Community Letters and Council (not good) News
Oak Bay Watch & Proverb:
“Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention”
Oak Bay Watch is publishing the following three letters we have received from Oak Bay Residents in response to some of our recent newsletters:
Community letters
I refer to the August 29th Newsletter of Oak Bay Watch – Administration Expenses (paragraph #6). If this published information is correct, it seems that the growth in the number of senior staff (Directors, Deputy Directors and Managers), started by the previous Council, continues to this day. Indeed, there is more staffing growth planned in the near future for Oak Bay which, being built out, is essentially not experiencing growth.
As I was concerned, and still am, about a seemingly out-of-control hiring spree, I reviewed the Notes to the 2019 Financial Statements (Note13) for the years ending December 31, 2019 & 2018 to check the numbers to see if they would substantiate my reaction to your newsletter. For the category “General Government” (Municipal Hall) the year-over-year increase was 43.6%. All the other categories taken together (protection, recreation etc.) were 7.4%.
I concluded that hiring is in the hands of the Senior Staff with little oversight or challenge by Mayor and Council. It is small wonder that our tax increases are so large. Is anyone paying attention? Are the Mayor and Council concerned? Will they exert a strong and close supervisory role?
Oak Bay Resident
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
I hope any member of Council that campaigned on openness. transparency and public participation in the last election, will not vote for this bylaw as it presently stands. The public does not get to comment until the last moment. For Land use application requiring a Public Hearing they only get input (either verbal or written) until the developer and staff have supported the application and Council has approved a second reading. Also, only at the last moment do Development Variance Permit applications get public input.
I am sure a small group of the public together with a Councillor and staff member could recommend changes to the bylaw that would address the public's repeated requests for input at the early stage of a proposed development or variance change.
For example, why does not Council strongly suggest a developer hold a public meeting to describe their proposal at the initial stages of the application process? A good model to consider is how SCAN ( Saanich Community Association Network) holds developer-community conversations.
Why can't Commissions accept written input from the public?
There is a more effective process for the developer, staff, Council and the public to work together for the benefit of Oak Bay. Let's make it happen.
Mike Wilmut
Oak Bay
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Have you ever participated in one of those municipal public meetings about conserving green space and making an "Urban Forest Master Plan? Did you dutifully fill in surveys and put post-it notes on boards listing goals you thought the local governments should pursue so as to preserve trees and nature in town?
Did you notice that almost everyone there had come because they wanted to preserve green space -- and said so -- yet green space continued to be paved and trees cut down? Did you feel ostensibly "consulted" but not heard? These meetings were always only "performative allyship" (clunky term for an ugly thing) between bureaucrats and citizens.
This is what happened during & since those "consultations" when Oak Bay Public said they wanted to preserve the urban forest & control overdevelopment. (There was one some years ago at the Oak Bay Rec Centre -- a "performative" show of listening to residents who put post-it notes on boards, which were ignored … waste of time, only developers are listened to”.
Oak Bay Resident Contributor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council News: OBW Perspective & Research
Monday, Sept 28, 2020 Council meeting agenda Item 13: 785 Island Road: Heritage Designation and Compensation versus a Demolition and Building Permit.
This agenda item further highlights the number of problematic issues that continue to plague Oak Bay:
The (two-year) Problematic Process: Involves so many unanswered questions, missing information, provided at intervals and in various locations rather than all together, making any kind of informed decision for Council extremely difficult.
For Example:
It was the Planning Department that recommended that the Developer submit a Heritage Revitalization Agreement Application. However, if an Engineering servicing (including infrastructure) cost estimate was completed in 2018 it was not publicized. It was left to the Construction Company, at this very late stage (July 2020) to announce this cost would be $417, 000.
The Planning Department failed to provide an estimate of the compensation cost to taxpayers. This significant amount could be claimed by the developer if the District designated the existing home as heritage by bylaw. The Planning Department recognized the compensation probability, but reported to Council there would be no financial impact.
The Planning Department also reported the intent of Council’s 60-day, July 2020 Protection Order placed on 785 Island Road was as follows: “The 60 day period allows Council to determine whether they wish to prohibit demolition of the home”.
Instead, the Planning Department apparently took its time and without input and against a deadline, decided drafting the Designation Bylaw was the only action required.
A full report on the 785 Island Road Subdivision Application Process will be provided soon. It will highlight how the problematic process fails on so many levels that include: the District’s commitment to Transparency and Accountability and "Service Excellence".
-------------------------------------------------------
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well-informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed and sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.Home
Oak Bay Watch & Proverb:
“Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention”
Oak Bay Watch is publishing the following three letters we have received from Oak Bay Residents in response to some of our recent newsletters:
Community letters
I refer to the August 29th Newsletter of Oak Bay Watch – Administration Expenses (paragraph #6). If this published information is correct, it seems that the growth in the number of senior staff (Directors, Deputy Directors and Managers), started by the previous Council, continues to this day. Indeed, there is more staffing growth planned in the near future for Oak Bay which, being built out, is essentially not experiencing growth.
As I was concerned, and still am, about a seemingly out-of-control hiring spree, I reviewed the Notes to the 2019 Financial Statements (Note13) for the years ending December 31, 2019 & 2018 to check the numbers to see if they would substantiate my reaction to your newsletter. For the category “General Government” (Municipal Hall) the year-over-year increase was 43.6%. All the other categories taken together (protection, recreation etc.) were 7.4%.
I concluded that hiring is in the hands of the Senior Staff with little oversight or challenge by Mayor and Council. It is small wonder that our tax increases are so large. Is anyone paying attention? Are the Mayor and Council concerned? Will they exert a strong and close supervisory role?
Oak Bay Resident
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
I hope any member of Council that campaigned on openness. transparency and public participation in the last election, will not vote for this bylaw as it presently stands. The public does not get to comment until the last moment. For Land use application requiring a Public Hearing they only get input (either verbal or written) until the developer and staff have supported the application and Council has approved a second reading. Also, only at the last moment do Development Variance Permit applications get public input.
I am sure a small group of the public together with a Councillor and staff member could recommend changes to the bylaw that would address the public's repeated requests for input at the early stage of a proposed development or variance change.
For example, why does not Council strongly suggest a developer hold a public meeting to describe their proposal at the initial stages of the application process? A good model to consider is how SCAN ( Saanich Community Association Network) holds developer-community conversations.
Why can't Commissions accept written input from the public?
There is a more effective process for the developer, staff, Council and the public to work together for the benefit of Oak Bay. Let's make it happen.
Mike Wilmut
Oak Bay
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Have you ever participated in one of those municipal public meetings about conserving green space and making an "Urban Forest Master Plan? Did you dutifully fill in surveys and put post-it notes on boards listing goals you thought the local governments should pursue so as to preserve trees and nature in town?
Did you notice that almost everyone there had come because they wanted to preserve green space -- and said so -- yet green space continued to be paved and trees cut down? Did you feel ostensibly "consulted" but not heard? These meetings were always only "performative allyship" (clunky term for an ugly thing) between bureaucrats and citizens.
This is what happened during & since those "consultations" when Oak Bay Public said they wanted to preserve the urban forest & control overdevelopment. (There was one some years ago at the Oak Bay Rec Centre -- a "performative" show of listening to residents who put post-it notes on boards, which were ignored … waste of time, only developers are listened to”.
Oak Bay Resident Contributor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council News: OBW Perspective & Research
Monday, Sept 28, 2020 Council meeting agenda Item 13: 785 Island Road: Heritage Designation and Compensation versus a Demolition and Building Permit.
This agenda item further highlights the number of problematic issues that continue to plague Oak Bay:
- The uncorrected, overly generous, developer-friendly Zoning bylaw.
- The fragile state of the infrastructure system and its inability to deal with the impacts of the number of clear-cuts and the environmentally destructive developments. Each mature tree cut down is an infrastructure asset lost.
- The leadership efforts or lack thereof to address these important issues is far from satisfactory.
- The questionable and curious approach that the Planning Department uses to save a few token heritage structures while recommending decimating streetscapes and the Urban Forest with many suburban-style-subdivision, overly large houses. These are not what visitors to Oak Bay come to see.
The (two-year) Problematic Process: Involves so many unanswered questions, missing information, provided at intervals and in various locations rather than all together, making any kind of informed decision for Council extremely difficult.
For Example:
It was the Planning Department that recommended that the Developer submit a Heritage Revitalization Agreement Application. However, if an Engineering servicing (including infrastructure) cost estimate was completed in 2018 it was not publicized. It was left to the Construction Company, at this very late stage (July 2020) to announce this cost would be $417, 000.
The Planning Department failed to provide an estimate of the compensation cost to taxpayers. This significant amount could be claimed by the developer if the District designated the existing home as heritage by bylaw. The Planning Department recognized the compensation probability, but reported to Council there would be no financial impact.
The Planning Department also reported the intent of Council’s 60-day, July 2020 Protection Order placed on 785 Island Road was as follows: “The 60 day period allows Council to determine whether they wish to prohibit demolition of the home”.
Instead, the Planning Department apparently took its time and without input and against a deadline, decided drafting the Designation Bylaw was the only action required.
A full report on the 785 Island Road Subdivision Application Process will be provided soon. It will highlight how the problematic process fails on so many levels that include: the District’s commitment to Transparency and Accountability and "Service Excellence".
-------------------------------------------------------
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well-informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed and sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.Home