Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Public participation and rural planning : Texada Island, a case study McWilliam, Robert 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A8 M36_2.pdf [ 12.55MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096503.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096503-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096503-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096503-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096503-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096503-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096503-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096503-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096503.ris

Full Text

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND RURAL PLANNING: TEXADA ISLAND, A CASE STUDY by ROBERT MCWILLIAM B.A. (Hons), University Of Calgary, 1972 M.A., McMaster University, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School Of Community And Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1985 © Robert McWilliam, 1985 In presenting t h i s thesis in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of School Of Community And Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: A p r i l 1985 i i Abstract This thesis examines various approaches to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n within rural planning. It deals with the roles ru r a l residents, in unincorporated areas of B r i t i s h Columbia, can play in l o c a l planning. The thesis argues that e f f e c t i v e planning in such areas only occurs i f a rural planning approach, which considers d i s t i n c t i v e rural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , is. applied to the planning process. Such planning generally requires the active involvement of rural people. To accomplish t h i s objective a model is constructed of how rural residents par t i c i p a t e in planning. Its th e o r e t i c a l framework i s developed from a review of the available l i t e r a t u r e on r u r a l planning and public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The model i s then used to examine a s p e c i f i c area—Texada Island--which was selected because of i t s recent experiences with planning. The model i d e n t i f i e s four main approaches to ru r a l planning: planning ' o f a rural community; planning 'for' a ru r a l community; planning 'with' a rural community; and planning 'by' a rural community. The thesis argues that a l l of these approaches can meet the c r i t e r i a that define r u r a l planning, but they d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the objectives for the planning process, and the roles the l o c a l residents perform. The model also contains four categories of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n : public information; data c o l l e c t i o n ; c i t i z e n s h i p t r a i n i n g ; and involvement in decision making. This thesis defines public p a r t i c i p a t i o n as the means whereby the general public interact with decision makers, beyond elections, to ensure public decisions r e f l e c t their objectives. Within the context of this d e f i n i t i o n the four categories are seen as being the main avenues that rural people have for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning. When the types of p a r t i c i p a t i o n were applied to the various rural planning approaches a number of observations about the involvement of rural people in planning became apparent. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were reinforced when the Texada Islanders' experiences with planning were examined. The model and the Texada example both demonstrated that even within the constraints inherent in the various types of planning there were opportunities to enhance the l e v e l of public involvement. The author takes the position that these possible improvements are s i g n i f i c a n t to the planning process since there i s a positive linear c o r r e l a t i o n between increased public p a r t i c i p a t i o n and the effectiveness of the planning process. The relationship between public involvement and planning is demonstrated through the analysis of rural planning approaches. Planning 'of' a rural, community may produce some short term results but i t is incapable of providing any long term dir e c t i o n because the planning process is too divorced from the aspiration of the l o c a l residents who have considerable a b i l i t y to frustrate external objectives even when they have l i t t l e a b i l i t y to take the i n i t i a t i v e . Planning 'for' a rural community generally f a i l s because the issues that the planning exercise i s attempting to deal with are examined from the perceptions of 'outsiders'. Planning 'with' a rural community i s limited because the planning process is dominated by the 'experts' who i v also see issues through a d i f f e r e n t set of perceptions. Planning 'by' the rural community approach i s the approach that the thesis claims can succeed when the others f a i l . Its success i s related to i t s c o r r e l a t i o n to rural values; i t s emphasis on l o c a l resources, which expands the usually limited resources available for any rural planning; and the fact that i t deals with planning as part of a larger process of rural development. Rural development avoids the frequent segregation of planning and implementation and permits the planning to become an ongoing process which allows for adjustment and elaboration as required. Advocating a need for planning 'by' rural communities i s not done with any naive assumptions about i t s success being assured. This approach can produce the most enduring results, but i t also exacts the highest costs in terms of e f f o r t and i t s existence i s dependent on a continuing commitment by the rural residents who are in control of the planning process. But this commitment i s a requirement for rural development where change is achieved by the active p a r t i c i p a t i o n of affected people. V Table of Contents Abstract i i L i s t of Tables x L i s t of Figures xi Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1 A. GENERAL STATEMENT OF TOPIC 1 B. SCOPE OF THESIS .3 C. METHOD 4 Chapter II STUDY FOCUS . 8 A. WHAT IS RURAL? 8 1 . POPULATION 9 2. DENSITY 10 3. DISTANCE 12 4. ENVIRONMENT 13 B. WHAT IS LOCAL CONTROL? 14 1 . CONTROL 15 2 . LOCAL 16 a. Legitimacy 18 b. Localized Consequences 19 3. DEFINITION OF LOCAL CONTROL 19 C. SUMMARY 21 Chapter III PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 2 3 A. ROOTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 23 1. PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .23 a. Democratic Values 24 b. Public Interest 27 2. PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO DESCRIBING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 28 a. Value To Decision Makers 29 b. Value To Public ...30 B. WHAT IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 31 1. A DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 31 2. APPROACHES TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 33 a. Public Information 35 b. Data Col l e c t i o n 37 c. Citizenship Training 38 d. Involvement In Decision Making 39 v i C. SUMMARY 42 Chapter IV RURAL PLANNING 4 3 A. NEED FOR RURAL PLANNING ...43 B. CONCEPTS OF RURAL PLANNING 48 1. CONVENTIONAL RURAL PLANNING 48 2. AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT OF RURAL PLANNING 49 a. Different Problems .....50 b. Different Resources 53 c. Different People 54 C. RURAL PLANNING APPROACHES 57 1. PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES 57 2. , PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES 59 3. PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES 60 4. PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES 62 D. SUMMARY 63 Chapter V PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN RURAL PLANNING 65 A. INTEGRATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND RURAL PLANNING 65 1. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES 67 a. Public Information 67 b. Data Collections 67 c. Citizenship Training 68 d. Involvement In Decision Making 68 2. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES 69 a. Public Information 69 b. Data Collection ....69 c. Citizenship Training 70 d. Involvement In Decision Making 70 3. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES 71 a. Public Information 72 b. Data Collection 72 c. Citizenship Training 73 d. Involvement In Decision Making 74 4. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES 75 a. Public Information 75 b. Data Collection 76 c. Citizenship Training 76 d. Involvement In Decision Making 77 B. ENHANCEMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 78 1. PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES 82 v i i a. Public Information 82 b. Data Collection 84 c. Citizenship Training 86 d. Involvement In Decision Making 87 2. PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES 88 a. Public Information 88 b. Data Col l e c t i o n 89 c. Citizenship Training 91 d. Involvement In Decision Making 93 3. PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES 95 a. Public Information 95 b. Data Collection 97 c. Citizenship Training 98 d. Involvement In Decision Making 98 4. PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES 100 a. Public Information 100 b. Data C o l l e c t i o n 100 c. Citizenship Training 100 d. Involvement In Decision Making 101 C. SUMMARY 101 Chapter VI TEXADA ISLAND 103 A. BACKGROUND 103 1 . HISTORY 103 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING 109 B. INVENTORY 110 1 . PHYSICAL FEATURES 111 a. Topography ..111 b. Geology 112 c . Climate 113 d. B i o l o g i c a l Resources 113 2. ECONOMIC RESOURCES 115 a . Mining 115 b. Forestry 118 c. Agriculture 121 d. Tourism 122 e. Fish And W i l d l i f e 123 f. Service Sector 125 g. Other Economic A c t i v i t i e s 126 3. HUMAN RESOURCES 127 a. Population 127 b. Community Organization 129 C. TRENDS ...133 1. FUTURE PROJECTS 133 a. Industrial A c t i v i t y 133 b. Resource Extraction 135 c . Tourism 1 38 d. Real Estate Development 140 e. Alternative Economic Opportunities ...142 v i i i 2. FUTURE SCENARIOS 143 a. Industrial Boom 143 b. Industrial Bust 144 c. Sustained Growth 144 d. Stagnation 145 e. Real Estate Boom 145 Chapter VII PLANNING ACTIVITY ON TEXADA ISLAND 147 A. SECTORAL PLANNING EFFORTS AFFECTING TEXADA ISLAND 147 1. OVERVIEW OF SECTORAL PLANNING 147 2. FORESTRY PLANNING ACTIVITIES 149 a. General Approach 149 b. Forestry Planning For Texada 151 3. OBSERVATIONS 154 B. PROVINCIAL AREA PLANNING EFFORTS ON TEXADA ISLAND 155 1. 1973 PROPOSED GENERAL LAND USE PLAN 155 2. OBSERVATIONS 159 C. REGIONAL DISTRICT PLANNING EFFORTS AFFECTING TEXADA ..161 1 . BACKGROUND 161 2. TEXADA SETTLEMENT PLAN 163 3. POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICIAL REGIONAL PLAN 1 68 4 . OBSERVATIONS 170 D. COMMUNITY INITIATIVE ON PLANNING 172 1. HISTORY OF SELF-RELIANCE 172 2. ORGANIZING FOR OPPOSITION 174 3. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE 179 a. Ongoing Organization 180 b. Finding A l l i e s 181 c. Planning A c t i v i t y 184 4. OBSERVATIONS 187 E. APPLICATION OF RURAL PLANNING MODEL 189 1. PLANNING 'OF* TEXADA ISLAND 190 2. PLANNING 'FOR' TEXADA ISLAND 192 3. PLANNING 'WITH' TEXADA ISLANDERS 193 4. PLANNING 'BY' TEXADA ISLANDERS 194 Chapter VIII CONCLUSIONS 197 A. RURAL PLANNING 197 1. PERSISTENCE OF RURAL SOCIETY 197 2. A SPECIALIZED APPROACH TO RURAL PLANNING 199 3. WHY BOTHER ABOUT RURAL PLANNING? 201 a. Rural Opposition 201 b. Impact On The Larger System 203 B. MEANINGFUL RURAL PLANNING 205 i x 1. ROLE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 205 2. EVALUATING APPROACHES TO RURAL PLANNING 207 Chapter IX CHAPTER NOTES 214 LITERATURE CITED 237 APPENDIX A - INTERVIEWS RELATED TO CASE STUDY 248 APPENDIX B - PLANNING POLICY FOR POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT 250 APPENDIX C - POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT PLANNING PROCEDURES 257 X L i s t of T a b l e s I. I n t e g r a t i o n of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Ru r a l Planning 66 I I . P o s s i b l e Improvements i n P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n 81 x i L i s t o f F i g u r e s 1. D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n B e t w e e n L o c a l a n d U n i v e r s a l C o n s e q u e n c e s B a s e d on E x t e n t o f O v e r l a p p i n g I n t e r e s t 20 2 . S t u d y F o c u s 22 3 . A p p r o a c h e s t o P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n 34 4 . C o - o p e r a t i v e A p p r o a c h t o P l a n n i n g 41 5 . S h i f t i n g t h e T r a d e - O f f C u r v e 80 6 . Map o f T e x a d a I s l a n d 105 x i i Acknowledgement I am g r a t e f u l to my a d v i s o r s , Peter Boothroyd and Tony Dorcey, f o r t h e i r encouragement and a s s i s t a n c e . My f a m i l y ' s p a t i e n c e with my singlemindedness must a l s o be acknowledged. They s a c r i f i c e d a great d e a l of fam i l y time while I laboured on t h i s p r o j e c t . I would a l s o l i k e to thank the r e s i d e n t s of Texada I s l a n d who shared t h e i r time with m e — e s p e c i a l l y Harry B a r c l a y who was always w i l l i n g to a s s i s t whenever I had need of a source of l o c a l knowledge, or even a sympathetic ear. 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. GENERAL STATEMENT OF TOPIC The purpose of the thesis i s to examine the functions which public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can perform in rural planning a c t i v i t i e s in those rural areas of B r i t i s h Columbia which possess minimal control over l o c a l issues. It w i l l describe: approaches to rural planning, and how public p a r t i c i p a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s can relate to such approaches. A basic premise underlying t h i s analysis i s that rural development i s a goal that a l l rural planning e f f o r t s should s t r i v e toward. Rural development as i t i s considered within th i s thesis i s a process whereby change within rural communities is determined through democratic means. As Christodoulou states, " . . . true integrated rural development s i g n i f i e s inter a l i a coherent and well aimed planning, e f f e c t i v e transformation of rural structures, and p a r t i c i p a t i o n of r u r a l majorities in the development process" (cited in Wolfe and F u l l e r : 1978). The fact that rural development requires the active involvement of rural residents leads to thi s examination of the ways the public can par t i c i p a t e in rural planning. The topic of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in rural planning i s complicated by the lack of c l a r i t y with which the key terms are frequently u t i l i z e d . Due to their wide usage both 'public p a r t i c i p a t i o n ' and 'r u r a l ' have suffered from a lack of precision in meaning. While subsequent chapters w i l l provide a detailed discussion of these concepts, a brief description i s 2 necessary at t h i s point in order to discuss the subject area and approach that t h i s thesis w i l l follow. The term rural is defined by prescribing the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that a community must have to be considered r u r a l . Such communities w i l l have: a limited population; low population density; be outside a radius that i s considered tolerable for commuting; and residents who are strongly influenced by the area's physical environment. Such an approach to defining what i s rural is necessary because there i s no st a t i c d i v i s i o n between rural and urban. In r e a l i t y rural communities exist within a continuum from metropolitan to wilderness. This thesis w i l l also argue that rural planning should be considered something more s p e c i f i c than any planning a c t i v i t y that is conducted in a rural environment. A more appropriate d e f i n i t i o n of rural planning i s any planning a c t i v i t y which is conducted in rural areas that recognizes the existence of unique rural features and the need to take these features into consideration. Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is an even more elusive term dealing with individuals' p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s . Alternative approaches to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n stem from the various perceptions that individual writers have about the proper role for the public in a democratic system. This thesis recognizes the inherent d i v e r s i t y and defines public p a r t i c i p a t i o n as the means by which individuals and groups from the general public interact with decision makers, beyond the routine process of elections, in an 3 e f f o r t to ensure that public decisions r e f l e c t t h e i r objectives. B. SCOPE OF THESIS This thesis focuses on those rural communities within the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia that possess minimal l o c a l control. A more ambitious approach would be to deal with r u r a l planning on a universal l e v e l . But such an approach would have to acknowledge the great d i v e r s i t y among rural communities. 1 With fundamental differences between rural populations in various areas the nature of the problem and the potential solutions also vary, making i t inappropriate to treat rural planning as a universal concept. Much of the l i t e r a t u r e on r u r a l planning proceeds from the premise that a l l rural parts of North America (and for some writers Northern Europe as well) are similar enough to be dealt with as a single e n t i t y . There are many common features in a l l rural communities in North America, which makes information that exists about rural areas in the United States, or other regions of Canada, valuable for t h i s t h e s i s . However, there are also s i g n i f i c a n t differences that make i t unwise to extrapolate d i r e c t l y from observations about ru r a l communities in B r i t i s h Columbia to those in other regions. Certainly the settlement patterns, past experiences, and i n s t i t u t i o n a l frameworks for l o c a l government in the various provinces produce differences. The study area i s defined as those rural communities which possess minimal l o c a l c o n t r o l . For planning purposes i t i s important to recognize the differences that exist between communities where residents have some lo c a l autonomy and a b i l i t y 4 to act to promote the i r own interests; and those others which find their a b i l i t y to do anything to help themselves constrained by their dependence on a higher l e v e l of government to act on their behalf. As w i l l be discussed later this thesis does not assume that there i s a simple dichotomy between rural communities with l o c a l control over their own a f f a i r s , and those which have no l o c a l autonomy. The Province of B r i t i s h Columbia shares with Newfoundland, among a l l provinces, the d i s t i n c t i o n of having the lowest proportion of i t s t o t a l area included within the boundaries of organized municipalities (Morley e_t a l .: 1983: p. 239). Thus there i s a large percentage of the rural population that has no form of l o c a l government or l o c a l mechanism that w i l l permit them to make p o l i t i c a l decisions on their own behalf. 2 These areas are l e g a l l y r e s t r i c t e d in their a b i l i t y to i n i t i a t e , conduct or implement planning. This thesis w i l l r e s t r i c t i t s considerations to such communities. C. METHOD The question of how public p a r t i c i p a t i o n relates to rural planning in communities with minimal l o c a l control w i l l be approached primarily at a theoret i c a l l e v e l . The available l i t e r a t u r e on the subjects of rural planning and public p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be reviewed. Concepts from that material w i l l be synthesized to construct a model of how public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be u t i l i z e d , in rural planning; and to suggest how i t can be improved to make the planning process more ef fect ive. The model w i l l then be compared against a s p e c i f i c case 5 study—planning on Texada Island. It i s not suggested that one case study w i l l 'prove' or disprove the v a l i d i t y of the model that this thesis w i l l develop. Nor does this thesis set out to estab l i s h a hypothesis that could be tested by use of a case study such as planning on Texada.Island. Instead t h i s thesis i d e n t i f i e s ways in which public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be u t i l i z e d in rura l planning, and analyzes the Texada Island experience, iden t i f y i n g which have been attempted, which have been e f f e c t i v e , and why. Texada Island is the largest island in the southern Georgia S t r a i t . It is also unique from neighbouring islands in other respects: i t i s the only island in the region that i s not part of the Islands Trust; 3 and the only one on which i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y plays a s i g n i f i c a n t role. It has experienced a series of boom and bust periods since the Island was f i r s t s ettled by Euro-Canadians. A series of booms occurred as gold and copper mines and later an iron mine were developed. Between 1880 when the f i r s t gold mine went into production and 1919 when the la s t active gold mine shut down the Island had a prosperous economy. It experienced another boom star t i n g in the 1940's when one of the gold mines reopened, and the Island was undergoing extensive logging. This boom period continued even after the last gold mine closed and the prime timber was eliminated. It was sustained by the opening of a major iron mine in 1952. The iron mine operated u n t i l 1976 when i t abruptly closed. Throughout t h i s entire history of resource exploitation the one constant was the ongoing operation of limestone quarries that continue to 6 provide a r e l a t i v e l y stable source of employment for the I slanders. Presently the Island, with a population of approximately 1700, has no l o c a l government. The settlements of Vananda and G i l l i e s Bay have Improvement D i s t r i c t status," which provides for elected Boards of Trustees to administer limited l o c a l services (such as a piped water system and f i r e protection) within defined geographic areas. The Island also comprises a single e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t within the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t , and elects one member of the Regional D i s t r i c t Board. Within the past ten years there have been a variety of planning i n i t i a t i v e s on the Island. In 1973 the Provincial Department of Municipal A f f a i r s prepared a Proposed General Land Use Plan. In 1976 the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t planner i n i t i a t e d work for a Texada Island Community Plan, which f a i l e d to materialize. In 1979 the Island was included in the Powell River Regional Plan. Then in 1982 a proposal to haul baled garbage from the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t to l a n d f i l l s i t e s on Texada Island resulted in the creation a c i t i z e n s group--Texada Action Now (T.A.N.). This new group has taken steps, to i n i t i a t e an o f f i c i a l community plan for the island. In addition there have been a number of actions that were externally planned and which have d i r e c t l y impacted Texada Island without any apparent consideration in the planning for the projects of how they would affect the Island's residents. Some of these events include: the B.C. Hydro Cheekye-Dunsmuir power transmission l i n e , which now crosses Texada; the 7 establishment of the Georgia S t r a i t P rovincial Forest, which includes Texada Island; and the present consideration of alternative routes for the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Using Texada Island as a case study has a number of li m i t a t i o n s . Much of the recorded information that exists on the e a r l i e r planning a c t i v i t i e s relates only to the technical data that was accumulated. Very l i t t l e information on the planning process was ever systematically recorded. As a result the primary information source on the planning process i s a series of interviews with individuals who were or are involved (Appendix A contains a l i s t of those interviewed). Relying on interviews has several methodological weaknesses. It r e l i e s on the memories of the individuals involved, and for some their involvement was ten years ago. Also since there were r e l a t i v e l y few participants involved in some of the planning e f f o r t s i t would be very d i f f i c u l t to attempt by cross-checking in interviews to v e r i f y that the interviewees were not being highly selective in their memory of past events. A further l i m i t a t i o n is that many of the individuals interviewed are s t i l l active in community a f f a i r s , and some partisan bias should be anticipated in their interpretation of events. However, these l i m i t a t i o n s would undoubtedly occur in a study of planning in any unorganized r u r a l community. Therefore Texada Island, with i t s history of several attempts of planning, should prove an interesting case study against which the model proposed in thi s thesis can be examined. 8 II . STUDY FOCUS This thesis deals with the function of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in rural planning within s p e c i f i c bounds--those rural communities of B r i t i s h Columbia that possess minimal l o c a l control. A. WHAT IS RURAL? There has been concern expressed about the lack of any "real or positive concept of that which is r u r a l " (Nicholls: 1967: p. 13). But i f the term has not been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y defined i t has not been due to any lack of e f f o r t . The repeated attempts at d e f i n i t i o n , and the lack of any general acceptance of a d e f i n i t i o n have reached the point where some writers have rejected the term completely. Tweeten and Brinkman, for example, have created a new term 'micropolitan' because they fee l the "multiple d e f i n i t i o n s of the term (rural) now make i t s use confusing and ambiguous" (1976: p. 5). Such a defeatist attitude i s unfortunate because i t resulted in their observing, and dismissing, one of the key components required to define ' r u r a l ' : the wide amount of d i v e r s i t y among rur a l communities. 5 G i l f o r d , Nelson, and Ingram overcome the confusion and recognize that "no single, or even multiple d e f i n i t i o n of 'ru r a l ' w i l l be s a t i s f a c t o r y for a l l purposes" (1981: p. 23). In coming to thi s r e a l i z a t i o n they are a r r i v i n g at a point that rural s o c i o l o g i s t s reached much e a r l i e r when the rural-urban continuum model was developed. That model i s based on the premise that differences between r u r a l and urban 9 s o c i e t i e s can be measured along nine dimensions, and that individual communities could be assigned varying degrees of rural or urban c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s without being forced into a r i g i d bipolar model. 6 This thesis accepts the concept of a rural-urban continuum but believes that for purposes of rural planning there are more pertinent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than those u t i l i z e d by rural s o c i o l o g i s t s to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between rural and urban communities. 7 For purposes of t h i s thesis rural communities sh a l l be defined as those which possess the following features: a limited population; low average density of settlement; s u f f i c i e n t distance in time or physical space from urban f a c i l i t i e s and services to r e s t r i c t access to them; and a physical environment which has a strong influence on l o c a l a c t i v i t i e s . These four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may be present in varying degrees, but for a community to be considered primarily rural a l l four factors must be present. 1. POPULATION Many d e f i n i t i o n s of rural use population as the sole factor for determining i f a community i s r u r a l . Such d e f i n i t i o n s are contested as being s i m p l i s t i c . Debate also flourishes over the s p e c i f i c numbers that should be used to determine a maximum population figure for rural communities. 8 But there is l i t t l e disagreement that population size is a c r i t i c a l variable. As Qadeer notes, "It seems that size i t s e l f has become a dimension of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . Smallness stands for the comprehensibility of a community" (1977: p. 109). Certainly many of the more 10 enduring r u r a l s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s appear to be strongly related to the small population of such communities. The emphasis on personal relationships; the desire for consensus instead of c o n f l i c t in decision making; and even the frequently described 'conservatism' of rural people have a l l been i d e n t i f i e d as being related to population s i z e . 9 While recognizing the danger inherent in trying to claim universal application for any s p e c i f i c number thi s thesis w i l l accept the number most frequently c i t e d in the l i t e r a t u r e pertaining to rural communities in Canada. The maximum population for a rural community w i l l be deemed to be 10,000. Any community where the t o t a l population exceeds t h i s number w i l l be considered to be primarily urban in i t s o r i e n t a t i o n . 2. DENSITY Dyballa, Raymond, and Hahn state that "rural society i s not just a low density area in the process of becoming urban" (1981: p. 1). But some d e f i n i t i o n s of what i s rural do concentrate on population density. White claims that "rural simply means a l l less populous and less densely s e t t l e d areas" (1984: p. 3). This approach i s based on the argument that not only an community's population size i s s i g n i f i c a n t , but also the physical distance between people. It i s t h i s distance factor which i s seen as the root of many rural problems, and also the source of some uniquely rural solutions. An example of the type of problem created by the low population density is the impact i t has on public services. The costs of providing services to a dispersed population i s one of 11 the c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s i n determining the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l of s e r v i c e s between r u r a l and urban areas. I t would be very m i s l e a d i n g to assume the lack of secondary school f a c i l i t i e s in a r u r a l community was an i n d i c a t i o n of the r e s i d e n t s ' d i s i n t e r e s t i n advanced ed u c a t i o n . Rather, t h i s small s c a t t e r e d p o p u l a t i o n i s inca p a b l e of bearing the high c o s t s r e l a t e d to t h i s p u b l i c s e r v i c e , and make do without a d e s i r e d s e r v i c e . An i l l u s t r a t i o n of how d e n s i t y i s used by r u r a l people to t h e i r b e n e f i t i s t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards zoning. C o n t r o l l i n g land use through r e g u l a t i o n i s seen as undue r e s t r i c t i o n on an i n d i v i d u a l ' s freedom to use h i s property as he sees f i t . C o m p a t i b i l i t y of land use i s achieved, i n the o p i n i o n of many r u r a l r e s i d e n t s , not by a l l encompassing r e g u l a t i o n s , 'but rather through the use of p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c e as a b u f f e r . 1 0 The a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e d e n s i t y as a l i m i t i n g f a c t o r i s f a c i l i t a t e d due to the c o l l e c t i o n of r e g u l a r census data that i n c l u d e s a c a l c u l a t i o n of d e n s i t y . T h i s study w i l l u t i l i z e S t a t i s t i c s Canada's d e n s i t y f a c t o r f o r r u r a l a r e a s . The maximum d e n s i t y w i l l be 1000 people per square m i l e . T h i s may appear e x c e s s i v e when the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i s not to exceed 1 0 , 0 0 0 . But i t i s necessary to provide f o r v i l l a g e s and towns where c l u s t e r s of p o p u l a t i o n occur. These settlements are an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the surrounding area and t h i s t h e s i s contends i t i s the l a r g e r geographic area that should be c o n s i d e r e d a r u r a l community. Both s i z e and d e n s i t y have thus f a r d e a l t with the upper l i m i t s f o r a r u r a l community. While t h i s w i l l e f f e c t i v e l y 1 2 d i f f e r e n t i a t e r u r a l from urban i t disguises a t h i r d category of wilderness. This thesis i s examining rural communities so i t w i l l not delve into the essence of what constitutes wilderness. 1 1 It w i l l just acknowledge that such areas exist as a separate category from r u r a l ; and that, in the context of t h i s thesis, wilderness exists where there are too few permanent inhabitants to maintain s u f f i c i e n t interaction to maintain a sense of community. 1 2 3. DISTANCE One d i s t i n c t i v e feature of North American society i s urban sprawl, as suburban r e s i d e n t i a l areas extend out into the countryside. Such suburbs tend to blur the d i s t i n c t i o n between ru r a l and urban, leading some writers to conclude that the apparent r e v i v a l of rural areas is merely a r e f l e c t i o n of urban expansion. 1 3 However, suburban problems should not be lumped in with r u r a l issues. The types of problems experienced, and the residents' approach to them are d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t . 1 " There have been creative attempts to come up with a way of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g r u r a l and suburban a r e a s . 1 5 But iden t i f y i n g t h i s t r a n s i t i o n a l zone i s not d i r e c t l y related to the purpose of t h i s thesis. What is important i s to ensure that urban fringes, which are mainly urban in orientation, are not inadvertently included within rural communities. Since the primary function of these urban fringe areas i s to provide domiciles for urban workers th i s thesis w i l l exclude from the rural category any areas close enough to urban work places and f a c i l i t i e s for a majority of the area's work force to consider commuting as a 1 3 reasonable a l t e r n a t i v e . Obviously t h i s distance w i l l vary depending on the transportation alternatives available, as well as the t o t a l mileage to be t r a v e l l e d . But i t i s possible to quantify t h i s factor. Studies have demonstrated that the average journey ru r a l commuters are prepared to make is t h i r t y minutes or less in duration (Dahms: 1983: p. 23; Youmans: 1983: p. 4). It is for t h i s reason that the majority of the l o c a l work force in r u r a l areas opt to remain in their area rather than commuting to more distant urban work places. Hodge and Qadeer confirmed t h i s when they discovered that in small communities in Canada, in 1971, only 28.9% of the resident labour population were out-commuters (1983: p. 93). 4. ENVIRONMENT Ford argues that the key d i s t i n c t i o n between urban and r u r a l population is their environment situation (1978: p. 15). It i s apparent that the impact of the natural physical environment i s an important feature in distinguishing r u r a l communities. 1 6 Certainly, technology has reduced many of the obvious differences between urban and r u r a l residents. Also many of the new work opportunities in rural communities are in the i n d u s t r i a l or service sector rather than in primary resource extractive a c t i v i t i e s which are more constrained by the physical environment. But despite these changes the environment does continue to effect the rural population d i f f e r e n t l y than in urban areas. As Bowles stated, "The resident of a small remote community may be l i k e his urban counterpart in terms of family size, house type, clothing worn, food eaten, and t e l e v i s i o n programs watched. However his daily round of a c t i v i t i e s s t i l l occurs in a milieu that i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . Compared to his urban counterpart, the resident of a small town has access to a less diverse set of formal services and a narrower range (or different set) of opportunities. The transportation system gives him access to a smaller number of other places and greater d i f f i c u l t y in t r a v e l . To the extent that residents of the two contexts r e l a t e to the natural environment of geography and climate, the resident of the remote community i s l i k e l y to do so more d i r e c t l y . In short the small community i s a d i f f e r e n t context in which to pass da i l y l i f e than i s the urban centre. To ignore this d i s t i n c t i o n i s to miss an insight which i s important in understanding the differences between Canadians" (1982: p. 6). The use of the impact of the physical environment as a c r i t e r i a for determining the 'ruralness' of an community i s primarily a q u a l i t a t i v e measure. However, in i d e n t i f y i n g rural communities i t w i l l be important to ascertain what impact the physical environment has on residents' a c t i v i t i e s . The more immune from the e f f e c t of the environment the residents become (with the exception of leisure pursuits) the more urbanized the area has become. Within rural communities the natural environment w i l l , as Coughenour and Busch state, continue to regulate the pace of s o c i a l a c t i v i t y (1978: p. 219). B. WHAT IS LOCAL CONTROL? The other variable that delineates this study is l o c a l c o n t r o l . This can be most e f f e c t i v e l y approached by examining i t s components separately before defining the term. 15 1. CONTROL This could be simply regarded as the amount of 'self government' possessed by a rural community. This could then mean that the absence of a formal l o c a l government i n s t i t u t i o n (municipality) would be the distinguishing f e a t u r e . 1 7 But using the presence or absence of l o c a l government structures as the only measure of the amount of control a community possesses can be deceiving. The formal powers of a l o c a l government are often more a matter of appearance than substance in small communities. Vidich and Bensman demonstrated how, despite the apparently extensive powers the l o c a l government bodies l e g a l l y possessed in a small community, the r e a l i t y was that, ". . . a t almost every point in this seemingly broad base of p o l i t i c a l domain the v i l l a g e and town boards adjust t h e i r actions to either the regulations and laws defined by state and federal agencies which claim p a r a l l e l functions on a statewide or nationwide basis, or to the fact that outside agencies have the power to withhold subsidies to l o c a l p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s " (1950: p. 100). Halverson has also i d e n t i f i e d that same l i m i t a t i o n in B r i t i s h Columbia. He argues that in rural areas the " l o c a l community does not make major decisions, i t responds" (1980: p. 374). But i f equating control with the existence of l o c a l government i n s t i t u t i o n s i s too r e s t r i c t i v e , other approaches that equate l o c a l control with c i t i z e n power tend to go too far to be useful for this study. Keating, for example, tends to take this ' a l l or nothing' approach to l o c a l decision sharing. He defines community control as a r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of power, with "the bringing home to the community the power to decide what 16 happens to the people who l i v e there" (1976: p. 37). A more temperate approach to the question of what constitutes control i s provided by Polsby. He argues that control can be seen as, "the capacity of one actor [individual or group] to do something a f f e c t i n g another actor, which changes the probable pattern of a s p e c i f i e d future event" (1980: p. 3). This would appear to be the most appropriate way to view control when i t i s being used in a study of r u r a l planning. It includes those cases where the rural community's power over planning i s i n d i r e c t , and the community must st-rive to influence the actions of a senior government. 2. LOCAL This thesis deals with l o c a l control over l o c a l issues so i t i s necessary to find some means to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between issues which are universal (or at least broader in scope than the l o c a l area), and those which can be considered l o c a l . Rural planning l i t e r a t u r e frequently c a l l s for decisions to be based on l o c a l interests but very few writers attempt to i d e n t i f y just what would be a l o c a l i s s u e . 1 8 Distinguishing between l o c a l and universal issues i s a d i f f i c u l t task. Society has become increasingly complex and l o c a l , regional, and national issues have grown very intertwined. Many writers argue that mass society i s becoming a l l pervasive. Warren states that one of the great changes in modern society i s in the orientation of l o c a l communities. He describes the "increasing and strengthening of the external t i e s which bind the l o c a l society to the larger society" (1963: 1 7 p. 5). Even those who argue against the concept of mass society recognize that there i s a high degree of interpenetration between l o c a l and more broad based s o c i a l units. As Stinson points out, " . . . l o c a l l y - i n i t i a t e d s o c i a l change can not be considered in i s o l a t i o n from the broader society of which i t i s a part. The outside i n s t i t u t i o n s and environment exert both stimulating and l i m i t i n g forces on a l o c a l i t y . The response of l o c a l c i t i z e n s is also ambivalent, sometimes accepting and sometimes rejecting the inputs from outside the community" (1979: p. 123). Accepting that the r e a l i t y i s a high level of interdependence how can any issue be i d e n t i f i e d as being a ' l o c a l ' issue? A precise d i v i s i o n between universal and l o c a l issues i s v i r t u a l l y impossible. For a l l but the most minor routine matters there are repercussions from l o c a l actions for other areas. Also, while i t might be easier to ident i f y some issues as being of universal concern i t has to be recognized that they may have l o c a l impact. One example would be the current debate over Canada's role in nuclear weapons. Certainly international relations and national defence f a l l into the category of universal issues. But what about the concerns of the people of a community, when the Federal Government decides to stockpile nuclear weapons at a nearby m i l i t a r y base. If the residents f e e l d i r e c t l y threatened by such an action, i s that not a l o c a l issue? This thesis takes the position that an a c t i v i t y can be conceived of as being a l o c a l issue i f i t can meet two c r i t e r i a : that the concerns of the l o c a l residents are acknowledged as being legitimate; and that the consequences of the action w i l l 18 be experienced primarily in a limited area, a. Legit imacy In order for l o c a l residents to have any input into decision making on an issue, there must f i r s t be a recognition by those that w i l l make the eventual decision (and the general public as well) that the l o c a l residents have a right to be involved in the decision making. Unless there i s an acceptance that the l o c a l residents constitute an 'affected p u b l i c ' 1 9 there i s l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d that they w i l l even receive information on an issue before the decision has been made, and no provision w i l l be made for any consultation with l o c a l residents prior to the decision. The concern about id e n t i f y i n g the 'affected public' ( i s p a r t i c u l a r l y prevalent among those writers who view public involvement mainly as a support to representative government. But regardless of whether one accepts their basic premise about how the public should be involved in decision making, i t i s obvious they are a r t i c u l a t i n g the views of the majority of decision making i n s t i t u t i o n s . Thus in order to deal with such i n s t i t u t i o n s i t i s f i r s t necessary for the l o c a l residents to achieve legitimacy as an interested party. Wengert r e f l e c t s t h i s attitude when he states, "a not unimportant question is what individuals and groups have a stake in pa r t i c u l a r proposals; what individuals and groups are l i k e l y to be affected" (1971: p. 31). If the l o c a l community i s not seen to be more affected than the general public of the broader society then there i s l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d of their receiving s u f f i c i e n t information about issues to take any action. To pursue the 19 analogy used e a r l i e r , i t i s conceivable that nuclear weapons could be stored adjacent to a community without i t s having any knowledge of th e i r presence. Such information could be withheld from the residents in the 'national i n t e r e s t ' . b. Localized Consequences The other c r i t e r i a for id e n t i f y i n g an issue as ' l o c a l ' i s that the consequences of the proposed action should be experienced primarily in a limited (localized) area. It is necessary to stress that the ef f e c t s w i l l be primarily experienced in a l o c a l area since many of the most important issues for a lo c a l community w i l l overlap, and possibly c o n f l i c t , with the interests of other broader j u r i s d i c t i o n s (Figure 1). The impact of the event on the larger society must be such that the consequences of the decision being made in the interests of the l o c a l residents can be implemented without the general public experiencing what they consider to be prohi b i t i v e costs. This means that there must be feasible options available for the larger s o c i e t y . 2 0 3. DEFINITION OF LOCAL CONTROL This thesis i s concerned about the role of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in rural areas that have minimal l o c a l c o n t r o l . In that context l o c a l control w i l l be defined as the amount of influence that a community can c o l l e c t i v e l y exert on decision making for l o c a l issues. This acknowledges the fact that many of those decisions w i l l be made by a l e v e l of government that is external to the rural community. It i s seen as the a b i l i t y to eff e c t influence on decision making, and is not r e s t r i c t e d to 20 F i g u r e 1 - D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n B e t w e e n L o c a l a n d U n i v e r s a l C o n s e q u e n c e s B a s e d o n E x t e n t o f O v e r l a p p i n g I n t e r e s t 21 those situations where the rural community i s f u l l y in control of the decision making process. It also d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between l o c a l issues and more general ones. Local issues are interpreted as being those where the main impact of the a c t i v i t y i s experienced at the l o c a l l e v e l , and on which the r u r a l residents have been acknowledged to have a s p e c i f i c interest. C. SUMMARY The two variables that establish bounds of t h i s study are: the rural character of the area; and the l i m i t e d degree of control that residents have over issues that d i r e c t l y affect their l o c a l i t y . Both of these variables should be viewed as existing on a continuum. The degree of ruralness and level of l o c a l control are only established in r e l a t i o n to other areas of B r i t i s h Columbia (Figure 2 ) . It i s only for those areas that comply with the four features of a rural area (population size, low population density, distance from urban f a c i l i t i e s , and strongly conditioned by the physical environment); and which have r e s t r i c t e d l o c a l control, that the role of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in rural planning w i l l be examined. 22 Figure 2 - Study Focus rural area high degree of local control Area to be examined strong central control urban area 23 I I I . PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Bregha sums up the d i f f i c u l t y in dealing with any aspect of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n when he states, "public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s one of the more imprecise expressions in our language and means a variety of things to d i f f e r e n t people. The questions of 'who' participates in 'what', for 'which purpose and for 'whose' benefit e l i c i t a profusion of answers" (1977: pg. 120). Therefore, before attempting to deal with how the public can p a r t i c i p a t e in rural planning i t is necessary to review the l i t e r a t u r e in public p a r t i c i p a t i o n , to i d e n t i f y the d i f f e r e n t ways that the term has been defined; and to describe just how the term w i l l be u t i l i z e d for purposes of the thesis. A. ROOTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A l l d e f i n i t i o n s of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n stem from values and b e l i e f s to which their authors are personally committed. However, some writers consciously develop concepts of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n with reference to their ideological convictions, while others try to approach the question of a d e f i n i t i o n on more pragmatic grounds. 1. PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION As Bregha noted: "p a r t i c i p a t i o n takes on a variety of forms, depending upon the actors and the philosophy they are attempting to translate into action. For some, p a r t i c i p a t i o n means a whole new l i f e s t y l e leading, they hope, into a better world; for others i t i s an expression of very s p e c i f i c interests that they intend to promote; for yet others, p a r t i c i p a t i o n suggests the broadening of existing e l i t e s so that power and decision could be shared in a more equitable way" (1973: pg. 1). 24 a. Democratic Values One of the philosophical d i v i s i o n s that appears in the l i t e r a t u r e i s between those who consider public p a r t i c i p a t i o n to be a means to improve upon the system of representative democracy, and those who view i t as an integral part of participatory democracy. For supporters of representative democracy public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is viewed primarily as a means to advance individual interests in a competitive s i t u a t i o n . Its value, within the theoretical framework of representative democracy, is that i t can provide 'fine tuning' that w i l l permit the system to function more e f f e c t i v e l y . It does this in a variety of ways. Some writers see i t as a way of reducing the d i s t r u s t and alienation that segments of society may have about the p o l i t i c a l system. 2 1 Others believe that i t i s a means of 'evening the odds' so that new c o a l i t i o n s and interest groups can compete with more established interests that have dire c t input into the system. 2 2 Yet others believe that p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l result in better decisions through increased information being made available to the decision makers. Typical of t h i s approach to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s Heberlein's observation that: "The goal of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is to reach better decisions. By making the manager and planner aware of the range of alternatives, and by not leaving out or a l i e n a t i n g groups who, i f ignored, w i l l resort to t r a d i t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l mechanisms to make their wishes known, better decisions w i l l be • made. . . . In the long run t h i s should save time and money for any agency" (1976: pg. 3). Where the role of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s seen as being a 25 mechanism to support the representative system then p a r t i c i p a t i o n must also be viewed as something to be contained and channelled. Williams demonstrates t h i s when he states, "Because the non-elected public are not accountable for public resource decisions the [public p a r t i c i p a t i o n ] programme w i l l be limited to consultation and receipt of recommendations. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the f i n a l shape of the recommended plans should remain with public servants with decisions made by elected representatives who are accountable to the public" (1982: pg. 3). Even when public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is channeled in t h i s manner there i s s t i l l a fear that i t has the potential to weaken the representative form of government. It i s f e l t that i t is an extra-parliamentary process that w i l l diminish the authority of elected r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . 2 3 How seriously such threats are perceived depends on in d i v i d u a l perceptions about how e f f e c t i v e l y the representative system i s functioning at the present time. Obviously, to many p o l i t i c i a n s who see themselves as community-minded volunteers, acting in the best interests of their communities, public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s not only a threat, but also an i n s u l t . It implies that they are not doing their jobs as representatives e f f e c t i v e l y (O'Riordan: 1977: pg. 165). But representative democracy would appear to be faced with far more serious threats to i t s continuence than the p o s s i b i l i t y that the public might gain some d i r e c t input to decision making. The role of elected representatives has been seriously impaired by the increasing dominance of cabinet, and the unrepresentative power possessed by the bureaucracy and major lobby groups. 2" So while as 26 proponents of representative democracy see public p a r t i c i p a t i o n as a device to be used cautiously because of i t s potential to threaten the representative system, others are arguing that the current form of representative democracy f a i l s to provide acceptable opportunities for involvement. Elder expresses th i s sentiment when he states, "I reject as f a r c i c a l the notion of so c a l l e d 'contemporary democratic theory' that voting i s in any way a meaningful form of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in decision making, t h i s theory is even more ludicrous in i t s view that p a r t i c i p a t i o n should be limited to elections to choose leaders, and that the l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the majority should not ri s e above the minimum necessary to keep the e l e c t o r a l machinery working" (1975: pg. 102). These c r i t i c s of the representative system tend to be proponents of a completely d i f f e r e n t view of democracy—participatory democracy. They argue that p a r t i c i p a t i o n should be viewed as an end in i t s e l f involving people co-operating for the common good. As Bryden states they believe that the real essence of democracy " . . . i s to be found in the e t h i c a l thrust of Rousseau, J. S. M i l l and other c l a s s i c a l t h e o r i s t s , who valued p a r t i c i p a t i o n above a l l else because i t alone enabled human beings, a l l of them and not just a pr i v i l e g e d few, to develop their potential to the f u l l " (1982: pg. 95). This b e l i e f has lead some writers to adopt extreme p o s i t i o n s — t o advocate, l i k e Aleshire, that "the democratic t r a d i t i o n s of the Greek City states w i l l be very applicable to American communities as they seek to solve their problems and improve the q u a l i t y of l i f e " (1970: pg. 392). Such extreme statements r e s u l t in the entire notion of participatory democracy being 27 dismissed as impractical and i d e a l i s t i c (Axworthy: 1979: pg. 284). Others, who recognize that representative and participatory democracy are poles on a continuum, 2 5 work toward increasing participatory aspects of the democratic system. For them the t r a n s i t i o n to a more participatory system w i l l be achieved by a devolution of authority to the lowest possible levels of government, 2 6 to get decision making closer to the public. It also does not imply that a l l of the public w i l l ever become involved in a l l decisions. Rather, that the decision making system should become open enough to ensure "everyone has some form of access to the decision making system when they so  desire to have i t " (McNiven: 1974: pg. 154). For advocates of participatory democracy then, public involvement i s j u s t i f i e d on the basis that i t is a p o l i t i c a l right that a l l c i t i z e n s should have in a democratic s o c i e t y . 2 7 They see i t as a right which may be essential to the survival of democratic society. This 'belief' in the need for a more participatory form of democracy is then translated into planning by practioners such as Lash, who believes that e f f e c t i v e c i t i z e n involvement should i t s e l f be an objective of the planning process (1977: pg. 88). b. Public Interest The other basic philsophical d i v i s i o n in the l i t e r a t u r e revolves about the nature of the public interest. One view i s that public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is for the general good, others see public groups as being s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d . Friedmann summarizes these two points of view by stating that for some "public interest i s a u t i l i t a r i a n notion arrived at quite simply by a 28 summation of individual interests"; while for others "the terms express the notion of something " shared or held in common. . . the idea of a public good therefore implies the existence of a community and the commitment of i t s members to i t " (1973: pg. 2, 3). Spokesmen for the concept of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n being for the public good often argue that such p a r t i c i p a t i o n leads to the strengthening of community i d e n t i t y . Aleshire, for example states " c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n , by providing a sense of community and participatory relationship, is the key to improving the quality of l i f e " (1970: pg. 392). Those who view public p a r t i c i p a t i o n as being a process where se l f - i n t e r e s t e d groups are working for their own ends generally equate public p a r t i c i p a t i o n with the lobby a c t i v i t i e s of special interest groups. For them there i s l i t t l e to d i stinguish between a lobby group l i k e the chemical industry and a neighbourhood organization, except the different degrees of organization and influence. Fagence.reflects this attitude when he states "there i s v i r t u a l l y no p o s s i b i l i t y that the public, however this group i s defined, can act other than in a self-oriented and p r e f e r e n t i a l manner, with s u b j e c t i v i t y repeatedly outscoring o b j e c t i v i t y " (1977: pg. 247). 2. PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO DESCRIBING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION For some, public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a convenient tool and the theoretical basis of the concept gets ignored. Planners, decision makers, and the. public grasp for a convenient mechanism to achieve desired goals. There i s l i t t l e concern about how p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l change the balance between representative and 29 participatory democracy, or what i s r e a l l y meant by public interest. Rather i t is approached on a pragmatic basis without pausing to contemplate how i t might f i t into some grand design. In such cases public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s defined, and implemented, in ways that seem to best f i t the p a r t i c u l a r circumstances. The main question becomes ' i s i t an e f f e c t i v e means to accomplish the task at hand', and the emphasis i s on the costs and benefits of public involvement. a. Value To Decision Makers Decision makers ( p o l i t i c i a n s and c i v i l servants) anticipate benefits from public p a r t i c i p a t i o n that include: improved information through use of residents' knowledge of their area; more creative solutions by public involvement in i d e n t i f y i n g alternatives; an e f f e c t i v e means of reducing opposition to decisions and improving implementation by 'educating' the public; and perhaps most important, as a means to gain more public c r e d i b i l i t y and p o l i t i c a l support. 2 8 Bregha sums up many of the benefits for decision makers when he states, "people respect more those laws on which they have been consulted; people i d e n t i f y strongly with programmes they have helped to plan; people perform better in projects they have assisted in setting up; . . . i t i s now widely acknowledged that people in their communities can f a c i l i t a t e or frustrate national purposes at many strategic points" (1973: pg. 3). Against these perceived benefits decision makers w i l l weigh anticipated costs. Some potential costs to the system include: the additional time and money that i s required; the p o s s i b i l i t y that u n r e a l i s t i c expectations may be created; residents may 30 interfere in matters that require technical expertise to understand; that the opportunity to parti c i p a t e may be usurped by those who are only interested in confrontation; and f i n a l l y , even i f they are serious about wanting to obtain public input there i s often confusion about how t h i s can best be achieved. 2 9 b. Value To Public The costs of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n to the public are si g n i f i c a n t as well. Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i f i t is any more than tokenism, requires the expenditure of a substantial amount of time and energy by individuals. It also e n t a i l s risk taking since the results of such involvement are unpredictable and i f they f a i l to achieve the expectations of the public then there may be a perception that the community i s worse off than i t was before. It i s for these reasons that frequently public p a r t i c i p a t i o n only occurs after people are jerked out of their complacency by a c r i s i s . As Dyballa Raymond, and Hahn observed from their experience in ru r a l New York a l o c a l c r i s i s was an important stimulant to help generate involvement (1981: pg. 143). This also explains why 'top down .approaches' to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as adopted by agencies anxious to c a p i t a l i z e on the benefits they believe w i l l achieved through the process, frequently f a i l . The object of their interest--the p u b l i c — d o e s not see where there are benefits to the public in p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the agency's program. As Thompson states "the desirable amount of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s that which i s seriously and d i l i g e n t l y sought" (1979: pg. 20). The benefits to people from p a r t i c i p a t i o n can occur at two 31 l e v e l s . There are dire c t benefits related to the s p e c i f i c issue that the public are concerned about, such as the a b i l i t y to influence the method of delivery of a government program. In addition, there are general benefits for the public as well. These include: reducing the l e v e l of alienation . that many individuals currently experience in a large, bureaucratic society 3 0 ; achieving a sense of self esteem from involvement in self help a c t i v i t i e s 3 1 ; and the opportunity to strengthen community t i e s as new lin k s are formed between individuals. It is important to recognize that public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is a process that must offer some incentive to a l l the actors involved i f i t i s going to be an ongoing a c t i v i t y . While few would attempt to go as far as Aleshire and attempt to j u s t i f y p a r t i c i p a t i o n solely on the basis of a "costs and benefits comparison of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning" i t i s apparent that continued demands for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n are based on perceived benefits for those involved. B. WHAT IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. A DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In any planning a c t i v i t y where there are a number of separate actors there w i l l undoubtedly be almost as many diff e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The parties involved have d i f f e r e n t levels of knowledge about how the decision making system works (and can be manipulated); have dif f e r e n t time frames; and frequently are pursuing t o t a l l y separate objectives. When these factors are added to the fact 32 that the actors involved are often operating from c o n f l i c t i n g ideological positions, which are not made e x p l i c i t to the others i t creates a turbulent environment. In the midst of such turbulence i t i s understandable how various actors can describe public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in such contradictory terms. One faction can f l a t l y state " c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a categorical term for c i t i z e n power" (Arnstein: 1969: pg. 216); while another group argues that, " c i t i z e n representatives are only one voice among many, with viewpoints and demands that are neither more or less legitimate than others, and their presence does not relieve public o f f i c i a l s from the burden of seeking t h e i r own public interest conclusions. Administrative p o l i c i e s ought to be guided more by reasoned analysis, systematic, long-range planning, a se n s i t i v e accomodation of present s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l needs to future ones, and the best available information, than by the passion or persistence of public inte r e s t spokesmen" (Cupps: 1977: pg. 484). These very divergent views about the nature of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n require some examination of the underlying p r i n c i p l e s on which these views are based. Both views, and many variations that f a l l between these extremes, are v a l i d within their own context. It i s not appropriate to create a h i e r a r c h i c a l ranking of types of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n without f i r s t acknowledging what values are being u t i l i z e d to i d e n t i f y what i s to be as an optimum. 3 2 A way to conceptualize public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s to identify the basic p r i n c i p l e s as e x i s t i n g as extreme poles on a continuum. Participatory democracy and representative democracy are extremes on a continuum that describes how people can part i c i p a t e ; while s e l f - i n t e r e s t and common good are extremes 33 along an intersecting continuum that describes why people p a r t i c i p a t e . When viewed in t h i s manner (see Figure 3) public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be seen as the means by which individuals and groups from the general public interact with decision makers beyond the routine process of elections, in an e f f o r t to ensure that public decisions r e f l e c t their respective objectives. This d e f i n i t i o n of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is loose enough that any s i t u a t i o n where there i s interaction between a government agency and some members of the general public could be termed 'p a r t i c i p a t i o n ' . Some, such as O'Riordan, appear to advocate leaving the concept t h i s general. He states, " p a r t i c i p a t i o n , l i k e common law, is moulded by case experience. There is no set pattern. What may be suitable for one area and one issue may not be appropriate for another. Even during the evaluation of a programme, the p a r t i c i p a t i o n procedure may have to be changed" (1977: pg. 169). However, the obvious l i m i t a t i o n to such an open d e f i n i t i o n i s how to determine the l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in any s p e c i f i c case, and how to d i s t i n g u i s h between dif f e r e n t types of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Refinement i s required by subdividing public p a r t i c i p a t i o n into categories. 2. APPROACHES TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There have been a number of attempts to describe the various approaches that can be taken to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The most frequently c i t e d i s Arnstein's (1969) eight step Ladder of C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n . 3 3 Burke (1968) describes fi v e d i f f e r e n t 'strategies'. with increasing amounts of c i t i z e n c o n t r o l : education therapy; behavioural change; staff 34 Figure 3 - Approaches to Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n self interest CD a 6 C 3 a o a o 2 E a co t. CO ca a. co < CO r-t-CD 3. 0 •o 0 CO 0 D r-f-0) < 0 common good 35 supplement; co-optation; and ultimately, community power. Bregha (1973) has a framework with four general categories that are seen as "building upon the foundations of the previous ones;" information-feedback; consultation; j o i n t planning; and delegated authority. F a r r e l l , Melin and Stacey (1976) refer to seven levels of increasing public involvement: persuasion; education; information-feedback; consultation; j o i n t planning; delegated authority; and self-determinism. Burton and Johnson (1976) identif y four "aspects of p a r t i c i p a t i o n " : informing the public; c o l l e c t i n g information from the public; education of the public; and involving the public. Their work recognizes that the various categories tend to overlap, and do not necessarily display the h i e r a r c h i c a l arrangement assumed in many of the frameworks c i t e d . This thesis u t i l i z e s a four category approach to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n : 3 " public information; data c o l l e c t i o n ; c i t i z e n s h i p t r a i n i n g ; and involvement in decision making. a. Public Information One kind of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s that i t i s a mechanism that decision makers can u t i l i z e to disseminate information to gain more general support for their decisions, and to reduce public resistance during program implementation. This approach to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be described as public information. Some writers argue that such one way communication is not a true form of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The Skeffington Committee which studied public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in Great B r i t a i n , distinguished between " p a r t i c i p a t i o n — t h e act of sharing in the 36 formulation of p o l i c i e s and proposals . . . and p u b l i c i t y — t h e making of information a v a i l a b l e to the public" (quoted in Burton and Johnson: 1976: pg. 13). However t h i s appears to be a rather idealized view of what public p a r t i c i p a t i o n e n t a i l s and ignores i t s a b i l i t y to be manipulated by government agencies. 'Public information' appears to be an appropriate description since the public p a r t i c i p a t i o n program i s designed to t e l l the public of decisions that have been made, or are in the process of being made. It does not look for feedback from the public and discourages dialogue. This approach i s similar to the levels of pa r t i c i p a t i o n that Arnstein described as 'manipulative'. The authority involved releases a portion of the information i t possesses to the public. While this information may be released because -authorities believe the public have a right to know, i t can also be orchestrated to produce public support for a government agency's objective; or for self-congratulatory reasons; or simply to improve the implementation of some project or program by making the affected public aware of the new 'rules' they w i l l be expected to obey. In thi s approach the public is expected, by the decision makers, to play a passive role. To the extent that some portion of the public wants to obtain greater input into decision making the i r actions w i l l be confrontative and reactive "(to the authority's i n i t i a t i v e s ) since the formal communication channels are r e s t r i c t e d . As Canham points out, "to promote the appearance of following democratic processes or to convince the community that decisions have been arrived at openl y — p u b l i c input is sought. Meetings serving t h i s r i t u a l i s t i c function are usually 37 poorly attended, poorly conducted, and e f f e c t i v e input into the f i n a l decision is often n e g l i g i b l e (1979: pg. 3). b. Data Collection A second approach to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s to u t i l i z e the public to as s i s t the e f f o r t s of the planners and decision makers. Residents are viewed as a source of useful knowledge about l o c a l conditions (and their own values and preferences), and are permitted to feed that information into the planning process. Manzer demonstrates th i s type of approach when she argues that 'grass roots' advisory groups, "must operate within well defined parameters. Such a group must be b u i l t c a r e f u l l y to ensure i t s representativeness, i t s c r e d i b i l i t y , and i t s acceptance by the decision makers . . . The advisory group must understand that the elected representatives make the decision, and that non-elected advisory p a r t i c i p a t i o n provides s t r i c t l y background information and advice, based on f i r s t hand knowledge of the l o c a l s i t u a t i o n " (1979: pg. 32). Bregha claims that this approach, when u t i l i z e d in planning, i s commonly described as 'participatory planning'. The emphasis in such planning i s placed on obtaining public input on technical aspects of the plan, and excludes the public from the p o l i t i c a l process (1973: pg. 124). Data c o l l e c t i o n , as an approach to p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i s also useful to decision makers because the opportunity can be used to recruit (or co-opt, depending on the perspective) individuals whose c a p a b i l i t y and influence in the community appears to j u s t i f y such actions. Another asset, for decision makers, i s that the a c t i v i t y generated may provide a useful 'safety valve' 38 since i t gives participants a sense of involvement that may dampen demands for actual power sharing. Whether the public w i l l be content to play the subordinate roles assigned to them in t h i s form of p a r t i c i p a t i o n depends on a large number of factors: the s k i l l of those administering the program; the l e v e l of public concern about the issue involved; the degree of success that occurs in co-opting public leadership; and the s k i l l s and resources that the public groups may have at their disposal. In some cases the public may be content to assume that better decisions w i l l be made as a result of the increased information that was provided. In other cases data gathering may be dismissed as tokenism and there would be agitation for a larger role. At this point the relationship with decision makers would l i k e l y become confrontative since this form of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n has c l e a r l y defined boundar ies . c. Citizenship Training Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s seen in this approach as being the means by which the public can be assisted to understand the planning process, or the basis on which planning decisions are made. It i s heavily influenced by the belief of those that are conducting the process that 'planning' i s a ' r a t i o n a l ' approach to problem solving. Most attempts to create a framework for p a r t i c i p a t i o n identify some form of education as one of the approaches. As Burke states, "i n t h i s context the act of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s held to be a form of c i t i z e n s h i p t r a i n i n g , in which c i t i z e n s working together to solve community problems not only 39 l e a r n how democracy works but a l s o l e a r n to value and a p p r e c i a t e c o - o p e r a t i o n as a problem s o l v i n g method" (1968: pg. 288). While t h i s approach can lead to more meaningful communication there i s a l s o a danger i t can be p a t r o n i z i n g . I t i s easy to come to the assumption that there i s a ' r i g h t ' way to p l a n . Whether p u b l i c groups w i l l accept an e x t e r n a l judgement about the r i g h t way to plan f o r t h e i r community i s open to q u e s t i o n . If the p u b l i c r e j e c t e f f o r t s to teach them the 'proper' approach to planning t h i s can be used as a j u s t i f i c a t i o n by d e c i s i o n makers for a c t i n g on behalf of the p u b l i c . I f , however, the p r o f e s s i o n a l s ' are s i n c e r e i n t h e i r approach, and the p u b l i c gain an understanding of the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , then the p a r t i c i p a t i o n process must evolve beyond c i t i z e n s h i p t r a i n i n g or e l s e r e v e r t to a more c i r c u m s c r i b e d form of p u b l i c involvement. The 'teachers' must accept t h a t e v e n t u a l l y t h e i r students w i l l want more equal s t a t u s . d. Involvement In D e c i s i o n Making T h i s approach to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s based on mutual r e c o g n i t i o n of the government agency i n v o l v e d and the area's r e s i d e n t s , that the r e s i d e n t s can e f f e c t i v e l y c o n t r i b u t e t o d e c i s i o n making on i s s u e s of l o c a l concern. I t r e f l e c t s what the Bureau of M u n i c i p a l Research c o n s i d e r to be the true essence of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . An aspect of "the democratic system which permits non-elected members of the community to e x e r c i s e some c o n t r o l over d e c i s i o n making which goes beyond e l e c t i o n s " (quoted i n Burton: 1977: pg. 3). While t h i s approach c o u l d be pushed to argue f o r an extreme d e v o l u t i o n of d e c i s i o n making (as 40 in Arnstein's v i s i o n of c i t i z e n c o n t r o l ) , i t is far more l i k e l y that i t w i l l be t y p i f i e d by situations where the public have e f f e c t i v e input into decision making without complete control over the process. This e f f e c t i v e input requires open access to the decision making p r o c e s s 3 5 , and demonstrations that the public's wishes receive equal consideration in the decisions that are made. Such demonstrations would consist of: the decision making process being open enough so that the actual decision makers are i d e n t i f i e d ; their decisions referenced to the positions expressed by the public; and when the public's recommendations were rejected, some explanation. Government agencies and public groups in thi s approach are no longer in 'superior-subordinate' roles. Instead a l l parties are viewed as integral components of the process, and cooperation of a l l i s required to ensure the proper operation of the process. This approach i s similar to that which Lash advocated in the preparation of Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t ' s 'Livable Region' planning process. He emphasized the interdependence of a l l parties concerned in the planning process (Figure 4). This type of symbiotic relationship between the parties Lash f e l t would be a more stable form of organization and would produce better results than would any e f f o r t to assert a h i e r a r c h i c a l arrangement regardless or which party controlled the hierarchy (1977: pg. 74). Acceptance of public involvement in decision making can come about either from b e l i e f that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a right to 4 1 Figure 4 - Co-operative Approach to Planning Politicians -> Planners Reproduced from Lash,Harry 1977. 42 which a l l c i t i z e n s are e n t i t l e d , or i t can result from a more pragmatic consideration that public involvement w i l l result in better decisions. Once i t i s achieved i t i s not inevitable that i t w i l l f l o u r i s h unchallenged. Assumptions that public p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l automatically result in better decisions tend to be overly o p t i m i s t i c . 3 6 Disappointment over results, or fr u s t r a t i o n about the amount of energy required to maintain e f f e c t i v e public involvement, may result in decreased p a r t i c i p a t i o n . However, once members of the public have been involved in decision making, and have thereby gained organizational s k i l l s , they may not be s a t i s f i e d by any lesser amount of involvement in future issues that are of public concern. C. SUMMARY This thesis defines public p a r t i c i p a t i o n as the process of interaction between individuals or groups from among the general public and decision makers, outside of the normal election a c t i v i t y ; and the means by which the various parties attempt to advance their objectives. Within t h i s general d e f i n i t i o n there are four main categories: public information; data c o l l e c t i o n ; c i t i z e n s h i p t r a i n i n g ; and involvement in decision making. These categories could be further subdivided, but such complexity i s unnecessary to apply the concept of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n to r u r a l planning. None of the four categories is s t a t i c , and, there w i l l be continued pressures by the various actors to transform the public p a r t i c i p a t i o n process to have i t conform more clos e l y to their p a r t i c u l a r objectives. 43 IV. RURAL PLANNING A. NEED FOR RURAL PLANNING Paris claims that "the nonurban is emptied of a l l potential c r e a t i v i t y and the few innovations that seem to appear in rur a l land are c i t y bred" (1979: pg. 136). Other writers view rural communities as being nothing more than dependent peripheries to an urban metropolis. They argue that such communities can only be e f f e c t i v e l y influenced by attention being devoted to the urban c o r e . 3 7 If these assessments are correct i t would be d i f f i c u l t to j u s t i f y assigning a high p r i o r i t y to planning a c t i v i t i e s exclusively designed for rural communities. At the same time r u r a l residents have repeatedly displayed strong opposition to planning. They place great emphasis on private property r i g h t s , 3 8 and frequently d i s t r u s t anything that is described as pl a n n i n g . 3 9 Lassey describes the t y p i c a l rural attitude toward planning when he states, "The very idea of planning is often unacceptable to long time small town residents because i t smacks of 'socialism' or threatens outside government control over l o c a l freedom of decision. The profound and dissonance producing changes that may be necessary for lo c a l community s u r v i v a l , and which may involve new forms of community collaboration, restructuring of l o c a l government, and radic a l changes by l o c a l decision makers as impossible dreaming" (1977: pg. 35). When rur a l residents' suspicions are combined with the planning profession's apparent lack of interest in planning for rural communities any e f f o r t s to i n i t i a t e planning face formidable obstacles. One of the f i r s t steps to overcoming 44 these obstacles should be to closely examine rural communities. If t h i s i s done then the perception of rural areas as stagnant backwaters of society becomes questionable. In r e a l i t y , rural areas, at least in the Canadian context, are being subjected to strong pressures related to change. As Lewis states, "any study of the contemporary rural community, no matter how i t i s refined, must inevitably be concerned with s o c i a l change" (1979: pg. 17). Certainly the rate of change is not uniform or un i d i r e c t i o n a l in r u r a l society, but there i s c l e a r l y growth occurring in rural areas. The trends of the past toward rural depopulation have been reversed. At the present time rural communities are growing at a faster rate than urban centres. Hodge may be overly optimistic when he refers to a "rural renaissance" (1982b), but they can c e r t a i n l y not be regarded any longer as declining or even stagnant. The impact of change on a r u r a l community tends to be very dramatic. Due to the basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of rural areas any change tends to become magnified to a much greater extent than would occur in an urban neighbourhood. The small population and limited resources of a rural community constrain i t s a b i l i t y to respond to change. An event, such as the loss of a single family, which would create only minor readjustment problems in an urban neighbourhood, can d r a s t i c a l l y change the s o c i a l balance of a rural community."0 As a result the current changes being experienced by r u r a l society w i l l have a profound impact on i t s future. Managing change i s a fundmental purpose of 45 planning." 1 With the technical, economic, and social changes currently being experienced by rural communities they require some mechanism to assess and respond to these changes. Planning provides a method to do such an assessment, and develop a strategy in response. But before planning can be u t i l i z e d for rural communities i t i s necessary to confront residents' attitudes about planning. However, these attitudes are also based on faulty assumptions. Much of the rural opposition to planning comes from planning being equated with land use controls, and serving no other purpose. Halverson points out that, "People in rural B. C. do not l i k e planning very much and they do not support i t . . . . Planning is usually confused with zoning and zoning i s regarded as a r e s t r i c t i o n on private i n i t i a t i v e " (1980: pg. 368). Indeed many residents go further and see planning as d i r e c t l y connected to building regulations, which are considered another example of urban standards being a r b i t r a r i l y applied to rural areas. Planners, as well as planning, are also viewed s c e p t i c a l l y by rur a l people. Many encounters between planners, as agents of external authorities, and rural residents have been negative. As Cohen indicates "unimplemented and out-of-proportion planning recommendations increase the widely held suspicion in small towns that planner are very well paid paper producers" (1977: pg. 7). These suspicions do not create an insurmountable obstacle. Rural residents are aware of many of the changes their communities are experiencing and are anxious to find some means to obtain a degree of control over their future. This 46 recognition of a changing environment and desire to have some method to influence change was recently documented by Haynes in his study, Western voices: Socioeconomic development viewed by community leaders. One of the results of his extensive study of small to medium sized western communities was that: "people here had a feeling of being caught out in changes that are brought about by forces outside their control to a large extent; they have very mixed feelings about methods of defence they can use to preserve their feelings of independence and autonomy, to defend their way of l i f e " (1979: pg. 78). There are many examples of rur a l people demanding that "something must be done"; and even a few cases where rural self help projects have been i n i t i t a t e d so that something would get done." 2 If planning can be demonstrated to them to serve a broader function than just land-use controls; and the planning approach to rural communities demonstrates a s e n s i t i v i t y to rural concerns then the rural resistance to planning may be transformed into support. As G i l f o r d et a l . noted, "the idea of planning as a form of regulation is usually resisted in rur a l communities. Planning a c t i v i t i e s have not proved an adequate response to public worries concerning growth and change, at least as planning i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y and t y p i c a l l y practiced" (1981: pg. 9). To achieve that necessary s e n s i t i v i t y i t w i l l be necessary to u t i l i z e "substantive planning"" 3 so that the purpose of the planning exercise, and the ben e f i c i a r i e s can be c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d . If these questions are dealt with, and the concerns of r u r a l people to have some control over changes affecting their community are recognized, then planning and rural 47 development w i l l overlap. Rural development theory emphasizes the need for the rural public to be involved in the decision making process. Youmans, for example, defines rural development as, "a democratic process involving l o c a l people in analysis of their problems, id e n t i f y i n g opportunities, deciding how to address them, and doing so" (1983: pg . 8 ) . It takes an integrated approach to rural communities. Social, p o l i t i c a l , and economic factors are seen as being so intertwined that e f f o r t s to promote growth in only one sector are seen as unproductive (Bromling: 1970, and Ni c h o l l s : 1967). As a consequence th i s approach places emphasis on c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and the creation of s e l f - h e l p s t r a t e g i e s . 9 0 This thesis w i l l adopt the premise that rural resistance to planning w i l l only be e f f e c t i v e l y overcome i f residents become confident that they w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t role in the planning process." 5 As Runka observes, "to r u r a l people i t makes a great deal of difference who i s doing the planning. The concern relates to the fact that, h i s t o r i c a l l y , urban p r i o r i t e s have often exploited rural land and overshadowed the concerns of rur a l people" (1980: pg. 19). To accomplish th i s the appropriate form of planning for rural communities i s one which acknowledges the basic tenets of rural development. 48 B. CONCEPTS OF RURAL PLANNING 1. CONVENTIONAL RURAL PLANNING The most common approach to p l a n n i n g 4 6 of r u r a l areas has been to simply extend planning a c t i v i t i e s , as they are being conducted in urban areas, into rural communities. This is based on the assumption that planning techniques and s k i l l s are universally applicable. Lassey demonstrates t h i s attitude towards rural planning when he defines i t as any form of planning that occurs in a r u r a l area (1977: pg. 5). This approach has come under increasing c r i t i c i s m . Qadeer refers to i t as " e s s e n t i a l l y ' c i t y planning' extended to rural areas. . . . i t applies perceptions and procedures forged in c i t i e s to rural land issues which are fundamentally d i f f e r e n t " (1979: pg. 113-114). Other writers have been even more outspoken in their c r i t i c i s m of the attempt to apply planning techniques and p r i n c i p l e s , designed for urban situations, to rural areas. They rebuke the planning profession for carrying i t s "urban bias" into rural planning." 7 As Runka states, "by tra i n i n g , habit, and job orientation, planners tend to be urban-oriented, preoccupied with looking from the urban core in concentric rings outward in the countryside" (1980: pg. 14). The c r i t i c s of conventional rural planning argue there must be a more d i s t i n c t i v e approach to rural planning. An approach that w i l l ensure that differences between urban and rural areas are taken into consideration. It i s their contention that t h i s form of ' c i t y planning' in r u r a l areas w i l l produce flawed 49 r e s u l t s . It w i l l cause basic data to be overlooked; and w i l l produce in e f f e c t u a l results since i t u t i l i z e s standards that were created for urban areas, and which are often unworkable in rural areas. Even when the motives of the planners and decision makers are well intentioned this urban bias can lead to d i s t o r t i o n and inappropriate programs. A t y p i c a l example was the Department of Regional Economic Expansion's (DREE) rural development program in the 1960s and early 1970s. It was based on the assumption that, "what separates rural Canadians from their fellow c i t i z e n s in fact i s not a matter of taste, or attitudes or aspirations. It i s , rather, a range of continuing and wide s o c i a l and economic d i s p a r i t i e s " (Canadian Council on Rural Devlopment: 1976: pg. 32). This be l i e f that rural problems were simply due to a lack of funds led to an extensive development program, based on the growth centre philosophy. It advocated c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and urbanization of the rural p o p u l a t i o n 4 8 , and was actually detrimental to the continued survival of rural communities. It concentrated on improving physical services and ignored the findings of r u r a l sociologists that many rural residents place a higher value on soc i a l relationships than they do on physical services provided in their community."9 2. AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT OF RURAL PLANNING The concerns about the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of conventional planning led to a search for a new d e f i n i t i o n of rural planning. In recognition of the differences that exist between rural and urban communities rural planning s h a l l be defined as that 50 planning which i s done in rural areas with a recognition of the existence of unique rural features, and the need to incorporate these features into the planning process. This d e f i n i t i o n is based on the bel i e f that r u r a l planning must consider recognized differences between urban and rural communities. As Getzels and Thurow state, "Rural planning is dif f e r e n t from urban planning. The problems are di f f e r e n t , the solutions are d i f f e r e n t , and the available resources to get the job done are d i f f e r e n t . Most important, the people are d i f f e r e n t . They have different attitudes toward the land, d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s and dif f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n s " (1980: pg. 1). a. Different Problems (1) size In many ways the c r i t e r i a used to identi f y r u r a l areas explain why they experience d i f f e r e n t problems. Hodge wrote that "the planning problems of small communities are d i f f e r e n t in scale, intensity and pace of change" (1976: pg. 10). Many of the problems are d i r e c t l y related to the low population size and density of rural communities. These place l i m i t s on the types of services and f a c i l i t i e s that can be developed in rural communities. Any services that require a high minimum l e v e l of usage are automatically excluded from rural communities. As Powers and Moe point out, "Rural places are characterized by small si z e and scale, including small communities, small governemnts, and small i n s t i t u t i o n s . . . . Smallness i s rooted in the sparsity of population. Extensive travel i s often necessary to aggregate the population and resources that are needed to support es s e n t i a l services" (1982: pg. 12). This 'smallness' also produces other problems for rural 51 communities. Frequently the small population, which is unable to provide support for professional and managerial positions, results in a loss of important s k i l l s and leadership for the community. Qadeer refers to this process as the creation of "truncated communities" and claims that many r u r a l development problems are a result of this weakness (1979: pg. 110). (2) physical environment Even though there has been an increase in i n d u s t r i a l and service occupations in rural areas most ru r a l communities are s t i l l strongly influenced by their physical environment. Hodge claims the recent growth in rural areas i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to "the new three R's—resources, recreation and retirement" (1982: pg. 5). These communities dependent on natural resource extraction are subject to the 'boom or bust' cycle that accompanies such a c t i v i t i e s . Also, many of the primary resource industries are influenced by climatic and b i o l o g i c a l factors (as in the case of agriculture, forestry, and f i s h i n g ) . Recreation and retirement are d i r e c t l y related to the natural amenities of an area. Thus planning for rural areas must not only consider the implications of dependence on primary resource e x t r a c t i o n , 5 0 but also how the physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the area w i l l influence those looking for rural areas for recreation and retirement opportunities. (3) impact of senior governments Dealing with the fragmentation of government i n s t i t u t i o n s , and universally applied government programs that are inappropriate for l o c a l conditions, i s not unique to ru r a l 52 communities. Certainly some urban neighbourhoods fe e l that the universal programs of senior governments ignore l o c a l p r i o r i t i e s and can be detrimental to their s u r v i v a l . But, as Qadeer observes, the c o n f l i c t between l o c a l and pr o v i n c i a l (or national) issues i s p a r t i c u l a r l y detrimental to small communities (1979: pg. 113). Such communities lack the resources and organizations necessary to e f f e c t i v e l y counteract the a c t i v i t i e s of the senior government. Rural communities are subjected to regulations and p o l i c i e s that are designed primarily for highly urbanized situations. These p o l i c i e s frequently f a i l to consider the problems that w i l l be caused when rur a l areas are blanketed by the same requirements. Examples abound of the adverse aff e c t that universal programs can have on small communities. Provincial government e f f o r t s to provide a f u l l range of educational programs led to consolidation of schools which mean that a small community's school i s forced to close. This not only involves the commuting of children to distant centres, but also the loss of the school staff and their families to the community—a b i t t e r blow since i t reinforces the 'truncation' of the community. The federal government designs programs to as s i s t people to purchase their own homes. But CMHC secured mortgages are only available i f a house meets the requirements of the National Building Code, which was designed for urban conditions. Few r u r a l dwellings can qu a l i f y under the Code, so the govenment's program simply exacerbates the difference in the quality of housing between rural and urban areas. 53 The rural community must then attempt to cope with government programs in an i n s t i t u t i o n a l environment that is even more chaotic than in urban sit u a t i o n s . Studies have been done which demonstrate that the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l fragmentation of rural areas surpasses that of urban areas (Dyballa et a l . : 1981: pg. 4) . b. Different Resources (1) f i n a n c i a l and technical l i m i t a t i o n s A common observation about the d i f f i c u l t y of planning in r u r a l communities is that they do not have available, at a l o c a l l e v e l , the talents and expertise needed for planning. 5 1 It i s also observed that they lack the necessary f i n a n c i a l resources to either plan or implement any desired programs. These deficiences are very much a factor that has to be taken into consideration in any rural planning e f f o r t s . Hodge (1976) describes how in Ontario the Provincial government overlooked these basic f a c t s . They assumed that rural municipalities would have planning expertise on their s t a f f , and that the amount of money required to conduct a community plan was i n s i g n i f i c a n t . What the p r o v i n c i a l government forgot to take into consideration was that most small rural municipalities had only part-time administrative s t a f f ; and that what the Provincial government considered to be a t r i v i a l amount of money was a major expenditure to a small community. (2) rural resources While limited in access to finances and expertise there are other resources that can be drawn upon for rural planning. The 54 most obvious r u r a l resource i s the rural population i t s e l f . There is a r u r a l t r a d i t i o n of volunteer a c t i v i t y that can be u t i l i z e d to obtain considerable assistance in planning. Associated with t h i s i s the knowledge that rural residents have of their area. This knowledge i s p a r t i c u l a r l y valuable to professional planners since, as Runka pointed out, rural people u t i l i z e natural landscape features in a way that is often very d i f f e r e n t from the urban pattern (1980: pg. 20). Another resource that can be used to make planning more e f f e c t i v e i s the strong sense of community attachment that i s common in rural communities. It has been documented in a number of studies that rural residents tend to take pride in their community and believe that i t i s somehow unique. 5 2 This attitude can be dismissed as merely parochial, or i t can be used in a p o s i t i v e sense to encourage people to work to make their community even better. It has also been claimed that rural communities can use their size as a resource. Robertson (1980), for example, argues that smallness can be used to advantage since i t allows people to be treated as individuals, and means that fewer a l l encompassing rules and regulations are required, c. Different People Recent studies have discovered that r u r a l values and attitudes are not disappearing as rapidly as had been e a r l i e r p r e d i c t e d . 5 3 As a result any e f f o r t to plan r u r a l communities should take into consideration the fact i t s residents may have very d i f f e r e n t values and desires then those of the professional planners or external decision makers. While some of the r u r a l 55 attitudes that w i l l affect planning have already been referred to: their anti-planning views (with a general mistrust of 'government'); and their high l e v e l of community attachment, there are others that have to be i d e n t i f i e d . (1) personalized multiple interactions The r u r a l desire for personal interaction has been described f r e q u e n t l y , 5 4 and i t has led Halverson to define rural society as p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c . This i s an approach that emphasizes face to face interaction and looks at the individual instead of the i n s t i t u t i o n that he may be representing (1980: pg. 374). Rural society i s also constrained by the multiple role relationships that exist because of the limited population. As Martin pointed out this means, "each person w i l l be linked to many other people in the community in a variety of d i f f e r e n t but overlapping ways. . . i t follows that social networks in the r u r a l areas are more closely knit . . . as a d i r e c t consequence, rural community l i f e w i l l be dominated by caution. If a man has to share a range of s o c i a l contacts with a r e l a t i v e l y limited number of people he w i l l hesitate before taking attitudes or actions that w i l l offend" (1976: pg. 56). (2) consensual decision making These r u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s lead to another s o c i a l feature that distinguishes them from urban communities. There i s a strong desire in rural communities to operate on a consensual, instead of a c o n f l i c t u a l approach to decision making. There i s a constant e f f o r t to play down any c o n f l i c t that does e x i s t , and to search for some basis upon which people can work together. The implications for planning are that the pace at which the process proceeds w i l l undoubtedly be slower. In fact the 56 planner's desire to "get on with i t " i s often a reason for the planning process to break down in r u r a l communities. It also means that there w i l l be some issues that are so sensitive that the r u r a l residents w i l l attempt to avoid them rather than ri s k the consequences of confrontation. One p a r t i c u l a r area i s the issue of enforcement. There is a desire to informally "work things out" rather than to impose legal sanctions, but for planners and external authorities who are unfamiliar with the way rural residents use informal pressure t a c t i c s on offenders such attempts to avoid confrontation are contemptously dismissed as 'impractical'. (3) problem oriented A further s i g n i f i c a n t rural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s the tendency for rural people to be problem oriented. As Getzels and Thurow state, "the problems are not perceived in a grand scheme—the 'systems view' just isn't there. Problems are viewed independently" (1980: pg. 10). This attitude i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important to rural planners. It explains why rural residents often f a i l to become involved in planning programs that do not address s p e c i f i c l o c a l problems. They are l i k e l y to be unimpressed by claims that planning i s in their long term best interests, and would probably dismiss any planning that was future oriented as 'utopian' i f the objectives for the planning exercise are not e x p l i c i t . 57 C. RURAL PLANNING APPROACHES Within rural planning, as defined in thi s thesis, i t i s possible to distinguish four main approaches. They can a l l meet the requirement to recognize unique rural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , but they d i f f e r on: the objectives of the planning; and the manner in which the planning i s conducted. They w i l l be described as: planning 'of' rural communities; planning 'for' rur a l communities; planning 'with' rural communities; and planning 'by' rural communities. 1. PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES When rural planning i s undertaken by an agency that i s external to the rural community, and the main objective of such a c t i v i t i e s i s to s a t i s f y external interests then the approach can be described as planning 'of' rural areas. This has many s i m i l a r i t i e s to the "development from above" approach described by Stohr and Taylor, where the "basic hypothesis i s that development is driven by external demand and innovation impulses" (1981: pg. 1). The planning is i n i t i a t e d by the external agency in response to some perceived need that i t has for planning in the area. The motives range widely, and may include a desire to more e f f e c t i v e l y manage a s p e c i f i c resource, or to achieve some general government objective. An example of management of a sp e c i f i c resource is the case with the Ministry of Forests' pr o v i n c i a l forest plans. The Ministry of Industry and Small Business provides an example of a general program when i t 58 assumes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for promoting economic development of the province as a whole, and plans for s p e c i f i c projects as a component of i t s ove r a l l objective of pr o v i n c i a l economic growth. In many cases the areas which are subject to this type of planning may receive some benefit. However, these benefits are secondary to the major objective of the agency, and in "development from above", they are expected to ' t r i c k l e down'. The actual planning under t h i s approach i s conducted by agency s t a f f , or consultants who are d i r e c t l y accountable to the agency, and frequently there i s l i t t l e or no involvement of lo c a l residents in the planning process. This lack of involvement i s due to the perception by st a f f and decision makers in the agency that the planning i s for broader goals than those of the lo c a l population. Decision making on plan recommendations i s also removed from any e f f e c t i v e influence by rural residents since the agency claims they have to make the decision because they are acting in the public good (or at least the agency's interpretation of what i s in the public good). Since the concerns of the l o c a l community are secondary the planning ' o f rur a l communities approach is most susceptible to the tendency to use 'c i t y planning' techniques. Residents are expected to maintain a passive role in the planning and there i s l i t t l e opportunity for them to communicate to the planners what the residents see as being unique, or important features of their l o c a l i t y . Furthermore this approach w i l l do nothing to reduce r u r a l opposition to planning. Some degree of resistance by the residents i s almost inevitable. Rural opposition to thi s 59 approach was e l o q u e n t l y s t a t e d by the Slocan V a l l e y Committee, "The people of the Slocan V a l l e y are not i n c l u d e d in the d e c i s i o n making process that manipulates t h e i r jobs, t h e i r environment, t h e i r q u a l i t y of l i f e . T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s ap p a r e n t l y due to the b e l i e f that only 'experts' can understand r e s o u r c e . Once ignored the p u b l i c l o s e s t r a c k of the resource vocabulary of the 'experts; and d i a l o g u e becomes a l s o i m p o s s i b l e " (1974: pg. x) . As a consequence t h i s approach to plann i n g w i l l generate problems f o r the agency when i t attempts to implement recommendations from the p l a n . 2. PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES There are occ a s i o n s when an e x t e r n a l a g e n c y 5 5 undertakes planning on the b a s i s of some assumed l o c a l need. T h i s p l a n n i n g ' f o r ' r u r a l communities approach i s t y p i f i e d by the p r o v i n c i a l government's e f f o r t s to make settlement plans mandatory. 5 6 In such cases the e x t e r n a l a u t h o r i t y d e c i d e s that i t knows what i s in the best i n t e r e s t s of the l o c a l community and proceeds to ensure that i t i s planned i n an a p p r o p r i a t e f a s h i o n . Such an approach i s o f t e n suspected by the r e s i d e n t s (and observers) of being l e s s a l t r u i s t i c than the i n i t i a t i n g agency c l a i m s , but i n the absence of any evidence of an u l t e r i o r motive the p l a n n i n g would be c a t e g o r i z e d as being ' f o r * the r u r a l community, r a t h e r than p l a n n i n g 'of' the community. The s u s p i c i o n about agency motives stems from the f a c t that i t makes a l l of the c r i t i c a l d e c i s i o n s about the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . I t w i l l decide when pla n n i n g i s needed (and t h i s must f i t i n t o the agency's p r i o r i t i e s ) . I t w i l l determine how the p l a n n i n g w i l l be conducted, and what r o l e the r u r a l r e s i d e n t s w i l l be expected to 60 perform. Ultimately, the external authority w i l l also make the decision about what planning recommendations w i l l be implemented. With such extensive control over the planning process the residents' roles w i l l be c l e a r l y secondary. They may be encouraged to participate in a technical capacity by providing basic data on their area. Since the planners see themselves as working in the 'best interests' of the rural people, they frequently expect to receive the residents' gratitude, and to be able to implement the plan's recommendations with minimal enforcement costs. These expectations are often frustrated when the residents f a i l to perform as expected. As Cohen points out, "the top-down conceptualization of the project, i t s technical and sophisticated jargon, and the lack of mutualistic and collaborative investigation by the planners makes the process d i f f i c u l t for small towners to absorb" (1977: pg. 8). 3. PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES This approach to rural planning occurs when the need for some type of planning is i d e n t i f i e d by the community. The planning i s undertaken to achieve a l o c a l objective, but the planning process i t s e l f i s not subject to meaningful control by rural residents. Residents may, and are often encouraged, to part i c i p a t e in the planning process, but control of that process remains in the hands of the 'experts'. This approach i s p a r t i c u l a r l y prevalent among the various types of sectoral planning (such as forestry) where i t is argued that the entire process can only be understood by professionals, an attitude t y p i f i e d by Heberlein, who argues that while the public should 61 be consulted to obtain their values and preferences, that t h i s consultation is not a substitution for the resource managers making the actual decisions. He compares such planning with a medical experience. You would want the doctor to consult you on your symptoms, but you would not expect him to consult with the people in the waiting room about the need to operate (1976: pg. 4 ) . In this approach to rural planning the community has had some input into the decision about the need for planning. However, after that i n i t i a l step, they may a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e but decisions about the planning exercise are dominated by the external authority with l i t t l e influence by the rural community. The residents gather information and play supporting roles; and are expected to trust in the 'professionals' to d i r e c t the planning process in a manner that w i l l produce results that w i l l deal with the issues that i n i t i a l l y concerned the residents. How w i l l i n g the residents w i l l be to accept domination of planning a c t i v i t i e s by the experts depends on many factors. The importance that residents attach to the issue; the existence of l o c a l expertise, or access to alternative technical information; the l e v e l of l o c a l organization; and the communication s k i l l s of the agency's planners, are a l l factors that w i l l have a bearing on the success of t h i s type of planning. Rural acceptance of the planners' control of the process i s by no means inevitable. Rural people, with a t r a d i t i o n of s e l f - r e l i a n c e are unlikely to accept that planners be in control merely because the planners believe they are so e n t i t l e d . 6 2 4. PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES This approach to rural planning i s similar in some respects to the 'bottom up' approach to development. Stohr and Taylor describe 'development from below' as being "based primarily on maximum mobilization of each area's natural, human and i n s t i t u t i o n a l resources with the primary objective being the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the basic needs of the inhabitants of that area" ( 1 9 8 1 : pg. 1 ) . Planning 'by' rural communities occurs when the i n i t i a t i v e for planning i s l o c a l , and the residents are able to control the planning process and related planning decisions. Obviously the minimal l e v e l of l o c a l control w i l l mean that the ru r a l residents must work, to some extent, through an external authority. There is a need for the involvement of an external agency to provide some legal status for decisions at the very least, and usually f i n a n c i a l resources and technical expertise are also needed from the agency. This approach to rural planning i s the one least frequently practiced. It requires an agency that is prepared, or compelled, to share authority. Further the role of the professionals must be constrained and a l l parties must be aware that the planner works for the residents. These are major hurdles but there is evidence that they are not insurmountable. 5 7 The Tug H i l l program in rural New York State demonstrated that. The program was created by the senior government to provide for co-ordinated development of rural region. The Commission established planning as a l o c a l a c t i v i t y . For the Commission, 63 "reliance on l o c a l decision making i s the essence of this approach, coupled with an extensive e f f o r t to bolster that decision making through broadly based l o c a l assistance. The key p r i n c i p l e s of t h i s method are f l e x i b i l i t y and d i v e r s i t y . A multiple approach employing elements of several d i s c i p l i n e s can be more acceptable to d i f f e r e n t l o c a l groups, regardless of their goals, than a narrowly defined or single issue approach. F l e x i b i l i t y , in terms of attitudes, d e f i n i t i o n of issues, programs and approach i s necessary" (1981: pg. 148). It i s planning 'by' rural communities that appears to offer the necessary s e n s i t i v i t y to rural concerns that can overcome rural opposition to planning. While i t i s undoubtedly the most time consuming, 5 8 and makes the greatest demands on the p o l i t i c a l system, i t offers the greatest promise for creating workable plans. D. SUMMARY Rural communities are confronted with change, and planning can a s s i s t them to cope with i t s impact. However, for this to happen both the planning profession and rural people have to adjust their perceptions of planning. Most planning exercises use concepts "to both study and a s s i s t small towns that are often urban in nature and do not f i t well small town r e a l i t i e s " (Dyballa et a l . : 1981: pg. 15). A new concept of rural planning is therefore required. Accordingly, rural planning i s defined as planning in rural areas that i s conducted with rural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s being taken into consideration. If rural planning i s approached in t h i s way i t w i l l acknowledge rural s o c i a l values. This recognition by the decision makers and planners i s essential to ' overcoming rur a l opposition to planning. 64 Within the general d e f i n i t i o n of rural planning there are four main categories. This does not mean to imply that there w i l l never be any overlap between the categories, or that they are aligned in an evolutionary manner. These four categories merely represent a way of conceptualizing the most common approaches to rural planning. With the four approaches, the planning 'by' rural communities i s the one that can most e f f e c t i v e l y overcome rural resistance to planning, and produce the most enduring re s u l t s . However, i t makes the greatest demands on the p o l i t i c a l system. The creation of such a planning approach, and i t s continued existence, w i l l depend on the commitment of r u r a l people to t h i s approach. 65 V . P U B L I C P A R T I C I P A T I O N I N R U R A L P L A N N I N G A . I N T E G R A T I O N O F P U B L I C P A R T I C I P A T I O N A N D R U R A L P L A N N I N G T h i s t h e s i s c o n t e n d s t h a t e f f e c t i v e r u r a l p l a n n i n g i s a c c o m p l i s h e d w h e n r u r a l o p p o s i t i o n i s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o s u p p o r t . T h i s r e s u l t s f r o m i n v o l v i n g r u r a l p e o p l e i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . T h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r d e s c r i b e d h o w a p p r o a c h e s t o r u r a l p l a n n i n g d i f f e r e d o n t h e b a s i s o f w h o w a s i n c o n t r o l o f t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , a n d t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s . C h a p t e r I I I i d e n t i f i e d f o u r t y p e s o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d i n d i c a t e d t h a t e a c h p r o v i d e d d i f f e r e n t b e n e f i t s . T h o s e w h o c o n t r o l t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s w i l l a t t e m p t t o m a n a g e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o f i t t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s . H o w e v e r , p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a f o r m o f d y n a m i c s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t c a n n o t b e c o m p l e t e l y c o n t r o l l e d b y a n y g r o u p . 5 9 A s a r e s u l t a n y e f f o r t t o e x a m i n e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n r u r a l p l a n n i n g s h o u l d c o n s i d e r h o w a l l t y p e s o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o u l d r e l a t e t o t h e v a r i o u s a p p r o a c h e s t o r u r a l p l a n n i n g . T h e r e a r e n o d o u b t s o m e i n s t a n c e s w h e r e t h e p l a n n i n g o b j e c t i v e s w o u l d b e t o t a l l y i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r t y p e o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; a n d o t h e r s , w h e r e t h e c o n n e c t i o n i s e x t r e m e l y t e n u o u s . B u t t o i d e n t i f y t h o s e i n c o m p a t i b l e c o m b i n a t i o n s i t i s f i r s t n e c e s s a r y t o a n a l y z e h o w e a c h t y p e o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o u l d b e a p p l i e d . T h i s c h a p t e r w i l l c o n d u c t s u c h a n e x a m i n a t i o n , a n d f o r c o n c e p t u a l p u r p o s e s d i s p l a y t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n a T a b l e ( T a b l e I ) t o a c c o m p a n y t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s . T a b l e I - I n t e g r a t i o n of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Rural P l a n n i n g Approach to Rural  P1anni ng Type of P a r t i c i p a t i o n P u b l i c I n f o r m a t i o n Data Col l e c t i o n C i t i z e n s h i p t r a i n i n g Involvement i n Dec i s i on-Mak i ng P l a n n i n g ' o f r u r a l communi t i e s agency i s s u e s promot i o n a l m a t e r i a 1--public r e l a t i o n s e x e r c i s e r e s i d e n t s a source of agency a p p e a l s t o a Not a p p l i c a b l e supplementary dat a h i g h e r p u b l i c good P l a n n i n g ' f o r ' r u r a l communi t i e s i n f o r m a t i o n on the v a l u e of p l a n n i n g to the community r e s i d e n t s p r o v i d e data and p r e f e r e n c e s community development concept use of a d v i s o r y groups and e s t a b l i s h e d i n t e r e s t groups P l a n n i n g 'with' r u r a l communi t i e s enhancement of the p r o f e s s i ona1 l a w y e r - c l i e n t r e l a t ionsh ip community o r g a n i z i n g concept community has c h o i c e from among p r e s e l e c t e d o p t i o n s P l a n n i n g 'by' r u r a l d i a l o g u e communities e a r l y stage of p l a n n i ng s e l f - h e l p ( i n d i g e n o u s se1f-determinism o r g a n i z a t i o n ) 67 1 . P A R T I C I P A T I O N IN PLANNING ' O F ' RURAL COMMUNITIES In t h i s t y p e o f p l a n n i n g t h e p r o c e s s i s c o n t r o l l e d by a e x t e r n a l a g e n c y w h i c h i s c o n d u c t i n g a p l a n n i n g p r o g r a m t o f u l f i l l i t s own o b j e c t i v e s . a . P u b l i c I n f o r m a t i o n T h i s i s a common f o r m o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s a p p r o a c h t o r u r a l p l a n n i n g . I t i s a i m e d a t d i s t r i b u t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e p u b l i c a b o u t t h e b e n e f i t s o f a p a r t i c u l a r g o v e r n m e n t p r o g r a m o r p r o j e c t . I t makes e x t e n s i v e u s e o f t h e mass m e d i a , a n d p u b l i c m e e t i n g s ( t o i n f o r m a n d r e a s s u r e , n o t t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n ) . When t h e p u b l i c a r e i n c l u d e d d i r e c t l y i n s u c h p r o g r a m s i t i s u s u a l l y by t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f l o c a l ' n o t a b l e s ' t o h o n o r a r y b o d i e s t h a t a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h g o v e r n m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a n d a r e t h e n e x p e c t e d t o d i s s e m i n a t e i t among t h e i r n e i g h b o u r s . b . D a t a C o l l e c t i o n s R e s i d e n t s a r e s e e n a s a s o u r c e o f l o c a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t c a n be u t i l i z e d t o i m p r o v e t h e d a t a b a s e . I n d i v i d u a l s a r e s e l e c t i v e l y r e c r u i t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n an a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e . T h e i r f u n c t i o n i s t o r e v i e w d a t a g a t h e r e d by t h e a g e n c y s t a f f f o r a c c u r a c y , a n d t o i d e n t i f y p o s s i b l e d a t a g a p s . In a d d i t i o n t o a d v i s o r y g r o u p s , o t h e r t e c h n i q u e s u t i l i z e d i n c l u d e : p u b l i c m e e t i n g s (where comments on t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l s a r e e n c o u r a g e d , b u t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i s c u s s i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e s o c c u r s ) ; u s e o f ' r e s o u r c e c o n t a c t s ' who a r e p e r c e i v e d t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f s e g m e n t s o f t h e p u b l i c ; a n d p u b l i c h e a r i n g s where t h e t e r m s o f 68 r e f e r e n c e are so narrowly d e f i n e d that they c o n s i d e r only d e t a i l s on how a p r o j e c t w i l l proceed. c. C i t i z e n s h i p T r a i n i n g T h i s i s a l e s s common form of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n planning ' o f r u r a l a r e a s . When the agency i s i n f u l l c o n t r o l of the process i t does not o f t e n see any n e c e s s i t y to indulge i n c i t i z e n s h i p t r a i n i n g . However, d e c i s i o n makers may use t h i s type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n to make plan implementation e a s i e r . The p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program i s designed to make r e s i d e n t s aware of t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s to the l a r g e r s o c i e t y . An e f f o r t i s made to make people l e s s o r i e n t a t e d to t h e i r l o c a l concerns, and to appeal to some 'higher i n t e r e s t ' . I t would make e x t e n s i v e use of the mass media and d i s t r i b u t i o n of prepared m a t e r i a l s , but would a l s o u t i l i z e those techniques that o t h e r s 6 0 d e s c r i b e as therapy, to prepare people to accept what i s seen as t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . T h i s approach i s used by agencies, that argue that a p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t must proceed, d e s p i t e s e r i o u s l o c a l impact, because i t i s i n the p r o v i n c i a l (or n a t i o n a l ) i n t e r e s t . People i n other areas 'need' the b e n e f i t s , and l o c a l o p p o s i t i o n p o r t r a y e d as r e f l e c t i n g greedy s e l f i n t e r e s t . d. Involvement In D e c i s i o n Making T h i s i s one form of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n that i s c l e a r l y not a p p l i c a b l e to plann i n g 'of' r u r a l communities s i n c e i t i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with the o b j e c t i v e s of that type of p l a n n i n g . T h i s does not imply that some p u b l i c c o n t r o l c o u l d not emerge from a pl a n n i n g program that was i n i t i a l l y based on the pl a n n i n g ' o f 69 r u r a l communities approach. As Schatzow p o i n t s out, "there are examples, however, when government has presented o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r tokenism which have, been h e a v i l y u t i l i z e d by the p u b l i c so that de f a c t o c i t i z e n power does come to e x i s t " (1977: pg. 143). But i f such a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n does occur then the p l a n n i n g approach has r a d i c a l l y changed and no longer would be d e s c r i b e d as p l a n n i n g 'of' r u r a l communities. 2. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES In t h i s type of planning the process i s c o n t r o l l e d by an e x t e r n a l agency, that i s conducting pla n n i n g i n what i t assumes i s i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the r u r a l community. a. P u b l i c Information The p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n that i s i n i t i a t e d by the a u t h o r i t y r e l i e s on the use of media, d i s t r i b u t i o n of resource m a t e r i a l , i n f o r m a t i o n d i s p l a y s , p u b l i c meetings and other s i m i l a r techniques to attempt to convince r e s i d e n t s that some proposed government a c t i o n i s f o r t h e i r 'own good'. Within the context of t h i s approach to r u r a l p l a n n i n g such i n f o r m a t i o n programs c o u l d be d i r e c t e d at c o n v i n c i n g r u r a l people of the need f o r o f f i c i a l community pla n s , or to secure t h e i r compliance with new r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t the government has developed. b. Data C o l l e c t i o n F r e q u e n t l y , planning ' f o r ' r u r a l communities uses t h i s type of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The r e s i d e n t s are acknowledged to be a source of l o c a l d ata. A l s o , s i n c e the o b j e c t i v e i s to plan i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the area's r e s i d e n t s , the p u b l i c views are 70 sought to i d e n t i f y alternatives that w i l l r e f l e c t residents' preferences. But the public's role i s s t i l l r e s t r i c t e d to providing advice to the decision makers. As Burton describes i t "public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s seen as an opportunity for the public to inform and consult, not to advise and consent" (1977: pg. 15). c. C i t i z e n s h i p Training In t h i s case the public p a r t i c i p a t i o n program i s aimed at community building. It assumes rural problems are related to inadequate community cohesion and organization s k i l l s , and that these can be improved through public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . These concepts form the basis for community development as a d i s c i p l i n e . 6 1 But most community development theory goes on to emphasize the role of the 'expert'. The community development professional i s seen as being necessary to guide public p a r t i c i p a t i o n as i t develops. 6 2 This dependence on the expert is what makes most community development programs f i t into the category of planning 'for' rural communities. d. Involvement In Decision Making Since t h i s form of r u r a l planning i s premised on the b e l i e f that i t is up to the decision makers to do what is in the best interests of the area, the potential for public involvement in decisions about the planning process i s r e s t r i c t e d . When i t does occur i t i s usually through the recruitment (co-option) of i n f l u e n t i a l individuals in the rural community into an advisory group. Often the exclusion of the public is not deliberate, but 71 is based on a commonly held assumption by many of those who have achieved a position of i n f l u e n c e — t h a t the p o l i t i c a l system is open enough to permit 'anybody' to become involved. They believe that the majority of people simply do not take advantage of the opportunities because of their apathy. This i s reflected in the statements of those who advocate a p l u r a l i s t theory of p o l i t i c s . Polsby states that "decision makers became so by self-selection--pushing themselves into the leadership group by showing interest, willingness to work, and competence" (1980: pg. 131). Some p a r t i c i p a t i o n also occurs through consultation with established interest groups. However, this is not p a r t i c u l a r l y useful for r u r a l residents. Most of the i n f l u e n t i a l interest groups have s p e c i f i c sectoral interests and a broadly distributed membership. The Sierra Club, for example, might be able to demand that i t s interests be considered in planning related to an environmental issue in a rural area. But despite i t s claims to be a guardian of the public interest i t would represent a very small segment of the rural p o p u l a t i o n . 6 3 3. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES This approach to rural planning is based on the rural residents i d e n t i f y i n g an issue, and p a r t i c i p a t i n g in planning, but the external agency remaining in control of the planning process. 72 a. Public Information Within t h i s approach public information often i s used to enhance the position of the expert. The complexity of the issue, the need for technical competence and the a b i l i t y of the experts involved w i l l be emphasized. Certainly many public meetings and reports with th e i r trade jargon are intended more for the self-esteem of the professionals than they are for public understanding and dialogue. As Christiansen-Ruffman and Stuart noted, "interaction between professionals and c l i e n t s tends to reinforce the primacy of the experts' knowledge. Citizens are usually not involved in the strategy planning of the expert" (1977; pg. 83). b. Data Collection This approach i s very similar to that used by the legal profession. It creates a 'lawyer-client' r e l a t i o n s h i p . The residents are expected to supply as much d e t a i l as the professional feels is required. The expert then sorts through the information to determine what is useful, prepares alternative strategies, and assembles the data into a presentation based upon the preferred strategy. In thi s process the role of the c l i e n t i s to provide basic information, respond when requested, and then to follow instructions. The beli e f in the paramouncy of the expert i s summed up in an old legal adage, 'he who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a c l i e n t . ' 73 c . Citizenship Training This approach i s frequently referred to as 'community organizing', as that term has been developed by Saul Alinsky and his supporters. 6 4 As in community development theory i t focusses on public involvement as a means to overcome fundamental s o c i a l problems of inequity. But as Stinson notes, there i s a difference in that "a community developer sees a community as anomic, . . . a community organizer sees i t as alienated . . . [which] i s the result of a lack of power" (1975: pg. 55). The result i s that while the community development expert attempts to encourage 'community b u i l d i n g ' 6 5 , the community organizer focuses his attention more narrowly on developing strong organizations that can help those who are powerless to gain power. The problem with such an approach is that there i s a serious r i s k that the organizer w i l l come to dominate the organization. As Christiansen-Ruffman and Stuart indicate, " p a r t i c i p a t i o n dominated by experts sharpens only the participatory s k i l l s of the experts" (1977: pg. 94). Examples of community organizing in r u r a l areas are rare since such areas usually lack the resources to acquire such expertise independently; and given the 'anti-establishment' image of community organizing few government agencies are anxious to sponsor a c t i v i t i e s which they anticipate w i l l attack them. However, there have been instances where the need for change was considered serious enough for government to sponsor community organizing. One such case was with the Rural Development Council in Prince Edward Island. As part of the 74 Island's development program the Council was supported since: "economic development primarily rests upon the base of increasing organization, i t i s only obvious that organizational s k i l l s must be enhanced among the Island population. It would be extremely naive to assume that any government could a s s i s t people to learn organizational s k i l l s for the purpose of economic improvement while r e s t r i c t i n g the use of these s k i l l s in any form of p o l i t i c a l change" (McNiven: 1976: pg. 165). This example also proves the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of this type of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n when the public do not have the resources to support i t themselves. When the Rural Development Council became perceived as too ' p o l i t i c a l ' the government resources were d r a s t i c a l l y cut back, and the Council's effectiveness was destroyed (McNiven: 1976: pg. 20). d. Involvement In Decision Making This approach to rural planning implies that the residents have already achieved some measure of influence. They have managed to obtain action on a l o c a l i n i t i a t i v e . Since one of the most d i f f i c u l t hurdles to overcome in dealing with a government agency i s to get any action the d i f f i c u l t y should not be minimized. The public's role may also include p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the establishment of general p r i o r i t i e s and p o l i c i e s . But the b e l i e f in the need for expert knowledge is s t i l l going to create l i m i t s within which residents must operate (since some p o s s i b i l i t i e s w i l l be dismissed as technically impractical). A case study that i l l u s t r a t e s how the public can be involved in decision making within bounds prescribed by technical experts was provided by Milne (1974). It dealt with highway relocation in a rural area of southern Ontario. The 75 residents were canvassed for their preference on a new route. A booklet was mailed to a l l rural residents identifying ten routes, indicated that six of them had been discarded for technical reasons, and showing the technical factors that should be considered in deciding upon which of the four remining ones to support. Informing the residents that they could help to choose the new route, as long as they choose one of the four which the p o l i t i c i a n s and staff had predetermined, c e r t a i n l y placed l i m i t s on the level of involvement the public had in the decision. That t h i s process was not t o t a l l y s atisfactory was recognized by Milne (who conducted the public p a r t i c i p a t i o n program for the project). She stated, "the explanation of reasons for discarding other rights-of-way as possible was not en t i r e l y convincing to the public" (pg. 5). Indeed, 14% of the respondents i d e n t i f i e d an eleventh option that the engineers and planners apparently had never even considered. 4. PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES This approach i s based on rur a l people having control over the planning process when i t i s related to a l o c a l issue, a. Public Information When t h i s type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a one way dissemination of information, and not communication between involved parties i t i s not applicable to thi s approach to planning. When i t is viewed as a dialogue between participants i t becomes an integral part of the entire planning process. 76 b. Data Collection This type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s unlikely i f the public are tr u l y in control of the planning process. The residents w i l l c e r t a i n l y have to contribute their knowledge of the l o c a l i t y , but this information gathering is merely an early phase of the planning process. Resident involvement would extend beyond th i s stage, and so i t would be inaccurate to describe only the data c o l l e c t i o n portion of their involvement. c. Ci t i z e n s h i p Training When a community has achieved a l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n that results in i t having control over the planning process, e f f o r t s to 'train' residents w i l l concentrate on providing knowledge about how the process functions and how technical s k i l l s can be employed. But i t w i l l be more of a mutual learning process with technical expertise seen in a supporting role, and w i l l be designed to further strengthen the l o c a l community. This approach i s described in community development l i t e r a t u r e as ' s e l f - h e l p ' . 6 6 It is sometimes the motive behind the creation of e n t i t i e s such as community economic development c o r p o r a t i o n s 6 7 , which have as their objective the general development of the entire community using economic a c t i v i t i e s as the vehicle for change. 77 d. Involvement In Decision Making This approach, which is the most t y p i c a l form of p a r t i c i p a t i o n for rural planning 'by' the community, i s similar to what F a r r e l l et a l . c a l l "self-determinism". They define i t as "undertaking of the planning process by the public" (1976: pg. 24). This is d i f f e r e n t from Arnstein's l e v e l of " c i t i z e n power" (1969) in that the government authority i s not expected to relinquish a l l control over resource a l l o c a t i o n decisions that go beyond the planning process. Planning i s directed by the residents, but even then the agency retains the right to protect the interests of the broader society. Hodge argued for this type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in community planning when he urged the Ontario government to: "Reverse the present p a t e r n a l i s t i c system and make the province an 'interested party' in l o c a l planning which must be advised of proposed l o c a l planning measures and could object as other interested parties do. That i s , urge small communities to plan, provide the technical assistance they need, and then l e t them get on with i t intervening only to protect the p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t " (1976: pg. 17). This approach can not be dismissed as an i d e a l i s t i c dream because there are p r a c t i c a l benefits that could be achieved, and cases where i t has occurred. F a r r e l l et a l . point out that one of the objectives of self-determinism i s to " s h i f t or diffuse the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the planning process from the authority to the public" (1976: pg. 24). Where the authority sees no adverse consequences to i t s e l f , and the residents are anxious to i n i t i a t e planning on something which i s considered to be a l o c a l matter (that the authority does not want to devote i t s own time 78 and staff to) such an approach may appear a t t r a c t i v e . It i s also claimed that this is going to become increasingly important as a result of recent changes in the economy. Christenson, for example, argues, "the 1980's are already seeing a decrease in c i t i z e n expectations of government to deal e f f e c t i v e l y with l o c a l problems. This is due partly to government complexity, c i t i z e n s ' reactions against r i s i n g taxes, and decreasing service manpower. . . . the increasing recognition of the li m i t a t i o n s of government to 'do for people' appears to be stimulating the renaissance of s e l f - h e l p e f f o r t s among a l l segments of the population" (1982: pg. 268). One example of this type of planning was in the Slocan Valley, where area residents were funded (through a 'make-work' program) to conduct a planning exercise for the Valley. While the eventual plan proved to be too 'innovative' for the pr o v i n c i a l government to implement, many of i t s recommendations have been c i t e d repeatedly and i t i s credited with i d e n t i f y i n g the need to protect the Valhalla watershed from logging. This area in 1982 was reserved as a wilderness park. B. ENHANCEMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is es s e n t i a l to rural planning since i t s success rests on the support of rural people. When pa r t i c i p a t i o n i s viewed as essential i t becomes important to determine what steps can be taken to improve the quality of p a r t i c i p a t i o n , within the constraints imposed by the type of rural planning that i s occurring. Improvement is most l i k e l y when i t w i l l result in changes that offer mutual benefits to the government agency and the 79 public. If the advantages a l l seem to go to one group the inevitable result w i l l be c o n f l i c t between the involved p a r t i e s as they a l l attempt to maximize their benefits in r e l a t i o n to the others. One useful way to v i s u a l i z e t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s to see "public p a r t i c i p a t i o n having the function of helping to s h i f t the trade-off curves, i . e . , to reduce trade-offs by changing the structure of relationships and situations society finds i t s e l f i n " (Alberta Department of Environment: 1982: pg. 7). This is diagramatically displayed in Figure 5. It shows the potential for restructuring a situation so both parties benefit. It acknowledges that: "there w i l l s t i l l be c o n f l i c t , but i t w i l l be raised to a higher l e v e l , i . e . , contradictory goals w i l l both be met simultaneously even though there w i l l s t i l l be a need to set p r i o r i t i e s between these" (Alberta Department of Environment: 1982: pg. 8). It would be u n r e a l i s t i c to attempt to implement a type of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n that was in d i r e c t c o n f l i c t with the objectives of the planning that was occurring. For example, the objectives of planning 'of' rural communities preclude any e f f o r t s to provide for p a r t i c i p a t i o n at the l e v e l of Involvement in Decision-making. Since the approach to planning does influence how public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be improved i t w i l l be examined in the same manner as the functions of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n were in the previous section. Suggested improvements w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d in a table (see Table II) with accompanying descriptions. It i s recognized that such an attempt w i l l not be exhaustive. Suggested improvements, which are based on the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed and the author's own 80 Figure 5 - Sh i f t i n g the Trade-Off Curve A social goal A' (eg. electricity production for whole province) -new trade-off curve ie. developed through creativity, new technology, education, redefining question contradictory social goal E (eg. protect farmland and farmers) Reproduced from Alberta Department of Environment ,1982. Report on Public Participation Conference T a b l e II - P o s s i b l e Improvements i n P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n P l a n n i n g Approach Type of P a r t i c i p a t i o n P u b l i c I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n i c a l A s s i s t a n c e C i t i z e n s h i p T r a i n i n g Involvement i n D e c i s i o n Making P l a n n i n g ' o f ' r u r a l communities - i n c r e a s e d 1nformat i on - improved a c c e s s to i nformat i on - expand data c o l l e c t i o n to i n c l u d e s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s - o b t a i n l o c a l input at an e a r l i e r stage i n p l a n n i ng - broaden h o r i z o n s to recogn i ze 1i nks between l o c a l and r e g i o n a l i n t e r e s t s - d e v e l o p an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a c t i v a t i o n of o t h e r a c t o r s Not A p p l i c a b l e P l a n n i n g ' f o r ' r u r a l communi t i e s i n f o r m a t i o n packages broaden the f o c u s of - i n c r e a s e p u b l i c ' s use of e x p l i c i t more r e l e v a n t to r u r a l p l a n n i n g s t u d i e s to i n t e r e s t s - guide books oh how the 'system' o p e r a t e s i n c l u d e general i s s u e s of i n t e r e s t to p u b l i c (deve1opmenta1 p l a n n i n g ) - s t a f f must develop ski11s i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and be more s e n s i t i v e to means r e s i d e n t s use to commun i c a t e l e v e l of knowledge of p o l i c y to d e f i n e p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s (and to form p o l i t i c a l a l l i a n c e s ) c r i t e r i a of 'who' w i l l be i n v o l v e d i n 'what' - expand c o n s u l t a t i o n of i n c l u d e more than j u s t i n t e r e s t groups, use 'open door' approach P l a n n i n g 'with' r u r a l - d e m y s t i f y p l a n n i n g - extend p u b l i c communi t i e s p r o c e s s - c l a r i f y f u n c t i o n s of p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n v o l v e d a c t i v i t y to i n c l u d e m o n i t o r i n g and e v a l u a t i o n phases ( a c t as 'watch dog' d u r i n g imp1ementat ion) - s k i l l s development of p a r t i c i p a n t s - r e d u c i n g d i s p a r i t y of r e s o u r c e s ( f u n d i n g f o r p u b l i c groups) - p r o v i s i o n f o r e x p e r t i s e f o r p u b l i c P l a n n i n g 'by' r u r a l communit i e s - d i a l o g u e as element of p l a n n i n g - data c o l l e c t i o n as e a r l y phase of p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s - mutual l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s - p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p l a n n i ng as an ongoing a c t i v i t y 82 observations, are only a p a r t i a l l i s t of improvements that w i l l no doubt be greatly expanded by the c r e a t i v i t y of the participants in such planning programs. Those suggested in thi s thesis can only provide a starting point. It is also important to note that the suggested improvements are not seen as being universally applicable. Each community w i l l have d i s t i n c t i v e features that must be taken into account. As F a r r e l l et a l . point out: "there are no recipes for developing e f f e c t i v e involvement strategies. Each planning situation possesses i t s own unique circumstances which must be considered in developing an involvement strategy that has any p r a c t i c a l merit" (1976: pg. 13). Since some of the types of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n may, on occasion, overlap, many suggested improvements could be applicable to a number of d i f f e r e n t public p a r t i c i p a t i o n programs. This thesis w i l l assume that any improvement i d e n t i f i e d may be applicable to other planning situations where there i s opportunity for greater public input into decision making. 1. PLANNING 'OF' RURAL COMMUNITIES a. Public Information Improvements that could be made in this type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n would rely upon the government authority to implement them since i t dominates the planning process. Possible improvements would include increasing the amount of information available to the public, and providing better access to i t . 83 (1) increased information The amount of information that government currently releases tends to be very r e s t r i c t e d . Most agencies seem to operate on a 'need to know' basis. If the p o l i t i c i a n s and administrators do not see how s p e c i f i c information would be u t i l i z e d by the public i t tends to be r e s t r i c t e d . For e f f e c t i v e planning a more appropriate approach would be for the agency to designate information which i t considered sensitive as 'co n f i d e n t i a l ' , and then make the bulk of government information accessible to the public. Such an approach would improve the public p a r t i c i p a t i o n process. No authority can ever f u l l y predict the information needs of the public. Sincere e f f o r t s to inform the public may be t o t a l l y i n e f f e c t u a l i f the information released i s based on a c i v i l servant's perceptions of what the public' concerns are. As Matthews noted: "the values of the urban centre are not always those of the rural fringe: i t i s unlikely that Ottawa's planners could see the world through the eyes of the people of Mountain Cove" (1976: pg. 82). (2) improved access Another important improvement to this type of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s to improve the means of access to information. It i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to accept in p r i n c i p l e the public's right to information. Unless some mechanism i s implemented to ensure that information i s rea d i l y available the p r i n c i p l e becomes mere tokenism. 6 8 There are a variety of techniques that can be u t i l i z e d to make information more accessible to the p u b l i c . 6 9 But regardless of whether i t i s as elaborate as a community resource centre, or as basic as maintaining a public 84 b u l l e t i n board, the techniques u t i l i z e d are far less important than the acknowledgement that public access to information has to be improved; and having those in charge of the planning process make a commitment to make improvements. The f e a s i b i l i t y of these suggestions obviously depends upon the anticipated benefits and costs. For the residents the benefits are obvious—access to information i s c r i t i c a l for any public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . However, providing such information can also have a cost to the authority since i t may well result in demands for more p a r t i c i p a t i o n . As Schatzow notes, "a public which is poorly informed about issues cannot sustain a high l e v e l of concern about such issues, i s unlikely to ask for more information, to demand to be included in decision making, or to s c r u t i n i z e government action c l o s e l y " (1977: pg. 153). What benefit to government could j u s t i f y such a risk? The answer appears related to the fundamental causes of much of the alienation (or opposition) that has developed towards government—the public's trust in authority has been substantially reduced. Unless governments are w i l l i n g to use increasing amounts of regulation and coercion (which e n t a i l s i g n i f i c a n t costs to them) then e f f o r t s must be taken to improve the l e v e l of t r u s t . The disclosure of more information i s one means to accomplish t h i s . b. Data C o l l e c t i o n The most obvious improvements would be: to expand the data c o l l e c t i n g a c t i v i t y to include more information on the s o c i a l values of residents; and to adjust the planning process so that resident input occurs at an e a r l i e r stage. 8 5 (1) wider data base When residents are involved in c o l l e c t i n g data in the planning 'of' rural communities their assignment is often r e s t r i c t e d to the provision of 'hard' data r e l a t i n g to the physical environment and s t a t i s t i c s on the economic resources of their l o c a l i t y . This ignores the existence of s o c i a l factors that could have an impact on.how useful the eventual planning recommendations would be. Residents could supply information on rural l i f e s t y l e s and values that could then be included in the considerations of the decision makers. Broadening the opportunities for residents to communicate a more comprehensive image of the i r community would be consistent with the basic rationale for t h i s type of par t i c i p a t i o n - - t o achieve better decisions by u t i l i z i n g a l l available information. (2) e a r l i e r input A related improvement would be to obtain public input at an e a r l i e r stage in the planning process. Often public input is not sought u n t i l after many of the c r i t i c a l decisions have been made. As Burton and Johnson point out the timing i s a c r i t i c a l factor since " p a r t i c i p a t i o n at a late stage, when plans are well advanced, can make i t appear as inevitably involved with costly delay" (1976: pg. 12). It i s sometimes argued by government agencies that 'premature' p a r t i c i p a t i o n can lead to raising u n r e a l i s t i c expectations 7 0 since the public does not understand the difference between a preliminary proposal and f i n a l design stage planning. It i s f e l t that as soon as the public becomes aware 86 that a concept i s being examined by government they immediately i d e n t i f y i t as government ' p o l i c y ' and react s t r o n g l y . However t h i s tendency to t r e a t t e n t a t i v e p r o p o s a l s as d e f i n i t e p o l i c i e s would appear to be r e l a t e d to the f a c t that the p u b l i c very r a r e l y sees anything that has not become government p o l i c y . The p o s s i b i l i t y of r a i s i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s can be reduced by s t r e s s i n g that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s o c c u r i n g at a very p r e l i m i n a r y stage of p l a n n i n g , and would be o f f s e t by the b e n e f i t of o b t a i n i n g more in f o r m a t i o n about the l o c a l community f o r use in the i n i t i a l dec i s i o n s . c. C i t i z e n s h i p T r a i n i n g T h i s form of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s u s u a l l y employed by the a u t h o r i t y i n v o l v e d to convince r e s i d e n t s that they have an o b l i g a t i o n to a higher i n t e r e s t than t h e i r community. (1) demonstrate l i n k a g e s Instead of attempting to manipulate the p u b l i c by a p p e a l i n g to t h e i r sense of duty, i t i s p o s s i b l e to demonstrate the l i n k a g e s between l o c a l i s s u e s and the broader s o c i e t y . As T. O'Riordan p o i n t s out, "many do not see the need to worry themselves with . . . r e g i o n a l problems d e s p i t e the f a c t that most i s s u e s have both r e g i o n a l as w e l l as l o c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . . . . somehow then the l i n k must be forged between l o c a l area i n t e r e s t s and a concern f o r the wider and longer term community w e l f a r e " (1977: pg. 169). Rather than making emotional appeals f o r the p u b l i c to support a great good i t can be approached more o b j e c t i v e l y by demonstrating the need to compromise. T h i s compromise would not mean the c a p i t u l a t i o n of the i n t e r e s t s of the l o c a l community, 87 but rather i t would be an e f f o r t to identif y ways that mutual benefits could be achieved. ( 2 ) increased understanding of other actors Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can function more e f f e c t i v e l y when those involved have some appreciation of the motivations of other participants. For residents t h i s means recognizing that their c r i t i c i s m of the system i s often considered to be an attack on the personal i n t e g r i t y of the p o l i t i c i a n s and c i v i l servants involved in the planning a c t i v i t y . 7 1 When their c r i t i c i s m appears to be directed at individuals i t creates a defensive response that seriously impedes the p o s s i b i l i t y of any real compromise or continued dialogue. At the same time i t i s important that those, who are in control of the planning process, recognize the need that many people have to fe e l involved in issues that d i r e c t l y a f f e c t them. The beli e f that individuals have the right to have a high degree of control over their own l i v e s i s strongly held by rur a l people. 7 2 d. Involvement In Decision Making As previously indicated the objectives of the planning ' o f rural communities approach preclude any real involvement of residents in decision making. As a consequence suggestions on how to improve i t would be f u t i l e . 88 2. PLANNING 'FOR' RURAL COMMUNITIES a. Public Information If a government agency i s anxious to ensure that i t s planning a c t i v i t i e s succeed i t w i l l conduct an active information campaign. The effectiveness of such a program can be increased by: ensuring information is relevant to i t s rural audience; and expanding the information to include some indication of how the 'system' functions. ( 1 ) more relevant information Those in control of the planning process must recognize that the information disseminated has to be designed to be relevant to rur a l concerns. Often information campaigns rely on a 'blanket' approach. They attempt to convey information to a wide variety of interests. When t h i s happens i t usually means that the information becomes oriented toward urban concerns, since t h i s i s the largest audience. To be ef f e c t i v e the information program must be s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to deal with those aspects of the planning a c t i v i t y that are of importance to rural people. Without some e f f o r t to make the information meaningful to a rural audience there is very l i t t l e chance that the message w i l l be e f f e c t i v e l y conveyed. ( 2 ) information about the system A common misconception of government agencies i s that public groups have an understanding of how the decision making system functions. In r e a l i t y there is a serious need for information that can help the ru r a l community to gain a better 89 understanding of the way that planning, and decision making, function. Rural communities are faced with a wide number of di f f e r e n t government agencies; and a p o l i t i c a l and administrative process that i s so fragmented that i t is b a f f l i n g to most of the general public (not just rural residents). A d e f i n i t e improvement would be to provide information on both the p o l i t i c a l system and the planning process. Such 'guide books' have been produced occasionally, and have proven very useful to the average c i t i z e n . 7 3 b. Data Collection An increased level of p a r t i c i p a t i o n could be achieved by: expanding the focus of the study to deal with general issues; and by improving the p a r t i c i p a t i o n s k i l l s of the planning s t a f f . (1) deal with general issues As Burton and Johnson point out "unless public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s capable of dealing with general issues (and not just subjects l i k e land use planning and set backs) i t w i l l appear as a s u p e r f i c i a l irrelevancy to many" (1976: pg. 11). Most of the public have a h o l i s t i c view of their community, and are frustrated with bureaucratic attempts to dissect and compartmentalize a c t i v i t i e s . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true of rural areas where the p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c nature of society clashes with th i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l approach. Frequently the number of residents w i l l i n g to volunteer to support a planning program drops off as the focus of the planning becomes more narrow. Rather than dismiss t h i s as public apathy the planners should recognize that residents dismiss the planning exercise as being of l i t t l e value 90 because i t does not tackle major issues. Often the response from a government agency to requests to broaden the focus of the study i s that ' i t i s out of our j u r i s d i c t i o n ' . However i f the agency wants public support for i t s plan, and assistance in data gathering, then i t i s going to have to find a means to address the public's desire for more broadly based planning. A p a r t i a l solution i s to encourage co-ordinated a c t i v i t y among the various government agencies. Certainly more intragovernment co-ordination should be an important government o b j e c t i v e 7 " , even i f intergovernment co-operation i s u n r e a l i s t i c because of the state of relations between di f f e r e n t levels of government. In the event that co-operation can not be achieved on an issue not completely within an agency's j u r i s d i c t i o n t h i s should not preclude comment and recommendation from the agency. These recommendations can be forwarded to the responsible department for i t s consideration after the planning program has i d e n t i f i e d the issues. The preparation of settlement plans i s an example of a government agency adhering to j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i v i s i o n s that are not p r a c t i c a l for a rural community. The Municipal Act s p e c i f i c a l l y excludes from any o f f i c i a l settlement plan those areas that are under the Ministry of Forests' j u r i s d i c t i o n . But for most rural areas in B r i t i s h Columbia, attempting to do land use planning without considering potential f o r e s t r y a c t i v i t i e s would be t o t a l l y f u t i l e . ( 2 ) improve staff p a r t i c i p a t i o n s k i l l s The amount and quality of information produced through 91 public p a r t i c i p a t i o n could be increased i f the staff involved on the planning program had an understanding of the need for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and appropriate s k i l l s for dealing with the public . In many planning exercises public 'consultation' consists of a few public meetings. To the s t a f f they are just one more task that must be accomplished before they can 'get on with i t ' . There i s l i t t l e understanding of what assistance the public could provide (or how e f f e c t i v e they can be at r e s t r i c t i n g implementation of a program that is viewed as being imposed from above). The staff also need to become more s k i l l f u l at interpreting what residents are saying. It w i l l be very rare to obtain from residents neatly packaged information in a format that i s familiar to planners. Lash expressed this need for interpretative s k i l l s when he stated, "People don't talk to you in c l e a r l y defined terms of issues and p o l i t i c s , objectives and values. What y o u ' l l l i k e l y hear i s a protest or a demand for action, often incomplete, i l l o g i c a l , or incoherent. . . you have to s i f t through the incoherence u n t i l you can make sense of the message. You also need to find responses to the issues, which may be inherent in what the public has said" (1977: pg. 61). c. Citizenship Training This type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n usually approaches upgrading of the residents of a community through the a c t i v i t i e s of an expert. Improvements could include: more careful selection of the 'experts'; and more emphasis on explaining the p o l i t i c a l process to the public. 92 (1) selection of expert Community development theory is predicated on the basis that an expert can as s i s t a community to become more cohesive, and more capable of c o l l e c t i v e action. But the l i t e r a t u r e often f a i l s to describe just what attributes such a community development expert would possess. In many community development projects the f i e l d workers are i d e a l i s t i c young people who are familiar with a l l the latest theories of community development. But such experts are of far less u t i l i t y to a rural community than someone who has working knowledge of how the p o l i t i c a l process functions. For rural people, with their emphasis on problems solving, an a b i l i t y to help a community to successfully deal with a l o c a l problem w i l l have more c r e d i b i l i t y than knowing a l l of the most recent community development jarg o n . 7 5 (2) improve p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s One frequent comment about public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s that the members of the public who want to participate are p o l i t i c a l l y n a i v e . 7 6 As F a r r e l l et a l . observe, " c i t i z e n groups are often not knowledgeable about the p o l i t i c a l decision-making process and how to work with i t , r e s u l t i n g in a f a i l u r e to distinguish between d i f f e r e n t levels and kinds of decision-making systems within the authority. Lack of knowledge about the authority and i t s system frustrates public inputs" (1976: pg. 14). Providing t h i s knowledge about the p o l i t i c a l system, and knowledge about p o l i t i c a l t a c t i c s , should be a major part of the role of any 'expert' community developer. Those in control of the decision making process may see such knowledge as a threat to th e i r power. However, they may 93 also recognize that increased p o l i t i c a l sophistication among the public w i l l channel opposition into familiar channels. The danger to the system of the public remaining unaware of the most e f f e c t i v e ways to influence the p o l i t i c a l system i s that t h i s w i l l lead to resentment that could turn into more ra d i c a l forms of opposition. d. Involvement In Decision Making The authority may be w i l l i n g to allow some public input into the decision making process. But i t w i l l continue to dominate by reserving the right to define 'who' w i l l be offered an opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e , and in 'what' issues. This type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n by i n v i t a t i o n can be improved by: c l a r i f y i n g what c r i t e r i o n are being used to i d e n t i f y the 'affected public', and issues on which the public w i l l be allowed to p a r t i c i p a t e ; and by making an e f f o r t to reach more than just organized interest groups. ( 1 ) c r i t e r i a for i d e n t i f y i n g affected groups One area where government agencies display considerable confusion is the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of groups that should be c o n s u l t e d . 7 7 A policy which would establish c r i t e r i a to be used to determine which groups should be involved would improve, from the agency's perspective, the public p a r t i c i p a t i o n process. It would reduce the confusion, and would protect the authority against charges that the selection was biased to include only groups that support the agency's position. These benefits to the decision makers are why some government agencies have already undertaken steps to create 94 e x p l i c i t p o l i c i e s for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n 7 8 , including specifying who w i l l be consulted and on what issues. Recent examples in B r i t i s h Columbia include: the Ministry of Forests, which has produced a Public Involvement Manual; and the Ministry of the Environment, which currently has a draft policy on Public Involvement in Strategic Planning. (2) expand public consultation beyond interest groups Often public involvement i s r e s t r i c t e d to consultation with established interest groups, that proclaim their role as spokesman for the general public. They also have the resources, and knowledge of the system to respond quickly when- some opportunity for p a r t i c i p a t i o n occurs. To reach beyond the organized inte r e s t groups to try to involve the general public requires a much more ambitious public involvement program. It w i l l be more expensive and time consuming, and there i s no assurance that the public w i l l ever respond to the agency's i n i t i a t i v e . It i s therefore understandable why an agency w i l l often go no further than to deal with the interest groups that maintain a c t i v e lobbying. But i f public consultation i s extended there are potential benefits to the decision makers. Such p a r t i c i p a t i o n can provide a counterweight to the strength of the interest groups. Verba and Nye note that interest group a c t i v i t i e s tend "to skew governmental policy in favour of the p a r t i c u l a r participant group and away from the more general 'public interest'" (1972: pg. 342). If p o l i t i c i a n s are not w i l l i n g to abdicate their power in favour of the most powerful interest groups then they 95 are going to want to be able to rely on support among other interest groups or the general public when i t i s deemed necessary to oppose the wishes of a s p e c i f i c interest group. The l e v e l of public support available can be more e f f e c t i v e l y gauged i f there are opportunities to p a r t i c i p a t e . The key to involving the general public i s the use of an 'open door' approach, so that when an issue i s considered s i g n i f i c a n t by members of the public they have an opportunity to become involved. 3. PLANNING 'WITH' RURAL COMMUNITIES a. Public Information The changes that could be introduced in t h i s type of pa r t i c i p a t i o n are related to demystifying the planning process. When planning is treated by i t s p r a c t i t i o n e r s as a cu l t where only the i n i t i a t e s are allowed to perform i t s r i t e s i t w i l l produce an anti-professionalism backlash. As Stinson points out many se l f - h e l p groups have already reached the stage where there is "an antipathy toward professionals or experts even to the point of outright rejection" (1979: pg. 130). Actions to counteract t h i s public perception of planning could include: reducing the emphasis on technical aspects of planning; and greater recognition for community resources. (1) less emphasis on technical aspects While not rejecting the need for sound technique i t i s possible to make planning more human. This can be accomplished by reducing the amount of technical jargon that i s used. Hodge 96 points out the danger of using professional jargon in rural planning. In his study of community planning in rural Ontario Hodge discovered that the plan "does not communicate well to the community through i t s l e g a l i s t i c and professional terms" (1976: pg. 13). Planners should appreciate the fact that i f people see planning as something that they are incapable of understanding, they w i l l also tend to see planning as not being relevant to their concerns. The apathy that t h i s w i l l create should be a concern to decision makers since i t w i l l result in public resistance to the implementation of the plan's recommendations. It i s also possible to reduce the emphasis on the technical aspects of planning i f planners avoid giving too great a p r i o r i t y to the data c o l l e c t i o n phase. Often e f f o r t s are made. to be exhaustive in data c o l l e c t i o n . While this may be the phase of planning with which many planners are most comfortable i t must be rea l i z e d that much of the information col l e c t e d i s r e a l l y superfluous to the objectives of the planning exercise. Halver.son argues that planners, "should never dwell on research and the generation of s t a t i s t i c s past the point required for policy formulation. If you do t h i s , you are mystifying planning and working against i t s acceptance" (1980: pg. 380). (2) recognition for community resources Lash claims, "we have a tremendous number of resources in the community, people ready and w i l l i n g to work, to provide expert advice, or just p l a i n horse sense" (1977: pg. 3 5 ) . 7 9 There are obvious f i n a n c i a l benefits to u t i l i z i n g l o c a l resources. But the main purpose for identifying the need 97 to look for l o c a l s k i l l s i s to demonstrate to the public that professional accreditation is not essential to understand the planning process and to be able to play an e f f e c t i v e role. This may be seen by some planners as diminishing their professional status, but i t w i l l give the planning process more c r e d i b i l i t y with the public. b. Data Collection The p a r t i c i p a t i o n of l o c a l people in the c o l l e c t i o n and analysis of data could be improved by extending their involvement to include assistance in e f f o r t s to monitor and evaluate the outcome of planning a c t i v i t i e s . The fact that there has been l i t t l e e f f o r t to involve the public in monitoring or evaluation a c t i v i t i e s 8 0 i s due in large part to the fact that such a c t i v i t i e s have not u n t i l recently been strongly emphasized in planning. Most of the emphasis has been' on providing information and recommendations to decision makers, with r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for implementation being considered the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of administrators. As the need for increased follow-up a c t i v i t y has become more obvious more emphasis i s being placed on monitoring and evaluation. As t h i s becomes more prevalent then the role that public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can play w i l l also become more obvious to those who see the public as potential research assistants. In rural planning, where the government infrastructure i s sparse and s t a f f i s limited, the role of residents in a monitoring program should be a t t r a c t i v e to government agencies. At the same time i t w i l l provide the public with an opportunity 98 to ensure that commitments made during the planning process are f u l f i l l e d . This 'watch dog' role i s one that i s already e f f e c t i v e l y u t i l i z e d by some interest groups, and would appear to be relevant to rural planning. c. Citizenship Training The importance of learning how the p o l i t i c a l process functioned was stressed in planning 'for' rural communities. In planning 'with' rural communities the residents have a greater degree of involvement in the planning process and i t becomes important that they have the appropriate s k i l l s to cope with their larger role. C itizenship t r a i n i n g in- this form of planning could be improved by concentrating on enhancing the organizational s k i l l s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . E f f o r t s to promote thi s type of learning are provided by organizations such as the Social Planning and Review Council of B.C. 8 1 d. Involvement In Decision Making Permitting the public to have some control over the planning process, even within constraints set by the authority, can e a s i l y become just empty rhetoric unless the public have the resources to p a r t i c i p a t e . As Booher points out, "a serious problem with public p a r t i c i p a t i o n theories is their f a i l u r e to deal with the d i s p a r i t i e s in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources necessary to par t i c i p a t e in the proposed enlarged planning process. A l l presume the a v a i l a b i l i t y of expertise to a l l participants" (1974: pg. 56). For involvement in decision making to be meaninful there must be a readjustment of resources so that a l l parties are operating on a more even footing. 99 Residents must have access to a source of expertise that they view as being independent from the government agency. No authority w i l l be able to convince the public that i t s staff are not aware of who controls their pay cheques (and futures), and are thus able to be neutral. N e l l i s argues in rural planning that i t is essential to "demonstrate a strong, positive orientation to l o c a l c l i e n t e l e . Any appearance of being an instrument of outside p r i o r i t i e s w i l l be f a t a l " (1980: pg. 24).' But for rural residents to obtain such expertise they require f i n a n c i a l resources that are beyond l o c a l a b i l i t i e s to raise in most cases. This is where the agency that i s serious about involving the public must demonstrate i t s commitment by providing resources for independent examination. This i s already occurring in some cases where p a r t i c i p a t i o n takes place through the public hearing approach. Residents have been given some funding in order to prepare their positions (as in the example of the hearings the Public U t i l i t i e s Commission held on B.C. Hydro's Site 'C proposal). The benefits of access to their own source of expertise are f a i r l y self-evident for residents. But the authority can also perceive benefits i f the expertise i s related to technical issues. It provides a check on their own technical s t a f f , and may suggest innovative alternatives that have not already been i d e n t i f i e d . 100 4. PLANNING 'BY' RURAL COMMUNITIES a. Public Information As indicated e a r l i e r t h i s type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s inappropriate in rural planning 'by' the community. When information is exchanged through dialogue between a l l the participants i t becomes an element in the planning process, and not a separate type of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . b. Data Collection It is unlikely that the public, i f they have gained control over the planning process, are going to be content to be only involved in data c o l l e c t i o n . Since i n i t i a l decisions about the focus for the planning a c t i v i t y w i l l direct subsequent phases, l i k e data gathering, public involvement at this early stage i s v i t a l i f the residents control decision making for the planning process. c. Citizenship Training Community control of the planning process means i t would be inappropriate for an agency to attempt to 'teach' c i t i z e n s h i p values or s k i l l s . What would be more r e a l i s t i c would be a process of mutual learning. This i s the basis of Friedmann's transactive style of planning (1973: pg. 185). Deliberate e f f o r t s to promote a mutual learning environment would improve the quality of the planning that i s conducted. 101 d. Involvement In Decision Making To improve upon such p a r t i c i p a t i o n i t must be recognized that p a r t i c i p a t i o n , l i k e planning, should be considered an ongoing process. Some means have to be found to ensure the continued public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . One c r i t i c a l factor appears to be the creation of a formal organizational structure while the le v e l of public a c t i v i t y i s intense. Once such an organization i s created i t can expand into other a c t i v i t i e s , such as s o c i a l or rec r e a t i o n a l , to keep i t s membership together during inactive periods (Christenson-Ruffman and Stuart: 1977: pg. 93). During such l u l l s i t s hard core supporters can provide the essential monitoring of external actions to i d e n t i f y those which w i l l have an impact on the community. Then when the community's interests are affected the organization provides a ready vehicle for the public to use. C. SUMMARY This chapter has examined how public p a r t i c i p a t i o n relates to rural planning, and what alter n a t i v e s could be made to improve the quality of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . It has demonstrated that some types of pa r t i c i p a t i o n are c l e a r l y incompatible with various approaches to rural planning; and that other combinations, while possible, are improbable. The most l i k e l y combinations are: the use of public information in planning 'of' rural communities, with some use of data c o l l e c t i o n as a secondary component of the planning 102 process; data c o l l e c t i o n and c i t i z e n s h i p t r a i n i n g are u t i l i z e d , with d i f f e r e n t emphasis, for both planning 'for' and 'with' ru r a l communities; and involvement in decision making being the most l i k e l y form of public involvement in planning 'by' rural communities. It also argues that improving public p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l r esult in more e f f e c t i v e rural planning since i t w i l l generate resident support for planning. Some methods to improve p a r t i c i p a t i o n are i d e n t i f i e d . The l i s t of suggested improvements i s not intended to be a l l i n c l u s i v e . The purpose in i d e n t i f y i n g improvements is to show that, even within the constraints that are set by the type of planning that is occuring, there are opportunities to enhance public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 1 03 VI. TEXADA ISLAND The preceding discussion on public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in rural planning has been at a general l e v e l . It has r e l i e d heavily on exist i n g l i t e r a t u r e on public p a r t i c i p a t i o n and rural planning. To gain some sense of how applicable these concepts may be to actual planning, a s p e c i f i c case study w i l l now be considered. A description of Texada Island w i l l f i r s t be provided, and then an analysis of the planning that has occurred on the Island. A. BACKGROUND 1. HISTORY Any vi s i o n of Texada as a tranquil island, remote and unaffected by events beyond i t s shores, i s quickly shattered by a brief look at the Island's h i s t o r y . 8 2 Throughout i t s history Texada has been associated with a l l of the major economic trends in B r i t i s h Columbia, and has demonstrated the c l a s s i c a l boom and bust pattern of economic a c t i v i t y that i s so prevalent in a staples economy. The Island had no permanent Indian population prior to Euro-Canadian settlement. It was used p e r i o d i c a l l y for food gathering, but was probably a less a t t r a c t i v e s i t e for permanent Indian settlement than the river valleys on the mainland and Vancouver Island. The f i r s t Euro-Canadian use of Texada was as a temporary whaling station. Blubber Bay, at the northern t i p of the Island, was used for rendering blubber (large iron kettles were located there for that purpose). The f i r s t s e t t l e r s (who combined f i s h i n g and subsistence farming) followed 104 the whalers and located at Blubber Bay. These s e t t l e r s established Texada's f i r s t boom, and the Island's abrupt settlement, when one of them discovered iron ore near G i l l i e s Bay in 1871 (see Figure 6). Furor over the Texada mineral deposits affected the entire province when i t developed in the 'Texada Scandal'. The scandal was based on accusations that the Amor de Cosmos government had conspired to monopolize the iron ore properties. A Royal Commission ultimately concluded that, "Although there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the pre-emptions on Texada Island in August, 1873, there i s not s u f f i c i e n t evidence to believe that any members of the late or present Government had attempted to acquire whole or any part of Texada in a manner p r e j u d i c i a l to the public" ( Texada: pg. 1). This boisterous start was just the prelude for a period of frenzied mining a c t i v i t y on the Island. The iron deposits were acquired by Puget Sound Iron Mine which operated a mine, and shipped ore to Washington State, u n t i l 1893. But the iron prospects' of Texada were quickly overshadowed by the discovery of gold. In 1880 the L i t t l e B i l l i e gold mine went into operation on the east coast of the Island, at the present s i t e of Vananda. This was followed by a series of additional gold and copper discoveries; In 1890. the Copper Queen mine was opened, and in 1898 the Marble Bay and Cornell mines both started production. At the peak of the boom there were seven working mines plus a large number of mineral properties being developed. The a c t i v i t y was centred in the new 105 F i g u r e 6 - M a p o f T e x a d a I s l a n d 106 mining town of Van Anda, but there was mining also occuring further south at Raven Bay and Pocahontus Bay. At the same time, but with much less fanfare limestone quarrying started. In 1887 the f i r s t lime k i l n was established at Blubber Bay. Another type of mining operation was also occurring at the southern end of the Island. At Anderson Bay marble was being quarried for the Vancouver market. The Island's economy was developed substantially during t h i s f i r s t boom. Secondary a c t i v i t i e s were developing, including such things as a barrel factory (for the lime operation), and a smelter. It opened in 1898 in Van Anda. By 1900 a large community had developed at Van Anda. This period of prosperity f i n a l l y came to an abrupt halt in 1919 when the la s t active mine--Marble Bay—shut down. The abrupt closure of most of the mines was due in large part to the mining practices that were employed. The mines that had been producing were a l l 'high grading', and closed when the p r o f i t levels of the operations started to diminish. The only economic a c t i v i t y l e f t on the Island was the limestone opeation and some small scale logging. The bust period that followed was marked by an increase in the amount of a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y . The climate and „ s o i l conditions on Texada are not p a r t i c u l a r l y conducive to farming operations. But a g r i c u l t u r a l settlement occurred during the depressed years of individuals who had come to Texada as miners 'pre-empted' land, and developed subsistence farming operations. This a c t i v i t y shifted a portion of the population to the central 1 07 i n t e r i o r of the Island, upper G i l l i e s Bay (or the High Road as i t i s known l o c a l l y ) . It provided a l i v i n g for a number of families. But the declines in a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y on the Island tend to correspond with periods when alternative employment was available and suggest that i t was not a p a r t i c u l a r l y popular l i f e s t y l e . The economy remained depressed u n t i l 1929 when i t started to revive as the quantity of limestone quarrying began to increase. In 1929 B.C. Cement started operating a limestone crusher in addition to i t s quarry operations at Blubber Bay. A second quarry, at Van Anda was started in 1932 (this was eventually acquired by Lafarge Cement). Both quarries operated through the Depression Years. Then in 1944 a t h i r d company started quarrying at Priest Lake. The second major boom occurred in 1944. The L i t t l e B i l l i e mine, which had precipitated the f i r s t boom reopened and operated u n t i l 1952 when i t was again closed. At the same time the lumber industry was suddenly escalated from being a minor operation to supply the l o c a l market, to a f u l l scale opeation. World demand for lumber had reached the point that extensive operations were now highly profitable and a number of l o c a l logging operations were established. The logging operations on the Island never attracted the attention of the forest giants. Instead there were approximately 21 small logging firms producing over 20 m i l l i o n board feet of lumber per year (figures from Texada Planning Committee forestry report, 1976). But the Island could not 1 08 sustain t h i s l e v e l of a c t i v i t y for long, as the prime accessible timber was rapidly exhausted, and by the 1960's there were only 6 or 7 small operators producing 5 to 6 mi l l i o n board feet per year. One side effect of this sudden burst of forestry a c t i v i t y was that the small l o c a l sawmills that had existed u n t i l the 1940's were unable to compete for timber and closed down. The forestry boom expired when the prime timber was exhausted, but unlike the lode mineral mining a c t i v i t y , there has continued to be a s u f f i c i e n t demand and enough accessible timber to permit the remaining small operators to continue as family operations. By 1973, forestry only employed 20 people on a regular basis. The Island would have gone into another slump in the 1950's when the L i t t l e B i l l i e closed and forest a c t i v i t y declined, but the economy was kept bouyant by the development of Texada Iron Mines. The property that was o r i g i n a l l y mined by Puget Sound was reopened as a major iron mine by Kaiser Resources in 1952. It mined and shipped concentrate from Texada d i r e c t l y to Japan. This operation u t i l i z e d the small settlement of G i l l i e s Bay as the mine's townsite, and a considerable portion of the population and economic a c t i v i t y on the Island moved from Van Anda and Blubber Bay to G i l l i e s Bay. G i l l i e s Bay was also growing because of i t s attractiveness as an area for summer residents. It was situated beside a large shallow sandy bay. Dr. Sanderson, a high school p r i n c i p a l in Vancouver, had acquired most of the property adjacent to the bay in 1925 and gradually attracted Vancouver residents to the area for holiday (and ultimately retirement) purposes (Texada: 1 09 pg. 2 9 ) . The Island's economy did slump in 1 9 7 6 when Texada Iron Mine was shut down. The mineralized areas of the Company's property were acquired by Ideal Basic Industries to complement their quarry operations. The remaining property was purchased by Aim Forests, a German corporation that has been acquiring land on the Island for timber, and possible future land development p o t e n t i a l . During t h i s l a t e s t bust the quarries again continued to provide a measure of economic s t a b i l i t y as they have continued to operate and even gradually expand. The number of summer residents has also gradually increased, and the r e t i r e d population of the Island took a dramatic increase when many of the senior employees at Texada mine opted for early retirement, and Texada's a t t r a c t i v e climate. 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING This review of Texada Island's history provides several points that must be kept in mind in any future planning for the Island. The f i r s t i s that the quarrying opeations have provided some continued economic a c t i v i t y during every slump in the Island's economy. This has created a very p o s i t i v e l o c a l attitude towards this form of i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y . The quarries represent an element of security and s t a b i l i t y for the Island residents, and even abandoned quarries are viewed in a p o s i t i v e manner—as potential water reservoirs or i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s . A majority of the residents would welcome greater economic d i v e r s i t y and growth, but not at the expense of the quarries. 1 10 The other factor that i s readily apparent i s that the residents are accustomed to the boom-bust cycle that accompanies a staples economy. For many residents this type of a c t i v i t y appears natural and inevitable, and they see the real task to be finding ways to increase use of natural resources, and not to look for innovative ways of reducing dependence on primary resources. This attitude was reflected by the the Texada Centennial Committee when i t stated, "This i s an island which is unlike any of the other pleasant spots in the Gulf of Georgia--it is an island of heavy industry and production, and i t holds a unique place in the history of B r i t i s h Columbia. From the early discovery of iron by Harry Trim to highly mechanized operators in limestone, iron ore and logging, Texada has always had high hopes for the future, and this s p i r i t has not diminshed over the years. The copper and gold mines may yet be reopened, and the hard rock mines return, as they did in the early days; meanwhile, there i s timber to be f e l l e d and ore and limestone to be blasted and crushed and loaded for the consumers who depend on this raw material. On with the job and keep the wheels r o l l i n g , for big things be ahead" (Texada; pg. 4 7 ) . Any suggestions that appear to attack t h i s basic premise w i l l have to be accompanied by very p r a c t i c a l recommendations for how th i s could be accomplished. Without making such recommendations, proposals to reduce staples dependency w i l l be be contemptuously rejected by residents as impractical dreams. B. INVENTORY The benefit of an inventory i s to identif y the various factors that must be considered when planning. Much of this basic data has already been compiled for Texada I s l a n d . 8 3 This thesis does not propose to prepare any type of Plan for Texada 111 Island. The information that follows i s intended to f a m i l i a r i z e readers with the Island by providing a summary of i t s physical, economic and human resources. 1. PHYSICAL FEATURES a. Topography Texada is a p a r t i a l l y submerged ridge that p a r a l l e l s the mainland coast at a distance of three to six kilometers. It is the largest island in the S t r a i t of Georgia with a length of 48 Km., a width that varies from five to eight Km., and a t o t a l area of 30,562 hectares. The coast i s indented by very few deep bays, and except for Long Beach on the east and the G i l l i e s Bay area on the west, i t consists of low rocky c l i f f s . The southern half of the Island consists of high broken peaks (the most prominent heights are Mt. Sheperd at 881 meters, Mt. Davies at 757 meters and Mt. Grand at 747 meters). In the northern portion the general elevation drops abruptly and the topography becomes more gentle with low rounded h i l l s . An important feature of the Island's topography is i t s limited number of useful harbours. The p r i n c i p a l bays are: Blubber Bay on the north coast; Sturt (Marble) Bay and Anderson Bay on the east; and G i l l i e s Bay on the west coast. Blubber Bay is a protected harbour (approximately a kilometer in length). Sturt Bay i s a narrow rock walled i n l e t that i s approximately two kilometers long, with a small opening an i t s southern side (Marble Bay) that is the only completely sheltered harbour on the Island. Anderson Bay, near the southern t i p on Texada is a 1 12 long f j o r d - l i k e i n l e t that would provide a sheltered moorage but is inaccessible for most residents. G i l l i e s Bay, on the west coast, i s a large shallow bay about three kilometers in width, but i s not well protected. The Island, with i t s l i m i t e d area and steep slopes has very small water sheds. There are a number of short streams that have intermittent flow, and a few permanent streams that drain the larger lakes and ponds. Lakes and ponds are f a i r l y p l e n t i f u l on the northern half of the Island, and infrequent in the higher southern portion. But the ex i s t i n g lakes are not large, Priest Lake which i s the largest i s only two kilometers long, with a surface area of 42 hectares, with an average depth of 2.8 meters. b. Geology Texada i s an area of folded and faulted sedimentary and volcanic rocks that account for i t s varied mineral resources. It consists mainly of basalt and breccia rock types, but also includes areas of limestone, b i s t i t e horneblende grandiorite and quartz d i o r i t e . The limestone deposits are confined primarily to the northern portion of the Island, and to an area in the v i c i n i t y of Davie Bay, with small deposits of limestone occurring on the west coast from Davie Bay north to Crescent Bay. The mineralization that occurred was associated with volcanic intrusions in which numerous lenses of magnetite, copper and iron sulphides were formed. Thus Texada has gold, copper, iron, lead and zind deposits, but the formation of these minerals in isolated lenses a f f e c t s their commercial value. 1 1 3 c. Climate The Island has a maritime climate that makes i t p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e as a r e s i d e n t i a l s i t e . As the School of Community and Regional planning report states, "the climate makes the regional d i s t r i c t one of the more a t t r a c t i v e areas of B r i t i s h Columbia for year-round l i v i n g " (1974: pg. 13). Texada, within this larger area, i s one of the more a t t r a c t i v e s i t e s . It has less rain than the mainland (38 inches per year for Texada as compared with s i t e s on the mainland that vary from 47 inches to 58 inches). The Island's long narrow configuration also ensures that summer heat does not get too excessive since most of the Island i s exposed to ocean breezes. The lack of inland valleys i s also an important factor in that i t reduces the formation of radiantly cooled a i r overnight,and thus the frost free period in the lowlying areas of the Island i s in excess of 200 days. d. B i o l o g i c a l Resources (1) S o i l s and forests The Island i s generally rocky. Where s o i l cover is present in s i g n i f i c a n t quantities i t tends to be sandy loam (except in lowlying areas where i t i s more peaty). The portions suitable for agriculture tend to be located in pockets, and of marginal q u a l i t y . The Island was o r i g i n a l l y well forested through i t s entire length. However, extensive logging and forest f i r e s have reduced the extent and the quality of the forested areas. 1 14 Douglas f i r i s the p r i n c i p a l forest tree, with some balsam, red cedar, spruce and hemlock being present (especially in second growth f o r e s t s ) . The most common types of underbrush are s a l a l , blueberry and willow. ( 2 ) W i l d l i f e The Columbian black-tailed deer population i s very high on Texada. Its mild climate, ideal habitat, and lack of natural predators (black bear, mountain l i o n , wolves and coyote which exist on the mainland are t o t a l l y absent from Texada) make i t very productive. The deer are the only large mammals that are present on the Island. Other mammals include racoon, beaver, mink, and ri v e r otter. Much of the bird l i f e i s that which is associated with marine environments, such as ,bald eagles and blue herons. There is a small population of blue and r u f f l e d grouse on the Island. The Island i s also important for some migratory w i l d l i f e , especially the lakes in the v i c i n i t y of G i l l i e s Bay (Cranby and Paxton). ( 3 ) Fish and marine resources The Island has limited spawning grounds for steelhead and salmon since many of the streams, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the southern portion are either inaccessible or have i n s u f f i c i e n t flow. There i s some spawning in a few of the northern creeks that run into Mouat Bay, Raven Bay and Pocohontas Bay. In addition there is a permanent population of cutthroat trout and kokanee in a number of larger lakes (Priest, Emily and Kirk ) . 1 15 The mixing of cold and warm currents in the v i c i n i t y of Texada have created a p a r t i c u l a r l y r i c h marine environment. It is on the annual route of chinook (spring), coho, sockeye and pink salmon. As well i t has a resident population of rock f i s h (such as lingcod). There are s i g n i f i c a n t shrimp grounds on the north and south coasts, several s i t e s where scallops are common, and a variety of marine l i f e that makes the area one of the most at t r a c t i v e diving areas in the Province. The i n t e r t i d a l zones, especially at G i l l i e s Bay, Davie Bay and Long Beach are important oyster and clam beaches. The area also has a large fur seal population that adds to i t s attractiveness. 2. ECONOMIC RESOURCES a. Mining This sector is the largest employer on the Island. A survey conducted by the Regional D i s t r i c t in 1978 indicated that 23% of the residents were d i r e c t l y employed in mining 8". Since the close of Texada Iron mine employment has been primarily in the quarries. A few residents are se l f employed as prospectors or mining promoters. (1) Limestone Texada Island's limestone production is the "largest and most important in B r i t i s h Columbia" (Dept. of Municipal A f f a i r s : 1973: pg. 19). As a result i t i s a resource that i s of pr o v i n c i a l as well as l o c a l concern. The security that t h i s a c t i v i t y provides residents i s understandable when the extent of the deposits and the variety of products requiring lime are 1 16 examined. As the assistant manager of Ideal's operation, H. Diggon, stated, "the l i f e of operation is i n f i n i t y , as long as there i s a need for lime" (interview: July 25). The entire north end of the Island is underlaid with limestone, as well as additional commercial deposits at Davie. Bay and Anderson Bay. There are eleven existing quarry s i t e s at the north end of the Island alone, with fiv e of them being operated. The companies involved are: Ideal Basic Industries Ltd. that supplies a variety of d i f f e r e n t grades of limestone, plus crushed aggregate, to the general market as well as using i t in i t s own cement manufacturing and chemical operations; Oregon Portland Cement (OPC) Ltd. that u t i l i z e s limestone for i t s cement production; and Imperial Limestone Company Ltd. that sp e c i a l i z e s in the production of white and blue limestone for the construction industry ( i . e . , for use in stucco). In addition Genstar Corporation, who currently purchase limestone from the other quarries, has acquired the mineral rights to the lime deposits at Davis Bay and i s in the process of clear cutting the s i t e to start quarrying. The variety of uses .for limestone are extensive. The limestone i s u t i l i z e d in cement and in the production of chemical lime for the a g r i c u l t u r a l , sugar, and pulp and paper industries, as well as for decorative purposes. In addition the 'waste' rock i s sold as aggregate for construction porposes (available in sizes from boulders for breakwater construction to fine gravels). Ideal Basic Industries even has plans to incorporate the Texada Iron mines property more f u l l y into i t s 1 17 limestone operations. At the present time they are s e l l i n g in Vancouver t a i l i n g s from the iron mine as aggregate. As their quarrying extends to encompass the adjacent iron mine s i t e they w i l l also extract the iron ore, which they u t i l i z e in the production of cement. Even abandoned quaries have a u t i l i t y . The main quarry that OPC are now mining has been designed so that i t can eventually be transformed into a water reservoir (information from M. Pero, r e t i r e d quarry manager), and the abandoned quarry at G r i l s e Point has been i d e n t i f i e d as an excellent i n d u s t r i a l s i t e . 8 5 As l o c a l residents believe, the quarries do appear to be a s t a b i l i z i n g force in the Island's economy. However, their potential to promote further growth i s quite limited. There i s some potential for secondary processing of limestone that w i l l be dealt with l a t e r , but the quarrying i t s e l f w i l l not l i k e l y require more manpower over time. In fact, as the quarrying becomes more mechanized the number of employees w i l l probably decline. This has already been the case with the larger quarries. Some staff were l a i d off during t h i s l a t e s t recession, and while the economy i s improving i t i s not expected that the number of employees w i l l return to their previous l e v e l s . The l e v e l of e f f i c i e n c y has been improved and increased future demand w i l l be met by increased mechanization. (2) Lode minerals Since Texada Mines closure in 1976 there has been no active lode mining. During i t s 24 years of operation the mine extracted iron ore with copper, gold, and s i l v e r as valuable 118 by-products of the operation. 8 6 The iron reserves that remain w i l l be gradually incorporated into Ideal's operation and not mined as a separate entity. There occasionally is speculation that some of the other abandoned mines w i l l be reopened since the o r i g i n a l operations were highgrading. Higher prices and better equipment could make them p r o f i t a b l e again (Ed Johansen, Texada Pioneers: June 26). The l i k e l i h o o d of this occurring is very remote since they were underground workings that were abandoned to the ground water decades ago. There has been speculation about new gold or copper mines since several firms claim they have commercial deposits on Texada. Lofbar was reportedly considering developing a gold mine in 1976/77 (Powell River News: June 1976) and at least two other firms, Brielake and Acquarian, have claimed that they have marketable deposits on Texada (J. Brennen, Texada Pioneers, June 26). To t h i s point a l l of these deposits are speculative. L i t t l e firm evidence i s available that would confirm their assertions. b. Forestry Logging on Texada has declined from being the dominant industry in the f i f t i e s to a secondary a c t i v i t y . The B.C. Forest Service has estimated that there i s currently 360,000 cu. meters of accessible mature timber on crown land on the Island, and has established a yearly quota of 44,000 cu. meters. This is considered s u f f i c i e n t to sustain the existing operators, but w i l l not permit much expansion in the le v e l of a c t i v i t y . 1 19 S. Whitehorn, D i s t r i c t Forest Planner, indicated, "there may be a c o n f l i c t in 20 years, not that there w i l l be a shortage of wood, but due to the levels of access that d i f f e r e n t operators w i l l have to the better stands" (interview: Aug.9). In 1977 there were six or seven small companies involved in lumbering and provided direct employment for approximately t h i r t y people. At that time there was a serious concern about the p o s s i b i l i t y of additional opeators moving in to the Island. Forestry o f f i c i a l s , in response to l o c a l operators concern, a c t i v e l y discouraged other operators from relocating to the Island and considered imposing a moratorium to prevent any quotas being acquired by o f f - i s l a n d operators (Whitehorn: Aug. 9). Since that time the l e v e l of operations (and employment) has remained stable, but there has been a gradual reduction in the number of operators. This in part has been due to the retirement of older operators, but also by the expansion ,of the only operation that is not l o c a l l y owned--Alm Forest Company. Logging occurs primarily in the southern half of the Island, which is mainly unoccupied crown land. This portion of the Island is b a s i c a l l y reserved for logging a c t i v i t y . It is scheduled to become part of the Georgia S t r a i t P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t 8 7 in 1983. The Forest Service indicate they have spent a "considerable" amount on s i l v a c u l t u r e (spacing, planting and f e r t i l i z i n g and intend to recover that investment through harvesting (interview: Coulton: Aug. 9). Their objective i s to promote more selective logging, since much of the current harvesting i s of second grade timber. 1 20 The n o r t h h a l f of the I s l a n d (and a few s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s i n the southern p o r t i o n , such as Davie Bay and Cook Bay) i s almost t o t a l l y h e l d in p r i v a t e ownership. As a r e s u l t the F o r e s t r y S e r v i c e are only i n v o l v e d i n f o r e s t p r o t e c t i o n in t h i s a r e a . There i s l o g g i n g o c c u r i n g on t h i s p r i v a t e l a n d , although the timber q u a l i t y i s c o n s i d e r e d i n f e r i o r to that i n the southern end. I t i s i n t h i s area the Aim F o r e s t Co. has been p a r t i c u l a r l y v i s i b l e . In a d d i t i o n to a c q u i r i n g a l l of Texada Mine's nonmineralized p r o p e r t i e s , the f i r m has a l s o been purchasing a l l the p r i v a t e l y h e l d p r o p e r t i e s that were a v a i l a b l e f o r s a l e ( i n c l u d i n g purchasing Texada Logging Co. and i t s quotas on crown l a n d ) . At t h i s time they have become the l a r g e s t s i n g l e p r o p e r t y owner on the I s l a n d with over 13,000 acres of deeded land (plus access to crown lands f o r l o g g i n g ) . They have a c q u i r e d most of the land i n the i n t e r i o r that was o r i g i n a l l y c l e a r e d f o r a g r i c u l t u r e , and have i n d i c a t e d t h e i r i n t e n t i o n to u t i l i z e a p o r t i o n of i t i n a t r e e farming o p e r a t i o n ( i n t e r v i e w : Turner: Aug. 2). Aim F o r e s t s i s a German c o r p o r a t i o n that appears to have adopted a long term s t r a t e g y f o r i t s Texada h o l d i n g s . The land can be u t i l i z e d f o r l o g g i n g f o r the immediate f u t u r e , with the more s u i t a b l e areas being e v e n t u a l l y s u b d i v i d e d f o r development when the demand i n c r e a s e s . T h i s would appear to be the f u t u r e f o r much of the p r i v a t e l y h e l d land which i s c u r r e n t l y being logged. Four hundred ac r e s at Cook Bay have been c l e a r cut by the owner and i s i n the process of being s u b d i v i d e d . J & G Logging i s a l s o proposing a 121 subdivision of some of i t s recently logged property in the v i c i n i t y of Upper G i l l i e s Bay (High Road) (Turner: Aug. 2). Logging generates some spinoffs in the l o c a l economy, but they are quite limited. The only sawmill (a portable one) that was operating on the Island in 1976 has since moved off the Island. The independent loggers s e l l their timber through timber brokers, and are at the mercy of these middle men since the loggers are not r e a l l y familiar with market conditions. As Whitehorn notes, "being small market loggers dealing with brokers, they can e a s i l y get ripped o f f " (Aug. 9). The main spinoff a c t i v i t y from logging i s the opportunity for individuals to obtain contracts with the Forest Service for s i l v a c u l t u r e operations. This has provided an intermittent source of income for a few residents, but with proposed reductions in Forest Service a c t i v i t i e s such employment i s in jeopardy. c. Agriculture This i s of minor importance on Texada. Those individuals who engage in farming on a f u l l time basis do i t on a subsistence l e v e l . This l i f e s t y l e i s a t t r a c t i v e to a segment of the population and productive for the community since i t makes l o c a l produce av a i l a b l e . However, for most people, agriculture is a part time a c t i v i t y using gardens, orchards, livestock and poultry for home consumption. Due to the limited amounts of f e r t i l e s o i l , the high costs of clearing land, and the limited l o c a l markets and d i r e c t competition from more productive a g r i c u l t u r a l areas, i t i s unlikel y that commercial agriculture w i l l increase 1 22 s i g n i f i c a n t l y . However, part time farming is a l i f e s t y l e with considerable appeal for many, and as small holdings become available through subdivision t h i s type of ' a g r i c u l t u r a l ' a c t i v i t y can be expected to increase, d. Tourism The 1973 Proposed Land Use Plan dismissed the potential for tourism on Texada due to lack of f a c i l i t i e s , a negative attitude toward tou r i s t s by residents and the unattractiveness of the i n d u s t r i a l mining s i t e s " 8 8 at the north end of the Island (pg. 24). This seems to be a somewhat cavalier dismissal considering the Island's proximity to a metropolitan area the size of Vancouver, and the increasing tourism a c t i v i t y along both the mainland coast and Vancouver Island. It i s p a r t i c u l a r l y interesting to note that they refer to the Islanders attitude towards t o u r i s t s when, by their own admission, there was no consultation with residents during the preparation of the report. While Tourism's future is limited i t i s far from nonexistent. Texada offers primarily marine/outdoor recreation opportunities. A regional park at Shelter Point ( G i l l i e s Bay) has recently been upgraded and i s a t t r a c t i n g increasing numbers of t o u r i s t s (Childress: July 12). In 1983 over 1400 campers u t i l i z e d the park (Harwood Point Parks Board Report: Dec. 1, 1983). For a c t i v i t i e s such as diving, salmon f i s h i n g , clamming and oyster picking Texada i s becoming increasingly popular with t o u r i s t s as these resources have become more scarce on the mainland, where development i s making the waterfront 1 23 inaccessible, and over u t i l i z a t i o n is depleting the stocks. Texada residents are attempting to avoid a similar fate by trying to protect marine areas that have pa r t i c u l a r recreational value. The P r o v i n c i a l Government has been requested to designate G r i l s e Point a marine park. Other key recreational areas are being i d e n t i f i e d . The l o c a l community i s trying to develop more parks as part of t h e i r e f f o r t s to retain the Island's recreational amenities. There i s some resident concern about what would happen i f there was a major increase in tourism that would overwhelm recreational s i t e s u t i l i z e d by the Islanders. But as one resident stated, "we need a balance of a c t i v i t y , otherwise we'll be a heavy industry area l i k e Squamish with a l l i t s problems" (Childrenn: July 1.2). When tourism is approached in t h i s pragmatic fashion i t s merits w i l l make residents more receptive to t o u r i s t s . e. Fish And W i l d l i f e The commercial salmon industry has been using the waters off Texada at an increasing rate. The west and south coasts of the Island are heavily fished by salmon g i l l net and seine boats. The l e v e l of commercial a c t i v i t y has l i t t l e p o s i t i v e influence on the Island's economy since none of the vessels use Texada as a home port, and there i s no regular employment of Island residents in the f i s h i n g f l e e t . It does have possible implications for Tourism since the amount of salmon sport f i s h i n g w i l l be constrained by the presence of the commercial boats. 124 Other commercial marine a c t i v i t y has included harvesting of geoduck clams (two individuals on the Island are employed in this manner); and harvesting of wild oysters and clams, primarily by nonresidents (for example, members of Sliammon Indian Band harvested over 250,000 pounds of clams from G i l l i e s Bay during the summer of 1983). Shrimp and l i n g cod are also l i g h t l y commercially harvested by nonresidents. The sport fishery is primarily for coho and spring slmon. In the north portion of the Island i t is focused around Blubber Bay, Marble Bay (Van Anda), and G i l l i e s Bay, where launching f a c i l i t i e s and moorage are available. It i s an important recreational a c t i v i t y for Islanders as well as v i s i t o r s . There is also considerable sport fishing of the south coast of Texada, but t h i s has no impact on the Island's economy. S h e l l f i s h are also u t i l i z e d on a recreational basis. Oysters and clams are p l e n t i f u l along much of the coast l i n e , but the wild scallop populations have been heavily depleted. The freshwater f i s h e r i e s on the Island are u t i l i z e d almost exclusively by Island residents and are not of large s i g n i f i c a n c e . Hunting a c t i v i t i e s on the Island are almost exclusively related to deer. As the 1973 Proposed Land Use Plan stated, "deer hunting on Texada Island i s the most successful and productive per e f f o r t in the province" (pg. 25). With the ready access to Texada from Powell River the Island i s used extensively by hunters from that urban area. However, these hunters provide l i t t l e benefit to the Island's economy. As several residents who were interviewed stated, "Powell River 125 thinks of Texada as a place to come for a couple of deer, a load of firewood and a Christmas t r e e . " 8 9 f. Service Sector The 1974 Student Report on Planning in the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t indicated that the growth of secondary services in Powell River was retarded by the dominance of Vancouver, and would continue to be so for the foreseeable future (pg. 30). It could therefore be assumed that t h i s would be even more applicable to rural areas of the Regional D i s t r i c t . However, because of Texada's physical i s o l a t i o n and i t s active i n d u s t r i a l sector the Island has a far higher l e v e l of services than would normally be the case for a rural area with a population of only 1700 people. The r e t a i l sector is c e r t a i n l y subordinate to the larger centres. The 1978 survey conducted by the Regional D i s t r i c t indicated that in excess of 75% of the Island residents obtained major goods (vehicles, large appliances and furniture) from the Lower Mainland; and domestic needs (groceries, clothing, and personal services) from Powell River. This relegates Island r e t a i l outlets to neighbour convenience o u t l e t s . 9 0 The Island has a f u l l y equiped medical c l i n i c with a f u l l time physician, volunteer f i r e and ambulance f a c i l i t i e s in both G i l l i e s Bay and Vananda, a public a i r s t r i p (with twice d a i l y d i r e c t connections to Vancouver), 9 1 small boat marinas at Vananda and Blubber Bay, s u f f i c i e n t educational f a c i l i t i e s to provide up to grade eleven on the Island (although recent educational budget cutbacks are going to result in a reduction 1 26 of class rooms on the Island and a l l high school students w i l l be transported to Powell River), and a variety of recreational f a c i l i t i e s such as baseball diamonds, campgrounds/picnic s i t e , volunteer l i b r a r y , community h a l l , Elks h a l l , Legion h a l l , as well as community cable T.V. associations in Vananda and G i l l i e s Bay. This is a l e v e l of service that most rural areas can only envy. Many of the public f a c i l i t i e s were developed by Texada mines and turned over to the community (through the Regional D i s t r i c t ) for a nominal sum when the mine shut down. Other services, such as the high level of a i r connections, exist because of the needs of the quarry operations. Without the le v e l of i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y the Island currently has i t would be unable to sustain these services with the Island's limited population base. g. Other Economic A c t i v i t i e s One source of permanent employment on the Island i s the Provincial government. The Ministry of Highways operates a 50 car ferry between Powell River and Texada, and since i t berths in Blubber Bay the thirty-two crew members are Texada residents. In addition-, the same Ministry has a highways crew located on Texada and employs six permanent employees. There is some contruction a c t i v i t y on the Island, but most of the labour for major projects such as the B.C. Hydro Cheekye-Dunsmuir power transmission l i n e which crosses Texada en route to Vancouver Island i s from off the Island. A few of the residents commute to the Powell River area for 127 employment. But the half hour ferry ride between Texada and Powell River, the additional expense and the awkward hours for commuting mean that very few permanent residents are employed in Powell River. In the 1978 survey only 1.7% of the Island work force reported being employed in the Powell River area. Another component of the economy i s l o c a l a r t i s t s and c r a f t s men. Texada does have a number of resident artisans, but i t does not have the same reputation for artwork as some of the other Gulf Islands. Those who do l i v e on Texada generally tend to be supplementing their income from art with other economic a c t i v i t i e s . 3. HUMAN RESOURCES a. Population The population of the Island i s estimated at 1700. 9 2 The population was growing as a rate of approximately two percent per year u n t i l the mine closed in 1976. As a result of the mine's closure the Island had a negative growth rate of three percent for the period 1971 to 1979. This contrasts s t r i k i n g l y with neighbouring Lasqueti Island that had a population increase of 15 percent for the same period (reported in the 1979 Powell River Regional Plan). The Island appears to have regained the lost numbers. The closing of the mine also had an impact on the age d i s t r i b u t i o n of the population. In 1978 43 percent of the population was over 40 years of age (and 19.2 percent of that was over 60). At the same time 34.6 percent of the residents 128 indicated that they were r e t i r e d (figures from 1978 survey conducted by the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t ) . This r e l a t i v e l y high l e v e l of 'early' retirement is explained by the fact that most of the older miners opted to remain on Texada after the mine closed. Another s i g n i f i c a n t feature of the population is i t s re l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y . In the 1.978 survey 79 percent of the residents indicated they had li v e d on the Island in excess of 10 years, and an additional 11.5 percent had been on the Island at least six years. Even the summer resident population has a high degree of continuity. When Dr. Sanderson started to subdivide his property at G i l l i e s Bay in the 1940's many of the lots were purchased by Vancouver residents who have retained ownership ( Texada: pg. 30). Many buyers had as their objective eventual retirement to the Island. The population is clustered in several areas on the Island. At Blubber Bay, there are approximately 70 residents (4.9% of the Island population). Vanada has approximately 500 residents (34% of the population); G i l l i e s Bay has approximately 600 residents (37%) plus the majority of the summer residents. The remaining 350 residents (23%) are di s t r i b u t e d mainly between the north coast and Mowat Bay (west c o a s t — c e n t r e of the of the Island). They are mainly located adjacent to the road loop that connects the main communities ( G i l l i e s Bay Road—Shelter Point Road—High Road). A few individuals inhabit s i t e s along the coast in the southern half of the Island and are quite isolated from the rest of the Island's residents. 129 b. Community Organization (1) Government The Island constitutes an e l e c t o r a l d i v i s i o n of the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t , and as such has one elected director on the Regional D i s t r i c t Board. However, on the Regional Board the d i s t r i c t municipality of Powell River has a clear numerical majority over a l l the representatives of rural areas. The Regional D i s t r i c t provides some services on Texada: maintains Shelter Point as a Regional Park; provides maintenance funds for recreation f a c i l i t i e s and the medical c l i n i c ; provides garbage pickup service with refuse being disposed of in the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t incinerator; and funds for the upgrading and maintenance for the a i r s t r i p as a Regional a i r p o r t . With the exception of Shelter Point (which was developed as a Provincial Park o r i g i n a l l y , and i s managed by a l o c a l Parks Board accountable to the Regional D i s t r i c t ) ; and the a i r s t r i p (where the costs are shared with the quarry companies), a l l of the services that the D i s t r i c t provides to Texada are on the basis of special tax levies against the Island residents. During interviews with Island residents i t was frequently stated as an a r t i c l e of f a i t h that the Regional D i s t r i c t extracts far more property tax revenue from the Island (especially the quarry operations) than i t puts into the services that i t provides. However, t h i s claim has never been v e r i f i e d . As the President of Texada Action Now (T.A.N.) indicated, when the organization was disappointed at the l e v e l of support i t was getting from the D i s t r i c t in i t s struggle against Genstar i t started to try to 1 30 v e r i f y this assertion. The Regional D i s t r i c t then suddenly promised some f i n a n c i a l support to TAN and the organization dropped i t s investigation (J. Cawthrope: Aug. 3). Texada Island comprises part of the Powell River School D i s t r i c t . There are three schools on Texada which are operated as one unit for e f f i c i e n c y . The G i l l i e s Bay school had grades three and four; and grades five to ten were located at the school in Vananda. Grades eleven and tweleve students commute to Powell River. The system worked quite e f f e c t i v e l y since i t only required one p r i n c i p a l , and the buses, which transported children were e s s e n t i a l l y f u l l in both d i r e c t i o n s . However, during the the 1983/84 school year the G i l l i e s Bay school has been closed by the School Board as an economy measure. This i s viewed by parents as merely the f i r s t step towards cutting Powell River's education costs by eliminating the schools on Texada. It i s being a c t i v e l y opposed by Texada parents. Again the residents suspicion that Powell River i s exploiting Texada i s very strong. A public release by the parents stated, "the Texada Island Community i s economically and geographically separate from Powell River. In fact we would s t i l l have a functioning community i f the paper m i l l at Powell River was to shut down. . . . Consolidation of schools to a point where i t crosses economic, s o c i a l and geographical boundaries disrupting entire communities i s unacceptable" (June 22/83). On the Island i t s e l f there i s no o f f i c i a l l o c a l government. G i l l i e s Bay and Vananda each have the status of unincorporated Improvement D i s t r i c t s . This gives them l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over water supply, street l i g h t i n g and f i r e protection. They 131 receive their funding from the Pr o v i n c i a l government, and are firmly under the control of the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s . While some of those involved in the a c t i v i t i e s of the Improvement D i s t r i c t s tend to view them as lo c a l government (Turner: Aug. 2), their authority i s far too constrained to consider them anything more than l o c a l caretakers for p r o v i n c i a l assets. The elected Boards for these d i s t r i c t s may be providing individuals with training in l o c a l government s k i l l s , and may over time provide an incentive toward incorporated status. But i t would be inappropriate to view them as l o c a l government. The P r o v i n c i a l government's d i r e c t presence on Texada is through the Forest Service (which administers the Island as part of i t s d i s t r i c t operations, centred in Powell River) and the Ministry of Highways. In addition to the Department of Highways Ferry there i s a highway maintenance crew on the Island. The Highways foreman, because of his contact with external a u t h o r i t i e s , and his control over some jobs, and a c t i v i t i e s that are very important to residents, has an automatic position of influence on the Island. Since 1981 the Island has also had a resident R.C.M.P. o f f i c e r . The Islanders had repeatedly requested one be located on the Island since access .from the Powell River Detachment i s very r e s t r i c t e d (and enforcement was t o t a l l y unavailable after the last ferry at midnight). Following the sabotage to the Dunsmuir substation, a constable was stationed on Texada, primarily to provide increased security for the hydro-line where i t crossed Texada. 1 32 (2) Community based organizations The Island has the same lengthy l i s t of s o c i a l , r e l i g i o u s , recreational, and fraternal organizations as other communities. In fact i t has 21 active service organizations at the present time, groups such as the Legion, Elks, Scouts, Old Age Pensioners, Rod and Gun Club, and Chamber of Commerce. It has a Community Club that comprises a l l of the residents of the north part of the Island, and has a constitution that provides for i t to be involved in 'any issues of concern to Island residents'. It i s primarily a s o c i a l and recreational organization. But i t has the potential to be a vehicle for residents to use when they need a legal framework for their a c t i v i t i e s . TAN, for example, started as a subcommittee of the Texada Island Community Society (TICS). The community organization with the largest active membership and highest p r o f i l e at the present i s TAN. This was the group that residents formed to opposed Genstar's proposal to l a n d f i l l garbage from the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t on Texada Island. The group which started in protest against a s p e c i f i c issue has recognized the need for an ongoing organization to represent the interests of Texada residents. TAN has evolved into a formal Residents and Ratepayers Association. At the same time i t i s proposed that the newly constituted association w i l l apply to join the Inter-Island A l l i a n c e — a nonpartisan p o l i t i c a l organization that was created by the residents of the Gulf Islands which form the Islands Trust. The A l l i a n c e views i t s e l f as a p o l i t i c a l watch dog on 1 33 issues a f f e c t i n g the Gulf Islands. C. TRENDS The Island's future i s c e r t a i n l y not c l e a r l y established. It i s subject to the influence of external events that may mean the present l i f e s t y l e s can not be maintained. A frequent comment in interviews with residents was 'we know that change and growth are coming'. Whether this impending change was viewed p o s i t i v e l y or negatively depended on the future that the individual anticipated and his personal views about i t . This section w i l l identify some of the possible future events that might occur, and w i l l then describe a number of d i f f e r e n t trends that the Island could experience as a result of various combinations of events. 1. FUTURE PROJECTS a. Industrial A c t i v i t y The most l i k e l y event in the foreseeable future would be the construction of a plant to provide additional processing of the limestone. At the present time i t is shipped in a crushed form, and a l l processing i s done at the destination. The f i r s t step in processing limestone for the production of cement i s the reduction of the rock to 'clinker' which i s then further ground and combined with other ingredients. Both Ideal Basic Industries and Oregon Portland Cement have indicated serious interests in locating the primary processing a c t i v i t i e s adjacent to their quarry operations. This would reduce their shipping costs from transporting the bulkier crushed rock, and would 1 34 a l e v i a t e land use c o n f l i c t s the companies are experiencing at the i r present plant s i t e s in the United States. Both Ideal and OPC have older plants that now need extensive renovation, and relocation to another s i t e would be a cheaper option. Also since land costs near their present s i t e s are rapidly increasing, and there i s more environmental c r i t i c i s m of their plants because of the dust associated with the f i r s t phase of process, their holdings at Texada look very a t t r a c t i v e as si t e s for t h e i r new operations. 9 3 There was some indication by OPC (Powell River News: March 28, 1982; and August 15, 1984) that there could be a f u l l scale cement plant on Texada that would cost in excess of 100 m i l l i o n , and would employ at least 200 people. However, the l i k e l i h o o d of processing a c t i v i t y beyond the preliminary 'clinker' stage i s quite remote. As H. Diggon pointed out the actual manufacture of cement on Texada would necessitate the transportation to the Island of a l l the other basic materials, and would probably not be economically viable (interview: July 25). Other new i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s are even more speculative. One p o s s i b i l i t y i s the u t i l i z a t i o n of Texada as a break-of-bulk trans-shipment point for the transport of coal from the proposed Quinsam mine. This i s considered a p o s s i b i l i t y because the mine s i t e i s located in a shallow water area. Texada i s suggested because i t has i n d u s t r i a l docking f a c i l i t i e s for the quarries, and i s accessible for large vessels (at the old Texada Mine s i t e which i s now Ideal's headquarters). If the coal development ever becomes a r e a l i t y Texada is only one of the possible 1 3 5 transfer s i t e s that would be considered, b. Resource Extraction ( 1 ) Lode mining There i s some promotion of mining properties on Texada. If there are s u f f i c i e n t reserves of commercially desirable minerals, the immediate access to tide water, presence of infrastructure, and a supportive population would be factors that would encourage the development of mineral resources. However, the current information is too speculative to be given much c r e d i b i l i t y at this point. There are deposits of gold, s i l v e r , copper, lead and zinc. But in what quantities and q u a l i t y are simply unknown. Furthermore, the a b i l i t y of the operators who possess the claims to successfully promote a major project is also open to question. ( 2 ) Limestone quarrying There i s already work underway to clear out the timber on the limestone deposits at Davie Bay. Genstar, who has the mineral rights is currently buying limestone for i t s cement plant from the existing firms, and paying f u l l market price for the limestone. However, the increased employment from t h i s operation may simply compensate for declining employment at the other quaries as the production becomes more mechanized. One side effect of the development of t h i s quarry w i l l be the d i s l o c a t i o n of a number of families who have t r a d i t i o n a l l y 'squatted' on the property at Davie Bay. Road access for these individuals has already been impeded by the company and further 1 36 action w i l l no doubt follow. If their relocation i s off Island then Genstar's new venture w i l l have a mixed impact on the Texada community. The other aspect of Genstar's project that concerns residents i s that the 'garbage' fight with the Corporation has l e f t many deeply suspicious of Genstar's actions. There is a long term concern that the garbage question w i l l resurface in a few years, with Davie Bay as the new s i t e . Certainly as long as the G.V.R.D. i s looking for places to dispose of i t s wastes the residents w i l l continue to have some concern about Texada being u t i l i z e d . If Genstar does have long range plans in t h i s direction i t could have more immediate impact on Texada because i t would d i r e c t l y affect the way that they would approach the management of the quarry. The existing quarry operators have been managing their quarries in the interest of long term conservation. If a hole in the ground is worth more to the Genstar Corporation than the limestone they could extract over time, the Davie Bay quarry may be a modern example of highgrading the deposit. There has been some interest expressed by two Vananda residents in re-activating the marble quarrying on the Island. If this were to occur i t would be a limited operation supplying s p e c i a l i t y stone, and not in dir e c t competition with the main suppliers of marble. (3) Logging Timber reserves are considered s u f f i c i e n t to maintain the current l e v e l of cutting on crown land. However, to do so there 1 37 w i l l have to be more use of selective logging practice. As S. Whitehorn pointed out this could present a problem for the smaller operators (interview: Aug. 9 ) . It requires more specialized equipment, and therefore a higher c a p i t a l investment that is recovered at a more gradual rate. One way that selective logging could occur on Texada would be to operate on a system of shelter wood logging for the drier areas. It would mean that there would be two cuttings of a parti c u l a r area. An i n i t i a l one leaving considerable mature timber to provide shelter for the early phase of natural regeneration; and then a second cut to take the remaining mature timber. Obviously the time period involved for the operator would be considerably lengthened. Another feature of logging on Texada i s that many of the operators, who started during the 'boom' years, are reaching retirement. Whitehorn indicated they anticipated a further consolidation of quotas as the older loggers leave the business. These two factors are combining to reduce the role of the small 'market' logger on Texada. Increased consolidation of ownership under a corporation such as Aim Forests should be anticipated. This does not mean that a decrease in employment in logging i s inevitable (although) the greater a b i l i t y of such a corporation to obtain c a p i t a l may mean that increased mechanization may occur). But i t does not mean that the forest resources (and associated land) are less subject to l o c a l influence than in the case when the operators are a l l l o c a l residents. 1 38 c. Tourism The future for tourism on the Island is d i r e c t l y linked to the health of the t o u r i s t trade in the general region; and to the a b i l i t y of the Island's natural resources to sustain increased use. Texada can not r e a l i s t i c a l l y expect to be a primary a t t r a c t i o n for t o u r i s t s . But i f to u r i s t s are drawn to the general area, a portion of those t o u r i s t s who are looking for an outdoor recreation oriented experience w i l l v i s i t Texada. For boaters the waters of the Georgia S t r a i t and adjacent areas such as Desolation Sound are very popular. For t o u r i s t s with vehicles the c i r c u l a r route of the Sunshine Coast and Vancouver Island i s a t t r a c t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t numbers of t o u r i s t s . Since the ferry l i n k i s between Powell River and Comox v i s i t o r s are attracted to the Powell River area. The limited beach access and depleted marine resources on the mainland mean that a number of the t o u r i s t s are attracted to Texada for these features. The p r i n c i p a l focus for t o u r i s t s on Texada i s , and w i l l undoubtedly continue to be, the Regional Park at Shelter Point. Since most t o u r i s t s coming to the Park are campers there is very l i t t l e revenue for the Island economy from t o u r i s t s at t h i s time. What is required to improve this sector i s an active approach to Tourism. Instead of being content with the revenue from the sale of liquor, bread and milk, and the odd T-shirt the community needs to have an organized e f f o r t to extend the t o u r i s t s ' stay, and to provide more products for the t o u r i s t market. An active approach would e n t a i l : creating additional 1 39 parks (such as the dedication of a marine park at G r i l s e Point); making ex i s t i n g attractions ( l i k e Spraque Wilderness Refuge Park) known to t o u r i s t s ; and the provision of tour f a c i l i t i e s at the quarries. These r e l a t i v e l y simple e f f o r t s would tend to increase the length of t o u r i s t v i s i t s to the Island. It would have to be accompanied by increased display and marketing of products to t o u r i s t s for i t to have a substantial impact on the Island's economy—certainly there are a r t i s t s and c r a f t s people working on the Island that would benefit from a r e t a i l outlet for their products. The main l i m i t a t i o n on tourism is the carrying capacity of the Island's natural resources. Its attractiveness is due to the continued existence of resources (such as clams and oysters) that are no longer as accessible in more crowded parts of the region. Rapid increase in tourism could degrade the area, but the t o u r i s t numbers would have to increase astronomically for this to occur. A more serious problem i s the competition of commercial operators for the same reasons. Geoducks, clams, oysters and salmon are a l l a c t i v e l y harvested for commercial purposes. Due to the fact that these species are managed as 'free goods' there is a real danger that the commercially valuable species w i l l be 'mined' below the threshold of b i o l o g i c a l production. 1 40 d. Real Estate Development Other Gulf Islands have been experiencing a rapid increase in subdivision of the Islands for purposes of recreational and retirement homes. The Gulf Islands Trust was implemented to control the rampant and indiscriminant subdivision process. Texada, because of i t s i n d u s t r i a l image, lagged behind the other Island. But as the value of real estate on the other Islands has continued to escalate; and developers find themselves having to deal with s t i f f e r regulations and controls on subdivision, Texada becomes increasingly a t t r a c t i v e . Land prices are considerably lower, there are no building regulations of any kind, the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t has a reputation for being 'sympathetic' to developers and tends to 'rubber stamp' applications for subdivision which are submitted to the Ministry of Highways and Transportation as approving agency. With these 'incentives' subdivision i s occuring at an increasing rate. Certainly the pace " of subdivision has not reached the frantic levels that were occurring in the other Gulf Islands before the imposition of the Trust. But i t s pace has been increased over that to which Texada residents are accustomed, 9" and i t has proved to be a source of concern for many residents. This concern i s dismissed by the Regional D i s t r i c t Planner as being a t y p i c a l case of s e l f - i n t e r e s t . Her opinion i s that the present residents have got their place in the sun and they would rather not share i t (interview: July 12). No doubt there i s an element of truth in t h i s , but the residents are also concerned because there has been l i t t l e e f f o r t to anticipate the o v e r a l l 141 impact of such increased growth. What i s the cumulative impact of these subdivisions going to be on the Island's public resources--such as i t s limited water supply. Another concern is that the Islanders have seen the permanent residents of other Islands lose control of their communities to the 'summer people'. 9 5 The desire to obtain answers to these general questions before the land development process is too far advanced i s one of the major reasons why the residents appear to be supporting the need for planning on the Island (TAN: June meeting). There are a variety of subdivisions currently proposed, or under active development. They include water front r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s , and larger r e s i d e n t i a l acreages in the i n t e r i o r of the Island. Most of them occur outside the Improvement D i s t r i c t s so there is no o f f i c i a l notice to residents of the proposal. The Regional D i s t r i c t planner, who i s consulted by Highways on subdivision applications, takes the position that she w i l l only consult with the neighbouring property owners i f the proposed subdivision i s not in her judgement similar to the surrounding land use (interview: July 12). Thus i f a parcel i s subdivided into small acreages, in an area that already has some acreage lots there w i l l be no communication with the neighbours. In addition, the planner takes a very technical approach to what i s considered a subdivision. When a parcel that could not be l e g a l l y subdivided for physical reasons was developed on a 'partnership' basis the planner indicated i t was not a subdivision and appeared to ignore i t . 9 6 Islanders tend to 142 obtain most of their information about proposed developments through a well developed 'moccasin telegraph' instead of any formal communication with government personnel. Without some regulation of subdivision t h i s type of development can be anticipated to escalate. There is a steady demand for ocean front land for recreational and retirement purposes, and as this becomes increasingly scarce in the southern Gulf Islands a portion of the demand w i l l be focused on Texada. e. Alternative Economic Opportunities Certain a c t i v i t i e s , which have been referred to as part of the shadow economy, w i l l c e r t a i n l y have an effect on Texada Island. A number of the residents were attracted to Texada because i t i s possible to lead a l i f e s t y l e that i s unconventional. The Island does not have the same image of counterculture that other Gulf Islands (such as Lasqueti) have developed. But the residents tend to be tolerant of other l i f e s t y l e s , since the li m i t e d population and large area has meant there i s room to accommodate the differences. There are those on Texada who are pursuing subsistence farming, or a r t i s t i c a c t i v i t i e s . While not a major force in the Island's economy t h i s group tend to help d i v e r s i f y the economic base to some extent, and to provide commodities (such as l o c a l a g r i c u l t u r a l produce) which benefit the entire community. 143 2. FUTURE SCENARIOS Depending on the staging (and success) of the individual projects that were described above the Island has future options. To provide as complete a background as possible for subsequent discussions of planning a c t i v i t i e s on Texada a brief description of some of the possible alternatives i s provided. a. Industrial Bpom If the timing of a number of events coincided the Island could experience an intense boom that would have few l a s t i n g benefits for Island residents, and be a major inconvenience for many of the older residents, who would be unlikely to benefit from the higher l e v e l of a c t i v i t y . The construction of the Vancouver Island gas l i n e ( p a r a l l e l i n g the Chekeye-Dunsmuir hydro lin e across the Island); combined with construction of a cement plant would result in construction on a massive scale for Texada. The employees for such projects would undoubtedly be from off island (as in the case of the hydro line) and located in a construction camp. The main impacts would be on the Island's recreational features by contruction workers, and heavy use of community infrastructure (such as the medical c l i n i c , and water supply). Minimal revenue from construction would flow into the l o c a l economy. Such a boom would be short l i v e d . The only p o s s i b i l i t y for a sustained boom would be the opening, or reopening, of a mining project. This i s a p o s s i b i l i t y but the limited data on mineral resources means that the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of such an occurence can not be r e a l i s t i c a l l y 1 44 evaluated. b. Industrial Bust A loss of markets for Texada limestone could devastate the Island's" economy. The d i v e r s i t y of uses for lime tend to make such a decline inconceivable for many residents. But a change in demand (as experiences in 1982 with reduced construction i n d u s t r i a l demand for cement); or the production of synthetic substitutes for natural lime; or simply the development of new and cheaper sources of supply could reduce the Texada operations below the l e v e l of economic v i a b i l i t y . While this i s an unlikely scenario i t should be considered since i t would make the Island heavily dependent on recreation and retirement. The current level of infrastructure and services could obviously not be maintained without the limestone operations. This reduction in services could jeopardize the Island's attractiveness for recreation or retirement. For example, closure of the medical c l i n i c would mean that the nearest medical f a c i l i t i e s could be in Powell River--at least a half hour t r i p , and inaccessible at nights. Such r e s t r i c t e d access would seriously affect older residents. c. Sustained Growth The location of some processing on the Island, with i t s additional employment, would help the Island to develop. However, in order to develop a sustained economy there must also be d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . A c l i nker plant, for example would be more subject to turndowns in the construction industry than the 1 45 quarrying operations which supply lime rock to a variety of economic sectors. The new jobs that would come with such a plant would also be more vulnerable to fluctuations in the construction sector. If sustained growth i s to occur i t w i l l require a strengthening of the t o u r i s t sector and increased numbers of summer residents and r e t i r e e s . These increases would provide the necessary numbers to permit a more healthy service sector to develop. d. Stagnat ion The Island's economy could stagnate i f the quarrying and logging continue, but are increasingly mechanized resulting in less employment; and i f at the same time the Island does not experience any additional t o u r i s t or recreational and retirement a c t i v i t y , because the expensive i n d u s t r i a l operations discourage such a c t i v i t i e s . The eventual outcome of this stagnation would be a gradual decline. The movement of young people off the Island to obtain employment would accelerate. The Island's declining, and aging population would find i t increasingly impossible to maintain ex i s t i n g services and f a c i l i t i e s . e. Real Estate Boom The lack of regulation and the large amounts of p r i v a t e l y held land, could result in a much increased l e v e l of subdivision and development of recreational areas. The aesthetic impact of the i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s are quite l o c a l i z e d and large areas of the Island could be developed for recreational purposes with l i t t l e reference to the i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s . The lower land 1 46 p r i c e s on T e x a d a , b e c a u s e o f i t s i n d u s t r i a l r e p u t a t i o n , may be more t h a n e n o u g h t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r t h e v i s u a l e f f e c t o f t h e q u a r r i e s . A r e a l e s t a t e boom, w i t h r a p i d a n d u n c o n t r o l l e d s u b d i v i s i o n c o u l d r e s u l t i n d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h o u t a n y c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e l o n g t e r m i m p a c t s ; and f u t u r e p r o b l e m s s u c h a s sewage d i s p o s a l i n c r o w d e d a r e a s . I t w o u l d a l s o h a v e more i m m e d i a t e e f f e c t s on t h e e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s a s t h e y w o u l d be f a c e d w i t h t h e v e r y r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y o f l o s i n g c o n t r o l o f t h e i r c o m m u n i t y t o t h e summer r e s i d e n t s (whose p r i o r i t i e s a n d d e s i r e s f o r s e r v i c e s w o u l d be much d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h o s e p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n t s who n e e d t o make a l i v i n g on t h e I s l a n d ) . 147 VII. PLANNING ACTIVITY ON TEXADA ISLAND Texada Island provides an opportunity to examine several d i f f e r e n t approaches to rural planning. The Provincial government has conducted sectoral and area planning a c t i v i t i e s on the Island. Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t ' s planning a c t i v i t i e s have also affected Texada. In 1976 i t attempted to develop a settlement plan for Texada. Then, in 1979, the Regional D i s t r i c t prepared an O f f i c i a l Regional Plan which encompassed the Island. Recently, the Islanders themselves have taken a more active interest in planning. Each of these planning a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be described and assessed. A. SECTORAL PLANNING EFFORTS AFFECTING TEXADA ISLAND 1. OVERVIEW OF SECTORAL PLANNING Qadeer divides rural planning into sectoral and area planning. Sectoral planning focuses on a single resource, or a c t i v i t y , in a rural region; while area planning i s "addressed to a community as a whole and not to any one sector of a l o c a l i t y " (1979: pg. 113). This is a useful d i s t i n c t i o n because i t provides a key to understanding the attitude most government staff have toward planning. It also highlights one of the major weaknesses in planning by government agencies. Sectoral planning i s not conducive to ef f o r t s to plan in a manner that is comprehensive for any area. In a dynamic system e f f o r t s to iso l a t e and deal with only one component of the system have the potential to cause disequilibrium in the system at unanticipated points, and thereby creating a higher degree of i n s t a b i l i t y . 148 This is happening in a society where public a l i e n a t i o n i s already at a high l e v e l . Competing levels of government, agencies with unclear and often overlapping j u r i s t i c t i o n s , a lack of co-ordination in government a c t i v i t i e s , a l l of these have lead to a government system so complex i t frustrates the e f f o r t s of people to understand i t . Correy claims, "The people cannot rule what is so massive, complex and interlocked and not to be unlocked by commonsense alone. Members of parliaments and l e g i s l a t u r e s can—and do--get a grasp on sectors of government a c t i v i t y that are of special interest to themselves, their constituencies or regions, but rarely ever extend to the v o l a t i l e and s h i f t i n g scheme of things entire: one may question whether even prime ministers, premiers and cabinets are r e a l l y in sure command of the whole. Insofar as they approach that command, i t is only because they have at their beck and c a l l cohorts of knowledgeable public servants whose whole time can be given to mastering the i n t r i c a c i e s " (1979: pg. 7). For people in rural communities, with their p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c perspective, the bureaucratic complexity of the government system creates serious obstacles to their being able to understand the system and the ways i t impacts their community. Some understanding of the way decision making occurs, and the role of planning in the decision making process, i s a prerequisite to be able to achieve any control over the process. E f f o r t s to plot the interconnections between agencies and various interest groups in sectoral planning would quickly develop an image that would resemble a maze. Morley et a l . , for example, i d e n t i f y 14 di f f e r e n t B r i t i s h Columbia p r o v i n c i a l m i n i s t r i e s with which l o c a l governments must contend, plus a number of subunits of other m i n i s t r i e s (1983: pg. 241). To 149 describe a l l of the sectoral planning a c t i v i t i e s that have an impact on Texada Island would be an epic task that i s beyond the scope of thi s thesis. For purposes of examining how sectoral planning i s conducted, in rural communities, by government agencies, the B.C. Forest Service's planning program w i l l be used as an i l l u s t r a t i o n . 2. FORESTRY PLANNING ACTIVITIES a. General Approach The Forest Service's planning a c t i v i t i e s a f f e c t r u r a l communities, l i k e Texada Island, on several d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . The Ministry of Forests' Public Involvement Handbook (1982) describes forest planning in the form of a h i e r a r c h i c a l structure. At the apex general p o l i c i e s are established through p r o v i n c i a l plans. These are then further elaborated through regional plans (which is the l e v e l at which P r o v i n c i a l Forest designations are considered). Then for smaller geographical areas planning conducted for Timber Supply Areas (TSA's). These plans attempt to establish s p e c i f i c management objectives for the area encompassed by the TSA. Within the TSAs sub-unit planning occurs, with plans being prepared for land use within a watershed. Then for s p e c i f i c s i t e s operational planning occurs, and exact s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for timber use are prepared. The planning for forest resources within a l l of these leve l s of planning i s primarily the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the professional planning s t a f f within the Ministry of Forests. Consultation does occur with other government agencies, the 1 50 forest companies, and public interest groups. The groups consulted vary depending on the l e v e l of planning that i s being conducted. The format for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in forestry's planning a c t i v i t i e s i s c l e a r l y delineated. The Public Involvement  Handbook i d e n t i f i e s three p r i n c i p a l methods of public involvement. The f i r s t i s the use of public information methods, which are designed to gain support for Ministry programs. The second method i s to use consultation techniques to establish two-way communications. A f i n a l method i s extended involvement which is "used to examine complex resource problems in d e t a i l " (1982: pg. 106). The Ministry's approach categorizes the public in terms of their a f f i l i a t i o n with interest groups. No reference is made to the general concerns that a l o c a l community might have about forest planning (1982: pg. 45). Nor i s there any recognition that there could be a d i r e c t role for the general public. A l l involvement i s anticipated to occur through representative interest groups. Another s i g n i f i c a n t feature of the Ministry's public involvement program i s the timing for public input. It is expected to occur at a late stage in the planning process. As Whitehorn states, "at early planning stages we don't l i k e to involve interest groups, but as planning goes on they are brought i n " (August 9, 1983). But what issues remain to be determined at the time that broader public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s permitted? As a consequence of the timing, Forestry's public 151 involvement i s more a matter of c o n f l i c t resolution, as interest groups struggle over how big their individual pieces of the pie w i l l be, than real involvement in planning. 9 7 b. Forestry Planning For Texada On Texada v i r t u a l l y the entire southern half of the Island is under the control of the B.C. Forest Service. This control w i l l be further strengthened when the Georgia S t r a i t P r ovincial Forest, including Texada, is proclaimed. This i s scheduled to occur during 1983 (interview: S. Whitehorn, Aug. 9, 1983). While the Provincial Forests are purported to be a multiple-use resource management system 9 8 the e f f e c t w i l l be to ensure that any proposed land use i s referred to the Forest Service. It w i l l then have the right to reject any use which i t deems to c o n f l i c t with forestry i n t e r e s t . 9 9 In the case of Texada Island, regional planning programs such as the designation of the Georgia S t r a i t Provincial Forest, are conducted by staff at the Vancouver Forest Region l e v e l . A l l are situated in the Regional o f f i c e in Vancouver. Consequently major decisions, such as the creation of a new Provi n c i a l Forest, are made a considerable distance from the l o c a l i t y that w i l l be impacted. The Ministry has made some attempts to address this problem by advertising proposals to create new p r o v i n c i a l forests in l o c a l newspapers. However, such e f f o r t s f a i l to have much of an impact because of the scale of the proposal. The Provincial Forests are on such a massive scale that l o c a l impacts are not always v i s i b l e to the affected residents, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the only notice i s a newspaper 1 52 advertisement that shows the general boundaries of the proposed forest. Within Vancouver Region, Texada Island i s part of the Powell River Forest D i s t r i c t . Planners at the D i s t r i c t l e v e l are responsible for preparing subunit and operational plans. The d i s t r i c t s t a f f ' s work load necessitates p r i o r i t i z a t i o n of areas within the d i s t r i c t for i t s planning program. Texada, with a limited timber s u p p l y , 1 0 0 and no major operators, has a low p r i o r i t y for subunit planning. Forestry staff acknowledge that there are resource use issues that w i l l not even be considered u n t i l a subunit plan i s prepared. But the absence of a plan has not r e s t r i c t e d Forestry a c t i v i t i e s on the Island. In addition to supervising the current logging operations the Forest Service has been conducting an active s i l v a c u l t u r e program to upgrade the wood supply. They have also been tryi n g to encourage the consolidation of quotas, as older operators r e t i r e , to make timber operators more e f f i c i e n t . 1 0 1 Obviously the a c t i v i t i e s of the Forest Service have a major effect on the a b i l i t y of a rural community to plan. Any e f f o r t to conduct a meaningful planning exercise on Texada Island would have to e s t a b l i s h : who sets timber quotas for crown land; who decides on harvesting practices; who decides on a l l o c a t i o n s of land to alternative uses within these areas where logging i s occurring. With the Forest Service's approach to Texada, being only one component of a larger forest management system, a l l these issues of concern to Island residents are dealt with at a 1 53 le v e l that i s out of reach for most of the residents. While the Regional D i s t r i c t and Forest Service consult on large scale i s s u e s , 1 0 2 and existing loggers are consulted about operational plans; no e f f o r t is made to consider the interests of the community as a whole. A demonstration of how t h i s approach can lead to fr u s t r a t i o n of community objectives is the issue of selective logging on Texada Island. The 1976 Texada Planning Committee's recommendations on forestry emphasized the need to promote selective logging, and to ensure that forest operations l e f t adequate buffer s t r i p s around a l l watersheds. The Forest Service staff interviewed were unaware of any of the resident's recommendations, and dismissed the subject of selective logging by arguing that the general public does not understand what i t en t a i l s (interview: Coulton, Whitehorn: Aug. 19, 1983). The fact that the Texada Planning Committee's subgroup on forestry contained one of the logging operators, and i t discussed the issue with other operators would seem to discount the contention that they were uninformed about forestry practices. Also the Forest Service has not investigated the potential for selective logging on Texada and w i l l not do so u n t i l a subunit plan i s prepared. If issues, such as t h i s , which are of concern to the community can be so ea s i l y dismissed by Forestry o f f i c i a l s i t is questionable what forestry practices would be subject to influence through the Ministry's public p a r t i c i p a t i o n program. 1 54 3. OBSERVATIONS It would be unfair to imply that the B.C. Forest Service are exceptionally autocratic in their approach to planning. Their e f f o r t s to create s p e c i f i c guidelines for public involvement, and to open their planning process to formal input from public groups, exceeds those of most government agencies. But the impact of their a c t i v i t i e s on Texada are very t y p i c a l of the results of sectoral planning by a senior l e v e l of government in a rural area. Hodge and Qadeer state, "one feature that most of these central government p o l i c i e s have in common i s that they disregard the effects on the small community. The problem is twofold. F i r s t , the aim of the policy is usually sectoral rather than s p a t i a l ; that i s , in s a t i s f y i n g a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y or function, the needs and c a p a b i l i t i e s of the affected area are an afterthought, i f considered at a l l . Second, l i t t l e thought is given to the impact on small communities of either the form in which policy i s delivered (grants, projects, services, and so on) or the means of dispensing the p o l i c y " (1983: pg. 206). Clearly the Forest Service, which has a s i g n i f i c a n t investment in. s i l v a c u l t u r e on the southern half of Texada I s l a n d , 1 0 3 believes that i t s program a c t i v i t i e s are of benefit to l o c a l residents. Undoubtedly they would argue that forestry is the optimal use for vacant crown land on Texada. It may very well be, but without the opportunity for more l o c a l input into forestry planning, residents would be j u s t i f i e d i f they continue to be skeptical that a l l of the alternative land uses have been adequately weighed by the Forest Service. The l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s type of expert dominated planning are described by Matthews who claims that an obstacle to 1 55 e f f e c t i v e planning i s , "that planners and development workers may regard working with the people as l i t t l e more than an exercise in public r e l a t i o n s . Many people with technical expertise tend to assume that they have only to explain their proposals and others w i l l see the inherent wisdom of them. But the goal that seems ratio n a l to the planners from their value orientation may have no meaning and make no sense whatsoever from the value position of the people" (1976: pg. 136). B. PROVINCIAL AREA PLANNING EFFORTS ON TEXADA ISLAND 1. 1973 PROPOSED GENERAL LAND USE PLAN In 1973 the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s produced a document e n t i t l e d Texada Island Proposed General Land Use Plan. This would seem to be a f a i r l y descriptive t i t l e . Its contents were an extensive inventory of the Island's resources, a statement of policy and a l i s t of broad objectives for the Island's future. This format corresponds very closely to what the Ministry i t s e l f had established as a framework for o f f i c i a l settlement p l a n s . 1 0 4 Despite a l l this evidence the planner responsible for the document c i r c u l a t e d a covering l e t t e r stating i t was not a land use plan. He claimed in the l e t t e r that, " i t must be understood that the report was to provide background information which may be of help to the Department of Lands in basing their decisions to alienate Crown Land. I strongly suggest the purpose of the report was not to impose a general land use [plan] on the people of Texada Island" This was reiterated by the planner in an interview (A. Quin, July 22, 1983). He stated during the interview that the plan had been i n i t i a t e d by the Lands Branch, who were attempting to 1 56 decide upon some applications for crown lands on the Island. The report was intended only for Lands Branch, and was seen as being an inventory. It was for that purpose that i t was prepared for a very limited c i r c u l a t i o n . Only after i t was completed was the decision made to make i t available to the public. The limited objective of the study was consistent with the way the planning was carried out. As the document states the planners considered primarily available data and r e l i e d heavily on information obtained from various p r o v i n c i a l government agencies (1973: pg. 1). There was a f i e l d survey conducted, but th i s was limited to compilation of technical data. No e f f o r t was made to consult Texada residents for information they might have been able to contribute, or to determine what l o c a l preferences for the future might be. This was j u s t i f i e d on the basis that the report would have no o f f i c i a l status, and thus there was no need to involve the public (A. Quin, July 22, 1983). One consequence of relying on thi s type of information was that i t resulted in several errors in the data due to a lack of f a m i l i a r i t y with l o c a l conditions. These inaccuracies were subsequently i d e n t i f i e d by residents to j u s t i f y rejecting the Report. But in general the . inventory was comprehensive, and could have been very useful to la t e r planning e f f o r t s . Once the document was completed i t was turned over to the Lands Branch. Any decision on which of the Report's recommendations were adopted, and how they were implemented, was 1 57 l e f t to the staff of the Lands Branch. Quin stated that he had no idea of what happened to the Report after i t l e f t Municipal A f f a i r s , "Things in government have changed so much since then that i t was impossible to keep track" (July 22, 1983). There is l i t t l e evidence to indicate how Lands Branch u t i l i z e d the Proposed General Land Use Plan. Its staff are s t i l l familiar with the document (Sorken: Aug. 17, 1983); but there is no consistent pattern of how crown land dispositions have been made. The number of dispositions that c o n f l i c t 1 0 5 with the Report's recommendations would indicate that the recommendations were only loosely observed. A serious problem with t h i s planning exercise was the question of how i t was u t i l i z e d . There was no o f f i c i a l 'acceptance' of any of the recommendations, but government st a f f who had control over the di s p o s i t i o n of crown land may have been influenced in their actions by the report. Also other p r o v i n c i a l agencies had access to the report, and may have based some of their a c t i v i t i e s on i t s information. Administrative decisions l i k e these, based on the Report's recommendations, would be almost t o t a l l y removed from public scrutiny. The preparation of recommendations for the Island's future without any reference to l o c a l interests i s a demonstration of the 'top down' approach to planning. Residents were not even informed of the project u n t i l after i t s completion when the information was f i l e d with the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t . Nor did the Regional D i s t r i c t , which might have presumed to be an interested Party even i f the general public were being 1 58 excluded, get an opportunity to pa r t i c i p a t e in the planning. Quin indicated the Regional D i s t r i c t was not involved because the planning was just for the use of Lands Branch (July 22, 1983). Once a copy of the finished report was sent to the Regional D i s t r i c t the residents gradually learned of i t s existence. One obvious example of how lo c a l interests come into c o n f l i c t with these 'top down' recommendations i s the suggestion that any future growth should be located at G i l l i e s Bay. The report concludes that "future r e s i d e n t i a l development should take place primarily at G i l l i e s Bay [since i t ] does not have the i n d u s t r i a l - r e s i d e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s that are apparent at Vananda and Blubber Bay" (1973: pg. 44). This recommendation may be based on sound technical arguments but i t ignores the fact that Vananda has a strongly established t r a d i t i o n , and neighbourhood pride that make such a recommendation t o t a l l y unacceptable to the residents. Rather than being useful such a suggestion tends to be counter productive. It emphasized r i v a l r y between the two centres. What is re a l l y necessary i s for the various populated sit e s on the Island to be viewed as rural neighbourhoods 1 0 6 that are a l l essential to the creation of Texada as a viable community. Such r i v a l r y detracts from this objective. The process was also very misleading. Claims that the document was not a land use plan simply created confusion about what the province was attempting to do. The explanation that the document was rea l l y an inventory for the use of Lands Branch was not even contained in the text, but in an accompanying 159 l e t t e r from the senior planner. The Report i t s e l f contradicted t h i s when i t stated "The Proposed General Land Use Plan which is to provide a framework for future development i s designed to be a simple and a r e a l i s t i c plan" (1973: pg. 1). Then la t e r in the text i t stated that "The Proposed General Land Use Plan for Texada Island i s a statement of policy which sets out broad objectives for future development" (1973: pg. 42). The fine d i s t i n c t i o n s that the professional planners in the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s may have been making about the differences between their document and a 'real' General Land Use Plan escaped most of the residents concerned. The Islanders viewed i t as a draft plan. This tended to confirm existing biases against planning, since planners were seen as being distant faceless individuals working in the interests of 'others' to control Texada. 2. OBSERVATIONS Halverson states that "central planning by single purpose p r o v i n c i a l agencies has been characterized by i n s e n s i t i v i t y to the l o c a l community and i n s u f f i c i e n t attention to l o c a l d e t a i l " (1980: pg. 375). The Provincial government's 1973 e f f o r t s on Texada Island c e r t a i n l y underline the v a l i d i t y of his statement. What was gained by the government through t h i s approach? Considerable resources were directed to create the report. But i t i s clear that i t s value to Lands Branch, just as an inventory was limited. The number of requests for crown land dispositions on Texada Island have never been extensive (Sorken: August 17, 1984), 1 0 7 and dispositions have not consistently followed the 1 60 Report's recommendations. Other than i t s value as an inventory the Report appears to have had no pos i t i v e benefits for the Pro v i n c i a l government. Its existence, and the way i t was prepared, has been a continued source of l o c a l resentment that has reduced i t s usefulness for subsequent planning. In 1976 when e f f o r t s were being made to prepare a settlement plan for Texada the 1973 document was deliberately ignored. It was viewed, by the planning committee as "an outsiders document" (H. Diggen, July 25, 1983). It also was described with disgust by Island residents, as an example of what planning i s a l l about, when Texada Action Now (T.A.N.) recommended a planning exercise in 1983. The suspicions created by the 1973 experience are deep rooted, and w i l l only be overcome i f , as T.A.N.'s president observed, "we w i l l be the planners, not some outside contractors coming in here planning for us" (minutes, T.A.N, meeting, January 18, 1983). This planning episode exposes the fundamental weakness of planning from the 'top down'. The government can conduct i t s planning program and prepare elaborate plans, but the public who have been ignored in the process w i l l resent t h i s a r b i t r a r y approach and w i l l attempt to frustrate the e f f o r t s of the government agency. Such resentment can not be casually overlooked by government agencies since those residents who may be powerless to prevent the government from conducting i t s planning do have many strategic points where they can frustrate i t s implementation (Bregha: 1973: pg. 2). 161 C. REGIONAL DISTRICT PLANNING EFFORTS AFFECTING TEXADA 1. BACKGROUND Texada Island has been d i r e c t l y affected by two planning projects of the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t . In 1976 an e f f o r t was i n i t i a t e d to create an o f f i c i a l settlement plan for the Island; and then in 1979 an O f f i c i a l Regional Plan was adopted which w i l l provide constraints for future planning on Texada. The events that occurred can only be f u l l y understood by.a brief history of planning within the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t . The Regional D i s t r i c t became a c t i v e l y involved in planning in 1974. In a burst of fra n t i c a c t i v i t y the D i s t r i c t hired i t s f i r s t planner, became involved with the Islands Trust in the preparation of settlement plan for Lasqueti island, and issued a planning pol i c y . The f i r s t planner was Mrs. Finola Fogarty, an architect cum planner. Her f i r s t planning a c t i v i t y in the region was to as s i s t in the preparation of a plan for Lasqueti. While part of the Regional D i s t r i c t , i t had become part of the new Islands Trust, and the Trust assumed the primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for planning for the Island. Due to heavy development pressures being experienced on Lasqueti the Trust commenced planning to es t a b l i s h an o f f i c i a l settlement plan in i t s f i r s t year of operation. Fogarty indicated that she was strongly influenced by the approach the Trust planner, Judi Parr, used for the Lasqueti plan. It emphasized a high degree of resident 162 p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and concern for environmental quality (interview: Fogarty: July 13). By the end of 1974, Lennox, Regional Board chairman, Fogarty, and a few other individuals she described as "kindred souls concerned about the environment" had developed a document e n t i t l e d Planning Policy for Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t . This policy statement was described by Fogarty as being "so conservative that i t seemed r a d i c a l " (interview: July 13). Rejecting zoning and land use regulations as a blanket approach to c o n t r o l l i n g development, the policy proposed the use of the 'public hearing concept' (copy of policy in Appendix B). This policy was intended to establish a system where each development proposal was considered on i t s own merits, with the public determining which proposals would proceed. At the same time the Regional D i s t r i c t Board was developing a strategy for the preparation of a Regional Plan. Their intention was to do individual settlement plans for a l l parts of the D i s t r i c t as a f i r s t step. The Regional plan would then follow, and would be a composite of a l l the settlement plans (Fogarty: July 13, 1984). The schedule for preparing the settlement plans was l e f t to Fogarty who determined which areas should be given p r i o r i t y . The planning process started with the Lund-Southview area, north of the municipality of Powell River, in 1975. This quickly grew into a more a l l encompassing plan for the Malaspina Peninsula. By 1976 the Malaspina plan was in draft form and Fogarty decided that the time was right to i n i t i a t e planning for Texada Island. 163 At the same time that planning was going on in the Lund area the Regional D i s t r i c t was experiencing strong opposition to i t s planning p o l i c y . The innovative approach i t advocated had been drafted into a by-law which the Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s refused to approve. F a i l i n g to a t t r a c t a l l i e s 1 0 8 the Board f i n a l l y concluded that i t could accomplish nothing by d i r e c t l y confronting the Pro v i n c i a l government. It changed i t s strategy on how to accomplish i t s objectives. There i s s u p e r f i c i a l compliance with p r o v i n c i a l requirements, but a l l undeveloped land in the Regional D i s t r i c t was to be zoned ' r e s i d e n t i a l ' . It would then rezone on a case by case basis as requests are made (Ladret, July 13, 1983). The early enthusiasm of the Regional D i s t r i c t Board for planning as a vehicle for s o c i a l change, including increased public p a r t i c i p a t i o n , was greatly diminished by the Provincial veto of i t s innovations. The Regional D i s t r i c t proceeded to 'go through the motions' in accordance with the constraints established in the Municipal Act, but with strong reluctance to do any zoning. 2. TEXADA SETTLEMENT PLAN The e f f o r t to develop a settlement plan for Texada started with a public meeting in Vananda on May 19, 1976. The Regional D i s t r i c t Planner f e l t that the Malaspina planning program was proceeding n i c e l y , and " i t was Texada's turn" (Fogarty: July 13). The timing for the Texada project was very unfortunate, and demonstrated one of the main problems with having the planner e s t a b l i s h the order of p r i o r i t y and schedule, without 1 6 4 s o m e i n p u t f r o m t h e v a r i o u s r u r a l a r e a s a f f e c t e d . I n T e x a d a ' s c a s e t h e e f f o r t t o e n c o u r a g e r e s i d e n t s t o w o r k o n a n o f f i c i a l s e t t l e m e n t p l a n c o i n c i d e d w i t h a m a j o r d i s r u p t i o n o f t h e I s l a n d ' s e c o n o m y . T e x a d a I r o n M i n e s h u t d o w n i n 1 9 7 6 . T h e ' l a s t b l a s t ' u n d e r g r o u n d w a s i n O c t o b e r , a n d t h e m i l l c l o s e d i n D e c e m b e r o f t h a t y e a r . T h i s c l o s u r e w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r a u m a t i c b e c a u s e e v e n i n 1 9 7 5 t h e C o m p a n y w a s i n f o r m i n g i t s e m p l o y e e s t h a t i t w o u l d b e o p e r a t i n g f o r s i x m o r e y e a r s ( P r i m e : A u g . 1 9 ) . I s l a n d e r s w e r e a p p r e h e n s i v e a b o u t t h e f u t u r e , a n d m a n y w e r e m o r e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e i r p e r s o n a l w e l l b e i n g t h a n i n p r e p a r i n g a s e t t l e m e n t p l a n . 1 0 9 T h e p r o c e d u r e u s e d f o r t h e T e x a d a s e t t l e m e n t p l a n n i n g e x e r c i s e w a s a n e x a c t c o p y o f t h a t w h i c h h a d b e e n u t i l i z e d f o r L u n d - S o u t h v i e w ( s e e A p p e n d i x C ) . T h e p r o c e s s w a s i n t e n d e d t o a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e a r e a r e s i d e n t s . T h e i n i t i a l m e e t i n g , w h i c h w a s c a l l e d b y t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , e s t a b l i s h e d t h e g r o u n d r u l e s f o r t h e a c t i v i t y t h a t w a s t o f o l l o w . A s e r i e s o f s u b c o m m i t t e e s , w h o s e f o c u s w a s d e f i n e d i n a d v a n c e b y F o g a r t y , w e r e c r e a t e d u s i n g v o l u n t e e r s f r o m t h e a u d i e n c e . L i t t l e , o r n o e x p l a n a t i o n , b e y o n d t h e n a m e o f t h e s u b c o m m i t t e e w a s p r o v i d e d a t t h e m e e t i n g . T h e s e s u b c o m m i t t e e s w e r e t h e n i n s t r u c t e d t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e i r t o p i c , b y a s p e c i f i e d d a t e , a n d t o p r e s e n t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o t h e T e x a d a P l a n n i n g C o m m i t t e e . T h e T e x a d a P l a n n i n g C o m m i t t e e w a s t o b e t h e s t e e r i n g c o m m i t t e e f o r t h e p r o j e c t . I t w a s a l s o c r e a t e d f r o m v o l u n t e e r s a t t h e m e e t i n g , w i t h n o r e f e r e n c e t o e n s u r i n g l o c a l 165 organizations existing on the Island were represented. 1 1 0 The Planning Committee's purpose was to edit subcommittee reports and then submit them to the planner. They were also to discuss with Fogarty the issues they would l i k e to see included in a questionnaire that was supposed to be sent to a l l residents and land owners. The planning committee would then present the draft plan to the other residents at public meetings. The planner also defined her function in the process. Her role was to "answer planning questions, supply technical information, show other community plans and bri e f s submitted and generally to persuade people to keep deadlines, also to help draft the re s u l t s " (Minutes, Texada Planning Committee, Feb. 22, 1977). However, in this description Fogarty was much too modest. She had decided: when the planning program would occur; what issues the subcommittees should consider; the timetable for the entire process, including setting topics for s p e c i f i c committee meetings; and would be responsible for synthesizing a l l the accumulated data and recommendations into a draft settlement plan. By November, 1976, the volunteer committees had completed most of the i r tasks (eight out of nine subcommittees had submitted reports and recommendations). Fogarty, in a memo to the Texada Planning Committee stated, "I have summarized the br i e f s and put them into a form which i s the beginning of a rough draft plan" (November 25, 1976). Despite some reservations by individual members of the Planning Committee that the planner was pushing too h a r d , 1 1 1 the process appeared 1 66 to be operating very cl o s e l y to the timetable that Fogarty had produced at the o r i g i n a l meeting. It ca l l e d for the committee reports to be completed by November, and that deadline was met. This apparent success made the subsequent actions even less understandable. The planning process came to an abrupt halt in March of 1977. A regular meeting of the Texada Planning Committee was held on February 22, and another one was scheduled for March 15. No meeting was held and formal commmunications between the Regional D i s t r i c t and the Texada Planning Committee simply ceased. The residents f e l t that they had done their 'share' and were waiting for action from the Regional D i s t r i c t . In retrospect some Islanders have acknowledged that they were probably negligent in not being more concerned about ensuring there was followup. As a T.A.N, director stated, "We sat on this Island for years. We didn't want government. We were very apathetic. Hopefully this garbage thing, which w i l l be around for awhile, has brought t h i s Island together, and maybe we won't be as apathetic as we have been in the past" (C. Childress, from minutes of T.A.N. General Meeting, Jan. 18, 1983) . but considering the circumstances the residents' passive attitude appears quite natural. The impetus for the planning had come from the Regional D i s t r i c t . The process had reached the stage where the residents assumed the 'professional' would take over to conduct the questionnaire and to compile a l l the material into a draft plan. This lack of public pressure for action was also encouraged by the planner's approach. There was no explanation to the Planning Committee that there would be a delay, merely silence. In fact, when one of the committee 1 67 members had a chance meeting with Fogarty in late 1977, and asked what was happening, the response was "we're working on i t " (Wells: August 3, 1983). When the planner was questioned about the abrupt termination of a c t i v i t y the explanation was that i t was as a result of changes in the Municipal Act (Ladret, August 4, 1983; and Fogarty, August 9, 1983). The Provincial government amended the Act in 1977 to provide that a Regional Plan had to be established before o f f i c i a l community plans-could be implemented [Municipal Act, Section 809(1)]. Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t responded by dropping a l l area planning and concentrating on the preparation of a Regional Plan. But there was no explanation of why work which had progressed so far was not pursued to at least a draft plan stage. Nor .was there any explanation for why the planning committee on Texada was not d i r e c t l y informed of this sudden change in d i r e c t i o n . The extent of the planner's control over the planning program i s demonstrated by the termination of planning on Texada. Even when the Regional Plan was complete there was no serious e f f o r t to reactivate the process. Fogarty's perception of Texada was that "there weren't very strong issues on Texada which i s one of the reasons for the planning dragging" (July 13, 1983). The Island's economy had just collapsed, there was a b i t t e r c o n f l i c t occurring over protection of the Vananda watershed, 1 1 2 and the Island was struggling with the Regional D i s t r i c t over the future of i t s recreation f a c i l i t i e s and the park at Shelter Point. But the planner could not see any strong 1 68 issues for planning. There was one brief r e v i v a l in 1978 when the questionnaire, that was to be issued as part of the planning program, was actually c i r c u l a t e d . It was c i r c u l a t e d on the Island at the same time as one was c i r c u l a t e d in the ru r a l area south of Powell River Municipality. Presumably i t was done at this time because th i s would mean a f i n a n c i a l saving. The questionnaire was the one prepared by the Texada Committee a year e a r l i e r . But i t was not reviewed to determine i f i t was s t i l l v a l i d . In fact, there was no discussion with the committee members, and none of the re s u l t s were made available to Texada residents. 3. POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICIAL REGIONAL PLAN While the preparation of settlement plans in the Regional D i s t r i c t had been accompanied by considerable public involvement the preparation of a Regional Plan was completely d i f f e r e n t . As Ladret stated, in developing the Regional Plan "there was't much public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Wasn't kept secret but no push to inform people. Also no major e f f o r t to d i s t r i b u t e the plan throughout the D i s t r i c t " (July 12). The draft plan was advertised twice in the l o c a l newspapers. It informed the public that "copies of the entire document and accompanying maps are available at the Regional D i s t r i c t o f f i c e for anyone wishing to further study the plan" (Powell River News, Oct. 3, 1977); as well as giving a summary of the proposed p o l i c i e s . It was accompanied by a small map of the entire regional d i s t r i c t , but with no legend to provide explanation of various shadings i t would have been impossible 169 for anyone to use i t as a reference for proposed land uses. Several 'informational' public meetings were also held in Powell River to discuss the Regional Plan. As indicated e a r l i e r , the o r i g i n a l intent of the Board was that the Regional Plan would be a composite of a l l settlement plans. It was assumed that the public would be involved primarily at the l o c a l l e v e l . In 1977 when they were forced to change their approach public p a r t i c i p a t i o n was s t i l l assumed to have occurred at the l o c a l l e v e l (Fogarty, July 13, 1983). That meant that areas l i k e Texada Island, which had not completed a settlement plan were now largely deprived of input to the Regional Plan as well. Information in the Regional Plan related to Texada Island was based on the data compiled in 1976, despite the fact there had never been any public meetings to allow for a f u l l discussion of the Planning Committee recommendations. Yet i t was assumed that there had been adequate • public involvement. With this minimal involvement, and the i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y of the f i n a l document (only available at the Regional D i s t r i c t or Municipal o f f i c e s ) i t i s not too surprising that many Texada residents interviewed were unaware of i t s existence, or what i t s implications were for the Island. The Islanders' apathy can once again be held responsible for some of their lack of involvement and knowledge. But the Regional D i s t r i c t ' s staff approached the task in a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t manner from their previous planning e f f o r t s . Perhaps thi s was due in part to the fact that the Regional D i s t r i c t 1 70 viewed the exercise as being something forced upon them by the Province with i t s amended l e g i s l a t i o n . Or i t may have been due to the overloading of the planning s t a f f . As Fogarty indicated "participatory planning can produce good ideas, but i s very wearing on the planner" (July 12). Mrs. Fogarty resigned as planner shortly after the completion of the Regional Plan. She stated that "I started out with ideals and then became more and more bureaucratic and I l e f t when I recognized i t " (July 13). Whatever the cause the consequence was the preparation of a Regional Plan that had minimal public input. The implications of the Regional Plan for planning a c t i v i t i e s on Texada Island have s t i l l not been f u l l y r e a lized by the Islanders. Those who are aware of i t s existence view i t as just another paper exercise that the government conducted. When area planning a c t i v i t i e s occur on Texada in the future, and the options are constrained by the Regional Plan, c o n f l i c t between l o c a l aspirations and externally imposed guidelines appears inevitable. 4. OBSERVATIONS The results of the Regional D i s t r i c t ' s early e f f o r t s at planning for i t s rural areas were disappointing. The Lund-Southview exercise resulted in the production of a draft Malaspina Settlement Plan. But i t s t a l l e d at the draft stage. Fogarty's explanation for t h i s was that, while the results of the draft were s a t i s f a c t o r y " i t was d i f f i c u l t to convert into a useable document. It was an aesthetic idea . . . that administration was unable to implement" (August 13, 171 1983). It was not u n t i l 1982 that a revised settlement plan for Lund was adopted. The completion of that plan was plagued by the disillusionment and suspicions of the o r i g i n a l volunteers, who f e l t their e f f o r t s had been t o t a l l y wasted (Ladret: August 4, 1983). The Texada e f f o r t did not even produce a draft plan. A l l that volunteers have to show for the i r e f f o r t s are copies of subcommittee reports which are f i l e d in the Regional D i s t r i c t o f f i c e . In fact, the 1976 planning attempt actually set the Island back. The Regional D i s t r i c t interpreted the f a i l u r e as evidence of the Islanders' anti-planning attitude (T.A.N, minutes, January 18, 1983). As a result the Island was given a low p r i o r i t y by the Regional D i s t r i c t for any additional planning e f f o r t . G i l l i e s Bay Improvement D i s t r i c t was informed that planning would not start u n t i l 1984, at the e a r l i e s t ( l e t t e r from Ladret to G i l l i e s Bay Improvement D i s t r i c t , May 2, 1983) . 1 1 3 The Regional D i s t r i c t ' s planning e f f o r t s provide an excellent demonstration of the c o n f l i c t between substantial and functional planning. Fogarty started her planning a c t i v i t i e s with ideals. She f e l t that i f the public were involved in planning that i t would raise t h e i r level of environmental consciousness (July 13). She had observed the actions of the Islands Trust Planner on Lasqueti Island, and admired the results that were produced. She then attempted to reproduce the same process in other communities, but the essence of that planning had eluded her. Lasqueti Islanders had been in control 1 72 of the pl a n n i n g program. They set the agenda, and d e a l t with the fundamental ques t i o n s of why there should be a plan, and what i t s o b j e c t i v e s should b e . 1 1 " Fogarty approached her own planning tasks assuming that these b a s i c questions had been r e s o l v e d and that the focus should be on the mechanics of p r e p a r i n g the p l a n . As a r e s u l t , while Fogarty was undoubtedly s i n c e r e in her d e s i r e to i n v o l v e the p u b l i c she was d i r e c t i n g t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t o areas that she d e f i n e d . I r o n i c a l l y the type of involvement, and the r e s u l t s that she had admired on L a s q u e t i , were c o n s t r a i n e d by her e f f o r t s to manipulate the process to produce them. I t i s t h i s f a i l u r e to recognize the need to i n v o l v e the p u b l i c i n fundamental i s s u e s that Lash c r i t i c i z e s when he s t a t e s , "there i s a d i f f e r e n c e between using people and c a r i n g about them, between g e t t i n g h e l p f o r your own p r i v a t e agenda or h e l p i n g people w r i t e a new f u t u r e . It i s the d i f f e r e n c e between ' c o - o p t a t i o n ' and c o - o p e r a t i o n , between manipulation and honest human r e l a t i o n s " (1977: pg. 32). D. COMMUNITY INITIATIVE ON PLANNING 1. HISTORY OF SELF-RELIANCE Hodge and Qadeer s t a t e , "The ethos of mutual h e l p i s an as s e t of small communities i n times of n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r or e x t e r n a l t h r e a t , f o r example, i n the case of a proposed highway or dam not d e s i r e d by the l o c a l i t y . S t o r i e s of towns and v i l l a g e s m o b i l i z i n g to f i g h t f l o o d s and r e s i s t governmental i n t r u s i o n s are l e g i o n . In such unusual times, smallness and r e s i d e n t s knowing each other promote u n i t y and community-mindedness" (1983: pg. 137). The a b i l i t y of a small community to e f f e c t i v e l y organize i s 1 73 enhanced by any previous experience that i t has had with organizing; p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the previous cases of community s o l i d a r i t y are viewed p o s i t i v e l y by residents. On Texada Island the residents who were interviewed repeatedly referred to previous v i c t o r i e s by the community. 1 1 5 The f i r s t group action occurred in 1973 when the Regional D i s t r i c t proposed a building standards by-law for unincorporated areas. Not only did this appear to be more government intrusion to many rur a l residents, i t also presented an active threat to the l i f e s t y l e of many Islanders who had housing that would not comply with the proposed standards. The residents of Texada Island organized and packed the public gallery when the Regional D i s t r i c t Board was scheduled to give the by-law t h i r d reading and f i n a l passage. The by-law was withdrawn, and the Islanders f e l t that t h i s was due to the pressure they had been able to c o l l e c t i v e l y apply. In 1974 the Advisory Planning Committee for Texada submitted a br i e f to the Select Standing Committee, of the Legi s l a t i v e Assembly, on Municial A f f a i r s and Housing. It objected to the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t ' s proposed planning p o l i c y , and opposed the inclusion of Texada Island in the proposed Gulf Islands Trust. Their message was blunt. Planning for Texada, "should have minimal interference from the central government and should be granted a f a i r degree of autonomy within the Regional D i s t r i c t . . . decisions should be made by the residents of Texada" (A planning  and development policy for Texada Island: 1974: pg. 9). While i t i s doubtful that the views of Texada residents were 1 74 so l e l y responsible for the Provincial government's action on the Regional D i s t r i c t ' s planning policy, and the exclusion of Texada from the Trust, some residents of the Island claimed c r e d i t (J. Brennan, T.A.N. Minutes, May 29, 1983). In 1976 the Regional D i s t r i c t i n i t i a l l y refused to accept transfer of recreation f a c i l i t i e s that Texada Iron Mine abandonned when i t closed. Again Island residents worked together to demand action. Ultimately the Regional D i s t r i c t did assume ownership and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the f a c i l i t i e s , which the Islanders viewed as another vic t o r y for c o l l e c t i v e action. How i n f l u e n t i a l the residents actually were in the decisions on the above issues, and whether they r e a l l y 'won' anything, i s immaterial. The events provided residents with a b e l i e f that they could organize and successfully oppose an external threat. 2. ORGANIZING FOR OPPOSITION Stinson, in his examination of c i t i z e n organizations in Canada, i d e n t i f i e d "community defence" as a major reason for organizing. He described this as the situation where " c i t i z e n s in a neighbourhood see their quality of l i f e threatened by developers or planners and organize to oppose what is i d e n t i f i e d as destructive to community" (1975: pg. 19). The a c t i v i t i e s of the residents of Texada Island are t y p i c a l of thi s type of involvement in response to an external threat. Those residents of Texada Island who viewed the Island as a haven against an increasingly regimented and urbanized society were suddenly forced to recognize the impact that external 175 forces could have on their community. In November, 1982, Genstar C o r p o r a t i o n 1 1 6 submitted, and had accepted by the Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage D i s r i c t Board, a proposal to dispose of a minimum of 250,000 tonnes per year of baled municipal wastes to a l a n d f i l l s i t e on Texada Island. Once the project was p u b l i c l y presented to the Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage D i s t r i c t Board the Islanders got their f i r s t information about the project. As d e t a i l s were released the residents apprehension rapidly increased. Several individuals then began to organize the residents to ensure that their interests were protected during the decision making process. In his description of the impact of the Columbia River development on the people of the Arrow Lakes region, Wilson states, "In ordinary times they seemed to get along with a minimum of organization . . . At least some of the communities were divided by internal c o n f l i c t s based sometimes on p o l i t i c s , sometimes on p e r s o n a l i t i e s ; and in most i t was d i f f i c u l t to ident i f y an acknowledged community leader. In t h i s sense there was no existing 'power structure' for Hydro to grapple with. Consensus apparently arose out of common need or c r i s i s , and spokesmen, i f not leaders with i t " (1973: pg. 12). The si t u a t i o n on Texada Island was very s i m i l a r . Those organizations that existed were fa c t i o n a l i z e d and unable to provide leadership in response to an external threat l i k e that represented by the Genstar proposal. A possible source of leadership would have been the Regional D i s t r i c t Director for Texada Island. This individual would have been the only individual who could claim an elected 176 mandate to speak on behalf of the entire Island. However, neither the incumbent or the residents perceived the Director as a spokesman on the garbage issue. The public viewed the position as being i n s i g n i f i c a n t because of a lack of appreciation about the impact that Regional D i s t r i c t a c t i v i t i e s could have on the Island. The position was t r a d i t i o n a l l y held by a r e t i r e d individual, and was normally f i l l e d by acclamation due to d i s i n t e r e s t . At the time the Genstar issue arose Keith Johnson was serving his t h i r d term as Regional Director. His role was so l i t t l e understood by the residents that " i t took six months [for T.A.N.] to discover that Johnson was chairman of the Regional D i s t r i c t ' s planning committee" (Cawthorpe, August 3, 1983). At the same time Johnson also defined his role very narrowly. He held a very strong "representative" view of his position. In his opinion "public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a l o t of bloody b u l l " . His approach to any issue would be to " u t i l i z e the half dozen people who do a l l the work while the rest go along for the ride" (July 13, 1983). With th i s attitude toward organizing i t i s not surprising that the Regional Director provided l i t t l e leadership when the residents decided organized action was necessary to oppose Genstar. Other possible leaders could have been the two elected Improvement D i s t r i c t Boards. However, they are not perceived as having any influence over matters beyond the immediate delivery of basic services within their narrow geographic boundaries. The presence of two such d i s t r i c t s on the Island further 177 complicates matters since they are seen as competitors for l o c a l dominance. Therefore, neither Board would have any legitimacy with Island residents i f i t claimed to speak 'for' Texada. The Improvement D i s t r i c t s did have an indi r e c t role to play in that the f a m i l i a r i t y with,government procedures that Trustees of the D i s t r i c t s gained through their involvement on these boards was u t i l i z e d in the c i t i z e n s ' organization. The chairmen of both Improvement D i s t r i c t s became members of the new organization's executive. Other potential groups to lead the struggle were the Texada Island Community Society (T.I.C.S.), and the Texada Chamber of Commerce. Both groups had Island-wide membership, and were already established, which could have made them l o g i c a l spokesmen for the Island. The Texada Island Community Society was perceived by residents as a recreation association, despite i t s stated objective to be involved in a l l matters of concern to Texada Island. It was therefore viewed as having too narrow a focus to act as Texada's representative on such a major issue. Its contribution to the new organization was to provide a l e g a l structure. Texada Action Now was created as a subcommittee of the Society for f i n a n c i a l and legal purposes. The Texada Chamber of Commerce was considered to be too preoccupied with promoting economic a c t i v i t y . They were, in fact, suspected by many residents of being sympathetic to the l a n d f i l l proposal. This suspicion was kindled by the fact that the Chamber of Commerce were addressed by representatives of 178 Genstar Ltd. shortly a f t e r their proposal was made public, and some of the Chamber members expressed interest in learning more about potential economic benefits that Texada Island might receive. This was enough to render the organization i n e f f e c t u a l in any further community a c t i v i t y concerning the Genstar proposal. Their role in the new organization was to exert influence on the Island businesses for support. Texada Action Now was formed u t i l i z i n g individuals with experience in a variety of the other Island organizations. It also encouraged a great many people who had never previously been involved in any organized a c t i v i t y to come forward. It was established as an umbrella organization to bring a l l the diverse groups on Texada Island together for a common purpose. When Texada Action Now was f i r s t formed i t had no resources except the willingness of the residents to work. As i t s chairman stated "nobody in T.A.N, had any background in organizing, but we 'lucked out' early . . . we were fortunate to happen to contact key people in G.V.R.D. early and got good advice from them" (interview: August 3 ) . In a space of two months T.A.N, extablished an o f f i c e (and staffed i t with volunteers); raised s u f f i c i e n t funds to finance their a c t i v i t i e s ; established regular contact with environmental organizations; d i r e c t l y lobbied with G.V.R.D. p o l i t i c i a n s and the P r o v i n c i a l Ministers of Environment, Municipal A f f a i r s , and Mines; conducted a p e t i t i o n and l e t t e r campaign to MLA's; prepared an information package consisting of a s l i d e show and printed pamphlet; created a community 'newspaper'; and attended 179 every G.V.R.D. committee meeting that was held to consider the Genstar proposal. The organization was also compiling technical data on the impact of l a n d f i l l leachate on the Island's ground water supply, and had made arrangements 1 1 7 to take legal action to oppose the project i f their p o l i t i c a l manuevers should prove unsuccessful. Fortunately, T.A.N, did not have to u t i l i z e a l l of i t s preparations for what residents had anticipated to be a lengthy b a t t l e . In May of 1983 the Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage D i s t r i c t Board withdrew i t s support for the Genstar proposal and indicated i t would look for other solutions to i t s problem. The Texada residents were jubilant and f e l t that their e f f o r t s have been responsible for the vi c t o r y . 3. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE While there was a general sense of r e l i e f , and a lessening of the tension, residents continue to be apprehensive about the f i n a l i t y of the Greater Vancouver Sewage D i s t r i c t ' s decision. Very few Islanders expect that a large Corporation l i k e Genstar would simply abandon a project in which i t has a substantial investment. As Cawthorpe stated, "the garbage issue is not a dead issue. The G.V.R.D. are just providing stop gap e f f o r t s now, and the G.V.R.D. Board changes d r a s t i c a l l y a l l the time. Es p e c i a l l y since one of Texada's foes i s now G.V.R.D. vice chairman, and we lost our best a l l y , Jim Tunn" (August 3, 1983). Other residents pointed to the number of reversals that the G.V.R.D. had made concerning the Spetifore property, and indicated that this could create a precedent that might 180 ultimately be used to resurrect the Texada l a n d f i l l proposal (T.A.N, meeting, minutes, May 29, 1983). This suspicion that the issue could be revived resulted in residents being reluctant to disband T.A.N, without having some safeguards in place. In this respect they were demonstrating a healthy sense of precaution. As Christensen-Ruffman and Stuart point out, "citi z e n s are often c a l l e d to fight the same issue a l l over again. Some are prudent enough to expand into a c t i v i t i e s that keep the members of the group together" (1977: pg. 93). The methods that residents opted to u t i l i z e as safeguards were to create a more permanent organization to represent their interests, develop a l l i e s , and to encourage the u t i l i z a t i o n of planning to protect and enhance their present l i f e s t y l e . a. Ongoing Organization Texada Island residents recognized that to respond to any revival of the Genstar proposal, or other future a c t i v i t i e s that could disrupt their way of l i f e , they would have to create an on-going organization that would attempt to co-ordinate Island a c t i v i t i e s and to ensure that residents were consulted on any a c t i v i t y that would d i r e c t l y affect the Island. As Cawthorpe stated, "T.A.N, represents every organization on the Island . . . we can co-ordinate things and t i e up loose ends. We must protect ourselves, no one w i l l look after us but us" (T.A.N, meeting minutes, Feb. 2, 1983). To achieve this T.A.N, was restructured as a residents and ratepayers association and o f f i c i a l l y incorporated as a society in October 1983. The objectives of the new association were: 181 a) To promote the welfare of a l l Texada residents and taxpayers; b) To improve conditions of l i v i n g on Texada Island; c) To foster co-operation between organizations and individuals on Texada; d) To make representation to other on matters of v i t a l interest to Texada residents" (Rock Island Lines, no. 2, July 1, 1983: pg. 1). With the creation of T.A.N, as a residents and ratepayers association the organization evolved from being a single issue protest group into a more permanent p o l i t i c a l organization. Certainly for purposes of representing the Island's interests on a variety of issues they stand to gain more c r e d i b i l i t y . As Thompson observes, the adoption of a formal l e g a l structure i s a means to acquire legitimacy, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the eyes of government and other outside i n s t i t u t i o n s (1977: pg. 29). b. Finding A l l i e s The movement to oppose Genstar included a search for support. Local governments, p o l i t i c a l p a rties, environmental organizations, and people on neighbouring islands were a l l contacted. The most meaningful contacts occurred with residents of other islands, and then the Inter-Island A l l i a n c e . This organization had been established by Gulf Island residents to "maintain clear communications among the islands, to support the Trust and help i t evolve by c r i t i c i z i n g i t , and to lobby for the Islands Trust" (Rubin, 1982). Several members of the 182 T.A.N, executive committee attended meetings with the Alli a n c e and found a group of people from neighbouring islands who had recognized the necessity for planning and p o l i t i c a l organization to protect their way of l i f e . They were, for example, urged to create a Ratepayers Association since this not only would bring together a l l the diverse groups on the Island, but also i t was a form of organization that the pr o v i n c i a l government recognizes and accepts ( l e t t e r to T.A.N, from Inter-Island Alliance representative, May 10, 1983). T.A.N, representatives also v i s i t e d Denman and Hornby Islands. They reported back to T.A.N, general meetings, and once again the need for organization and planning was emphasized. J. Cawthorpe concluded his report on the two other Islands by stating, "They are beautiful places, and i t just didn't happen. They had to cope with pressures sooner than has happened to us, they've had their battles and we've just gone through one, and probably the one that faces us now is going to be tougher because in the la s t set to we a l l had a common goal against the garbage, and here i t seems when you get around to setting up community plans and that gets people worried and af r a i d that 'I can't do thi s or I can't do that' i f we get a plan and that's not the case at a l l . Lots of times you have to fight harder to keep things the same. We should a l l r e a l i z e that i f we don't have some input, somebody else w i l l as c i v i l i z a t i o n catches up to us" (from minutes, T.A.N, general meeting, May 29, 1983). As a result of thi s contact the T.A.N, general membership voted to establish regular contact with the Al l i a n c e , and to investigate the p o s s i b i l i t y of being included in the Gulf Islands Trust. Those actions indicated a major s h i f t in the orientation of Texada residents. 183 Texada residents, l i k e most rural residents have a tendency to be parochial, and assume that their community is somehow dif f e r e n t and superior to o t h e r s . 1 1 8 Jane Abramson describes the tendency that rural and small town residents have, "to be l o c a l i s t i c in their interests and view--very much limited in their view and their concerns to their own l o c a l community and thi s might mean that they give less consideration to the t o t a l context in which decisions about regional development are made" (Rural Education and Development Association: 1979: pg. 33). Texada residents had previously viewed their Island l i f e s tyle as not only d i f f e r e n t from the Powell River 'main landers', but also d i f f e r e n t from that of the other Gulf Islanders. They perceived the other Islands as being r e s i d e n t i a l in character, and thus d i f f e r e n t from Texada where there was an established i n d u s t r i a l base. This attitude is reflected in the committee work that was done to develop a community plan in 1976. Their report states, "Texada Island is the largest of the islands in the Gulf of Georgia and i s quite unique among these islands in that i t has an i n d u s t r i a l base . . . . Thus the fourteen hundred residents of Texada Island, unlike those on other Gulf Islands have welcomed and respected productive mining a c t i v i t y which has occurred since late in the la s t century" (Texada Planning Committee report, 1976). This attitude was also re f l e c t e d in the concerns raised at T.A.N, public meetings, once stronger l i n k s with the other islands were advocated. i t was argued by J. Brennan that any planning would have to r e a l i z e , "that t h i s Island i s d i f f e r e n t than the other islands in the Islands Trust. They are r e s i d e n t i a l . This Island i s r e s i d e n t i a l and i n d u s t r i a l , and i t i s the feeling of everybody that we want industry and opportunity for employment, and ce r t a i n l y not going to 184 do anything to jeopardize that" (Minutes, T.A.N, general meeting, May 29). Isolation from the other Gulf Islands i s p a r t i a l l y explained by the transportation l i n k s in the region which tend to i s o l a t e the residents of the various islands from each other. To get to the nearest islands means a journey involving at least 3 ferry t r i p s . To reach Lasqueti, for example, would mean a ferry to Powell River, then another to Comox, a 60 mile t r i p to Pa r k s v i l l e , and then a t h i r d ferry to Lasqueti. A l l this to reach an island that i s less than a mile away from Texada. When this type of physical barrier i s combined with the l o c a l i s t i c sentiments of Texada residents, i t is not surprising that the T.A.N, representatives were v i s i t i n g neighbouring islands for the f i r s t time. It also explains why Texada residents had i n i t i a l l y opposed inclusion in the Gulf Islands Trust. Almost a decade after the creation of the Trust Texada Island people were beginning to recognize that they had common concerns with other Islands. c. Planning A c t i v i t y One of the p r i n c i p a l means that T.A.N, i d e n t i f i e d to achieve i t s long term objective to provide safeguards for the Islanders l i f e s t y l e , was to use planning. The struggle to r e s i s t the l a n d f i l l proposal had c l e a r l y demonstrated how vulnerable the Island was. There were no regulations to prohibit dumping garbage, or any other noxious practice. Instead of remaining aloof from rules and regulations, the Island had been growing increasingly vulnerable as surrounding 185 communities had r e s t r i c t e d or regulated development. This became increasingly clear to residents as T.A.N, attempted to estab l i s h support for i t s opposition to Genstar. T.A.N, invited Dr. Tyhurst from Gabriola Island to address a public meeting on January 18, 1983. In an emotional, almost evangelical fashion, Tyhurst described the process by which Gabriola Island residents had organized in response to e f f o r t s to subdivide and develop on their Island. The message to the meeting was blunt and basic, organize to protect yourselves and use planning to protect your way of l i f e . He states, "Now there i s great reluctance to develop community planning in most areas p a r t i c u l a r l y rural areas, and we've been through a l l of t h i s . That i s that i t i s a dictatorship, a bunch of people are forcing zoning down somebody's throat. What the h e l l , I didn't come here to be told what I can do with my place, and a l l the rest of i t . The fact i s that some of those things have to be given up i f you are going to continue your way of l i f e . There i s absolutely no other way . . . unless you get down in writing what the aims of your community are, and the sty l e of l i f e that you wish to have, i t ' s going to do down the drain. I can absolutely guarantee i t . You are as helpless as sheep amongst a bunch of wolves. I can guarantee i t . Have i t in writing, otherwise every single issue that i s the i n i t i a t i v e of the people on the island w i l l have no l e g i s l a t i v e backing and no support and y o u ' l l be having a c r i s i s every time somebody wants to do something. Unless you have written down that you would l i k e a rural way of l i f e , that you want your quarries used for certain purposes, that you don't want roads of a certain kind, everything, including the use of the environment, your l i f e s t yle and everything. This can be written out in a community plan" (from transcript of Tyhurst speech, Jan. 18, 1983). This message, coming from an individual with whom the Texada Islanders could i d e n t i f y convinced many residents of the need for planning. The most positive attitude toward planning i s a change in 186 residents' perception . about how planning occurs. A l l e a r l i e r experiences with planning have been directed by an external agency, and are viewed as impositions on the community. .The message from individuals l i k e Tyhurst, and groups l i k e the Inter-Island A l l i a n c e , i s that planning can be directed l o c a l l y . When Cawthorpe was challenged about the need for planning at a public meeting his response was indicative of the new attitude. He states, "I think one of the big differences i s we w i l l be the planners, not some outsiders coming in here and planning for us" (Minutes, T.A.N, meeting, January 18, 1983). It i s this change in perception that has resulted in planning being viewed as a means to ide n t i f y and achieve community goals instead of just 'more rules and regulations'. It also explains why the community i s now taking the i n i t i a t i v e in planning instead of waiting for expert d i r e c t i o n . I n i t i a l e f f o r t s by T.A.N, to get the Regional D i s t r i c t to start a community plan for Texada were rejected ( l e t t e r from F. Ladret to Chairman, G i l l i e s Bay Improvement D i s t r i c t , May 2, 1983). But instead of accepting t h i s response the residents took the position "we've got to look after ourselves. The Regional D i s t r i c t in Powell River i s just interested in the [pulp] m i l l and the [natural gas] pip e l i n e " (Cawthorpe, Minutes, T.A.N, meeting, May 26, 1983). Alternative sources of planning expertise were sought rather than s i t t i n g back passively and waiting for the Regional D i s t r i c t . It was f e l t that, through the Westwater Research Centre and graduate student research on the Island, T.A.N, could 187 develop some independent information. This would reduce the residents' dependency on the Regional D i s t r i c t ' s planning s t a f f . 1 1 9 The association also continued to apply pressure on the Regional D i s t r i c t . The incumbent e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t representative was defeated by a member of the T.A.N, executive, C. Childress. He had repeatedly urged the T.A.N, members to prepare an o f f i c i a l community plan to protect the Islanders' l i f e s t y l e . Moreover, Childress advocated a more comprehensive approach to planning than the t y p i c a l land use planning that occurs for an o f f i c i a l community plan. He argued for "planning to ensure a balance of a c t i v i t i e s so that we don't end up a heavy industry area l i k e Squamish with a l l i t s problems" (July 12, 1983). The e f f o r t s of T.A.N, appear to be achieving some success. The Regional D i s t r i c t ' s planning schedule has been revised, and preparations for a Texada Island Community plan were i n i t i a t e d in 1984. Relations with Regional D i s t r i c t staff are also improving. E a r l i e r suspicions and c r i t i c i s m s of the Regional D i s t r i c t s t a ff have subsided and contact i s described as "f r i e n d l y " (Cawthorpe, August 3, 1983). 4. OBSERVATIONS In i t s study of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in community planning Bousfield Associates observed that, "Active public involvement was often sparked by a single issue, but attention (at least by group leaders) soon was dircted toward a l t e r i n g the ov e r a l l process of decision making" (1976: pg. 1). 188 On Texada the ad hoc c o a l i t i o n to oppose a s p e c i f i c development has progressed to a d i f f e r e n t level of a c t i v i t y . A permanent p o l i t i c a l organization has been established. The l o c a l i s t i c orientation of the community has been reduced by i t s involvement with a larger regional organization l i k e the Inter-Island A l l i a n c e . The new organization has also s i g n i f i c a n t l y broadened i t s sphere of a c t i v i t y to include other issues that are of concern to residents, such as preserving recreational a r e a s , 1 2 0 and the quality of education on the i s l a n d . 1 2 1 The organization i s s t i l l in i t s infancy and i t s chances of continued success are limited. As one c r i t i c of the new residents and ratepayers organization states, "any new organization may only f l o u r i s h for a few years and then i t w i l l just add to the number of i n e f f e c t u a l organizations" (D. Sprague, August 2, 1983). The generally poor survival record of voluntary organizations would also tend to confirm that there is a high l i k e l i h o o d of f a i l u r e . However, the survival of the c i t i z e n ' s organization i s of less importance than i t s effect on the public. W i l l there be any l a s t i n g impact in terms of changes in the attitudes, and behavior, on residents? As Nicholls points out, "there i s a danger that even with 'grass roots' problems that they might only touch the surface (the leaders) but have the general population consider the development process too t h e o r e t i c a l and impractical" (1967: pg. 66). The creation of a cohesive community, with the necessary s k i l l s and resolve to e f f e c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e in decisions that are made about planning a c t i v i t i e s that w i l l a f f e c t i t , i s a 189 time consuming process. It i s far too early in the process to make any conclusions about how ef f e c t i v e the people on Texada Island w i l l be in gaining some control over planning. But, as Sadler states, "public p a r t i c i p a t i o n , whatever general form i t takes i s a process of s o c i a l change and systems transformation' (1979: pg. 3). For Texada Islanders changes have already started with some of their fundamental b e l i e f s . The process of transformation is in motion. E. APPLICATION OF RURAL PLANNING MODEL As the T.A.N, executive discovered, when they were looking for support in their struggle with Genstar, t h e i r community is not as unique as many residents had assumed. Even the nature of the threat they perceived from the l a n d f i l l proposal i s not a l l that uncommon.122 The problems that are confronting the Islanders, and their aspirations (especially t h e i r desire to retain their familiar l i f e s t y l e , and to have some say in their community's future) are common features of rur a l communities. Halverson i d e n t i f i e d four q u a l i t i e s that a l l "hinterland rural communities" share: l o c a l p o l i t i c a l power i s r e s t r i c t e d ; the nature of d a i l y l i f e i s determined by outside powers, to which the community responds; community l i f e i s on a personal face to face basis; and the small size of the community l i m i t s the development of services and f a c i l i t i e s (1980: pg. 374). Texada c e r t a i n l y possesses a l l of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and therefore provides a r e a l i s t i c case study against which the theoretical model of r u r a l planning, and the roles for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be compared. 190 1. PLANNING 'OF' TEXADA ISLAND This approach was c l e a r l y apparent in the planning e f f o r t s on Texada of the Provincial Government. Both the 1973 proposed land use plan, which was prepared by Municipal A f f a i r s staff for the use of the Lands, Parks and Housing Administration; and the forestry planning which has been done by the D i s t r i c t and Regional planning staff of the Ministry of Forests, represent cases of senior government agencies planning rural communities primarily for external benefits. This approach to planning is obviously going to continue wherever the Provincial government feels there i s a necessity to include Texada in i t s considerations for any p r o j e c t — s u c h as the proposed Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in these two planning a c t i v i t i e s d i f f e r e d . In the creation of the 1973 Proposed Land Use Plan the planner responsible bluntly stated there "was no public p a r t i c i p a t i o n " (Quin, July 22, 1983). This was due to a perception by Quin there would be no value to the government from involving the public, and since the plan was not going to have any o f f i c i a l status the planner did not believe there was any requirement to involve the l o c a l people. This attitude, and the lack of any public p a r t i c i p a t i o n , tends to confirm the e a r l i e r observation that in t h i s approach to rural planning the role\ that the public can play w i l l depend on what value the agency perceives such p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l have for i t . The Ministry of Forests does recognize that the public has 191 a role to play in the planning process. However, the proper role is for the public to become members of recognized interest groups, and to be represented by interest group spokesmen. This approach confines the general public to a passive role, as the recipients of a public information program or a very subordinate rule in the production of information for Forest Services Planners to evaluate. Texada residents are limited in their a b i l i t y to participate in forestry planning since the D i s t r i c t Forestry O f f i c e , with which they would be dealing, focuses on the preparation of subunit and operation plans. These s i t e s p e c i f i c plans are intended to determine how to produce a spec i f i e d quality of timber out of a given area, but not to address any policy issues. Most of the general decisions, such as which areas would go into the Georgia S t r a i t s P r o v i n c i a l Forest, are made at a higher l e v e l in the Forestry hierarchy. At th i s higher l e v e l of planning the Ministry of Forests makes extensive use of the public information approach to public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . As indicated e a r l i e r the Forest Service do go to more e f f o r t than many other government agencies to gain public support for their p o l i c i e s . They have recognized there i s merit in making some information about their planning a c t i v i t i e s and p o l i c i e s public, and have produced a series of pamphlets and brochures o u t l i n i n g programs such as the Provincial Forest System. Logging operators on Texada would be consulted, and their l o c a l expertise u t i l i z e d , in the preparation of the s i t e 1 92 s p e c i f i c plans. The views of the other residents would tend to be discounted since Forest Service s t a f f interviewed believe the public do not understand forest management or harvesting praet ices. 2. PLANNING 'FOR' TEXADA ISLAND The planning episode that most closely resembles th i s approach to planning was the 1979 O f f i c i a l Regional Plan. It i s necessary to be cautious about describing the regional plan as an i l l u s t r a t i o n of planning 'for' a rural area because some Texada residents interveiwed indicated a great deal of suspicion about the Regional D i s t r i c t , and i t s motives. This suspicion was due to the apparent domination of the Regional D i s t r i c t by the D i s t r i c t Municipality of Powell River. As B. Turner stated, "in the Regional D i s t r i c t Powell River has seven votes against our one. They run the Regional D i s t r i c t for their benefit" (August 2 ) . 1 2 3 As a result the regional plan, which was done without a great deal of public involvement could be viewed as an example of Powell River attempting to exploit the Island. Despite these suspicions both of the planners who were involved in preparing the Regional Plan maintain that they were acting in Texada's best interests. Fogarty (July 13, 1983) and Ladret (July 12, 1983) both stated that those aspects of the Regional Plan that relate d i r e c t l y to Texada were based on the information and objectives that were prepared by the Texada Planning Committee in 1976. The lack of e f f o r t by the Regional D i s t r i c t to get public input into the Regional Plan was compounded by the source of the 193 data that was used for Texada. The 1976 material had never been f i n a l i z e d . Nor were the residents of Texada even given an opportunity to comment on the proposed objectives that had been prepared. Yet the information formed the basis on which Texada Island was incorporated into the Regional Plan. The Regional D i s t r i c t approached the Regional Plan as another one of the hoops through which the Pro v i n c i a l government forced l o c a l governments to jump. This sense of compulsion, and the attitude that zoning was not an appropriate tool for their areas, may have resulted in the Regional Board not attaching much importance to the document. This would explain why the Board would have l i t t l e interest in promoting active public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in preparing the plan. The planners believed that the residents should trust them to act in the best interests of the residents. Consequently they did not perceive the benefits of encouraging public involvement that would outweigh the costs. As Fogarty said, "participatory planning can produce good ideas, but i t i s very wearing on the planner" (July 13, 1983). 3. PLANNING 'WITH' TEXADA ISLANDERS The e f f o r t s to develop a settlement plan for Texada Island in 1976 appear to f a l l within t h i s category. The impetus for planning came from the regional planner, not as a l o c a l i n i t i a t i v e . But once the process was started an active volunteer group developed almost a l l of the data that was compiled, and generated a series of recommendations. What was most notable about the planning 'with' Texada residents episode was i t s domination by the professional. The 1 94 planner determined when the planning would commence, provided a lengthy l i s t of subjects that the volunteer committee had to consider, a detailed time schedule for when the committee was to do i t s work, and ultimately u n i l a t e r a l l y decided that the planning process could be terminated. The lack of followup by the Texada Planning Committee has been labelled as apathy. 1 2 4 A more l i k e l y explanation for the lack of enthusiasm in following up on the Committee's work i s that the members of the Committee had the function of the public p a r t i c i p a t i o n c l e a r l y defined in their own minds by the approach the planner took. It emphasized that there were professional r i t e s that would have to be performed by one who was i n i t i a t e d into the mysteries of planning. At the point where the process broke down most of the Committee members no doubt assumed that their work, as lay people, was almost complete. 4. PLANNING 'BY' TEXADA ISLANDERS The actions of the new Residents and Ratepayers organization are consistent with the planning 'by' the r u r a l community approach. A group of rural people were able to independently organize to oppose powerful external interests. Once organized they were able to achieve some s i g n i f i c a n t results, and in the process altered some deeply held b e l i e f s of the Islanders. They have also progressed beyond the point where their organization i s simply a single interest protest group. This progress demonstrates that planning 'by' rural people is not just an i d e a l i s t i c notion. 195 The use of this approach to planning by Texada residents demonstrates i t s p r a c t i c a l appeal. If planning 'by' the community was being advocated solely on the basis that i t complies with democratic ideology, or some theories about strengthening community t i e s , i t would be very unlikely that rural residents would have accepted i t . As Stinson discovered, in rural areas, "the environment appears to be t r a d i t i o n a l , pragmatic and person centred. Receptivity to change was low when the change appeared to be novel, r a d i c a l , i d e a l i s t i c or abstract. When change ideas were based on e a s i l y recognized values, appeared to be p r a c t i c a l , and allowed people to be involved no more than they wished to be in something of immediate interest they could be accepted" (1979: pg. 121). Its acceptance by Texada Islanders i s an encouraging indication of the potential inherent in the planning 'by' rural communities approach. The Texada experience also appears to demonstrate the a b i l i t y of the public to organize, and pursue community objectives. The steps i n i t i a t e d by T.A.N. include: forming a l l i a n c e s with other communities; creating an ongoing organization to function as the community's watchdog; and approaching planning as something that should be done in a comprehensive manner. T.A.N. received advice from Dr. Tyhurst, and members of the Inter-Island Alliance, but t h i s was more akin to l i s t e n i n g to neighbours recount their own experiences than i t was to receiving expert d i r e c t i o n . The residents are now seeking professional assistance of the Regional D i s t r i c t planner to create a community plan. They have 1 96 a l s o sought p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e to plan f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of t h e i r water reso u r c e s . T h i s approach to the use of p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r t i s e views the exp e r t ' s r o l e to be a suppo r t i n g one. The r e s i d e n t s have taken the i n i t i a t i v e , and want to e s t a b l i s h o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h e i r community, and the planners are expected to a s s i s t i n the p r o c e s s . A f u r t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n from the community's involvement in plann i n g on Texada i s that p l a n n i n g 'by' the community i s not r e s t r i c t e d to s i t u a t i o n s where there i s l o c a l autonomy. Texada I s l a n d has no formal l o c a l a u t h o r i t y , and i t s r e s i d e n t s w i l l have to work through the Regional D i s t r i c t or some other government agency, to implement the goals they i d e n t i f y i n t h e i r p l a n s . However, t h i s l i m i t a t i o n has not caused r e s i d e n t s to assume a d e f e a t i s t a t t i t u d e . They have banded together to oppose l a r g e o u t s i d e i n t e r e s t s , and have determined that i t i s p o s s i b l e to d i r e c t the l o c a l p l a n n i n g process and to have a strong r o l e i n r e l a t e d d e c i s i o n s . 197 VIII. CONCLUSIONS This thesis i s based on the premise that there are q u a l i t i e s about rural communities that are unique and which therefore j u s t i f y a s p e c i a l i z e d approach to planning. The author also contends that there are requirements that must be s a t i s f i e d i f meaningful rural planning i s going to occur. One of the most important of these requirements i s for rural people to be a c t i v e l y involved in the planning process. A. RURAL PLANNING 1. PERSISTENCE OF'RURAL SOCIETY As noted e a r l i e r there are those who view rural communities as voids between urban centres—areas that are devoid of " a l l p o t e n t i a l c r e a t i v i t y " as Paris describes non-urban areas (1975: pg. 136). Others argue that the mass society has produced a r u r a l population that i s v i r t u a l l y indistinguishable from i t s urban neighbours, and thus no specialized approach would be required to plan in rural areas. Freidmann and M i l l e r , for example, claim "what is properly urban and properly rural can no longer be distinguished" (quoted in Ford: 1978: pg. 3). Assumptions about the demise of the rural way of l i f e , and impact of the "process of massification", as E l l u l described i t (1964: pg. 323), appear to have been overly pessimistic. Certainly recent experience has demonstrated that rural population losses have decreased, and many rur a l areas are experiencing actual growth while metropolitan area populations decline. Hodge, for example, found that since the s i x t i e s most 198 small communities in Canada have been growing, and even places that did not grow in population have experienced new r e s i d e n t i a l construction. Moreover, the rural population increase was not limited to those areas where urban sprawl was occurring around metropolitan centres (1982: pg. 5). This has lead Hodge (1982b), and others, to o p t i m i s t i c a l l y describe the si t u a t i o n as a 'rural renaissance'. While rural growth may not have reached a l e v e l of intensity that j u s t i f i e s euphoric descriptions l i k e a 'renaissance', i t c e r t a i n l y does c a l l for reappraisal of the gloomy predictions that were being made about the demise of rural l i f e s t y l e s . One writer who has revised his assessment in l i g h t of the new evidence i s Olaf Larson. In 1961 he wrote that rural-urban differences were decreasing in the d i r e c t i o n of mass society. Then in 1978 he acknowledged his e a r l i e r assumptions were wrong, and that recent studies "challenge any assumption that a l l the important rural-urban differences and b e l i e f s are rapidly vanishing" (1978: pg. 110). Nor does this rural r e v i v a l appear to be simply a matter of increasing populations as assumed by some writers. They argue that "the new trend i s not so much that people are leaving the c i t y for the country, as that the c i t y i t s e l f is moving into the country" (White: 1984: pg. 3). Rural l i f e s t y l e s appear to be resistant to blending into mass society. Technology has created opportunities for mass society, but i t has not eliminated many of the d i s t i n c t i v e aspects of rural l i f e . It i s important to recognize that the impact of technology can vary. As W i l l e t s et 1 99 a l . point out, "Similar T.V., radio, movies, magazines and newspapers a v a i l a b i l i t y does not guarantee si m i l a r impact. Individuals can be selective—watching, l i s t e n i n g to, and reading those materials that are most in keeping with their prior values, b e l i e f s and interests o . . . . a sense of both superiority and i n f e r i o r i t y may provide a kind of psychological i s o l a t i o n to set the rural dweller apart from his non-rural counterparts" (1982: pg. 73). Even the ' c i t i f i c a t i o n ' process (Paris: 1975) created by technological advances does not imply that r u r a l communities w i l l necessarily become indistinguishable from urban ones. As Hodge states, " c i t i f i c a t i o n creates access to urban accoutrements; levels of [their] use vary according to community circumstances" (1981: pg. 45). As that statement implies there i s room for d i v e r s i t y and an opportunity for ru r a l l i f e s t y l e s to pe r s i s t . 2. A SPECIALIZED APPROACH TO RURAL PLANNING Given the persistence of rural society i s t h i s enough to j u s t i f y a d i s t i n c t i v e type of planning for ru r a l areas? There are numerous differences between various urban neighbourhoods, and c i t i e s , so why would the differences that planners would encounter in rural communities necessitate a special r u r a l approach? A major reason for having a r u r a l planning approach is that many planners, as a result of their t r a i n i n g and urban experience, have an urban bias. Their perception of a ru r a l community, and i t s needs, are coloured by urban values. D i s t i n c t i v e rural features tend to be overlooked, or discounted, 2 0 0 as being minor l o c a l anomalies. Planning e f f o r t s where techniques, that were developed to deal with urban situations, were simply transposed to rural settings have frequently f a i l e d . As Dybella et a l . observe, "conventional lo c a l and regional planning methods for rural areas have come under serious attack, even from members of the planning profession. The appropriateness of urban techniques, o r i g i n a l l y designed for use in metropolitan communities, is questioned. The complex language and segregated land uses of zoning and the predominant implementation techniques of many plans do not f i t the needs of many rural communities. And attitudes of planners and other professionals, perhaps more appropriate in sophisticated urban areas, appear e l i t i s t , overly technical, and patronizing" (1981: pg. 16). Planning in rural communities can not be e f f e c t i v e i f key ru r a l features are minimized in the planning process. If planning i s being conducted conscientiously then the planners w i l l have to compensate for their tendencies to view a l l issues from an urban perspective. Adopting a rural planning approach, which requires d i s t i n c t i v e r u r a l values and features to be taken into consideration, w i l l act as a counter-balance. But r u r a l planning is not a simple uniform method for planning in rural areas. This thesis argues that within the general framework of rural planning there are four d i s t i n c t approaches that can be i d e n t i f i e d . These approaches d i f f e r on the primary purpose for planning, and who controls the planning process. Examples of planning which demonstrates these various approaches were c i t e d . The four which were i d e n t i f i e d may not be exhaustive, but there appears to be s u f f i c i e n t evidence provided in the Texada example to demonstrate that rural 201 planning can not be viewed as a uniform approach to planning. The categories of: planning "of" r u r a l communities; planning "f o r " rural communities; planning "with" rural communities; and planning "by" rural communities, offer a graphic means of describing the major subdivisions within rural planning. 3. WHY BOTHER ABOUT RURAL PLANNING? Martindale and Hanson state bluntly that, "the Jeffersonian ideal of autonomous small towns has become an anachronism. Power is s h i f t i n g from l o c a l i t y to the great centres of government, industry and finance. If the small town survives at a l l i t is not as an autonomous centre of local l i f e but as a semi-dependent agency of distant power centres" (quoted in Swanson et a l . : 1979: pg. 243). If rural communities are so devoid of power, why should planners, or anyone else for that matter, be concerned about l o c a l reaction to planning? Furthermore, i f they are just dependent s a t e l l i t e s revolving around an urban metropolis, shouldn't i t be s u f f i c i e n t to plan for the center? a. Rural Opposition Clearly, one reason for rural planning is that rural people can frustrate the implementation of any planning objectives that they perceive to be inconsistent with a rural l i f e s t y l e . The limited resources allocated by governments for use in ru r a l communities makes a high degree of voluntary compliance very important. The a b i l i t y to enforce regulations is more d i f f i c u l t in rural communities when the government network i s more loosely organized. In many cases there are simply no p r a c t i c a l means of ensuring supervision and enforcement. 202 Regional d i s t r i c t s , or the Provincial Government, can enact regulations that would appear most commendable on paper, but without the manpower required to administer them in thi n l y populated areas the government's actions could r e a l l y be counter-productive since i t merely breeds contempt for the unenforceable law (and the government that attempted to solve i t s problems on paper). Manning expressed t h i s point when he stated "the legal system is ultimately and fundamentally dependent on voluntary compliance . . . . We are witnessing an increasing disregard for and decline in voluntary compliance . . . non-compliance in turn brings a kind of disrespect" (1979: pg. 25). It may well be that a rural community's main power is i t s a b i l i t y to r e s i s t and oppose an i n i t i a t i v e by a government agency. Certainly this i s a common experience for c i t i z e n organizations, who find our government system provides means to block proposals but frustrates attempts to stimulate action (Chapin and Deneau: 1978: pg. 23). However, the fact that t h i s power is a negative one does not mean that i t can be discounted by government. Unless an agency i s prepared to devote substantial resources to p o l i c i n g any changes that i t may have imposed by regulation i t must recognize the need for an approach to planning that displays some s e n s i t i v i t y to rural people's concerns. Even the most externally oriented approach, planning "of" rura l communities, must devote some attention to the residents of the community affected. In many cases th i s consideration may 203 be only on the means to minimize the impact of a proposed development on l o c a l people. As was the case with the relocation of the Arrow Lake residents (Wilson: 1973). To ignore the l o c a l population's interests t o t a l l y i s to indulge in blatant exploitation that few government agencies would feel secure enough in which to indulge. If an agency were to feel confident, and cynical enough, to pursue such a strategy i t s actions would be obvious enough to guarantee intense l o c a l resistance. The rejection of Texada residents of the 1973 document prepared by the B.C. Department of Municipal A f f a i r s i l l u s t r a t e s the level of opposition that is generated when the residents are not consulted. b. Impact On The Larger System The other, more fundamental, question of why anyone should be concerned about r e l a t i v e l y unimportant ru r a l communities has to be addressed on two l e v e l s . At an abstract l e v e l the purpose for concern about ru r a l communities relates to the author's conviction that our society must attempt to provide equity for a l l i t s members. On a more pragmatic l e v e l the concern for rur a l communities is reinforced by the knowledge that d i s p a r i t y between various areas w i l l tend to impede the growth of the enti r e system. Arguments that are based upon democratic p r i n c i p l e s , such as the need for equity, are appealing to a strongly held s o c i a l norm. Bryden, for example, describes i t as "the fundamental tenet of c l a s s i c a l democratic theory" (1982: pg. 100). Cer t a i n l y the concept of equity i s integrated d i f f e r e n t l y by 204 various segments of society, but there i s c l e a r l y a strong emotive power to any statement that c a l l s for equity. As Friedman states, "a society that f a i l s to provide for equal access to [ i t s ] resources cannot be a just society; in a more profound sense, i t cannot be a good society" (1973: pg. 6). The c a l l to redress the balance between rural and urban communities, by giving more consideration to rural needs, i s such a statement. Concern about rural communities can also be j u s t i f i e d on more u t i l i t a r i a n basis. Rural communities are firmly integrated within larger regional, and national, s o c i a l systems. There i s an extensive body of l i t e r a t u r e that describes the linkages, and the strong influence that external factors can have on these communities. What i s less often acknowledged i s that, as components of the larger system, the well-being of these l o c a l communities can affect the health of the system. If rural communities lag substantially behind urban ones there is a danger that the rural communities w i l l be caught in a downward s p i r a l of underdevelopment that becomes d i f f i c u l t to stop. The dangers of this type of d i s p a r i t y were i d e n t i f i e d recently by a resident of Northwest B r i t i s h Columbia. He observed that, "We mine molybdenium, copper, s i l v e r and gold. We also build new mines, produce pulp, generate e l e c t r i c i t y and soon w i l l produce methanol. We don't clothe ourselves, feed ourselves and don't r e a l l y house ourselves, we just assemble the materials. Increasingly, what we s e l l requires fewer people to produce—increasingly, we find ourselves dependent on a society that produces few necessities and imports more goods. V i r t u a l l y every scheme for 'developing' our own area reinforces these weaknesses" (Northwest 205 Study Conference: 1982: pg. 1). Once rural communities have reached this unenviable position they become a perpetual drain upon the resources of the larger society. Local resources are incapable of supporting even basic services and external support becomes ess e n t i a l . At the same time the emotional distance between urban and rural people lengthens as r u r a l animosity builds. This resentment can have a d e s t a b i l i z i n g e f f e c t on the entire system as rural people support populist movments that offer extreme solutions and look for urban c u l p r i t s to blame for rural d i s p a r i t i e s . 1 2 5 B. MEANINGFUL RURAL PLANNING Planning must be approached as a t o o l , and not as an esoteric art form that is conducted for i t own sake. Rural planning has to be examined in this context to determine how useful a tool i t provides. 1. ROLE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION D'Amore writes, "Our society is in a state of rapid t r a n s i t i o n , so i t i s more important now than ever before that people from a l l walks of l i f e have an opportunity to voice their concerns and have their say in decisions a f f e c t i n g their neighbourhood community, c i t y , province and nation" (1977: pg. 110). In rural planning public p a r t i c i p a t i o n becomes more than 'important', i t i s a c r i t i c a l factor in determining i f rural planning e f f o r t s w i l l be e f f e c t i v e . As previously indicated the involvement of rural people i s one of the p r i n c i p a l means to ensure that the planning being conducted is rural planning. 2 0 6 Once a r u r a l p l a n n i n g a p p r o a c h i s a d o p t e d , r e c o g n i t i o n o f r u r a l v a l u e s , s u c h a s s e l f - r e l i a n c e , a n d r u r a l s u s p i c i o n s o f p l a n n i n g s h o u l d r e s u l t i n a c t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . A c o m p o n e n t o f t h e ' p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c ' n a t u r e o f r u r a l s o c i e t y i s a h i g h e m p h a s i s on t h e v a l u e o f i n d i v i d u a l s . S t u d i e s o f r u r a l s o c i e t y h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t r u r a l p e o p l e do b e l i e v e i n i n d i v i d u a l i s m and l o c a l a u t o n o m y . 1 2 6 W h e t h e r t h e s e b e l i e f s a r e b a s e d on a r e a l i s t i c a s s e s s m e n t o f r u r a l c o n d i t i o n s i s i m m a t e r i a l . The i m p o r t a n t p o i n t i s t h a t t h e y a r e s t r o n g l y h e l d by many r u r a l p e o p l e . As V i d i c h a n d Bensman p o i n t o u t , s u c h b e l i e f s a r e i m p o r t a n t s i n c e t h e y a c t u a l l y c o n d i t i o n t h e way p e o p l e a c t - - p e o p l e w i l l make an e f f o r t t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e i r s e l f - i m a g e ( 1 9 6 0 : p g . 3 1 ) . T h i s f a c t was a l s o d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e T . A . N . o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t e m p h a s i z e d t h e I s l a n d ' s h i s t o r y o f s e l f - h e l p . T h u s t h e r e i s a s t r o n g m o t i v a t i o n f o r r u r a l p e o p l e t o be i n v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n m a k i n g f o r t h e i r c o m m u n i t y s i n c e a s e n s e o f i n v o l v e m e n t i n d e c i s i o n m a k i n g i s i m p o r t a n t t o t h e i r s e l f e s t e e m . A l s o on a v e r y p r a c t i c a l b a s i s p l a n n e r s s h o u l d s u p p o r t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n r u r a l p l a n n i n g p r o g r a m s . Many o f t h e u n i q u e a s p e c t s o f r u r a l a r e a s a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e v a l u e s o f r u r a l r e s i d e n t s . H a v i n g r u r a l p e o p l e p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s w i l l h e l p t o e n s u r e t h a t a r u r a l p l a n n i n g a p p r o a c h i s a p p l i e d . T h e y w i l l e m p h a s i z e t h o s e v a l u e s t h a t a r e s i g n i f i c a n t t o r u r a l r e s i d e n t s , a n d p r o v i d e i n d i c a t i o n s o f l o c a l p r e f e r e n c e s . S u c h i n f o r m a t i o n c a n mean t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f c i t y p l a n n i n g t o a r u r a l a r e a , a n d u t i l i z i n g 207 a rural planning approach that recognizes there are d i s t i n c t i v e l y rural factors that must be considered. Rural suspicions about planning were previously discussed in d e t a i l . It i s the author's contention that such suspicions, and the opposition they can generate, are strong enough that they can only be overcome i f rural people f e e l confident that they can have a s i g n i f i c a n t role in the planning process. 2. EVALUATING APPROACHES TO RURAL•PLANNING The various approaches, and t h e i r application on Texada Island, have been described in d e t a i l in this thesis. As they were analyzed i t became apparent that some approaches are more ef f e c t i v e than others. E f f e c t i v e in the sense, that they w i l l produce enduring r e s u l t s . Their recommendations are capable of being implemented and gaining popular support, while other 'plans' are relegated to a shelf to c o l l e c t dust. Planning "of" a rural community may produce some very short term results for the agency that commissioned the plan, but i t is incapable of providing any long term d i r e c t i o n . It i s simply too divorced from the aspirations of l o c a l residents to gain any support from them. Instead, as the Newfoundland government discovered, in small communities " i f planning i s generally seen to be merely an a r b i t r a r y , and apparently unreasonable, set of r e s t r i c t i o n s , the Plan has already f a i l e d " (Project Planning Associates: 1968: pg. 51). Planning "for" rural community i s premised on a laudable intention, but i t has great l i m i t a t i o n s in i t s a b i l i t y to relate to real rural concerns. Hodge and Qader claim that "planning i s 208 most e f f e c t i v e for small communities when their plans and other planning instruments can be used to solve their own l o c a l problems" (1983: pg. 190). With planning "for" rural communities, a major d i f f i c u l t y is that the issues to be dealt with are based on outsiders' perceptions of r u r a l communities. As Christiansen-Ruffman and Stuart state, "potential problems are also created by interactional processes stemming from d i f f e r e n t world views. Citiz e n s and each type of professional, looking at the same si t u a t i o n , tend to see very d i f f e r e n t factors as relevant . . . this includes d i f f e r e n t perspectives on time and strategies" (1977: pg. 80). This may appear to be a d i f f i c u l t y that communication could overcome. But having witnessed a number of standardized zoning regulations applied to small rural communities that contained provisions such as the maximum height for fences on r e s i d e n t i a l properties and detailed r e s t r i c t i o n s for parking private vehicles, the author i s s c e p t i c a l about how e a s i l y i t would be to overcome such perceptual differences. Planning "with" a r u r a l community has more promise. In t h i s approach the main l i m i t a t i o n i s the expert domination of the planning process. Bregha claims that "nothing w i l l destroy the essence of p a r t i c i p a t i o n more quickly than direction by 'professionals'" (1977: pg. 123). The basic problem with professionals di r e c t i n g the process has been explained by Friedmann. As he points out planners u t i l i z e processed knowledge which creates "distorted images of r e a l i t y " (1973: pg. 105). When processed knowledge i s dominant i t leads to emphasis on technical aspects and ignores the need for action on s p e c i f i c problems. Friedmann argues that what i s necessary i s a 209 process of mutual learning where, "planners and c l i e n t each learn from the other--the planner from the c l i e n t s personal knowledge, the c l i e n t from the planner's technical expertise. In this process, the knowledge of both undergoes a major change. A common image of the situation evolves through dialogue; a new understanding of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s for change is discovered. And in accord with t h i s new knowledge the c l i e n t w i l l be predisposed to act" (1973: pg. 185). Because planning "with" a rural community originates from a concern over a l o c a l issue i t is possible that the authority may be prepared to adopt a more responsive attitude. The public may have a s i g n i f i c a n t role in the planning exercise, however the planning process i t s e l f remains beyond their c o n t r o l . As with the 1976 Texada planning committee they may work very hard to achieve an agenda and schedule that is set by the external authority. D'Amore summarizes the l i m i t a t i o n s inherent in these three approaches when he states, "planning which prepares a program and then t r i e s to ' s e l l ' i t to the affected public i s no longer e f f e c t i v e in our society. Equally inappropriate i s planning that asks the publics to choose between alternatives they have not had a role in formulating" (1977: pg. 102). Is planning "by" a rural community any more e f f e c t i v e than the other approaches? Advocating that r u r a l people, with minimal technical s k i l l s and very l i t t l e control over government decision making, should control the planning process w i l l be dismissed by many as an i n t e l l e c t u a l i l l u s i o n , a noble sentiment but just not ' p r a c t i c a l ' . Such a dismissal would have overlooked several pertinent aspects about t h i s approach to 210 rural planning. This thesis has focused on planning, and public involvement, in l o c a l issues. On these issues there is often room for external government and l o c a l interests to converge since the resolution of rural problems can contribute p o s i t i v e l y to the larger s o c i a l system. Moreover, planning "by" a rural community does not imply a sharp d i v i s i o n between the public and government. Unlike the proponents of ' c i t i z e n power' who view soc i a l groups as being in d i r e c t competition for power, 1 2 7 this thesis argues that planning "by" r u r a l communities can be a more co-operative process. The l o c a l community must define the problems, and i d e n t i f y solutions, while government can provide technical support and a s s i s t with implementation. As Stohr and Taylor indicate, in their study of development, "development 'from below', however, may also require certain external inputs. In order to f a c i l i t a t e . . . development p o l i c i e s must involve some assistance from central decision making units" (1981: pg. 475). Hodge provides a suggestion as to how t h i s partnership can be achieved. He proposes that p r o v i n c i a l governments should, "Reverse the present p a t e r n a l i s t i c system and make the province an 'interested party' on l o c a l planning which must be advised of proposed l o c a l planning resources and could object as other interested parties do. That i s , urge small communities to plan, provide the technical assistance they need, and then l e t them get on with i t intervening only to protect the p r o v i n c i a l interest" (1976: pg. 17). These feature of planning "by" a rural community may explain why such an approach can e x i s t , but they can not explain why i t may be an e f f e c t i v e form of planning. To explain why i t 21 1 works where other approaches f a i l i t i s necessary to look at other aspects of t h i s approach. One reason for i t s success is that this approach corresponds with rural values. As a result i t generates more l o c a l support. Stohr claims that underdeveloped communities have a "higher potential for informal small-scale interaction (interpersonal s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s , group id e n t i t y , small-scale s o l i d a r i t y , active c u l t u r a l participation) than have materially highly developed areas" (1981: pg. 44). These are attributes that are important in planning "by" r u r a l communities. They contribute to the consensual form of decision making that i s necessary to ensure that decisions are supported by community in general, and not just r e f l e c t i n g a small interest group within the community. Planning "by" a rural community is also e f f e c t i v e because i t i s part of a larger process of rural development. The planning a c t i v i t i e s w i l l i d e n t i f y community goals, and suggest means to achieve them. But then, as part of a rural development process, there w i l l be a conscious e f f o r t to implement the plan's recommendations. This i s an advantage that this approach to planning has over other forms of planning. Too often planning and implementation are segregated. The planning a c t i v i t y produces a set of recommendations, and then the planning staff turn their attention to other issues. When planning is part of a process l i k e rural development i t then becomes possible for planning to be a continual process. Instead of one brief e f f o r t that produces a fixed plan which 2 1 2 r e s i s t s revision as experience dictates, there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y for planning to become responsive. One f i n a l reason why planning "by" a rural community i s l i k e l y to be more e f f e c t i v e is the degree of l o c a l i n i t i a t i v e that is inherent in t h i s approach. While some external assistance may be required this approach has the a t t r a c t i v e feature, for government agencies, of being the least demanding on their resources. Emphasizing 'self-help' the community can actually perform most of the work involved .in planning by i t s e l f . Communities l i k e Texada, working through resident organizations such as T.A.N., have been able to demonstrate that rural people are capable of independent action. This i s becoming an increasingly s i g n i f i c a n t feature as a sluggish economy dictates that there are fewer resources to u t i l i z e for programs l i k e rural planning. This thesis has argued that planning in rural areas should be conducted in a manner that recognizes unique rural values and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . It also contends that public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a c r i t i c a l component of e f f e c t i v e r u r a l planning, and that the more attention that i s given to involving the community's residents the more productive the planning process can become. It contends there is a positive linear c o r r e l a t i o n between increased public involvement and meaningful planning. In a thesis that argues for greater public involvement in rural planning i t would seem appropriate that the concluding comments should come from ru r a l people. At a workshop for rural residents on the problems and goals of modern rural communities 213 one of the group's main conclusions was: "If r u r a l c i t i z e n s , of any background, can get together to talk over their views, decide on a role, and seek support and advice, then a l l the energy, s k i l l s and i n t e l l e c t invested in ru r a l people could be mobilized in a manner consistent with their low-key rural image. They could resolve some of the challenges that face them--such that coping with change introduced from somewhere else could be replaced by change controlled in terms of di r e c t i o n and pace by rural people themselves" (Fuller and Starr: 1977: pg. 61). 214 IX. CHAPTER NOTES  Notes on Chapter I 1 One basic d i s t i n c t i o n in rural planning i s between the i n d u s t r i a l i z e d nations and the rest of the world. The concept of what is ru r a l even d i f f e r s in th i s case. 2 Generally research on rural areas and small communities in Canada has shown that a high proportion of them are unincorporated. Hodge and Qadeer refer to the 1976 census which i d e n t i f i e d approximately 9500 towns and v i l l a g e s and note that almost 80% of these were unincorporated (1983, p. 14). 3 The Islands Trust was established in 1974 and includes the following inhabited Islands (as well as noninhabited Islands that were excluded due to their designation as Indian Reserves): Bowen Island Gambier Island North Pender Island Denman Island Hornby Island Saltspring Island Gabriola Island Lasqueti Island Saturna Island Galiano Island Mayne Island South Pender Island (source: B r i t i s h Columbia Islands Trust Act), Dec. 13, 1974). " The duties and r e s t r i c t i o n s on Improvement D i s t r i c t s are prescribed in the Municipal Act (Revised Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia 1979, Chapter 290, consolidated October T5~, 1982) , Sections 822-856. Some of the differences between an Improvement D i s t r i c t and a municipality are: i) Cabinet can a r b r i t r a r i l y create or eliminate an Improvement D i s t r i c t . A municipality can only be dissolved following approval by a majority of i t s e l e c t o r s . i i ) An Improvement D i s t r i c t may only deal with those basic services that are i d e n t i f i e d in i t s Letters Patent. A municipality may opt to become involved in a variety of areas where the Act has provided general enabling powers. i i i ) E l e c t i o n procedures for Improvement D i s t r i c t are far less formal, and are held in conjunction with an annual general meeting. iv) A l l Improvement D i s t r i c t by-laws are only v a l i d i f the Inspector (e.g., a p r o v i n c i a l c i v i l servant) approves them, and he has authority to reject a by-law i f he considers i t to be in the "interest of the d i s t r i c t or province." No such r e s t r i c t i o n exists on a municipality's l e g i s l a t i v e powers. v) The debts of an Improvement D i s t r i c t are guaranteed by the Province. No such reassurance i s offered to 215 municipalities. vi) The electors of Improvement D i s t r i c t s have certain rights that are more similar to the 'New England town meeting' than they are to the province's m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . They have voting rights at the annual general meeting, and also have the right to select the auditors that the Improvement D i s t r i c t must use to prepare their audit. It i s differences l i k e the above that lead Morley e_t a l . to conclude that while Improvement D i s t r i c t s are corporate bodies, administered by elected trustees, they are not to be included in the same c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as municipalities (1983, p. 240) Notes on Chapter II 5 One s t r i k i n g feature of modern rural areas i s their heterogenity. This feature has been repeatedly observed in the l i t e r a t u r e , for example, G i l f o r d et a l . (1981: p. 12); Hodge (1981: p. 44); Swanson et a l . (1979: p. 262); Dillman and Hobbs (1982: p. 13); Larson (1978: p. 110); N e l l i s (1980: p. 22); Isberg (1981: p. 15); Matthews (1976: p. 83). 6 P. Sorokin and C. G. Zimmerman are credited with the creation of the rural-urban continuum model. Their nine dimensions included: size of community; household size; occupation; density; s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n ; types of s o c i a l interaction; sex r a t i o ; dependancy r a t i o ; and educational l e v e l s . A. brief summary of th e i r model i s contained in Hodge and Qadeer (1983). 7 To the extent that 'mass society' i s developing and there is a convergence between rural and urban areas in s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the dimensions included in the rural-urban continuum developed for r u r a l sociology are not as valuable as they were o r i g i n a l l y . 8 There i s a considerable variety as to how to approach the population si z e , and what the actual numbers should be. One approach is to use "the people and communities in the nation's [U. S.] nonmetropolitan counties—counties that have no c i t y with as many as 50,000 people" (Dillman and Hobbs: 1982). Brinkman argues that the appropriate cut off point i s where an area contains no c i t y of over 25,000 people (1974: p. 31). Others u t i l i z e a figure of 10,000 (Hodge, 1982a; Swanson et a l . : 1979) . Another approach i s to use census figures which define rural areas as those which have less than 2,500 people (McRae: 1980) . It even goes to the extreme where Robertson contends that his d e f i n i t i o n of "small town is r e a l l y small", and emphasizes communities of 300 to 1500 people (1980: p. 12). 9 The influence of population size on rural values has been c i t e d by a number of authors. Some of the arguments include: 2 1 6 Larson argues that in values and general outlook there are substantial rural-urban differences and that these vary consistently by size (1978: p. 110); Sanders claims that, due to size, interpersonal d i r e c t relationships are most important to the residents (1977: p. 122); Willets et a l . also state that small size leads to a dominance of personal s o c i a l relationships and the comparative slowness in a l t e r i n g t r a d i t i o n s (1982: p. 70); Qadeer states "the smallness promotes a personalized, informal, face to face integration . . . giving cohesion to a small community" (1979: p. 109). F i n a l l y , Cohen c r i t i c i z e s the planning profession for not recognizing that "difference in community size may constitute substantive differences in kind" (1977: p. 4). 1 0 Some of the writers who describe rural residents' use of space as a buffer are: N e l l i s (1980); Hahn (1970); Runka (1980); and Hodge and Qadeer (1983). 1 1 There have been attempts to distinguish between rural and wilderness areas. Frederick Smith attempts to do i t by focusing on the ecosystem. He argues that rural land i s "agriculture and forest (land) where natural systems are modified and put to work producing useful products." Wildlands, in his terms, are where "natural ecosystems f l o u r i s h undisturbed" (1980: p. 110). Such a d i v i s i o n seems u n r e a l i s t i c in modern society. It is hard to v i s u a l i z e an area where the natural ecosystem has not been modified in some fashion by man, and i t seems inappropriate not to view as wilderness those extensive areas that are included within tree farm areas or mineral claims, but which have not been exploited. U n t i l such time as the resource extraction actually occurs there i s a potential for wilderness a c t i v i t i e s , and the p o s s i b i l i t y that the future use of the area may change. A more useful method to distinguish rural from wilderness areas would be to u t i l i z e population and density variables. In this thesis a wilderness area i s defined as a geographical area that has too few permanent inhabitants (there may be seasonal a c t i v i t i e s or temporary camps in such areas) to provide s u f f i c i e n t s o c i a l interaction to constitute a community (this again involves density of settlement since i t would be possible to have situations where a very small number of people could be viewed as a community i f they were located in close enough proximity for s o c i a l interaction, or a situation where several hundred people would not be considered a community because their physical i s o l a t i o n from each other would preclude regular i n t e r a c t i o n ) . 1 2 'Community' i s often seen as being an entity consisting of ' l i k e minded' individuals, or as Biddies defines i t , "community i s an achievement, not something given by reason of geographic residence. It i s not fixed; i t changes as a result of experience or purposeful e f f o r t " (1965: p. 77). But for purposes of t h i s thesis such a d e f i n i t i o n is too a l l encompassing. Instead the term w i l l be used in the same manner as, 217 "Parsons, Warren, and Sanders, among others, who view the community as a social system composed of people l i v i n g in the same spa t i a l relationship to one another, who share common f a c i l i t i e s and services, develop a common psychological i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the l o c a l i t y symbols and together frame a common communications network" (Chekki: 1979: p. 5). 1 3 Hodge (1982a: p. 5) points out that "one of the most widely held views i s that small town growth results from the suburbanizing effects of metropolitan centres." This assumption is obvious in the work of those writers who describe the increasing dominance of mass society. Paris, for example, states that the rural population growth i s because the "urban encroaches into the countryside and v i l l a g e residents become more urban when the c i t y moves to them" (1975: p. 136). However, as pointed out previously, this assumption has not been supported by s t a t i s t i c s on recent rural growth. In both the United States (Beale: 1978; Swanson et a l . : 1979) and Canada (Hodge: 1982b) i t has been demonstrated that metropolitan proximity has l i t t l e influence on small centre growth. 1 * Hahn (1970) provides an excellent description of how r u r a l and suburban residents approach issues from d i f f e r e n t perspectives, and the potential for c o n f l i c t between them. 1 5 Martinez-Brawley refers to one of these e f f o r t s . "Ruburban, a geographical mezzanine between the r u r a l and suburban. Ruburbs are small country towns barely within commuting distance of c i t y centres, where agrarian values rub--and sometimes chafe—elbows with middle class attitudes" (1984: p. 18). 1 6 Other writers who define rural areas s p e c i f i c a l l y on the basis of their physical environment include: Dyballa et a l . , who claim "rural people are more l i k e l y to earn their l i v i n g d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y from the areas's natural resources" (1981: p. 1); and Youmans, who defines rural areas as "areas that are dependent s o c i a l l y , c u l t u r a l l y and economically on natural resources" (1983: p. 3). 1 7 Unincorporated rural areas are faced with the same problems as incorporated rural communities, of organizing for c o l l e c t i v e action and achieving some general agreement of community goals, but they must contend with the additional problem of having to get a senior l e v e l of government to act on their behalf whenever f i n a n c i a l resources or legal action (such as making planning results ' o f f i c i a l ' ) are required. As Hodge and Qadeer point out: 218 "The small [unincorporated] center in t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s , thus, dependent on the council of the 'parent' incorporated area not only to appreciate the planning problems of the small center but also to be w i l l i n g to undertake planning" (1983: p. 187). 1 8 Examples of writers who state there i s a need to focus on l o c a l issues, but who f a i l to define what they consider a l o c a l issue, include: Hodge (1976); Williams (1980); and Hahn (1970). 1 9 There i s considerable discussion in the public p a r t i c i p a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e about who should have the right to be consulted and how to identify the affected public. This tends to be very prevalent in the work by government agencies. Some of the writers who deal with this issue include: Wengert (1971) who discusses at length the question of "who should p a r t i c i p a t e " ; Cupps who states administrators face "the dual questions of representation and legitimacy: precisely whom do public interest groups speak for and how accurately do they r e f l e c t the viewpoints of their constituency" (1977: p. 450); Tyler who talks about public p a r t i c i p a t i o n as "a process by which s p e c i f i c segments of a population—a 'public', i d e n t i f i e d by a decision making body, a c t i v e l y share in the decision making process" (1977: p. 17); Creighton who c a l l s public p a r t i c i p a t i o n a "process by which interested and affected individuals and organizations are consulted and included in the decision making" (1981: p. 8); and Heberlein who talks about the need to i d e n t i f y "representative publics" (1976: p. 6). 2 0 Downs makes thi s point when he describes the "issue-attention cycle." After a period of "euphoric enthusiasm" the popular support for a public issue often drops off gradually as i t becomes recognized that the costs of solving a problem could be very high and "would also require major s a c r i f i c e s by large groups of the population. The public thus begins to r e a l i z e that part of the problem results from arrangements that are providing s i g n i f i c a n t benefits to someone" (1978: p. 40). Notes on Chapter III 2 1 Heberlein argues that "the demand for d i r e c t public involvement i s closely related to t r u s t " (1976: pg. 1). This is also related to the comments of other writers that " p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a therapeutic device to overcome the alienation and anomie of large numbers" (Wengert: 1971: pg. 27); Coppock also feels alienation i s the main reason for demands for more p a r t i c i p a t i o n (1977: pg. 208). 2 2 Such an argument i s made by Thompson who states, 219 "One rationale for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s that i t provides the opportunity for those interests in society that do not have economic power to redress the weakness by influencing the exercise of p o l i t i c a l power" (1979: pg. 18). But t h i s argument is c r i t i c i z e d by others who view public p a r t i c i p a t i o n as being merely a middle class t o o l . It i s f e l t that such p a r t i c i p a t i o n is not available to lower classes because they do not have the competence to participate e f f e c t i v e l y . The l i t e r a t u r e presenting t h i s argument i s reviewed in d e t a i l by Bromling (1976). 2 3 The concern that public p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l weaken the representative system i s c i t e d by: Lucas: 1977: pg. 49; Burton: 1977: pg. 15; Schatzow: 1977: pg. 151; and Perks: 1979: pg. 298. 2 * The power of non elected groups has been extensively documented. Some of the writers who have pointed to the declining influence of elected representatives include: Chapin and Deneau: 1978; Perks: 1979; Burton: 1977; and Lucas: 1977. 2 5 Hampton summarizes th i s position when he states, "types of democracy l i e along a continuum from representative to participatory in a manner that can be obscured by conventional bipolar analysis. We do not have either representative democracy or p a r t i c i p a t o r y democracy; we have a system which in i t s complexity i s a mixture of both. The introduction of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n techniques into the planning process implies a movement along the continuum from representative to participatory democracy" (1977: pg. 29). 2 6 The argument for devolution of authority i s based on the need for d i r e c t interaction between the decision makers and the public. It i s referred to by: Aleshire: 1970; Brydon: 1982; Friedman: 1973; Burton: 1977. 2 7 Benefits that decision makers anticipated are i d e n t i f i e d by the following writers: a) improved information—Heberlein: 1976; F a r r e l l et a l . : 1976; Williams: 1982; and Cullingworth: 1984. b) more creative s o l u t i o n s — L e v i n e : 1965; Hampton: 1977; and Hodge and Hodge: 1977. c) reducing opposition and improving implemention—Heberlein: 1976; Levine: 1965; Cooley: 1979; Bregha: 1973; and F a r r e l l et a l . : 1976. d) educate—Thompson: 1979; and F a r r e l l et a l . : 1976. 220 2 8 Costs which decision makers anticipate are i d e n t i f i e d by the following writers: a) time and money—Aleshire: 1970; Thompson: 1979; Heberlein: 1976; Sewell and Coppock: 1977. b) u n r e a l i s t i c expectations (or expectation-delivery gap as some describe i t ) - - P r o s s : 1975; McNiven: 1974; Aleshire: 1 970. c) nontechnical interference--Fagence: 1977; Corry: 1979, Cupps: 1977; Schatzow: 1977. d) radicals take over--Schatzow: 1977; Cupps: 1977. e) confusion about process--McNiven: 1974. 2 9 Alienation and a sense of powerlessness because of the complexity of modern i n s t i t u t i o n s is c i t e d by many as a reason for the increasing demands for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Some of the writers who identify t h i s factor are: D'Amore: 1977: pg. 99; Thompson: 1979: pg. 18; Coppock, 1977: pg. 207; F a r r e l l et a l . : 1 976. 3 0 The self esteem factor can be very important to individuals as Verba and Nie pointed out: "under conditions of democratic norms one's self esteem i s seriously damaged i f one has a l l decisions made for him and does not p a r t i c i p a t e in those that af f e c t his own l i f e . From some perspective, lack of a b i l i t y to participate can imply lack of f u l l membership within the system" (1977: pg. 5). 3 1 Costs and benefits described by Aleshire (1970) were: costs 1) time and money 2) i n e f f i c i e n t decision making 3) promise-delivery gap 4) r a t i o n a l decision making suffers 5) problem of defining who is the c i t i z e n 6) no protection for 'unrepresented' (future generations, or large area interests) 7) demand for premature action 8) need for technical s k i l l s to promote p a r t i c i p a t i o n 9) c o n f l i c t over choices benefits 1) p a r t i c i p a t i o n as democratic right 2) check & balance on technocrats 3) forum for p r i o r i t y s e l l i n g 4) leadership development 5) issue development 6) create issue p o l i t i c s instead of personality p o l i t i c s 7) c i t i z e n as iconoclast (test of 'assumptions' about public desires) 8) unifying planning ( s o c i a l & physical structures) 3 2 The most publicized attempt to e s t a b l i s h a h i e r a r c h i c a l view of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n was Sherry Arnstein's "ladder of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n " (1969). She started from the premise that public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be equated with c i t i z e n power, and ranked d i f f e r e n t approaches on the basis of how they contribute to (or 2 2 1 d e t r a c t f r o m ) t h e c r e a t i o n o f c i t i z e n p o w e r . H a m p t o n p r o v i d e s a g o o d c r i t i q u e o f A r n s t e i n ' s ' l a d d e r ' . H e a r g u e s t h a t s u c h a n h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i s : " s i n g u l a r l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n a d i s c u s s i o n o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p l a n n i n g . . . . a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n p r o g r a m m e m a y c o n t a i n e l e m e n t s f r o m v a r i o u s p a r t s o f A r n s t e i n ' s t y p o l o g y ; a n d d i f f e r e n t a c t o r s i n t h e p r o c e s s m a y b e s t a n d i n g o n d i f f e r e n t r u n g s . T h e r e s u l t i n g c o n f l i c t s a r e p a r t o f t h e n o r m a l p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s o f r e c o n c i l i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t i v e o f t h o s e p a r t i c i p a t i n g a n d m a k e i t d i f f i c u l t t o p l a c e a n y p a r t i c u l a r p a r t i c i p a t i o n p r o g r a m w i t h i n a n h i e r a r c h i c a l t y p o l o g y " ( 1 9 7 7 : p g . 3 2 ) . 3 3 A r n s t e i n ' s f r a m e w o r k c o n s i s t s o f e i g h t l e v e l s o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n t h a t s h e v i e w s a s p r o g r e s s i n g f r o m : t h e b o t t o m l e v e l o f m a n i p u l a t i o n ( w h i c h i s r e a l l y n o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n ) ; t h e r a p y ; i n f o r m i n g ; c o n s u l t a t i o n ; p l a c a t i o n ; p a r t n e r s h i p ; d e l e g a t e d p o w e r ; a n d u l t i m a t e l y c i t i z e n c o n t r o l ( o r f u l l c i t i z e n p o w e r ) . 3 * T h e m o r e e l a b o r a t e f r a m e w o r k s d e s c r i b e d i n d i c a t e t h e s u b s t a n t i a l v a r i e t y t h a t c a n o c c u r i n t h e w a y s i n w h i c h p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n c a n b e a p p r o a c h e d . R e s t r i c t i n g t h e n u m b e r o f a p p r o a c h e s t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s t h e s i s w i l l o b v i o u s l y d i s g u i s e s u b t l e f a c t o r s . H o w e v e r , t h e f o c u s o f t h i s t h e s i s i s q u i t e s p e c i f i c . I t d e a l s w i t h t h e w a y s i n w h i c h p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n c a n b e u t i l i z e d , i n r u r a l p l a n n i n g , f o r a r e a s t h a t h a v e m i n i m a l l o c a l c o n t r o l . W i t h t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o d i s c a r d t h e m o r e e l a b o r a t e a p p r o a c h e s t o p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I n d e s c r i b i n g t h e g e n e r a l a p p r o a c h e s t o p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n t h a t a p p e a r a p p r o p r i a t e f o r s u c h a r e a s i t m u s t b e e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e s e s h o u l d b e s e e n a s o v e r l a p p i n g c a t e g o r i e s . A l s o w h i l e t h i s t h e s i s i s c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e c o n t r o l i n d e c i s i o n m a k i n g f o r l o c a l p r o b l e m s t h a t r e s i d e n t s c a n a c h i e v e i t d o e s n o t i m p l y t h a t t h e r e w i l l b e a n y i n e v i t a b l e c l i m b u p , t h r o u g h t h e v a r i o u s a p p r o a c h e s , t o s o m e p i n n a c l e w h e r e ' c i t i z e n p o w e r ' ( a s A r n s t e i n u s e s t h e t e r m ) i s a c h i e v e d . I t i s d i s t i n c t l y p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e l e v e l o f r e s i d e n t c o n t r o l o v e r d e c i s i o n m a k i n g w i l l v a c i l l a t e g r e a t l y a t v a r i o u s t i m e s , w i t h t h e d i f f e r e n t i s s u e s a n d a c t o r s t h a t m a y b e i n v o l v e d . 3 5 T h i s t h e s i s r e f e r s t o t h e n e e d f o r o p e n a c c e s s t o t h e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g p r o c e s s b e c a u s e i t h a s t o b e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s w h o w i s h t o b e i n v o l v e d a r e g o i n g t o v a r y , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e i s s u e a n d t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s . A s M c N i v e n s t a t e d , " t h e r e a l q u e s t i o n i s n o t w h e t h e r e v e r y o n e i s g e t t i n g i n v o l v e d , o r h o w m a n y , b u t i n m a k i n g s u r e t h a t e v e r y o n e h a s s o m e f o r m o f a c c e s s t o t h e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g s y s t e m w h e n t h e y s o d e s i r e t o h a v e i t " (1976: p g . 154). 222 3 6 Better decisions are not inevitable from public involvement. Data on l o c a l conditions i s subject to individual interpretation, and is f i l t e r e d through the preconceptions of the residents. As a result the information provided by residents may also contain inaccuracies. Furthermore, the values and desires of the residents may be short term and s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d . Notes on Chapter IV 3 7 This is the approach of those who advocate 'growth centres' and who claim that benefits w i l l ultimately ' t r i c k l e down' to rural areas. This concept has come under increasing c r i t i c i s m , but s t i l l strongly influences the action of many government agencies. The ' t r i c k l e down' effect was described by Hirschman (1958). The same phenomena was described in more c r i t i c a l terms by Myrdal (1959) as the 'backwash' e f f e c t . 3 8 Runka points out that the strong emphasis on private property rights is not simple because rural people are adhering to the conservative p r i n c i p l e s of Jefferson. For r u r a l residents there are p r a c t i c a l reasons for emphasizing private property r i g h t s , "many regard r u r a l land as their source of income, an i n f l a t i o n hedge, their saving account, part of the family h i s t o r y — a n d their own personal commodity. Obviously, any planning that interferes with these b e l i e f s i s bound to meet opposition" (1980: pg. 19). 3 9 Some of the writers who have documented the rural oppostions to planning are: Halverson: 1980; Runka: 1980; Nichols: 1967; Lassey: 1977; Ford: 1978; N e l l i s : 1980; Isberg: 1981; Getzels and Thurow: 1980; Hahn: 1970. 4 0 The importance of individual families i s related to the large number of s o c i a l interconnections that individuals have in r u r a l communities (Martinez-Brawley: 1984); and the fact that r u r a l society tends to be personalized (Sanders: 1977: pg. 122). 4 1 As Baer points out planning is so pervasive in modern society because our system i s in a constant state of c r i s i s , due to the "currently explosive rate of change [which] produces perturbations at intervals that are shorter than the relaxation time of our i n s t i t u t i o n a l system (1974: pg. 59). In order to achieve a more stable society Baer argues that i t i s necessary to be able to regulate the l e v e l of variety so i t does not exceed the c r i t i c a l point. He sees planning as a "variety attenuator" (pg. 91) that can reduce the range of variety to the point i t can be dealt with by the system. 4 2 The examples of successful rural s e l f - h e l p projects are lim i t e d , and therefore any optimism about t h i s approach has to be very tentative. But some do e x i s t : Hugh Bodmer has 223 documented the success of the Regional Resource Project in Alberta (1980); Thompson (1977), and P e l l and Wisner (1981) document cases of rural community development a c t i v i t i e s ; and Stinson (1979) describe how a r u r a l community organized to provide s o c i a l services. 4 3 Mannheim distinguishes between 'substantive' and 'functional' r a t i o n a l i t y , on that basis. Substantive planning would start by asking questions about 'what' and 'why' planning is going to occur; while functional planning accepts these basic questions as being givens, and starts with 'how' questions (from Friedman: Retracking America: pg. 30). 4 4 Self-help is one approach to community development. It emphasizes public p a r t i c i p a t i o n because " i t i s the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of people learning to do for themselves that distinguishes the self-help approach from others that assume people must be directed" (1982: pg. 268). 4 5 The Biddies argue that "the process of community development provide a promising means for the democratization of planning" (1965: pg. 155). 4 6 This thesis refers to rural planning in a general manner since i t i s the opinion of the author that the pr i n c i p l e s regarded for rural planning are applicable to a l l forms of rural planning. Qadeer subdivides rural planning into two categories: sectoral planning, to meet s p e c i f i c rural needs; and area development planning which is "addressed to the community as a whole and not to any one sector of a l o c a l i t y " (1979: pg. 113). However, even when these d i v i s i o n s are made he does not advocate a separate set of p r i n c i p l e s for each category. 4 7 Some of the writers who claim urban bias has influenced planning for rural areas include: Cherry: 1976; Cohen: 1977; Hahn: 1970; Hodge: 1976; Isberg: 1981; Lassey: 1977; N e l l i s : 1980; Dyballa et a l . : 1981; and Lapping: 1981. 4 8 Matthews has reviewed DREE's e f f o r t s and his conclusion i s that "the basic thrust of Canadian regional development has been directed towards phasing out rural areas and toward encouraging urbanization and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n " (1976: pg. 125). 4 9 An example of the preference of rural residents for s o c i a l relations over physical services is Goudy: 1977. 5 0 The dangers of resource dependency are the basis of the Staples theory. A description of the implications of resource dependency for B r i t i s h Columbia i s found in T. Gunton's 1981  Resources, Regional Development and Provincial P o l i c y : A case  study of B r i t i s h Columbia. 5 1 The concern about lack of l o c a l expertise i s i d e n t i f i e d by: Swanson et a l . : 1979; Dillman and Hobbs: 1982; Isberg: 1981; 224 Qadeer: 1979; and Dyballa et a l . : 1981. 5 2 This sense of l o c a l pride has been documented in many of the so c i o l o g i c a l studies that have been done of small communities, including Vidich and Bensman: 1960; Mathews: 1976; Goudy: 1977; Haynes: 1979. 5 3 The persistence of rural values, and recent studies that support these claims was discussed in Chapter I I . 5 4 Some examples documenting the personal orientation of rural residents are: Sanders: 1977; Qadeer: 1979; Stinson: 1979; and Dyballa et a l . : 1981. 5 5 For the purpose of thi s thesis, 'external agencies' w i l l include regional d i s t r i c t s . For many unincorporated rural areas in B.C. a regional d i s t i c t i s the i r f i r s t t i e r of government (and i s often described as l o c a l government). However, because the representation of rur a l areas on the Regional D i s t r i c t Board is very s l i g h t , and the functions of the regional d i s t r i c t are unclear for many rural residents, i t is appropriate to describe the regional d i s t r i c t as an external agency. 5 6 At the time of writing this thesis the B.C. government had tabled l e g i s l a t i o n in the Pr o v i n c i a l Legislative. Assembly that would eliminate the mandatory aspect of settlement plans. 5 7 Cases when the public are involved to some extent in decision making include: Arnstein's (1969) description of situations where the public receive a degree of p o l i t i c a l control in a partnership, delegated power, and in rare occasions even as c i t i z e n control; F a r r e l l et a l . (1976) identify cases where residents can share in decision making through joint planning, delegated authority and self determinism; Bregha (1973) sees joint planning and delegated authority as feasible within the current p o l i t i c a l system. 5 8 The time factor in rural planning i s c i t e d by Dyballa et a l . They claim: "Work with rural l o c a l governments is a time consuming process . . . programs with tight time schedules run the risk of being counter productive i f planners attempt to force action on issues" (1981: pg. 150). This i s also reflected by Friedman who argues that participant planning is "extraordinarily demanding of time" (1973: pg. 77). Notes on Chapter V 5 9 Wilkinson, for example, states i t i s a 'fact that no one 225 controls the outcome of interaction in a s o c i a l f i e l d " (1978: pg. 121). 6 0 Descriptions of how public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be used as therapy are provided by: Arnstein: 1969; Burke: 1968; and F a r r e l l et a l . : 1976. 6 1 The Biddies states, "B a s i c a l l y , community development i s a s o c i a l process by which human beings can become more competent to l i v e with, and gain some control over l o c a l aspects of a fr u s t r a t i n g and changing world. It i s a group method for expediting personality growth which can occur when geographic neighbours work together to serve their growing concept of the good of a l l " (1965: pg. 78). An excellent short description of the process of community development, and a l i s t of related l i t e r a t u r e , i s contained in A. Stinson (ed.): 1979. Canadians P a r t i c i p a t e . 6 2 Within the general f i e l d of community development this i s referred to as the 'technical assistance approach'. It assumes: a) someone knows something that another does not; b) someone decides that the potential recipient needs help; c) a provider-receiver relationship is established (Cramm and Fisher: 1980: pg. 49). 6 3 Powers and Moe point out that even many of those groups, such as environmental organizations, that profess an interest in ru r a l areas are urban agrarians "with an urban p o l i t i c a l bias and a great d i v e r s i t y in motivation for 'helping' rural a r e a s — n o t a l l of which turn out to be helpful from the perspective of those in rural areas" (1982: pg. 16). 6 4 Alinsky's concept of community organizing are described in his various handbooks for organizers, such as Rules for Radicals In Canada community organizing has been less frequently used, but was u t i l i z e d , with varying degrees of success in the 1960's and early 1970's. An example of Canadian experience with community organizing i s to be found in Keating: 1975. The Power  to make i t happen. 6 5 The term 'community building' refers to e f f o r t s to encourage people to learn to work together, to form strong personal t i e s between individuals within a geographic community, and to develop new s k i l l s and personal resources that w i l l allow the public to have more control over their own l i v e s . 6 6 L i t t r e l l defines the self help approach as "a process that assumes people can come together, examine the i r situations, design strategies to deal with various segments of their 226 surroundings and implement plans for improvement" (1980: pg. 19). 6 7 Examples of what community economic development corporations are, and can do, are provided i n : Thompson: 1977. People do i t  a l l the time; and P e l l and Wismers: 1981. Community p r o f i t . 6 8 This type of f a i l u r e i s demonstrated in the e f f o r t s that were made to make the a f f a i r s of l o c a l government subject to public scrutiny. The Municipal Act requires that a l l l o c a l government bodies must make their minutes and by-laws accessible to the public (as well as holding a l l their council meetings in pub l i c ) . But thi s public a c c e s s i b i l i t y consists of maintaining a copy of the required material in the l o c a l government o f f i c e where interested members of the public can come to examine i t . Very few people are even aware of the existance of many of the materials that are o f f i c i a l l y designated as public documents, let alone their right to demand the opportunity to regularly examine them. 6 9 F a r r e l l et a l . (1976) provide an excellent summary of the various techniques that could be u t i l i z e d to extend information to the public. 7 0 An example of how government u t i l i z e s this argument to r e s i s t public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning i s contained in Pross (1975) study of Nova Scotia. 7 1 This c r i t i c i s m i s p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e l y to be considered a personal attack at lo c a l l e v e l s of government where p o l i t i c i a n s are often individuals who 'volunteer' due to a sense of c i v i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . As T. O'Riordan observes, "at the l o c a l l e v e l . . . many p o l i t i c i a n s see themselves as a l t r u i s t i c c i t i z e n s . . . C i t i z e n p o l i t i c i a n s feel indignant of vituperative public c r i t i c i s m and are esp e c i a l l y distraught when c r i t i c i s m stems from a hard core of 'professional p a r t i c i p a t o r y c i t i z e n s ' who, while carrying none of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of public o f f i c e , s t i l l get much pu b l i c i t y over their allegations of p o l i t i c a l non-responsiveness" (1977: pg. 165). 7 2 Effect of t h i s belief in individualism i s described by: Guildford et a l . : 1981; and the Rural Education and Development Association: 1979. 7 3 One example i s the manual prepared on water resource planning by Skidmore, Owings, and M e r r i l l (1979). It provides a step by step approach for a community to follow in planning for i t s water supply. 7 4 Lucas and Franson describe the fr u s t r a t i o n that the general 227 public experience when government departments act in a contradictory manner. They point to the situation in B r i t i s h Columbia where the Pollution Control Board was encouraging p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and giving c i t i z e n s access to i t s f i l e s ; while other p r o v i n c i a l departments were planning resource development projects in secret (1975: pg. 97). 7 5 Getzels and Thurow maintain that the same situation applies for planners, "much of the work of technical assistance is accomplished through one's a b i l i t y to search out available f i n a n c i a l assistance. While many planners tend to reject this type of work in favour of t r a d i t i o n a l planning work, a rural planner must demonstrate considerable s k i l l in 'grantsmanship'" (1980: pg. 11). 7 6 Some of the authors ' who c i t e a lack of p o l i t i c a l understanding as a f a i l u r e of c i t i z e n s groups are: Draper: 1977: pg. 37; Lucas: 1977: PG. 51; Chapin and Deneau: 1978: pg. 23; and Halverson: 1980: pg. 278. 7 7 A r t i c l e s which refer to government's problem of determining who to consider the "affected public" include: Tyler: 1977; Haberlein: 1976; Williams: 1982; Wengert: 1971; and McNiven: 1 974. 7 8 A recommendation for an e x p l i c i t policy w i l l be seen as naive by those who argue that public policy is created in an incremental fashion. Undoubtedly many government decisions are made on an incremental basis; and even i f there i s a formal policy established there i s no guarantee that i t w i l l not be overriden in the name of expediency. But there i s reason to believe that a policy to id e n t i f y the affected public could be created because of i t s u t i l i t y to decision makers. 7 9 Other writers have i d e n t i f i e d s k i l l s within rural communities that could be u t i l i z e d in the planning process. Some of those who advocate the use of these s k i l l s are: Robertson: 1980; N e l l i s : 1980; Williams: 1980. 8 0 This thesis used the terms monitoring and evaluation to mean: 1) monitoring--supervision of ongoing a c t i v i t i e s to ensure compliance with decisions that followed a planning exercise; 2) evaluation—examination of the effectiveness of the planning process for possible further modifications. 8 1 Some examples of SPARC 'S a c t i v i t i e s include the following publications: 1975. Community r e a l i t i e s ; 1976. Survival in the  seventies, organizational s k i l l s resource materials; and 1979. 228 Getting organized: Community education and c i t i z e n t raining  project in B r i t i s h Columbia. Notes on Chapter VI 8 2 The data obtained on the Island's history i s a composite of information from a variety of sources. The most extensive 'history' of Texada was prepared by the Texada Centennial Committee in 1960. Their book, Texada, provides an extensive account of Texada from 1871 to 1960. Another valuable source of h i s t o r i c a l data was a videotape production e n t i t l e d 'Texada Island Pioneers Night' that was produced by the Old Age Pensioners Organization with the technical f a c i l i t i e s of Powell River Cable T.V. Company, and aired in June, 1983. Other sources include anecdotal information from personal interviews; the subcommittee reports prepared for the Texada- Planning Committee in 1976; and the Texada Island Proposed General Land  Use Plan prepared by the Ministry of Municipal A f f a i r s in 1973. 8 3 E a r l i e r attempts to provide a comprehensive inventory of Texada's resources were: i . Texada Island: Proposed General Land Use Plan, prepared by the Department of Municipal A f f a i r s in 1973. While i t was e n t i t l e d a draft land use plan, i t was r e a l l y more an e f f o r t by the p r o v i n c i a l government to compile an inventory for i t s own use. i i . Approaches to Planning in the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t . This report was prepared by students from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning in 1974. This report dealt with the entire regional d i s t r i c t but i t s information base included Texada Island. i i i . Texada. Provides a good description of the physical features of the Island—from a resident's point of view. 8" This figure for mining makes i t the largest employer retirement is not viewed as an occupation. In the Texada survey 34.6% indicated they were r e t i r e d ! 8 5 G r i l s e Point was the s i t e that Genstar Corporation proposed to use as a l a n d f i l l s i t e for garbage from the G.V.R.D. In view of i t s limited size, proximity to a highly productive marine area, and the d i f f i c u l t y that would occur in containing leachate ( i t i s not a 'hole' as Genstar implied, but rather a f l a t bench), the idea of u t i l i z i n g i t to store garbage appears ludicrous. But as Texada Action Now (TAN) pointed out i t is a s t r i p of l e v e l land of approximately 12.8 acres that i s adjacent to the waterfront (at an elevation of 15 f t . ) , something that 229 exists nowhere else in the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t , and making i t highly desirable for future development. In addition i t already has road access, e l e c t r i c a l power to the s i t e , and is located at the main harbour on Texada. 8 6 An example of the mine's productivity i s provided in the Dept. of Municipal A f f a i r s proposed land use plan. In 1971 the mine shipped: 542,479 tons of iron ore; 9,626 tons of copper concentrate; 56,916 ounces of s i l v e r ; and 1,569 ounces of gold (197 3: pg. 17). 8 7 The implication of being in a P r o v i n c i a l Forest is that i t is then more f u l l y under the control of the B.C. Forest Service. Portions of the land can be removed for other purposes, at five year i n t e r v a l s , with forestry's approval, but in the interval Forestry has f u l l management. The P r o v i n c i a l Forests are c a l l e d integrated resources management areas in the Government's publications but i t i s made very clear that the p r i n c i p a l objective i s to manage these areas for timber production. 8 8 The rejection of tourism on account of the ugliness of the quarries' i s interesting since one of the t o u r i s t attractions in Powell River is a tour of the pulp m i l l , which combines a unattractive i n d u s t r i a l appearance with a p a r t i c u l a r l y strong unpleasant odor. 8 9 Statements such as t h i s were a f a i r l y common reaction to questions about the relationship between Powell River and Texada. The language used was very similar in most cases (although some added a reference to clams and oysters) so i t seems inappropriate to attribute this comment to any one individual — i t i s more of a l o c a l c l i c h e . 9 0 The following r e t a i l and personal services are available on the Island. Vananda: Grocery store (general market) Var iety/hardware Service station Hairdresser Insurance/real estate o f f i c e Hotel/cafe/lounge Post o f f i c e Plumber Transport company G i l l i e s Bay: Medical C l i n i c Bank Grocery store (general market) Stationary store Laundermat Service station Cafe/lounge Motel Liquor outlet E l e c t r i c a l contractor 230 9 1 During the 7 months of 1983 that the new terminal was in operation there were a t o t a l 2004 f l i g h t s transporting 3400 people (Texada Island Lines, No. 3, Dec. 1, 1983). 9 2 This is the population estimate used by TAN in their material. A figure of 1500 has also been referred to by the Regional D i s t r i c t . The recent census count was 1147 which would indicate a continued decline. However, there i s a f a i r l y high l e v e l of transients, and a number of squatters who are not p a r t i c u l a r l y anxious to come to the attention of any o f f i c i a l agency (even census enumerators). The population also fluctuates seasonally as 'summer residents' u t i l i z e their property on the Island. 9 3 Information on Ideal's plans comes from interviews with: K. Johnston, assistant manager of Ideal's operations and chairman of Texada Chamber of Commerce. OPC's plans were reported in the Powell River News, March 28, 1982 and August 15, 1984. 9 * At the present time the following subdivisions (legal or informal) are in progress: 1) G i l l i e s Bay—a proposed subdivision of 12 lots at the head of the bay. It i s being opposed by the Improvement D i s t r i c t since the l o t s are too small, and there i s not adequate provision for disposal of domestic sewage. 2) Cox's Lagoon--property owned by Aim Forests, which i s proposed for development as a mobile home recreational subdivision. 3) Dyck Island--'informal' subdivision of a small i s l e t immediately adjacent Shelter Point Regional Park. Because of i t s informal nature the number of units to be constructed i s unknown. At present time an 1-1/4 water l i n e i s being i n s t a l l e d to the i s l e t . 4) Mouat Bay--proposed for a bare land strata subdivision. 5) Cook Bay--lots are currently being advertised a this s i t e . The approximately 400 acres are being subdivided into l o t s of 10 acres. 6) Shelter Point Road--a small subdivision of 4 lots at 5 acres each i s being completed. 7) J&G Logging--the road access for the Shelter Point subdivision i s going to be u t i l i z e d to create a subdivision of 20 l o t s . 8) Crescent Bay (Woodhead)--a small subdivision of six acreage lo t s has occurred. Development i s complete and lots are on sale. 9) Crescent Bay (Acquarian)—a proposed subdivision was rejected and i s expected to proceed on a partnership basis. 10) Sprague s u b d i v i s i o n — a small subdivision of 8 acreage l o t s developed in 1981. Most of the l o t s have been sold and occupied. 9 5 This loss of control to summer residents was documented on Hornby Island by G. H. Lubkowski. 1972. A planning strategy  for water supply: Hornby—a case study (M.A. thesis, University 231 of B r i t i s h Columbia). 9 6 There are currently two such 'nonsubdivisions' proceeding. Dyck Island, which i s in the centre of the Shelter Point Park area is being developed by i t s owners. Since the I s l e t i s a rock outcrop there i s no way that subdivision could be allowed due to inadequate provisions for sewage. The owners w i l l circumvent the subdivision regulations by s e l l i n g partnerships instead of individual l o t s . The other development i s Acquarian Company at Crescent Bay. Again subdivision was refused on technical grounds, but w i l l proceed informally. Notes on Chapter VII 9 7 This the claim that Robert Williams makes in his evaluation of the Ministry of Forests' public involvement program (1982: pg. 4). 9 8 The Provincial Forest system has been described in a number of publications issued by the Forest Service and the Ministry of Lands, Parks, and Housing, including Establishing P r o v i n c i a l  Forests and Provincial Forests: Multiple Use of B.C.'s Forests  and Range Resources. 9 9 Even without a Provincial Forest designation the Forest Service are able, by lobbying with the Ministry of Lands, Parks, and Housing, to strongly influence land use decisions for the area (interviews: Whitehorn, August 9, 1983, and Sorken, August 17, 1983). 1 0 0 Logging on Texada i s seen as being competitive, despite the poor q u a l i t y timber, because operating costs are cheaper on the Island. The current assessment by Forestry o f f i c i a l s i s that there is s u f f i c i e n t timber to sustain existing operators. No c o n f l i c t s are foreseen for the next 20 years. Even then the problem w i l l not be a shortage, but rather unequal access to timber by operators. 1 0 1 Details on Powell River Forest D i s t r i c t operations and planning program were obtained in interviews with J. Coulter and S. Whitehorn, August 9, 1983. 1 0 2 Representatives of the Forest Service and Regional D i s t r i c t reported their personal s a t i s f a c t i o n with the l e v e l of consultation and co-operation (interviews with Whitehorn, August 9, 1983, and Ladret, July 12, 1983). 1 0 3 While ' s i g n i f i c a n t ' is an imprecise description of the extent of Forestry's program i t was the descriptive adjective used by Forest Service o f f i c i a l s . There were no actual d o l l a r values available for what had been spent on Texada since the funding i s i d e n t i f i e d for the D i s t r i c t ' s operations and Texada 232 is only one component of the d i s t r i c t . The s i l v a c u l t u r e that has occurred on Texada includes spacing, planting, and f e r t i l i z i n g programs. 1 0 a When the Texada Island Proposed General Land Use Plan i s compared against the form and content recommended for o f f i c i a l settlement plans in the Ministry's 1979 Technical Guide for the  Preparation of O f f i c i a l Settlement Plans (pg. 15-21) i t i s hard to detect any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . 1 0 5 Some developments, such as the subdivision southeast of G i l l i e s Bay are consistent with the recommendations in the document. But disposal of Lot 289 in Vananda to a private individual was in c o n f l i c t with the recommendation that this l o t be reserved as a picnic and park s i t e . The 1976 sale of lo t s along the highway near Cranby Lake also c o n f l i c t e d with strong recommendations against ribbon development, and the need to protect community watersheds. 1 0 6 By themselves none of the population centres on Texada are large enough to form an e f f e c t i v e community. Co-operation between a l l centres is necessary to provide basic community f a c i l i t i e s and organizations. For that reason they are best viewed as 'rura l neighbourhoods' in the way that Warren used the term: "Students of the rural community have also found an additi o n a l s o c i a l unit between the individual family and the community—the r u r a l neighbourhood. Ty p i c a l l y with a place name known to i t s inhabitants, the neighbourhood covers a smaller area than the community, and while i t does not have an extensive complement of i n s t i t u t i o n a l services i t may have one or a few of them" (1963: pg. 23). 1 0 7 Sorken indicated that Lands Branch receives one inquiry about a v a i l a b i l i t y of land on Texada approximately every two weeks. Most of these requests, and formal applications are for a very s p e c i f i c area, crown land in the v i c i n i t y of Shelter Point (adjacent to Harwood Regional Park), and end of pavement. 1 0 8 The Regional D i s t r i c t ' s planning policy was the subject of considerable c r i t i c i s m . A p e t i t i o n was submitted to the Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s by D i s t r i c t representatives. A submission was made by the Texada Island Advisory Planning Commission to the Select Standing Committee on Municipal A f f a i r s , complaining about the policy's "ecofreak" bias and the unrepresentative nature of the proposed environmental protection committee (A Planning & Development Policy for Texada Island. Presented to the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters and Housing, July 18, 1974). Individual representatives for various mining and forestry interests pointed out to the Board that their proposed policy was u l t r a vires when i t proposed that 233 mining or forestry a c t i v i t i e s would require land use permits from the Regional D i s t r i c t . J . Parr, Gulf Island Trust, informed the Board that her "general impression i s that the by-law i s somewhat naive" ( l e t t e r to Regional D i s t r i c t , July 4, 1975). 1 0 9 Planning a strategy to cope with the mine's closure, and the Island's economic future would have been a great help. But the planning process underway was not viewed by the planner as being 'development planning'. The emphasis was, on the compilation of a conventional land use plan which would conform to the provisions of the Municipal Act's requirement for an o f f i c i a l settlement plan. As Ladret indicated (interview, August 4) the Regional D i s t r i c t views planning for economic development as the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of other agencies—such as the Powell River Economic Development Commission. 1 1 0 Baker claims that a common co-optive mechanism that government agencies use in rural areas i s to formally appoint committees that are unrelated to the community p o l i t i c a l system (1971: pg. 90). 1 1 1 An expression of the concern over the 'pushing' by the planner was expressed by B. Wells who stated "the Regional D i s t r i c t was in a big panic to have i t done" (interview, August 23) . 1 1 2 The Regional D i s t r i c t , in response to requests from ind i v i d u a l residents, i n i t i a t e d a by-law to protect the Vananda Watershed in 1977. The by-law proposed to regulate the construct of r e s i d e n t i a l dwellers adjacent to the lakes which constitute Vananda's water supply. When the by-law was submitted to a public hearing the affected property owners attended and strongly opposed the infringement on what they saw as their r i g h t s . In the face of thi s opposition the by-law was withdrawn. The issue presumably would have been dealt with in a comprehensive way in the settlement plan. 1 1 3 In fact the Regional D i s t r i c t i n i t i a t e d planning for a Texada Settlement Plan in March 1984. It i s following the same format as the 1976 episode, but the Planning Committee was to be structured in a way that ensures representation from a l l areas of the Island, and from a l l the i n f l u e n t i a l groups of the Island. 1 1 4 The Lasqueti Island O f f i c i a l Community Plan was adopted in 1976. It describes the process by which planning was i n i t i a t e d , "The people of Lasqueti Island, concerned with the impact of increased population and development on the atmosphere and ecology of the island and the surrounding waters, have found i t desirable to create a community plan that w i l l preserve and protect the island by stating some clear but general guidelines 234 for i t s future" (pg. 1). 1 1 5 Some of these interviewed who s p e c i f i c a l l y referred to e a r l i e r examples of group action were: Wells, Childress, L. Diggon, and Cawthorpe. 1 1 6 For purposes of si m p l i c i t y this thesis refers to 'Genstar Corporation' as 'Genstar'. This should be considered as an abbreviation for Genstar Conservation Systems, a wholly owned subsidiary of Genstar Corporation. It i s the parent company who controls quarries on Texada Island. It also d i r e c t l y controls Seaspan International Ltd. which would barge the garbage to Texada. 1 1 7 Legal preparations had included retaining a lawyer and obtaining a f i n a n c i a l commitment of $15,000 from the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t to provide funding for a legal b a t t l e . 1 1 8 Writers who identify the tendency for rural communities to see themselves a unique and superior to neighbouring communities include: Vidich and Bensman (1960: pg. 30-31); F a r r e l l et a l . (1976: pg. 3); and Biddle and Biddle (1965: pg. 77). 1 1 9 These arguments were presented at the T.A.N, meeting on May 29 when a motion was passed to provide some f i n a n c i a l assistance to a graduate student who was prepared to do a thesis on the subject of planning for Texada's water resources. The public were also urged to f u l l y co-operate with the student research projects since this was an opportunity to have some input. 1 2 0 T.A.N, in May 1983 attempted to gain support for the establishment of a park, and the preservation of other recreational areas. Concern was expressed about the rapidly diminishing number of public areas that were available to residents for recreational use. 1 2 1 The educational budget cut-back resulted in the closure of the G i l l i e s Bay school in June, and the consolidation of a l l grades at Vananda with a l l high school children being f e r r i e d to Powell River. T.A.N, has become involved in a c t i v i t i e s i n i t i a t e d by parents to prevent the cut in educational services on the Island. 1 2 2 T n e current dispute over a hazardous waste dump near Ashcroft i s an i l l u s t r a t i o n . Another recently reported case from Oxford, Ontario, bears many s i m i l a r i t i e s to the Texada case. In that case a hamlet (Salford) and the Township that represents i t have been locked in a legal battle with the County of Oxford over a new l a n d f i l l s i t e near Salford. The Township has argued that "the geology was so complex that hydrological predictions were unreliable. There was a risk of contamination to wells, ponds, recharging areas, and aquafiers that the Board could not accept" (Municipal World, Sept. 1983, pg. 226). 235 1 2 3 Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t u t i l i z e s 2,000 as a voting unit. Representation is the following basis: a population of then determined on Population ('76 census) Votes Directors D i s t r i c t of Powell River E l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t A El e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t B E l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t C (Malaspina) (Powell River) (Southview) E l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t D (Texada) E l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t E (Lasqueti) 13,674 786 1 ,006 1 ,848 1 ,409 258 The formula for cal c u l a t i n g the number of votes and number of Directors is contained in the Municipal Act, sec. 770. It provides: a) number of votes is obtained by dividing the population by the voting unit, and where the resulting quotient is not an integer using the next highest integer b) number of directors i s obtained by dividing the number of votes by f i v e , and where resulting quotient is not an integer using the next highest c) no director s h a l l have more than 5 votes. 1 2 4 During the 1983 confrontation with Genstar several Islanders blamed the residents' apathy for the e a r l i e r planning f a i l u r e , including: Childress (T.A.N, meeting minutes, May 29); and H. Diggon (interview: July 25). The Regional D i s t r i c t also argues that Texada residents were opposed to planning, and c i t e d the 1976 f a i l u r e as an indication of their apathy (interview: Ladret, July 12). Notes on Chapter VIII 1 2 5 Richards and Pratt (1979) provide an excellent summary of the history of Canadian and American populism. However, rural tendencies to support populist movements should not be dismissed as simply a h i s t o r i c a l phenomena. The creation of groups l i k e the Farm Survival Movement attest to i t s continuing appeal. Halverson also observed in his study of rural B.C. that people had a "populist consciousness at once suspicious of government, yet r e l i a n t on and expecting government to deliver up immediate material prosperity. We have a history of government by populists who are w i l l i n g to s a c r i f i c e long term policy to deliver short term tangibles" (1980: pg. 373). 236 1 2 6 Some of the studies that stress the rural b e l i e f in 'rugged individualism' are Rural Education and Development Association: 1979; Vidich and Bensman: 1960; G i l f o r d , Nelson and Ingram: 1981; and Blackwood and Carpenter: 1978. 1 2 7 Typical of the ' c i t i z e n power' proponents are: Arnstein, who states " p a r t i c i p a t i o n with r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of power is an empty and f r u s t r a t i n g process for the powerless" (1969: pg. 216); and Keating, who states public p a r t i c i p a t i o n e f f o r t s are f u t i l e as long as the "main in g r e d i e n t — t h e power to decide--is s t i l l where i t always was, with the government" (1976: pg. 36). 237 LITERATURE CITED Alberta Department of the Environment. 1982. "Report on public p a r t i c i p a t i o n conference". Edmonton, A l t a . Aleshire, Robert. 1970. Planning and c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n : costs, benefits and approaches. Urban A f f a i r s Quarterly. Alinsky, Saul. 1971. Rules for r a d i c a l s . New York: Random House. Arnstein, Sherry. 1969. "A ladder of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . American Institute of Planners (AIP) Journal 35: 216-224. Axworthy, L. 1979. "The p o l i t i c s of urban populism: A decade of reform". In Urban and regional planning in a federal  state: The Canadian experience. Edited by W. Perks and I. Robinson. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutinson and Ross. Baker, William. 1971. "Community development in changing r u r a l society". In C i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n : Canada. Edited by James Draper. Toronto: New Press. Beale, Calvin. 1978. "People on the land". In Rural USA: Persistence and change, pp^ _. . Edited by T. Ford. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Beer, Stafford. 1974. Designing freedom. Toronto: CBC Publicat ions. Biddle, William and Biddle, Loureide. 1965. The community development process: The rediscovery of l o c a l i n i t i a t i v e . New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Blackwood, Larry and Carpenter, Edwin. 1978. "The importance of anti-urbanism in determining r e s i d e n t i a l preferences and migration patterns". Rural Sociology 43: 31.-47. Bodmer, Hugh. 1980. "Regional resources project no. 1: An innovative approach to economic and s o c i a l development". Plan Canada 20/2 (January 1980): pg. 81-90. Booher, David E. 1974. "A theory of participatory planning". M.S. thesis. University of Tennessee. Bousfield Associates. 1976. C i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the preparation of municipal plans. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Housing, Planning Act Review Committee. Bowles, Roy. 1982. L i t t l e communities and big industrie. Toronto: Butterworth. 238 Bregha, Francis. 1977. "Further directions for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in Canada". In Involvement and environment  v o l . 1: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public  P a r t i c i p a t i o n , pp. 120-126. Edited by B. Sadler. Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Bregha, Francis. 1973. Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning policy  and programme. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Cultural and Recreation. Brinkman, G. 1974. "The condition and problems of nonmetropolitan America". In The development of rural  America. Edited by G. Brinkman. Lawrence KS: University Press of Kansas. Bromling, Alvin I. 1970. "Resident p a r t i c i p a t i o n in rural development: A comparative analysis of the Alberta experience". M.A. thesis. University of Alberta. Brydon, Kenneth. 1982. "Public input into policy-making and administration: The present si t u a t i o n and some requirements for the future". Canadian Public Administration 25/1: 81-107. Burke, Edmund. 1968. "Citizen p a r t i c i p a t i o n strategies". Journal of the American Institute of Planners 34: 287-294. Burton, A. W. and Johnson, R. 1976. Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning: A review of experience in Scotland. Glasgow: The Planning Exchange. Burton, Thomas. 1977. "A review and analysis of Canadian cases in public p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . Involvement and environment  Vol. II: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public  Partieipation , pp. 3-16. Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Canadian Council on Rural Development. 1969. Rural Canada  1970: Prospects and problems. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. Canham, R. 1979. C i t i z e n involvement strategies in community  growth issues. Western Regional Extension Publication, no. 21. C o r v a l l i s , OR: Oregon State University, Western Rural Development Center. Chapin, Henry and Deneau, Denis. 1978. C i t i z e n involvement in  public policy-making: Access and the policy making process. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development. Chekki, D. 1979. "A prolegomena to community development and planned change". In Chekki, D. (ed.), Community  development: Theory and method of planning change, (pg. 3-26). New Delhi, India: Vikas Publishing House. 2 3 9 Cherry, Gordon E. (ed.). 1976. Rural planning problems. London: Leonard H i l l . Christenson, James. 1982. "Community development". In Dillman, D. and Hobbs, D. (eds.), Rural society in the  U.S.: Issues for the 1980s. Boulder: Westview Press. Christiansen-Ruffman, Linda and Stuart, Barry. 1977. "Actors and processes in c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n : Negative aspects of reliance on professionals". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment v o l . I: Proceedings of Canadian  Conference on Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n ^ (pg. 77-119). Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Cohen, Richard. 1977. "Small town r e v i t a l i z a t i o n planning: Case studies and a c r i t i q u e " . Journal of the American  Institute of Planners 43/1 (January 1977): 3-12. Cooley, Nancy. 1979. "The Britanna Services Centre: A lesson in participatory planning and design". In Perks, W. and Robinson, I. (ed.), Urban and regional planning in a  federal state: The Canadian experience, (pg. 338). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutinson, and Ross. Coppock, J. T. 1977. "Postscript". In Sewell, D. and Coppock, J. (eds.), Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning. London: Wiley. Correy, J. D. 1979. "Sovereign people or sovereign government". In Kroeker, H. V. (ed.), Sovereign people of  sovereign governments. Montreal: Ins t i t u t e for Research on Public Policy. Coughenour, M. and Busch, L. 1978. "Alternative futures for rural America: The cloudy c r y s t a l b a l l " . In Ford, T. (ed.), Rural U.S.A.: Persistence and change. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Cramm, Larry and Fisher, Frederick. 1980. "The technical assistance approach". In Christenson, J. and Robinson, J. (ed.), Community development in America, (pg. 48-63). Ames: Iowa State University Press. Creighton, James L. 1981. The public involvement manual. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books. Cullingworth, J. Barry. 1984. Canadian planning and public and p a r t i c i p a t i o n , Research paper no. 148, Centre for Urban and Community Studies. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto. Cupps, Stephen. 1977. "Emerging problems of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . Public Administration Review37: 478-486. 240 D'Amore, Louis J. 1977. "St. John 1986: An experiment in anticipatory democracy". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement  and environment v o l . II: Proceedings of Canadian Conference  on Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n , (pg. 99-110). Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Dahms, Fred. 1983. "Wroxeter, Ontario: The anatomy of a "dying" v i l l a g e " . Small town 14/2 (September-October 1983): 17-23. Downs, Anthony. 1972. "Up and down with ecology—the 'issue-attention cycle'". The Public Interest 28 (pg. 38-50). Draper, James. 1977. "Evolution of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in Canada". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment  vo l . I: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public  Participation(pg. 26-42). Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Dyballa, Cynthia, Raymond, L. S., and Hahn, Alan J. 1981. The  Tug H i l l program: A regional planning option for rural  areas. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Elder, P. S. 1975. "The pa r t i c i p a t o r y environment in Alberta". In Elder, P. S. (ed.), Environmental management and public  p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation. E l l u l , Jacques. 1964. The technological society. New York: Vintage Books. Ford, Thomas. 1978. "Contemporary rural America: Persistence and change". In Ford, T. (ed.), Rural USA: Persistence and  change. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Fagence, Michael. 1977. C i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. F a r r e l l , G. M. , Melin, J. P. and Stacey, S. 1976. Involvement:  A Saskatchewan perspective. Friedmann, John. 1973. Retracking America. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press. Friedmann, John. 1973. "The public interest and community p a r t i c i p a t i o n : Toward a reconstruction of public p o l i c y " . Journal of the American In s t i t u t e of Planners (January 1973): 2-7. F u l l e r , A. and Starr, M. (ed.). 1977. The changing ru r a l community: Problems and goals. Proceedings of a workshop ser i e s . Publication No. 1. Guelph: Rural Development Outreach Project, University of Guelph. 241 Getzels, Judith and Thurow, Charles (eds.). 1980. Rural and  small town planning. Chicago: American Planning Assoc i a t i o n . G i l f o r d , Dorothy, Nelson, Glen, and Ingram, Linda. 1981. Rural  America in passage: S t a t i s t i c s for p o l i c y . Washington: National Academy Press. Goudy, W i l l i s . 1977. "Education of l o c a l attributes and community s a t i s f a c t i o n in small towns". Rural sociology 43: 371-381 . Gunton, T. I. 9181. Resources, regional development and  p r o v i n c i a l policy: A case study of B r i t i s h Columbia, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives no. 7. n.p. Hahn, Alan. 1970. "Planning in rural areas". Journal of the - American Institute of Planners 36/1 (January 1970): 44-49. Halverson, Douglas. 1980. "Local planning for rural B r i t i s h Columbia: Responding to the metropolis". In In search of  place (pg. 368-382). Proceedings of Canadian Institute of Planners National Conference 1980. Kingston, Ont. Hampton, William. 1977. "Research into public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in structure planning". In Sewell, D. and Coppock, J. (eds.,), Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning, (pg. 27-42). London: Wiley. Hoynes, Alan. 1979. "Western voices: Socio-economic development viewed by community leaders". Proceedings of  the Rural Development Forum, Alberta. Edmonton, A l t a : Rural Education and Development Association. Heberlein, Thomas. 1976. P r i n c i p l e s of public involvement, Staff paper series in r u r a l and community development, n.p.: Co-operative Extension Programs, University of Wisconsin. Hirschman, Albert. 1958. "Interregional and international transmission of economic growth". In Friedmann, J. and Alonso, W.(eds.), Regional p o l i c y : Readings in theory and  application(pg. 139-157 ) . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hodge, G. D. and Qadeer, M. A. 1983. Towns and v i l l a g e s in Canada: The importance of being unimportant. Toronto: Butterworths. Hodge, Gerald. 1982a. " V i t a l small Canadian towns challenge image of decline". Small town (January/February 1982): 4-6. 242 Hodge, Gerald. 1982b. "Canadian small town renaissance: Implications for settlement system concepts". Regional  studies 17/1: 19-28. Hodge, Gerald. 1981. "The c i t i f i c a t i o n of small towns: A challenge to planning". Plan Canada 21/2 (June 1981): 43-47. Hodge, Gerald. 1976. Planning for small communities , Background paper no. 5. Toronto: Planning Act Review Committee, Ministry of Housing. Hodge, P a t r i c i a and Hodge, Gerald. 1977. "Comparisons of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in environmental planning at three levels of government in eastern Ontario". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and Environment v o l . I I : Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n (pg. 340-351). Edmonton, A l t a : Environment Council of Alberta. Isberg, Gunnar. 1981. "Toward a rural planning approach for evolving communities". Small town (September/October 1981): 15-18. Keating, Donald. 1976. The power to make i t happen: Mass based  community organizing. Toronto: Green Tree Publishing. Lapping, Mark. 1981. A conceptual premise for rur a l planning:  Duildinq a theory for action. Paper presented at 2nd Annual Canadian Rural Social Work Forum, Thunder Bay, Ontario, A p r i l , 1981. Larson, Olaf. 1978. "Values and b e l i e f s of rur a l people". In Ford, T. (ed.), Rural USA: Persistence and change. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Lash, Harry. 1977. Planning in a human way, Urban prospects series. n.p.: Ministry of State for Urban A f f a i r s . Lassey, William. 1977. Planning in rural environments. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewis, G. J. 1979. Rural communities: A s o c i a l geography. London: David & Charles. Levine, Aaron. 1965. "People and the plan". Community  planning review 15/1: 17-26. L i t t r e l l , Don. 1980. "The self-help approach". In Christenson, J. and Robinson, J. (eds.), Community  development in America (pg. 64-72). Ames: Iowa State University Press. 243 Lubkawski, G. H. 1972. "A planning strategy for water supply: Hornby--a case study". M.A. thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Lucas, A l a s t a i r . 1977. "Fundamental prerequisites for c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment v o l . I: Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n (pg. 43-76). Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Lucas,A. L. and Franson, R. T. 1975. "Environmental decision making in B r i t i s h Columbia". In Elder, P. S. (ed.), Environmental management and public p a r t i c i p a t i o n . n.p.: Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation. Manzer, Audrey. 1979. "Dartmouth Lakes Advisory Board 'commentary'". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n  in environmental decision making: strategies for change (pg. 31-33). Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Martinez-Brawley, Emilia. 1984. "Working with the l o c a l community". Small town 14/5 (March/April 1984): 14-21. Matthews, Ralph. 1976. There's no better place than here: Social change in three Newfoundland communities. Toronto: Peter Martin. McNiven, J. D. 1974. Evaluation of the public p a r t i c i p a t i o n programme embodies in the Prince Edward Island Development  Plan. Halifax: I n s t i t u t e of Public A f f a i r s , Dalhousie University. McRae, James D. 1980. The influence of exurbanite settlement  on rural areas: A review of the Canadian l i t e r a t u r e , Working paper no. 3. n.p.: Lands Directorate of Environment Canada. Milne, Claudia. "Farming community meets planners". Community  planning review 24/6 (June 1974): 3-6. B r i t i s h Columbia. Ministry of Forests. 1982. Public involvement handbook. V i c t o r i a : Ministry of Forests. Morley, J. T., Ruff, N. J., Swainson, N. A., Wilson, R. J., and Young, W. D. 1983. The reins of power: Governing B r i t i s h  Columbia. Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre. "The anguish of Oxford". Municipal World. September 1983, pg. 226. Myrdal, Gunnar. 1959. Economic theory and under-developed  regions. New York: Harper and Row. 244 N e l l i s , Lee. 1980. "Planning with rural values". Small Town (May/June 1980): 20-24. Nic h o l l s , William. 1967. Views on r u r a l development in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Rural Development. Northwest Study Conference. 1982. Development or underdevelopment: Our future or theirs? Terrace: Northwest Study Conference. O'Riordan, Timothy. 1977. "Citizen p a r t i c i p a t i o n in practice: Some dilemmas and possible solutions". In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment v o l . I: Proceedings  of Canadian conference on Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n . Edmonton:  Environment Council of Alberta. Paris, Jacques, 1975. " C i t i f i c a t i o n : Prospecting a new concept". Plan Canada 15: 134-141. P e l l , David and Wismer, Susan. 1981. Community p r o f i t : Community-based economic development in Canada. Toronto: Is Five Press. Perks, William. 1979. "Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . In Perks, W. and Robinson, I. (eds.), Urban and regional planning in  a federal state: The Canadian experience. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutinson, and Ross. Polsby, Nelson. 1980. Community power & p o l i t i c a l theory. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Powers, R. and.Moe, E. 1982. "The policy context for rural-oriented research. In Dillman, Donald and Hobbs, Daryl (eds.), Rural society in the U.S.: Issues for the  1980s. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Project Planning Associates. 1968. Planning for smaller towns:  A report on methods of preparing Municipal Plans in small  towns. n.p.: Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Pross, Paul. 1975. Planning and development: A case of two  Nova Scotia communities. Dalhousie: I n s t i t u t e of Public A f f a i r s . Qadeer, Muhammad. 1979. "Issues and approaches of rural community planning in Canada". Plan Canada 19/2: 106-121. Richards, J. and Pratt, L. 1979. P r a i r i e capitalism: Power and  influence in the New West. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Robertson, Marvin. 1980. "David and Goliath: Small town renewal". Small town (January/February 1980): 12-14. 245 Rubin, Dan. 1983. "Inter-Island Alliance supports the Trust". The islands 1/3 (December 1983): 2. Runka, Gary. 1980. "Planning for rural land". In search of  place (pg. 14-24). Proceedings of Canadian Institute of Planners National Conference 1980. Kingston, Ont. Rural Education and Development Association. 1979. Proceedings  of the Rural Development Forum, Alberta. Council on Rural Development Canada. Sadler, Barry. 1979. "Public Participation and the planning process: Intervention and integration". Plan Canada 19/1: 15-24. Sanders, Irwin. 1977. Rural society. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: Prentice-Hall. Schatzow, Steven. 1977. "The influence of the public on federal environment decision making in Canada". In Sewell, D. and Coppock, J. (eds.), Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning (pg. 203-208). London: Wiley. School of Community and Regional Planning. 1974. Approaches to  planning in the Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t . Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Sewell, D. and Coppock, J. 1977. "A perspective on public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning". In Sewell, D. and Coppock, J. (eds.), Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in planning (pg. 1-14). London: Wiley. Skidmore, Owings and M e r r i l l . 1979. A guidebook: Community planning for water resources management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology. Slocan Valley Community Forest Management Committee. 1974. F i n a l Report: Slocan Valley Community Forest Management  Project. n.p. Smith, Frederick. 1980."The environment". In Woodruff, A. (ed.), The farm and the c i t y : Rivals or a l l i e s ?  Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: Prentice-Hall. Stinson, A. 1979. "North Frontenac community services: Case study of a rural community service centre". In Wharf; Brian (ed.), Community work in Canada (pg. 87-128). Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Stinson, A. (ed.). 1979. Canadians p a r t i c i p a t e . Ottawa: Centre for Social Welfare, Carleton University. 246 Stinson, A. (ed.). 1975. C i t i z e n action: An annotated bibliography of Canadian case studies. Ottawa: Community Planning Association of Canada. Stohr, Walter and Taylor, Fraser (ed.). 1981. Development fro  above or below? New York: Wiley. Swanson, B., Cohen, R. and Swanson, E. 1979. Small towns and  small towners: A framework for survival and growth. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Texada Island: Proposed general land use plan. 1973. V i c t o r i a : Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , Government of B r i t i s h Columbia. Texada Centennial Committee. 1960. Texada. Powell River, B.C.: Powell River News. Thompson, A. R. 1979. "A d i s c i p l i n e d framework for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . In Sadler, B. (ed.), Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n  in environmental decision making: Strategies for change (pg. 15-30). Edmonton: Environment Council for Alberta. Thompson, R o l l i e . 1977. People do i t a l l the time, Urban prospectus series. n.p.: Ministry of State for Urban A f f a i r s . Tyler, E. J. 1977. "Planning public p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . In Sadler, B. (ed.), Involvement and environment vol.11:  Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n (pg. 17-22) . Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Tweeton, Luther and Brinkman, George. 1976. Micropolitan development: Theory and practice of greater rural economic  development. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman. 1972. P a r t i c i p a t i o n in America:  P o l i t i c a l democracy and s o c i a l equality. New York: Harper and Row. Vidich, A. and Bensman, J. 1960. Small town in mass society:  Class, power and r e l i g i o n in a rural community. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Warren, Roland. 1963. The community in America. Chicago: Rand McNally. Wengert, Norman. 1971. "Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in water planning: A c r i t i q u e of theory, doctrine and practice". Water resources b u l l e t i n 7/1: 26-32. White, Randall. 1984. "Metropolis without growth in southern Ontario". Municipal World 94/1 (January 1984): 3-6. 247 Wilkinson, K. 1978. "Rural community change". In Ford, T. (ed.), Rural USA: Persistence and change. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Williams, Robert. 1982. Proposed handouts—public involvement in strategic planning. Internal document. n.p.: Ministry of Environment. Williams, William. 1980. "Strategies for growing up small". Small town (July/August 1980): 8-19. W i l l i t s , F., Bealer, R. and Crider, D. 1982. "Persistence of rural/urban differences". In Dillman, Donald and Hobbs, Daryl (eds.), Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the  1980s. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wilson, J. W. 1973. People in the way: The human aspects of the Columbia River project. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Wolfe, J. and F u l l e r , A. 1978. More ef f e c t i v e rural development through public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in rural planning. Unpublished paper presented to the Conference on A t t i t u d i n a l and Behavioral Changes in Rural L i f e , Lincoln, Nebraska, A p r i l 1978. Youman, Russell. 1983. Factors that influence r u r a l development: The state of the a r t . C o r v a l l i s , OR: Western Rural Development Centre, Oregon State University. 248 APPENDIX A - INTERVIEWS RELATED TO CASE STUDY The following individuals were interviewed in conjunction with planning a c t i v i t i e s on Texada Island: Name Barclay, J. H, Cawthorpe, J. Childress, C. Coulton, J. Diggon, H. Diggon, L. Fogarty, F. Johnson, K. Residence G i l l i e s Bay Vanada G i l l i e s Bay Powell River G i l l i e s Bay G i l l i e s Bay Involvement Board Member, G i l l i e s Bay Improvement D i s t r i c t Pres., T.A.N. Pres., Texada Residents and Ratepayers Association Vice-Pres., T.A.N. Chairman, Vanada Improvement D i s t r i c t Member, Texada Parks Board Regional Director, E l e c t o r a l area E (as of Oct. 1983) B.C. Forest Service o f f i c e r Assistant Manager, Ideal Basic Industries Quarry Chairman, Texada Chamber of Commerce Member, 1976 Texada Planning Committee Former member, G i l l i e s Bay Improvement D i s t r i c t Member, 1976 Texada Planning Committee Powell River Regional planner PRRD, 1974-80 Texada (rural) Regional Director, E l e c t o r a l area E, 1976-83 Chairman, 1976 Texada Planning Committee Former manager, Ideal Quarry Klein, W. G i l l i e s Bay Member, 1976 Texada Planning Committee 249 Name Ladret, F. Prime, K. Quin, A. L. Sorken, L. Spraques, D. & E. Turner, B. Wells, B. Whitehorn, S. Residence Powell River G i l l i e s Bay Victor ia Vancouver Texada (rural) G i l l i e s Bay Vananda Powell River Involvement Regional Planner PRRD, 1980-Assistant planner 1973-80 Former employee, Texada Iron Mines Senior planner, Dept. of Municipal A f f a i r s , prepared 1973 Proposed Land Use Plan O f f i c i a l in Lands Branch, responsible for Texada crown land administration Directors, T.A.N. Chairman, G i l l i e s Bay Improvement D i s t r i c t Director, T.A.N. Foreman, Dept. of Highways, Texada Crew Member, 1976 Texada Planning Committee B.C. Forest Service D i s t r i c t 2 5 0 APPENDIX B - PLANNING POLICY FOR POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT Under the Municipal Act one of the prime r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of t h i s Regional Board is to move into the f i e l d of planning and Land Use. It i s timely that we should now agree on a direction and a policy in keeping with the desires of the people of the area. We should also set about drawing up l e g i s l a t i o n which w i l l put teeth into this p o l i c y and offer the needed protection. At our l a s t Board meeting we had urgent appeals for protection from the people of both Lund and Lasqueti Island who f e e l threatened by pending major impact developments in their d i s t r i c t s . At present we have no l e g i s l a t i o n that can offer them any help whatever. The Pr o v i n c i a l Government also expect us to adopt a Regional Plan. Such a plan would be a general scheme without d e t a i l for the projected use of land within the Regional D i s t r i c t . The question i s , therefore, how should our Board respond to these needs. The nature of our response w i l l decide whether or not we are going to l e t ourselves in for the same problems which have devastated the ecologies of other r e l a t i v e l y unspoiled and unpolluted d i s t r i c t s . NOW, developers tend to move secretly. Spring Bay development on Lasqueti island was being worked on before i t had government approval and was f i n a l l y approved without so much as a public hearing. Studies carried out l a s t year indicated that the environment of Lasqueti i s now approaching i t s carrying capacity for human population. There i s no room for the type of development that breaks up the land to s e l l houses clustered along the shore and, by means of advertising campaigns, f i l l s these houses with people. Pressure generated by large subdivisions and other i n d u s t r i a l development could rapidly cause complete degeneration of existing rural society and culture of Lasqueti. Some examples: four developments are being planned for the island. The one at Spring Bay i s already approved. At present sixty one and two acre l o t s are mapped along the margin of the waterfront. It's possible that more w i l l be created in the i n t e r i o r of the development. THE URGENCY & THE DANGER Another proposal by another company would f i l l the area between False Bay and Johnson's Lagoon with seventy to ninety one t h i r d to one half acre l o t s . A syndicate of t h i r t y five doctors has bought the old Schumack Farm on the west end of the island with an eye to development. Another development threatens to concentrate a high population density around Lennie's Lagoon--not merely famous for i t s s h e l l f i s h and clear, unpolluted waters, but also a nesting place for bald eagles. 251 Only ten or twelve houses to the best of our knowledge, but as yet the owner's plans are indeterminate. As things stand today, no permit i s required from the Regional Board for any of these procedures, nor have we any control over these projects. We have used the example of Lasqueti because i t is a p a r t i c u l a r l y f r a g i l e island ecology with certain l i f e - s t y l e s and soc i a l economies which we feel are resources to be conserved, as is the land i t s e l f . We know that early speculative development could have a devastating effect upon the r e a l i s a t i o n of the potential of thi s area. Coming closer to home, the urban sprawl that threatens Paradise Valley and Claridge Road today may already be gobbling up areas that by now should have been reserved as green belt areas surrounding the municipality of Powell River. Without proper land use controls and policy, the normal expectation for this area is that growth w i l l be haphazard, sporadic — represent ing short term values with l i t t l e taste or s k i l l . Subdivision and development w i l l slowly force nature to recede to be replaced by growing islands of housing and industry. These w i l l in time coalesce into a mass of low-grade urban tissue having eliminated a l l natural beauty, diminished rare excellences, both modern and h i s t o r i c . The opportunity for the real alternative of rur a l l i f e w i l l recede again, for town and country dweller a l i k e , to a more distant place, up the coast and to a future generation. The process has an a i r of i n e v i t a b i l i t y . The Province abounds in examples: Savary Island, the Fraser V a l l e y — e v e n Sechelt. THE NEED Ours i s a beautiful inheritance; a serious r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; an area threatened; a challenge and an opportunity. Almost a thousand square miles including the peninsula and the islands containing clean lakes, superb recreation and s h e l l f i s h beaches, great sweeping valle y s , wooded ridges and plateaus, an i n t r i c a t e pattern of streams, r u r a l roads and uncluttered highways. Tot a l l y unprotected by any Regional Land Use pol i c y . Our proposition i s b r i e f : 1. The area i s beautiful and vulnerable. 2. Some population growth i s inevitable and must be accommodated. 3. Uncontrolled growth is inevitably destructive. 4. Regional goals must be defined and development must conform to these. 5. Observation of conservation p r i n c i p l e s can avert destruction and ensure enhancement. 6. The pace and nature of growth must be decided, not by developers, planners or economic interests, but by the l o c a l people. 7. We fe e l that public and private powers can be joined 2 5 2 in partnership to re a l i s e t h i s plan. We have been asked to get involved in area planning. The question i s just what kind of l e g i s l a t i o n and policy do we envisage? Under the Municipal Act we should have due regard for the following considerations: The promotion of health, safety, convenience and welfare of the public; the prevention of the over-crowding of land and the preservation of the amenities peculiar to any area; the securing of adequate l i g h t , a i r and access; the value of the land and the nuture of i t s present and prospective use and occupancy; the character of each zone, the character of the buildings already erected and the peculiar s u i t a b i l i t y of the zone for particular uses; the conservation of property values. WHY NOT ZONING? It i s becoming apparent that in other areas the t r a d i t i o n a l methods of planning and zoning have not protected either the land or the people in accordance with the above mentioned considerations. It i s ironic that much of the urban disorganisation and sprawl and environmental po l l u t i o n which a f f l i c t s North America today, has taken place during the very period when t r a d i t i o n a l planning and zoning methods have bloomed. It's not unfair then to ask whether planning i s not p a r t i a l l y a cause for many of these problems, rather than merely a response to them. The facts seem to indicate that t r a d i t i o n a l zoning practices do not work. Zoning has been a spectacular f a i l u r e in protecting either the environment or the populace. It succeeds only in preserving property values because i t was designed to do exactly that. No one has ever claimed that planning and zoning have protected the environment or prevented suburban sprawl, speculative r i p - o f f s or over-intense subdivision. In fact, by pin-pointing p a r t i c u l a r zones for investment and development, zoning has had a greater destructive e f f e c t than non-zoning. The rationale behind the old-fashioned zoning game has been refined to a science. Some planners a t t r i b u t e the f a i l u r e s of zoning to faulty human applicat i o n . Then they bolster up the basic zoning p r i n c i p l e with scores of remedial schemes such as 'planned unit development', 'boards of variance', 'special land use contracts' and, f i n a l l y , the ultimate admission of f a i l u r e — o u t and out 'rezoning'. Over the years, though, one fact has remained constant: environmental and human values are s t i l l relegated to minor roles. This preoccupation with the preservation of land values can be self-defeating. The proof of the pudding i s C a l i f o r n i a — a place that was as close to being Eden as any place on earth. There zoners and planners have been active and v i r i l e 253 since before World War One. They sought to protect the whole state, and in so doing they mutiliated great tracts of i t . Then the bubble burst. Since 1969 Californians in large numbers have migrated here, driven out by conditions created under conventional zoning and planning. The new words Losangelisation and C a l i f o r n i c a t i o n ring with resourding significance for us who l i v e up the coast, yet just around the corner. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING--QUR METHOD: I To keep our options open, then, a prompt change from past procedures seems e s s e n t i a l . This area does not belong to us to do with i t what we choose. We belong to this area; and we can have a worthwhile future only as a co-operating part of i t s ecology. To conserve this area so that our children may enjoy some, i f not a l l , of these surroundings, the basis of our plan must start from d i f f e r e n t concepts. It would seem reasonable that our l o c a l l y enacted plan should at least seek p a r t i a l solutions in re-ordering p r i o r i t i e s . That environmental considerations should head the l i s t , of course, goes without saying. Environmental Protection Zones must be mapped and set aside. But f i r s t a complete study must identif y these areas. We have already taken steps to launch t h i s study. Four types of environmental zones w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d . 1. Areas in which natural processes perform work for man: for example—natural water p u r i f i c a t i o n ; atmospheric pollution control; climatic amelioration; water storage; forest and w i l d l i f e inventory increase; flood, drought, and erosion contr o l . 2. Those areas which offer protection or are h o s t i l e : for example—marshes; floodplains, etc. needed for f i s h . 3. Areas which are unique or especially precious: for example—areas of important e c o l o g i c a l , geological or h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t . 4. Those areas which are e s p e c i a l l y vulnerable: for example—nesting, spawning and breeding grounds, water catchment areas, oyster and clam beaches, etc. Any map drawn of our Regional D i s t r i c t under th i s plan w i l l bear a passing resemblance to that reproduced below in this report: with the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREAS, GREEN BELT AREAS, WILDERNESS AREAS AND THE PROVINCE'S AGRICULTURAL RESERVE, a l l in d i f f e r e n t colours and a l l protected by l e g i s l a t i o n . OUR METHOD: II Undesignated Areas—The Public Hearing Concept 254 The problem then becomes one of how to control growth in the otherwise undesignated or white areas on the map. These are the areas which w i l l be e s p e c i a l l y vulnerable to high density subdivision, uncontrolled r i p o f f s , s p i r a l l i n g land values, i n d u s t r i a l p o l l u t i o n and ecol o g i c a l disaster. Our policy must ensure that the people who l i v e in t h i s area can exercise a large measure of control over their destiny. This i s the basis of our p l a n — t h e PUBLIC HEARING CONCEPT. By providing the Public Hearing with a major role to play in the decision making process, t h i s plan w i l l be a viable and desirable a l t e r n a t i v e to the old, i n f l e x i b l e zoning method of land use co n t r o l . There can be l i t t l e discussion of t h i s plan u n t i l there is a general understanding of how i t w i l l operate. Suffice to say, at this point, i f the concept were enacted by by-law, i t s o v e r a l l effect would be one of freezing 'as i s ' a l l lands under Regional D i s t r i c t j u r i s d i c t i o n and making any proposed changes to the status quo subject to Public Hearing. That i s not to say, however, that a l l proposed changes w i l l , of necessity, by subject to Public Hearing; but rather, that a l l proposed changes (with one notable exception) may be subject to Public Hearing. The single exception referred to arises only in the case of individuals. There i s nothing either in the s p i r i t or intent of the proposed Public Hearing By-law that would r e s t r i c t an individual or family unit from erecting on his land a single family residence and other outbuildings for private and accessory uses, provided the builder comply with alrady existing l e g i s l a t i o n . Neither is there anything in the intent of the proposed By-law that would serve to n u l l i f y the terms of Section 713 A of the Municipal Act which conditionally allows for the subdivision of land for the purpose of providing a separate residence for the owner, or for the father, mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or grandchild of the owner. THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCEPT: IN ACTION! Generally speaking there are only two types of changes that can a f f e c t a single parcel of land: one i s s u b - d i v i s i o n — a change to the legal boundaries of the land; the other i s development—a change to the character of the land. The scope of the proposed By-law i s such that both w i l l come under i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . A l l sub-dividers and developers w i l l be required to make application•to the Board for a permit to e n t i t l e him to proceed with his plans. In making application the applicant must supply pertinent information as to the nature and extent of the development. The Board w i l l f i r s t determine the environmental impact of the proposal by r e f e r r i n g the application to i t s Environmental Protection Committee. This committee has already been established. The Board may also c a l l 2 5 5 for the opinions of other l o c a l expertise in reaching a decision on the application. This may be in the form of either internal or external committees, organisations or individuals. They w i l l be allowed access to such information as i s necessary in the formation of their recommendations. Should the Board refuse the permit, the developer w i l l have the right to bring the issue to public hearing. Should the Board grant the permit, the public, on p e t i t i o n by a stated number of d i s t r i c t residents (the suggested figure i s eleven), may express d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the Board's decision, whereupon the Board must take the issue to Public Hearing and reconsider in view of the findings thereof. Information about a l l development applications must be made available by the Board for the Advisory Planning Commissioners elected in each area, so that they can inform the l o c a l residents before any permit i s granted. Furthermore any decisions made by the Board must also be communicated in l i k e manner. On the other hand the Commissioners have already been elected in most areas. E s s e n t i a l l y then, without going into too much d e t a i l at th i s stage, that's how the proposed By-law would work: with the Public Hearing aspect functioning as an appeal process available to electors and, i t must be emphasized, to sub-dividers and developers as well. Any public hearing would be r e s t r i c t e d to those electors whose l i v e s and properties are apt to be influenced by the scope of the development in question. The pot e n t i a l impact of any development would decide the scope of the hearing. Later on we hope to have much debate, discussion and input on t h i s very point, presumably when the By-law i s being drafted and during the f i r s t and second readings. The nature and scope of each public hearing would be defined by the Board in consultation with the Advisory Planning Commissioners, the l o c a l Board member and, of course, the people's organisations. Low impact developments might only concern the immediate neighbours. Larger developments might c a l l for a public hearing of the whole e l e c t o r a l area. Very large impact developments might, in fact, c a l l for a hearing involving the whole regional d i s t r i c t . However, i t s unlikely that a l l but the biggest issues w i l l reach the public hearing stage. For example, subdivision of 160 acres into four 40 acre blocks would hardly become a matter of great concern to most residents. However, the same sub-division into 160 one acre l o t s i s an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t matter. It would be surprising indeed, had the Board granted such a permit, that i t was not c a l l e d to j u s t i f y i t s decision at a public hearing. 2 5 6 This Public Hearing By-law, outlined here in t h i s policy statement and later to be refined, w i l l in effect be a Land Use By-law. This type of approach w i l l have a number of positive advantages. Not the least of these i s that the Board becomes accountable to the public for i t s decisions. Secondly, i t might help to hold down land prices by removing some of the speculative value from the land. However, the real merit of the Public Hearing concept l i e s in i t s f l e x i b i l i t y , in i t s a b i l i t y to function according to the temper of the times. While slow growth i s a generally accepted d i s t r i c t philsophy now, i t may not always be so. In any case the residents of the d i s t r i c t , to a great and desirable extent, w i l l be in a position to determine the direction and rate of growth according to the exigencies of the.moment. SUMMARY Our policy i s to encourage slow, rational growth. This policy w i l l neither be narrow nor discriminatory. Granted no development, subdivision, or i n d u s t r i a l expansion w i l l be tolerated which i s environmentally harmful. However, under this plan the people, through their Advisory Planning Commissioner, w i l l be givern ample notice of any applications for permits and the nature of these applications. This w i l l be the f i r s t step in any approval process for any sub-division, strata t i t l e , proposal to log, draw water from lakes, build new roads, etc. Both the Public Hearing By-law and the establishment of Environmental Protection Zones, go hand in hand with the other proposals mentioned e a r l i e r : the setting up of green belt reserves surrounding the urban areas, the preservation of certain c u l t u r a l l o c a t i o n s — a s provided for in the Municipal Act. At the same time we w i l l maintain for the individual homeowner in the rural area: the freedoms he enjoys today whatever his l i f e s t y l e . Over the l a s t two years the people of th i s area have loudly and c l e a r l y indicated on numerous occasions that they desire neither r e s t r i c t i v e building nor zoning codes. This policy has been designed to meet these needs, while simultaneously f u l f i l l i n g our r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in the f i e l d of environmental protection. It i s a break from the old methods of planning. With unity and co-operation i t w i l l be successful. We trust i t w i l l now be adopted as the o f f i c i a l p olicy of the Powell River Regional Board. Then we can get on with the job. 257 APPENDIX C - POWELL RIVER REGIONAL DISTRICT PLANNING PROCEDURES The attached material was given to Texada residents in 1976 by the Regional Planner. It provides the process to be followed: what was to be approached and how i t was to be approached. Included is a time table for completion of various a c t i v i t i e s . 258 MUNICIPAL ACT, (chap. 255, verses 694-699) PART XXI COMMUNITY PLANNING 694. No by-law adopted pursuant to thi s Part, excepting D i v i s i o n (5), applies to land designated in a tree-farm licence, or to land constituting a forest reserve pursuant to the Forest  Act, or to land designated in a tree-farm c e r t i f i c a t e under the Taxation Act so long as the land continues to be so designated or reserved. 1971, c. 38, s. 50. Divisi o n ( 1 ) - - O f f i c i a l Community Plan 695. In t h i s Part or in any by-law adopted under th i s Part, "community plan" means an an expression of policy for (a) any use or uses of land, including surfaces of water; or (b) the pattern of the subdivision of land; and either or both may apply to any or a l l areas of the municipality. 1957, c. 42, s. 692; 1958, c. 32, s. 304; 1961, c. 43, s. 36. 696. The Council may have community plans prepared or revised from time to time, and they may be expressed in maps, plans, reports, or any combination thereof. 1957, c. 42, s. 693; 1961, c. 43, s. 37; 1968, c. 33, s. 164. 697. (1) The Council may, by by-law adopted by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of a l l the members thereof, designate any community plan prepared under section 696 as the o f f i c i a l community plan or as a part of the o f f i c i a l community plan. (2) A by-law adopted under subsection (1) does not come into force and ef f e c t u n t i l i t has received the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. 1957, c. 42, s. 694; 1958, c. 32, s. 305; 1961, c. 43, s. 38. 698. (1) The Council s h a l l not enact any provision or undertake any works contrary to or at variance with the o f f i c i a l community plan or a plan adopted under Div i s i o n (6) of t h i s Part. (2) Subsection (1) does not empower the Council to impair, 259 abrogate, or otherwise a f f e c t the rights and p r i v i l e g e s to which an owner of land i s otherwise lawfully e n t i t l e d . 1957, c. 42, s. 695; 1961, c. 43, s. 39. 699. (1) An o f f i c i a l community plan does not commit the Council or any other administrative body to undertake any of the projects therein suggested or outlined. (2) The adoption of a community plan does not authorize the Council to proceed with the undertaking of any project except in accordance with the procedure and r e s t r i c t i o n s l a i d down therefore by thi s or some other Act. 1957, c. 42, s. 696; 1961, c. 43, s. 40. 260 HOW DEC. 1 9 7 5 co m o —i P L A N N I N G COMMITTEE {f3J {—) (Q) (3) ( £ ) ( o ^ ) (TJi) f 2 ) (OJ) ( r v ) S U B - C O M M I T T E E S F O R M E D ^ T O C O N S I D E R CO 33 o > o 5 > 33 rn cn O c 33 o m CO o o co 33 < m c o o O m 33 o o c to — i 33 -< o 33 n co co x > o 33 O CZ 33 m 33 ro c~> 33 m > —i O 2 33 33 n co n 33 < > O 2 O 33 m co X o 33 m O o > o o < m 3) 4/ c o l l e c t t e c h . d a t a m e a s u r e p u b l i c op. pr e p a r e b r i e f \1/ D R A F T C O M M U N I T Y P L A N R E F E R T O C O M M U N I T Y A N D R E G . 30; CM WHAT THE AlM'b O f TH£ THe Kv^NX im£P--ReuATeD FACTORS S H O W N IN T H V ^ 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096503/manifest

Comment

Related Items