am #
I’d like to say thanks to everyone who participated in discussions on this site. Hearing comments from candidates and voters helped me get a clearer understanding of issues and context and the wherefors and whyfors of where people differed.
Thanks also to Gabriolan for hosting the discussion and making it possible—three cheers for you!
And congratulations to ALL the candidates, no matter who won or lost. I immensely appreciate people putting themselves forward for what is a hard and in many ways thankless job. I hope that those who didn’t win this time will continue to fight for what they believe in and keep these kinds of discussions going.