Rights of property owners
Debate over the draft official community plan (OCP) for Powell River Regional District Area C is part of an age-old struggle between individual liberty and collective controls [“Speakers list concerns,” February 6].
The speaker quoted in the story referred to this struggle when she said she felt “the regional district was perpetuating the interests of individual land owners over the interests of the community as a whole...” On the contrary, the regional district is continuing a decades long trend in the western world toward more and more encroachment by the community on the rights of individuals.
The proposed OCP provides examples of such encroachment. Rather than perpetuating existing rights to use and enjoy one’s own property, the OCP announces the regional district's intention not only to limit—by zoning—the types of uses an owner can make of his land, but also to authorize bureaucrats to declare portions of some properties essentially unusable by their owners.
I refer to the inclusion of the provincial riparian areas regulation in the OCP. This regulation has been used in other municipalities to effectively expropriate private land without compensation. Imagine the following scenario: a family owns a property with a small seasonal creek flowing through it. They plan to make a nature trail with a log bridge over the creek, and they want to grow an organic garden where they have found some good soil. Because these projects will be within 30 metres of the creek, the regional district may require them to spend thousands of dollars hiring a qualified environmental professional to study the “riparian” area. This professional may not be successful in persuading a regional district bureaucrat that the projects are beneficial. If their application is unsuccessful, the family has just had a 200-foot wide swath of their land expropriated without compensation. I say “expropriated” because they can no longer use it.
In the struggle between individual and collective, the modern trends in government have resulted in too much power vested in the community. It is time for more protection for the individual, especially the owner of private property.
Eric Peterson
Oxford Road
Conflict of interest
Section 100 (2) of the Community Charter states: If a council member attending a meeting considers that he or she is not entitled to participate in the discussion of a matter, or to vote on a question in respect of a matter, because the member has (a) a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter, or (b) another interest in the matter that constitutes a conflict of interest, the member must declare this and state in general terms the reason why the member considers this to be the case.
Previously, the advice I have received regarding conflict centred around “pecuniary” interest [“Appeal court overturns conflict-of-interest ruling,” February 6]. In other words, “Am I going to benefit by participating?” The legislation goes beyond this and includes “or another interest in a matter,” and that is where the grey area lies. Can you serve two masters? The answer is no you can’t, therefore you have to decide whether it is more beneficial for you to continue on with your non-profit and not participate or vote at the council level, or resign from your non-profit position.
Some City of Powell River councillors have stepped away from their non-profits. Perhaps, conflict for them might arise often enough that they would be better off at the council table rather than recusing (declaring a conflict) themselves when discussion around their non-profit arises.
A good example for me is being the treasurer of Myrtle Point Golf Course. The society recently made application to Powell River Regional District board (on which I sit as a city representative) for a grant in aid. Even though there was no financial gain for me personally, I felt that I was in conflict and removed myself from any discussion, debate or voting.
I am also chair of the Source Club Society. Unless I am instructed otherwise by the city’s legal counsel, I will continue to sit on both non-profit societies and will exercise diligence in ensuring that I do not put myself in a position of conflict, pecuniary or otherwise.
Maggie Hathaway
City of Powell River councillor
