The writer of the recent commentary on Saanich’s Environment Development Permit Area is in the business of selling native plants, and therefore stands to gain monetarily by defending the EDPA (“Garry oaks need preservation on a wide scale,” Oct. 3). Nevertheless, she makes some valid points, as well as some invalid ones.
I believe the writer has missed the point of the public’s strong opposition to the EDPA. Very few Saanich residents choose to degrade our environment. To the contrary, many have demonstrated long-standing personal commitments to protecting our ecosystems. As she correctly pointed out, the environment is why we choose to live in Saanich rather than elsewhere.
The opposition to the EDPA stems not from its intent, but from the way it was created and implemented.
This bylaw has not received a lot of attention over the past couple of years, as the author incorrectly states, largely because Saanich chose to soft-pedal the bylaw’s introduction. It has only recently grabbed people’s attention, when many property owners suddenly discovered that they were subject to severe, poorly thought-out and unexplained restrictions placed on their activities and enjoyment of their own property.
The ideologically driven way in which the bylaw was imposed incensed affected property owners. They realized that if they tried to sell their property (the single largest personal investment in most people’s lives), the value had been dramatically reduced because of the imposition of the bylaw. Their shock turned to resolve, to right the wrong perpetrated upon them by their elected representatives.
At the Sept. 28 Saanich council meeting, a professional biologist pointed out that 99.2 per cent of the subject properties do not contain sensitive ecosystems (as defined by provincial standards), and some have not had such ecosystems for as long as 50 years. What remains of some sensitive areas, primarily Garry oaks, are already protected by other sensible bylaws. Several real-estate professionals gave their opinion that property values have indeed been lowered because of this bylaw.
This bylaw demonstrates the draconian overreach of this municipality’s bureaucracy. So landowners do have a valid cause for concern.
The author correctly states that: “These standards are useful guidelines, but are not rigidly applied, even by the province itself.” That view is at the heart of the problem with the EDPA. Saanich has chosen to apply those standards very rigidly, and refuses to exempt some properties even when, at great personal expense, owners have hired professional biologists who have determined there is no sensitive ecosystem left to protect.
Meanwhile, some other property owners have quietly had their land removed from the EDPA. What is the difference between the two groups? Does it have something to do with who challenges the validity of the bylaw and who doesn’t?
One of the reasons some councillors cited for not exempting the two properties in question was that they didn’t want to set a precedent. But apparently, the precedent has already been set, which brings us back to the aforementioned question.
The author again correctly states: “Losing a small amount of a rare habitat can have enormous impacts on ecosystem health across the region.” Why then, did Saanich council approve the subdivision and inevitable decimation of one of the last Garry oak ecosystems left within urban Saanich?
I am referring to the properties on Stan Wright Lane. One councillor stated in a recent meeting that the EDPA has been in the works for “10-15 years.” Considering council’s stated desire to protect the environment, and its knowledge that the EDPA was soon to be passed, why did it proceed with this subdivision? It might have been legal at the time, but the subdivision appears to go against everything council claims it stands for.
The EDPA controversy is but one small part of a much bigger problem. It seems, in my opinion, that Saanich chooses to be overly generous in its treatment of some, while others are forced to go to great expense and still have their requests denied.
Saanich needs to start being open, transparent and scrupulously fair to all its citizens.
Bob Etheridge is a longtime Saanich resident and keen observer of the Saanich political scene.
