Regarding a recent Peak story about property rezoning, the developer, a respected local businessperson, says, in effect: give me the rezoning I want or I’ll just go ahead and build the maximum density allowed under current zoning, without consulting anyone [“Property rezoning draws opposition from neighbours at City of Powell River public hearing,” November 8].
This sounds harsh but he’s just being logical under City of Powell River’s current process. A better way: the neighbours should be guaranteed by law a meaningful voice (power to veto) in a development that affects their neighbourhood.
Zoning encourages favouritism for developers because with every project they become cozier with city planning staff, as the developer himself alluded to in this article. Staff then recommends granting variances for their friends, the developers.
This entirely legal but unfair power relationship damages local government legitimacy and can negatively impact quality of life for residents. To fix this broken process, most zoning could be replaced by meaningful consultation and accommodation with neighbours, those irreversibly impacted by a proposed development.
This has been done in other jurisdictions and is an example of subsidiarity, a basic principle of democracy.
Tom Read
Van Anda, Texada Island
