UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The regional districts of British Columbia Nicholson, Theodore Joseph 1974

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 N52_9.pdf [ 5.78MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099972.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099972-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099972-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099972-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099972-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099972-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099972-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099972-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099972.ris

Full Text

THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA by THEODORE JOSEPH NICHOLSON B.A. , University of British Columbia, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i in the School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming t-> the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1974 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall 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 Depart-ment or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed wj.tb.out my written permission. Department of; School of Community and Regional Planning. UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH = COLUMBIA, VANCOUVER 8, CANADA. Date: May 9, 1974. ABSTRACT THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Regional planning is one of the functions most often affected by the dilemma of how to provide services and resolve conflicts that transcend municipal boundaries. Most existing solutions, while they accept the consensus that power should be decentralized, have limited applicability and the greatest need i s for institutional innovations.-This report c r i t i c a l l y examines such an irihovatiSn — the regional d i s t r i c t s introduced by British Columbia in 1965. The hew concept employs the identical institutional framework td provide regional ser-vices riot only in metropolitan a l i a non-metropolitan municipalities, but also in the unorganized areas which cover more than 98 percent of the province. A review of the literature led to the conclusion that before a province introduces regional institutions i t should consider five key factors. These were: the selection of c r i t e r i a to delimit administra-tive boundaries; participation by local governments and by citizens; coordination with other levels of government; the delegation of ade-quate powers; and the f l e x i b i l i t y to adapt to different conditions. Regional d i s t r i c t s were evaluated in this context. The inductive approach chosen to generate data documents the history of regional planning and regional dis t r i c t s in the province, then analyzes five of the d i s t r i c t s in more detail, and f i n a l l y s o l i -cits the views of the directors of the regional boards. The latter form a second tier or federation of local areas governed by locally elected representatives. The study concludes that the size or confi-guration of the d i s t r i c t s i s not always rational, that the provision for local participation is satisfactory but, with the exception of inter-municipal liason, the coordination of programs with provincial departments is not. Most of the power delegated to regional dis t r i c t s appears to be really a transfer of powers from local governments, with the exception of powers acquired by residents of unorganized areas. The f l e x i b i l i t y of the new system was judged to be i t s outstanding feature. A conspicuous phenomenon was the speed with which regional dis-t r i c t s were volutarily adopted. It was concluded the tactics employed by the province to " s e l l " the concept, together with the impetus provided by linking hospital financing to regional d i s t r i c t s through complementary legislation were important contributing factors. The failure to provide any overall provincial planning policies with which the programs of the regional d i s t r i c t s might have been integrated was perceived as a major weakness. A summary of legislation adopted by three other provinces is included to i l l u s t r a t e the diversity of potential solutions available within Canada's form of federation. The report does not consider regional economic planning, the property tax, the role of the planner, or liason between various levels of government are within i t s terms of reference, although brief comments on a l l of these are made on occasion. i i CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT i\ND REGIONAL SERVICES . . . Introduction; the local government dilemma; alterna-tive institutional arrangements; p o l i t i c s and plan-ning; the non-metropolitan problem; the provincial role in regional planning CHAPTER TWO: REGIONAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS Delimiting a service region; coordination of policies and programs; local government involve-ment; a strong administration; f l e x i b i l i t y and adaptability; regional economic planning; i n s t i t u -tional innovations in Canada; Alberta's regional planning commissions; municipal reform in New Brunswick; Ontario's regional governments; summary CHAPTER THREE: BILL 83: THE INTRODUCTION OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS Introduction; the need for regional solutions; the regional planning boards; the metropolitan problem in British Columbia; unorganized areas and the joint services board; the f i r s t regional d i s t r i c t ; characteristics of the regional d i s t r i c t s ; organi-zation of the regional d i s t r i c t s CHAPTER FOUR: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS A. Five regional di s t r i c t s — a review Introduction; Central Fraser Valley Regional District; Dewdney-Alouette Regional D i s t r i c t ; Comox-Strathcona Regional District; Sunshine Coast Regional Dis t r i c t ; Cariboo Regional District; Summary B. Attitudes of the members of Regional Boards Questionnaire design; distribution of the questionnaire; results and analysis of preliminary question; issues involving the regional d i s t r i c t s ; miscellaneous comments and issues; multiple choice questions CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Introduction; delimiting a planning region; local government involvement; coordination and integration of programs; delegation of adequate power; i i i f l e x i b i l i t y as an institution; conclusions of the research; summary; suggestions for further research FOOTNOTES: 83 SOURCES CONSULTED: -j : . . 91 APPENDIX "A" 95 i v TABLES TABLE I: CHARACTERISTICS.OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS , . < . . . 33 TABLE I I : SERVICES AND STUDIES ADOPTED BY REGIONAL DISTRICTS (to December 31, 1970) 38 TABLE I I I : DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES . . . . . . 54 TABLE IV: GOALS OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS PERCEIVED BY RESPONDENTS -. 56 TABLE V: ISSUES THAT INVOLVED OR MIGHT INVOLVE THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . 62 TABLE VI: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS: SECTION "A" .66 TABLE VII: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS: SECTION "B" 67 TABLE VIII: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS: SECTION "C" . . . . . 70 V FIGURES FIGURE 1: BOUNDARIES OF REGIONAL DISTRICTS 34 FIGURE 2: REGIONAL DISTRICTS IN THE LOWER MAINLAND 44 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study could not have been completed without the cooperation, encouragement and assistance of a great many people. I would like to thank my advisers: Dr, Robert Collier, Professor Gordon Stead, and Professor Brahm Wiesman, a l l of the School of Community and Regional Planning, for their comments and criticisms. i A special note of thanks to Arthur "Spike" Hampseri, who read the work in draft form and offered valuable suggestions. I am particu-l a r l y indebted to the various individuals who gave freely of their time so that I could interview them, and also to the 106 directors of regional d i s t r i c t boards who took the trouble to complete and return the questionnaire they received. Most of a l l , I would like to thank my Wife — for keeping the faith. v i i "IT IS BUT A SMALL PORTION OF THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF A COUNTRY WHICH CAN BE WELL DONE, OR SAFELY ATTEMPTED, BY THE CENTRAL AUTHORITIES . . . " - John Stuart M i l l v i i i CHAPTER ONE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL SERVICES. Introduction A prominent effect of the fragmented p o l i t i c a l jurisdictions found in metropolitan areas i s the d i f f i c u l t y of providing services such as planning on an ihtermunicipal or areawide basis."'" It is sug-gested regional planning for non-metropolitan areas w i l l encounter 2 similar problems for essentially similar reasons. Since, as w i l l be seen, p o l i t i c a l amalgamation or the delegation of more than nominal powers to planning agencies is resisted by local governments, an effective solution must be one which respects local autonomy, yet pro-vides an appropriate system for the implementation of regional planning. The most promising approach is the introduction of innovative i n s t i -3 tutional arrangements. The regional d i s t r i c t concept of British Columbia is an example of such an innovation. The present report examines whether or not i t has the potential to resolve regional problems in non-metropolitan areas. Although regional d i s t r i c t s were f i r s t introduced in 1965 and 4 rapidly adopted, published information about them is scarce. A major purpose of the study was to correct this deficiency. An inductive approach was used and three strategies for generating data employed. Fir s t , the evolution of the regional d i s t r i c t idea was documented. Next, five regional d i s t r i c t s were examined in detail. Finally, a mailed 1 questionnaire was forwarded to a majority of the board members of the 26 dist r i c t s located in non-metropolitan areas. The f i r s t two chapters discuss some of the theoretical considerations affecting local government and regional planning, and conclude with a description of three alterna-tive institutional changes introduced in other Canadian provinces. The local government dilemma It has been suggested that, since central governments are too big and their powers too centralized, the appropriate (and perhaps vital) role of local government i s to resolve conflict and provide services at the local level.^ Many municipalities find the latter task increasingly d i f f i c u l t , partly because of the greater variety and sophistication of services now required, and partly because of the limited sources of reve-nue available to local government. A third factor is the fragmentation' of jurisdictions which occurs when the urbanized areas of a community expand into — and often.meld with — one or more neighbouring municipal-i t i e s . If the p o l i t i c a l boundaries remain unchanged, the result is a complex urban entity administered by a multitude of governments. This situation — sometimes referred to as, "the metropolitan problem" — creates many inequities and conflicts.^ For the municipalities concerned the dilemma i s how to provide the array of services their residents expect without ceding power of even, by amalgamation, ceasing to exist. It i s a dilemma which i s neither unique to Canada and it s form of government,7 nor is i t exclusively a, "metropolitan problem". Small, non-contiguous"communities and their adjacent rural municipalities may also encounter intractable financial or jurisdictional constraints and these may create an overiding need to cooperate where the provision of a particular service is concerned. Regional planning i s a widely recog-nized example of a service in which the area of concern transcends local p o l i t i c a l boundaries. In fact the "interaction" of various activity sets between communities i s one of the key c r i t e r i a used to help define planning regions.^ Alternative institutional arrangements A muriiciapl government which i s unable (or unwilling) to provide the level of services expected of i t , has at least five options available. It may: 1. Voluntarily agree to share the administration and costs of a particular function with a neighbouring municipality. 2. Contract one or more services to private enterprise. 3. Amalgamate with, or annex, one or more neighbouring areas to form a larger, more viable unit. 4. Delegate the administration of one or more services to special d i s t r i c t s . 5. Form a federation of local governments with other municipali-ties to handle the administration of a variety of services. The f i r s t two options, voluntary agreements and the employment of private enterprise, are only practical in a limited number of situations. For example, f i r e protection in the f i r s t instance and solid waste dispo-sal or engineering services in the second. The third alternative, annex-ation or p o l i t i c a l amalgamation, would often seem to be the most rational solution. In Alberta, for example, a community is permitted to annex 9 adjacent rural lands i f i t can demonstrate a valid need. In a l l provin-ces voluntary amalgamations occasionally take place. However, local governments generally place a premium on retaining their autonomy and when the pressure to provide a particular service, " . . . can no longer be avoided, (they) have a stake in pressing for the narrowest possible , „. „10 solutions. The fourth option, the creation of a special service d i s t r i c t , has proven by far the most popular of these narrow solutions.^ It allows responsibility to be transferred to an independent, appointed authority rather than another government body, but i t has also been subjected to severe criticism. Special d i s t r i c t s have been accused of insulating decision-makers from the electorate, and of increasing the frequency with which unilateral decisions by one authority conflict with perceived municipal or regional objectives. Another notable feature is their tendency to proliferate, especially in metropolitan areas, thus 12 exacerbating the effects of already fragmented jurisdictions. Yet special d i s t r i c t s are not without their supporters. One of them, Robert C. Wood, believes they play a constructive role since: . . . in the less than mature system a transitional device may be to select one or a group of powers, institutionalize them, and nurse them along in such a way that they lead to a greater cohesion for the region, and as a consequence, to a more general power to govern. 1 3 W h i l e s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s u n d o u b t e d l y h a v e t h e i r m e r i t s ; i t c a n b e s e e n t h a t even their supporters tacitly concede they do not offer a long-term solution. The observation by Wood could also apply to federations of local governments. Such federations appear to be more sophisticated versions of his, "transitional devices" in the sense that, unlike a special dis-t r i c t authority, the decision-makers are elected rather than appointed. These units may have quasi-governmental powers delegated to them by the 5 province concerned; f o r example, the statutory authority to pass by-laws. It would seem such an arrangement i s closer to being a "mature system" than any s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t . However, Wood does not describe what the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a mature system would be and, while the phrase i s i n t u i t i v e l y appealing, i t i s only possible i n t h i s context to judge the r e l a t i v e maturity of a system by comparing i t with other systems. For present purposes maturity i s assumed to be equivalent to s t a b i l i t y or equilibrium, (recognizing that from a h i s t o r i c a l perspective no i n s t i t u t i o n i s permanent). The 14 whole subject i s complex and l i t t l e understood. For instance, no con-sensus e x i s t s on what constitutes a "government"; i f d i r e c t e l e c t i o n to o f f i c e and the power to tax are assumed to be immutable conditions, then neither s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s nor federations of l o c a l governments would q u a l i f y , even though the term "government" i s sometimes used to describe them. Neither have demonstrated they are mature systems. Conversely, the fact Metro Toronto has survived for two decades suggests i t may be the forerunner of a stable, and therefore mature, i n s t i t u t i o n a l form. This could only be confirmed i f i t were s u c c e s s f u l l y r e p l i c a t e d i n a num-ber of other metropolitan areas. The few comparable experiments which have been undertaken include: Atlanta, London, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Tokyo, Vancouver and Winnipeg. They d i f f e r from both Toronto and one another i n t h e i r organizational s t r u c t u r e , a l t h o u g h i t might be possible to generalize about t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . P o l i t i c s and planning Since- the planning and p o l i t i c a l processes are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , a c e r t a i n amount of c o n f l i c t i s i n e v i t a b l e when r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r 6 planning i s delegated to an intermunicipal planning agency. This usually occurs because, while l o c a l governments are preoccupied with r e t a i n i n g some degree of autonomy i n a r a p i d l y shrinking world, regional planning agencies are s t r i v i n g to regulate — or at l e a s t influence — land use planning decisions. Since the objectives of the two i n s t i t u t i o n s are not always congruent, any a d d i t i o n a l power vested i n one can e a s i l y be per-ceived as a threat by the other. Under these circumstances e f f e c t i v e regional planning requires more than the a l l o c a t i o n of funds and the delegation of regulatory powers; i t must have the support of the munici-p a l i t i e s concerned. In p r a c t i c e , most metropolitan and regional plan-ning agencies are l i m i t e d to an advisory r o l e . Their success i s gauged by the amount of consensus they can achieve among member communities. Melvin Levin, commenting on t h e i r impotence, suggests they are accepted only as long as they pursue t h e i r goals by a process of gently persua-sion. . If they become too m i l i t a n t and clash with vested i n t e r e s t s , then 16 matters s h i f t from, "a gentlemanly forum into chaotic stalemate." While the reluctance of municipal governments to come to grips with the problem i s understandable, the a t t i t u d e of the planning profes-sion i s not so e a s i l y j u s t i f i e d . As Donald H. Webster observes: Although community planning has often f a i l e d because of unsatis-factory areas for planning administration, planners have not as a r u l e devoted much att e n t i o n to fi n d i n g a s o l u t i o n to the pro-blem. For the most part, they have tended to accept the fact of p o l i t i c a l boundaries and have sought to work out t h e i r plans within those boundaries without t r y i n g to develop a better organizational scheme for the e n t i r e urban community.17 As with other writers c i t e d , Webster appears preoccupied with the pro-blems of urban areas. I t i s time to consider these problems i n another context. 7 The non-metropolitan problem Although comparable situations abound in non-metropolitan milieus, almost a l l of the published discussions of planning in the 18 context of jurisdictional problems focus on metropolitan areas. This predilection i s also reflected in much planning legislation and in policy decisions by central governments. That solutions applicable to metropo-l i t a n areas are not necessarily those most suited to other parts of the country has not, apparently, been seriously considered. Certainly a large segment of the population is affected: Although a great deal of attention centres on metropolitan areas and their planning problems, more than half of Canada's popula-tion and much more than three-quarters of i t s settled land area are accounted for by non-metropolitan regions; i.e. where people live in small c i t i e s or towns or in the countryside. 1 9 In these areas the local p o l i t i c a l institutions are virtually identical to those found in metropolitan areas. They also share a common problem with the larger centres; i t was perceived almost twenty years ago by Eric Hardy when he wrote: In rural areas local services could perhaps be vastly improved by replacing the many small and weak units of government by a larger unit of government. . . (there is) a growing conviction that local government administration can be improved without any necessary loss in local control by the establishment of regional units of government which are able to carry out or coordinate certain municipal functions throughout such larger areas. 2 0 These remarks, written in 1955. reveal a certain prescience since they describe f a i r l y closely the solution adopted by British Columbia when i t introduced regional d i s t r i c t s ten years later. As noted earlier, one of the functions which might benefit most from such an arrangement is planning. 8 The provincial role in regional planning The term regional planning has more than one connotation. It may either refer to planning for regional economic development or to the 21 coordination of programs among two or more contiguous municipalities. A succinct distinction has been made by A.R. Kuklinski, who refers to, "the disaggregation of national plans", as opposed to, "the aggregation 22 of local plans." In Canada, the former could refer to either federal or provin-c i a l programs, but responsibility for f a c i l i t a t i n g the latter (through enabling legislation) rests solely with the provinces. At the most elementary level, this could mean ministerial approval of any joint plan-ning endeavours between municipalities. Spontaneous requests of this sort are rare and their goals inevitably limited. To effect any meaning-ful regional planning, "strong provincial leadership i s required", not only in regard to the introduction of new institutional mechanisms, but also in regard to the overall policy framework within which planning must function. Any government that contemplates introducing such innovations faces some d i f f i c u l t decisions in choosing the most appropriate format. A number of authorities have suggested guidelines i n this area. Although comparison is hampered by various authors assigning different labels to similar proposals, i t was possible to infer five common denominators from among their comments and pose them as questions. They are: 1 . Have c r i t e r i a for delimiting the administrative boundaries of the new regions been devised? 2. Has adequate provision been made for the involvement of 9 l o c a l councils (or c i t i z e n s ) i n the decision-making process? 3. Is there p r o v i s i o n for the h i e r a r c h i c a l , c o l l a t e r a l and fun c t i o n a l coordination of programs, e s p e c i a l l y l o c a l to 25 re g i o n a l , and regional to pr o v i n c i a l ? 4. W i l l the new units have a "strong administration" i n the sense that they have been delegated adequate power and author-i t y to carry out t h e i r assigned functions? 5. W i l l the new system possess the inherent f l e x i b i l i t y to adjust to changing conditions and planning imperatives? One other question i s whether they should be concerned only with r e -gional planning or should be mu l t i - f u n c t i o n a l u n i t s : This would have to be the subject of a separate discussion, but i t i s suggested i t would strengthen father than weaken the planning process. In the next chapter the approaches employed by Alberta, New Brunswick and Ontario are summarized i n order to place the discussion i n a broader perspective and i l l u s t r a t e the options a v a i l a b l e . Chapters Three and Four describe the regional d i s t r i c t s and the research r e s u l t s , while i n the f i n a l chapter, the data obtained from the study i s uled to evaluate the concept. Some substantive areas that are beyond the scope of the study include: problems of regional economic planning; municipal financing and taxation; planning for metropolitan areas; the r o l e of the planner; and l i a s d n and coordination between various l e v e l s of government. A l l have some relevance to regional planning and comments are made whenever i t appears appropriate, however the focus i s on regional d i s t r i c t s , t h e i r evolution, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and s u i t -a b i l i t y to regional planning i n B r i t i s h Columbia. CHAPTER TWO REGIONAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS Delimiting a service region The f i r s t of the five key factors which, i t was proposed, must be considered before introducing services on a regional scale is the selection of c r i t e r i a for defining the t e r r i t o r i a l boundaries of the new units. It is axiomatic that any good or service, public or private, has a f i n i t e number of consumers and i t s range or distribution can be encompassed within one or more discrete areas. However, while goods or services provided by the private sector can continually adjust their range in response to der i iar id and thus achieve maximum efficiency,"'' the situation in regard to public goods and services i s not so simple since: Given the size of the area required to internalize a public good, the appropriate provider of that good is the government whose t e r r i t o r i a l jurisdiction coincides with the requisite area. Assuming that no two public goods can be internalized f u l l y over exactly the same area and that the universe of public goods totals nj then n levels of government w i l l have to exist i f efficiency is to be maximized.2 It follows from this that there would be not only 11 levels of govern-ment, but also n regions — possibly none of them with identical boun-daries. In theory, three approaches are possible. The f i r s t is to create n regions with their corresponding units of administration and ignore overlapping and non-congruent boundaries. The second is to f i t a l l services into municipal or provincial t e r r i t o r i a l jurisdictions, 10 11 (services provided by the federal government are ignored for present purposes). The third approach and the one which i s , in practice, almost universally adopted f i t s most public goods and services into existing administrative boundaries of local or provincial governments. Where this i s judged to be impractical, special di s t r i c t s are created. Yet the decision to allocate a particular service may or may not be guided by specific policy considerations such as assigning jurisdiction to the smallest (territorial) unit of government capable of administering i t . Another policy might to minimize the number of regional or other admin-, 3 istrative units created and thus avoid proliferation of "governments". With or without these goals a decision to provide a new public service, or a decision to change the distribution pattern of an existing one, cannot be finalized without also deciding whether existing administra-tive boundaries are to be employed or entirely new ones defined. Some advantages of employing existing boundaries are the fact there is already an administrative machinery, they are familiar to the public, and (possibly) the rationale for establishing them in the f i r s t place is relevant. A major disadvantage is that they may prove quite inap^.. . propriate for the proposed service. If i t is assumed that the number of units to be created should be minimized, then a logical approach is to consolidate two or more services with a common boundary and a common administration. However, since i t has been postulated that no two services w i l l be "internalized" over exactly the same area, i t w i l l be necessary not only to compromise in respect to boundaries, but i t may also be necessary to decide which 12 services — or which c r i t e r i a — are to have p r i o r i t y . The most l i k e l y c r i t e r i a include minimum population, an integrated transportation net-work, economies of scale, number of l o c a l units involved, the presence of one or more regional centres, the nature of the economic base, and the " i n t e r a c t i o n between and among l o c a l u n i t s . Although thresholds for such items as minimum population have been proposed,"' l i t t l e empir-i c a l data ejd.sts to support them. In regard to methodologies for obtaining such data, a p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g source i s the l i t e r a t u r e of the economic and s o c i a l geographers. 7 Even i f t h i s data constraint could be overcome, i n most cases boundaries could riot be established s o l e l y on the basis of objective, q u a n t i f i a b l e information; some a r b i -trary judgements would have to be made. The l a t t e r w i l l be affected by other, more in t a n g i b l e considerations including which service (or services) are to be given p r i o r i t y . Coordination of p o l i c i e s ! and programs A regional i n s i t l t u t i b r i i s l i k e any other public agency or government; i t does not e x i s t i n i s o l a t i o n , but i s part of a complex decision-making system. As Lowden Wingo, J r . summarized i t : (Under a federal system) a l l o c a t i o n of p o l i t i c a l power exhibits three important dimensions: one, h i e r a r c h i c a l , i n the sense of f e d e r a l - s t a t e - l o c a l ' l e v e l s ' of government; two, c o l l a t e r a l , or the sharing of p o l i t i c a l authority among units at a given l e v e l ; and three, f u n c t i o n a l , as authority i s d i s t r i b u t e d among the agencies of each government i n accordance with i t s mission. Pro-blem regions, f a r from having appropriate governmental e n t i t i e s , are almost defined by the f a i l u r e of t h e i r problems to f i t well i n one or more of these dimensions . . . 8 He goes ori to suggest that the system, (and t h i s applies equally well to Canada's federal system), was conceived at a time when s o c i a l and economic independence rather than interdependence was the standard i n 13 most communities. Today we are, "enmeshed in a single, complex, inter-dependant, national society", and as a result our institutions must adapt accordingly. To simply create regional institutions w i l l not be sufficient, even i f i t is judged necessary. The plans of individual provincial departments, plans sponsored by other planning agencies, local plans, and also regional economic plans — whether provincially or federally sponsored — must a l l be integrated with one another i f a regional planning agency is going to be effective. If the institution i s designed to embrace more functions than just regional planning, then an opportunity exists for planning to be more closely integrated with them in the decision-making process. Some degree of coordination and integration i s inevitable, but to what degree i t occurs w i l l be influenced by how a particular regional system is conceived and implemented. This is pertinent in both mono-centric, (e.g. metropolitan), regions and polycentric regions where a single urban centre does not dominate. In either consensus and coopera-tion among the various actors is crucial since, "until such a consensus exists, a l l parties are free to suboptimize, and a l l concerns are paro-i chial, or non-regional. It was already noted in the previous chapter that regional planning agencies tend to be given an advisory rather than an adminis-trative role. This is not altogether surprising since, unlike most other functions delegated to special d i s t r i c t s , their activities w i l l impinge directly or indirectly on many aspects of civic decision-making. While such an advisory role may be p o l i t i c a l l y expedient i t is not, as Leonard Gertler points out, always conducive to effective planning: 14 (in an area of divided municipal jurisdiction) the planning process i s s p l i t between preparation, based on the study of a comprehensive area, and implementation, based on the consent of each constituent governmental unit. The regional planning function remains voluntary, advisory and usually i n e f f e c t i v e . 1 0 There is evidence to suggest that in some parts of Canada this charac-terization i s not altogether correct. As w i l l be discussed, in some provinces — including British Columbia -- regional planning may have commenced by being voluntary and advisory yet; over a period of yeiars, evolved into ari effective institution. Local government involvement The concerns involved here were elaborated on in the f i r s t chapter. The alternatives to local governments being directly involved in the decision-making process are: the special d i s t r i c t approach, the relinquishing of a particular service to the province, or the creation of a new level of government. Increased interest is Being shown in a modified form of the latter, This is the two-tiered regional body forming, iri effect, a federation of local governments. One or mofe" members from each of the' municipal councils involved is seconded to a regional council with a mandate to administer designated regional functions. Part of the rationale of this i s to ensure more direct involvement than is offered by either of the other two options, yet stop short of creating a fourth level of government. While i t could be argued that a directly elected fourth level of government provides s t i l l more direct voter participation, i t has i t s l i a b i l i t i e s . It would, for instance, further complicate the already delicate issue of what powers and what financial resources are to be allocated to local governments by the province. Voter apathy would likely increase. 15 Finally i t i s not unreasonable to assume that once such an entity was in existence, local governments would decline in importance, while the provincial level might perceive them as a threat. An obvious virtue of the two-tier arrangement is the potential the decision-makers have for resolving regional issues while safeguarding whatever they perceive to be the perquisites of local government. A strong administration This fourth consideration separates the often ineffective system of advisory units from those with real influence. In the pre-sent context, a strong administration means the delegation of substan-t i a l powers from the province to the regional institutions; i t also means they have a clear mandate and access to the necessary resources to f u l f i l l their function. Even though local governments might have to ratify the transfer of a particular function from the local to the regional level, the i n i t i a l impetus -- in the form of statutory powers — must come from the province. Since in this respect regional bodies are, like local governments, "creatures" of the state, these powers can be as comprehensive as the province wishes to make them. Aside from the power to regulate functions per se, provision for adequate finan-cing i s v i t a l . A possible corollary of this is the power to allocate, within the region, the funds provided for a particular service, (e.g. school boards, hospital boards and recreation boards are example of special d i s t r i c t s sometimes granted such powers). A different kind of mandate — and ultimately one just as v i t a l to the system's success — would evolve over time as i t developed traditions, a l i s t of achieve-ments, and popular support, a l l of them helping to reinforce it."'"''" 16 F l e x i b i l i t y and adaptability The inclusion of this latter category i s related to the long recognized problem of achieving some equilibrium between centralization 12 and decentralization of functions. Central government (in this case the province) can and should establish broad policy outlines; details should be l e f t to the local or regional level. In order to handle such details effectively, as much f l e x i b i l i t y as possible must be preserved. No two regions w i l l possess the same physical geography, the same eco-nomic base, identical social arid cultural values and, over time, any regional institution i s certain to encounter demands for change. The more readily such change can be accommodated and the more elastic the institutional structure then, i t i s argued, the more effective the insi t i t u t i o n i s lik e l y to be. The appropriate instrument for achieving this goal of f l e x i b i l i t y is the enabling legislation establishing a regional system. A precedent exists in the wide latitude normally given municipal governments in the by-laws they may adopt i f and when a need is perceived. Regional economic planning The five considerations discussed above have a l l been made from the perspective of "aggregating" local plans and services. The problems of regional economic planning, while beyond the scope of this study, are certainly relevant. It i s , of necessity, a "top down" program initiated by the federal or provincial level of government and may involve larger regions than those being discussed. It could be argued that this i s a less than ideal situation, particularly in re-spect to the coordination of policies and programs. Yet while there 17 13 is a considerable literature on the subject, this aspect is seldom 14 recognized, l e t alone discussed. Institutional innovations in Canada If the preservation of local autonomy is to be reconciled with the introduction of regional planning or other services on a regional scale and these services are to be effective then, i t has been suggest--ed, not only are institutional innovations a necessary prerequisite, but the active involvement of central government is also needed. The research conducted for this paper revealed several examples where the provinces have taken the i n i t i a t i v e and interceded in regional plan-ning, economic planning, local government structure, or a l l three. British Columbia's regional d i s t r i c t concept i s , of course, the example that w i l l be examined in some depth. To place the discussion in a national perspective and to demonstrate the variety of possible appro-ches, the policies adopted by Alberta, New Brunswick and Ontario are summarized here. Alberta's regional, planning commissions Alberta has a long tradition of interceding in local affairs. In 1918 incorporation into municipalities was made mandatory in many of the province's numerous unorganized areas; in 1936, 3,771 school dis-t r i c t s were consolidated into 50 school divisions; and in 1942 the 143 rural municipalities then in existance were forcibly merged into 60 larger, more viable units. In 1950 the province initiated two new programs with regional implications. The f i r s t was to assimilate special d i s t r i c t s such as school boards and hospital boards into rural municipal councils. Other ' ; " 18 cr i t e r i a for the new "counties" were discussed (e.g. a balanced assess-ment base), but in practice few of the.existing boundaries changed. Hospital boards proved unassimilable and the major result has been that approximately half the province's rural municipalities have absorbed schools as a local government function. Although they f e l l far short of becoming truly regional institutions, i t i s notable that their adop-tion was gradual and permissive; i n i t i a l l y only four counties were formed oh a " t r i a l " basis. The second innovation, regional planning commissions, were also introduced in a low-key, permissive manner. The f i r s t two were created to serve the areas surrounding Calgary and Edmonton. Others followed, and today most of the provin-ce's populated areas are served by one of seven commissions. First introduced as purely advisory agencies, the commissions were given the power to adopt regional plans in 1957 and in 1960 made the subdivision approving authorities for their regions. Membership is voluntary and costs are shared by the province and the local governments. The com-missions themselves are formed of local councillors seconded from member municipalities together with a handful of representatives from provincial government departments who, although they have a vote, perform primarily in a liason capacity. Outside of the metropolitan areas, regional populations range from 45,000 to over 120,000. It should be noted that Alberta had the f i r s t , and for many years the only, province-wide system of regional planning in Canada. It is also pertinent to observe that while most local governments situated within a planning region have voluntarily joined the commission, i t has been a gradual process; acceptance of the institution has been going on for over twenty years. 1 9 Municipal reform i n New Brunswick New Brunswick's experience is of interest primarily because i t illustrates just how much latitude a province has in effecting i n s t i t u -tional change. For over two hundred years local and regional affairs in the province were administered by a moribund county system; only six 16 \ separately incorporated c i t i e s were unaffected by i t . In 1966, a l l local functions outside of the six cit i e s were pre-empted by the pro-vince. It subsequently retained direct control of property taxation, education, public health, justice and welfare. The remaining local functions were delegated to ninety newly created villages and a number of sparsely populated unorganized areas. Rather surprisingly, the new legislation made no provision for regional administration, planning or 17 otherwise. Ontario's regional governments Following the report in 1967 of the Ontario Committee on Taxa-r tion, (the Smith report), a program to divide the whole province into 18 twelve "regional municipalities" was introduced. These units were to complement the existing balanced economic development policy by, among other things, a massive reorganization of the municipal structure. Numerous school boards and many small units of local government were to • 19 be amalgamated or their areas of jurisdiction reapportioned. Each new unit would have a minimum population of 150,000. Among i t s manda-tory functions would be public health, welfare, assessment, arterial roads, and regional planning (in addition to such "conventional" ser-vice functions as water and sewer systems). As in Alberta, a two-tiered system is employed with the representatives on the regional body seconded from local councils. However, in Ontario the votes of 20 delegates are weighted according to the number of constituents they represent. Although membership is mandatory, the formation of each new unit has been preceded by considerable publicity and discussion. They have also been introduced incrementally. The f i r s t one was incorpor-ated on January 1, 1969 and since then they have formed at the rate of 20 one each year. Regional planning is a key feature of the system, but planning goals must be subordinated to the province's economic develop-ment goals. In harmony with this, local planning i s expected to mesh with regional planning objectives. These directives are representative of the great stress placed on liason and coordination between planning and other public services. Explicit provision for such integration of activities must be included in o f f i c i a l regional plans which w i l l even-tually be prepared by the new units. Summary It can be seen from the above outline that in Alberta and Ontario, two provinces where regional systems have been introduced, several disparities exist when they are compared in the context of the five key factors. First of a l l , in Alberta the administrative bound-aries coincide with those of existing rural municipalities, while in Ontario the entire system i s being revamped. Second, while Ontario has made explicit the province's concern for coordination and integra-21 tion, there is no provision for this in Alberta's legislation. Both provinces involve local governments through a federated, or two-tier, system. In Ontario i t appears the new units w i l l have a strong admin-istration on the basis of the various functions assigned to them (no 21 empirical data was available to confirm whether or not this was true in practice); in Alberta regional planning commissions have been given more than a token, advisory role. Finally, both provinces appear to have made some provision for adapting to different regional needs. In Ontario the regional units are separately created and the functions and internal reorganization varied to suit the situation. While a detailed examination was beyond the scope of this study and the very recent introduction of Ontario's system makes any conclusions prema-ture, the legislation appears to have a bias towards centralization which might prove too ri g i d to meet changing needs and conditions. In Alberta, although only one regional service i s involved, the various commissions have been granted relative autonomy is setting regional 22 policies, In each example, including New Brunswick, i t has been provin-c i a l — not local — i n i t i a t i v e which has done away with or greatly modified existing institutions. In the remainder of the study s t i l l another approach, the regional d i s t r i c t concept, is examined, CHAPTER THREE BILL.83: . THE INTRODUCTION OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS Introduction: .the need for regional solutions In June, 1965; the legislative assembly unaimously approved B i l l 83, a proposal to divide the whole province into regional dis-t r i c t s . The concept was intended to provide the means bf resolving regional problems, while retaining locai control through a federated approach."'" The legislation appears to have been the logical outcome of several discefnable trends. These included: 1. The province's geography impedes centralized administration. 2. The precedent set by existing regional planning agencies. 3. The failure of attempts to introduce new approaches to governing the province's two metropolitan areas. 4. The chronic problem of servicing and administering the province's extensive unorganized areas. In British Columbia regions have already been demarcated by the rugged topography and relative scarcity of arable land. Early communities located either in small enclaves along the coast, or in the more1 accessible parts of the interior plateau; Ah emphasis oh natural resource development and the prohibitive costs of constructing roads and railways' also affected the settlement pattern. This situation, together i with the location of the provincial capital in the extreme southwest corner of the province, made some decentralization of provincial 23 administration inevitable. In fact, until air travel became common-place, i t often took two or three days to reach many communities. The regional d i s t r i c t i s only the most recent approach to regional planning in the province. A provincial planning office was 2 f i r s t established in 1946, and a year later "regulated areas" (later renamed Community Planning Areas or CPAs) were introduced for the 3 benefit of the residents in unorganized areas. By 1964 there were 27 of them scattered throughout the province. New regulations introduced in 1959 allowed neighbouring CPA's to make joint planning agreements with one another and encouraged any group of residents in an unorganized area who perceived a community of interest to petition for the 4 establishment of a CPA. The planning branch of the Department of Municipal Affairs provided local planning assistance and was also empowered to set the minimum parcel sizes in any subdivision within a designated Community Planning Area. However, other provincial departments possessed, and continue to possess, a great deal of influence on land use decisions made in the unorganized areas; For example, any subdivision must be reviewed and approved by an appointed, "approving officer". Since most of the residents concerned li v e close to the highways, this task i s normally delegated to the d i s t r i c t highway engineer. Although public health standards and possible conflict with such resource developments as forestry are considered, his primary concern is safe and orderly access to the highway. The regional planning boards In addition to the provincially administered CPA's, the province 24 had six regional planning areas under the direction of Regional Planning Boards. These were established between 1949 and 1964 to serve the more heavily populated areas of the province. By the time the last one was formed, they contained approximately three-quarters of the province's population,^ The board members were seconded from member municipalities, with each delegating one councillor. Unlike the regional d i s t r i c t s , or Ontario's regional units, voting was not weighted by population, nor were residents of any unorganized areas lying within a regional planning area represented on the planning board. As institutions the boards were f a i r l y typical of the "advisory" plan-ning commissions alluded to earlier.. They had to rely on consensus and cooperation among their members to implement any regional planning pro-gram, although the legislation did permit boards to adopt regional plans which would be binding on a l l members. In spite of these con-straints their influence was not negligible and one of them, the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board (or LMRPB), proved remarkably successful. . The LMRPB, incorporated in 1949, was the f i r s t and by far the largest of the six boards. Its planning area included a l l of metropoli-tan Vancouver and extended almost 100 miles inland to encompass the whole Lower Mainland. During the nineteen years the LMRPB operated, i t s i staff released an impressive number of planning studies and reports. In 1964 they decided enough preliminary studies were available to under-take the preparation of a regional plan and in 1966 the, " O f f i c i a l Regional Plan" for the Lower Mainland was adopted. By designating land uses in several broad categories, (e.g. urban, urban reserve, industrial, agricultural, recreational, etc.) the plan guided and defined land uses 25 for the whole metropolitan area and i t s immediate hinterland. It undoubtedly checked the indiscriminate subdivision of prime agricultural land which had been occurring. The board's activities were widely and favorably publicized, especially by Vancouver's daily newspapers with their province-wide readership. It is reasonable to conclude that this publicity, prolonged over a number of years, contributed to a general awareness of the plan-ning process among both elected representatives and the general public. More localized publicity about the act i v i t i e s of the province's other planning boards would have reinforced this awareness. The most prominent of these was the Capital Regional Planning Board, formed in 1951 to serve the Greater Victoria area. These other boards were eventually phased out and their planning functions transfered to the planning departments of regional d i s t r i c t s whose boundaries enclosed the former planning areas. An exception was made in the case of the LMRPB; i t s area of responsibility has been allocated among the four regional d i s t r i c t s which now serve Greater Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, (see Figure 2). Its demise was accompanied by widespread resentment and disappointment. The metropolitan problem in British Columbia Neither Vancouver nor Victoria have been spared the fragmenta-tion of local governments which confounds so many metropolitan areas. In Vancouver, the practice of employing special service d i s t r i c t s as a solution to intermunicipal problems has a long history. In 1914, a special authority, the Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage District was introduced. 7 A second, unaffiliated, agency — the Greater Vancou-ver Water District was formed in 1926. Eleven years later, seven local 26 councils agreed to form the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Associa-tion: one of the f i r s t regional planning institutions organized in North America. Shortly afterwards the provincial government began to hint at the possibility of introducing regional planning legislation — an i n i t i a t i v e that was interrupted by World War II. The interest in land use planning was delayed, but not defeated. In 1943 the province appointed a Postwar Rehabilitation Council (the Perry Committee). Its recommendations led to the creation of a Regional Planning Division, which in turn prepared, "A Proposed Lower Mainland Regional Plan" (the Graham Report). In this same period private consultants retained by the cit i e s of New Westminster and Vancouver released a complementary report entitled, "Decentralization and Regional Planning". The latter document, " . . . drew no sharp distinction between the metropolitan areas and the Lower Mainland region, other than to describe the former as (urban) 9 and the latter as rural." The intensive urban growth and increased pres-sures on land use which followed the war led to the passage, in 1948, of the long promised regional planning legislation — the f i r s t legislation of i t s kind in Canada. It soon became obvious an advisory planning agency such as the LMRPB could not cope with Vancouver's burgeoning growth and the increas-ingly frequent conflicts with adjacent municipalities. In 1954 a propo-sal to introduce a two-tiered form of metropolitan government was pre-viewed by the province at the annual convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities."'"^ . Earlier that same year an ad hoc committee of mayors, known as the Reeves and Mayors Committee, had begun meeting to discuss problems of mutual interest in the metropolitan area. While the group may have been trying to revive the s p i r i t of the prewar regional planning group, i t was hostile to any form of metropolitan government. The province, ignoring the committee's objections, reaffirmed i t s inten-tion to introduce metropolitan government at succeeding annual conven-tions, and the enabling legislation was included in the new Municipal Act of 1957. A three stage approach was selected: assessment of the problem by a committee, followed by provincial review and approval, and f i n a l l y submission of the proposal td a public referendum. The f i r s t stage was initiated in Vancouver almost immediately with the formation of the Metropolitan Joint Committee, (better known as the Hugo Ray Committee, after i t s chairman). The committee sponsored a series of detailed, well-researched reports on a l l aspects of local government functions.'1'"'' While i t generated a lot of interest and discussion, the committee was unable to arrive at any firm recommendations and in 1962 i t was disbanded. / Unorganized areas and the joint services board The administration of the province's unorganized areas may well have been the most c r i t i c a l of the four factors which, i t was suggested, led to the creation of regional d i s t r i c t s . These areas cover over 98% 12 of the province and contain almost 15% of i t s population. A l l but a handful of the organized rural d i s t r i c t s are found outside the populous southwestern corner, while the urban communities tend to be widely scattered. In several instances substantial communities have evolved on the fringes of incorporated communities and, since they often l i e within unorganized territory, the province assumes the role of muni-cipal authority. Their residents have never had local government nor, 13 apparently, have they missed i t . A more recent phenomena has been 28 the creation of numerous country residential subdivisions, many of them well removed from any trade centre and often containing relatively l i t t l e in the way of urban services. The province, cognizant of the problems posed by the unorganized areas as well as i t s commitment to introduce some form of federated government to the metropolitan areas, initiated a new strategy in Victo-r i a in June, 1964. This city, unlike Vancouver, contains sizable areas of unorganized territory well within i t s metropolitan ambit. In recogni-tion of this situation, representatives from both organized and unorgan-ized areas were invited to a provincially sponsored conference to discuss the establishment of a, "joint services board. The territory to be administered by the proposed board would be virtually identical to that then within the Capital Regional Planning Area, however under the new system the residents of the unorganized areas would be given f u l l representation with the votes of members (in both organized and unorganized areas) weighted to reflect the popula-tions of their constituencies. The services to be provided would be based on what were identified as the five, "common problems" of the participating communities. These Were: 1. Sanitary sewage and solid waste disposal. 2. Public health, including control of air pollution. 3. Regional parks and recreational f a c i l i t i e s . 4. Hospital financing. 5. Regional planning. With a few minor reservations the delegates endorsed the concept in prin-ciple and preparations were made to follow up with, "confidential talks" on cost-sharing and other details. In comments made at the time, the ! •• 29 newly appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable Dan j Campbell, hinted that the conference was only the prelude to new prov-i n c i a l legislation. He stressed the egalitarian as well as the plan-ning implications of the joint services idea when he declared: "We can't approach something like planning on a regional basis and leave gaps where these special (unorganized) areas exist; there is also the question of f a i r play for a l l . " " ^ The strategy presented in Victoria was significantly d i f f e r -ent from that employed in the study of metropolitan government for Vancouver. What was being proposed was the consolidation of several  specific functions under a single, p o l i t i c a l l y responsive authority. In sharp contrast to the years of interminable committee meetings in Vancouver, delegates hammered out and adopted the new concept during an intensive three day workshop which commenced in Victoria on June 20, 1964. The positive response was apparently considered ah omen, i f not actually a mandate from local government and the new idea was quietly and informally communicated to councils throughout the province by means of v i s i t s from Department of Municipal Affairs personnel."^ Almost exactly a year later i t was formally introduced in the legisla-ture as B i l l 83. The f i r s t regional d i s t r i c t Regional d i s t r i c t s provide a "vehicle" that allow a group of communities to share, i f they wish, the costs and benefits of one or more services on a regional or sub-regional basis. The i n i t i a l step of incorporation as a regional d i s t r i c t involves only a nominal commitment on the part of member units. Where most services are concerned, (e.g. 30' ' public works, local planning) a member unit may contract the service from the regional d i s t r i c t or administer i t locally. Possibly as a result of this low-key approach to institutional change, the formation of the early d i s t r i c t s drew l i t t l e attention from the media.''"7 It was subsequent conflict over the adoption of particular functions that sometimes became widely publicized. The f i r s t d i s t r i c t to be incorporated, Comox-Strathcona, is an excellent example of this. It was o f f i c i a l l y formed on August 9, 1965 and the records would suggest that this step had been overwhelm-ingly approved by a public referendum. A more careful examination of the circumstances leads to the conclusion that the voters were actually unaware of the fact they were committing their communities to member-18 ship in a new joint services d i s t r i c t . This seeming paradox resulted when a local controversy over hospital financing coincided with the regional d i s t r i c t proposal. The highly emotional hospital issue domi-nated the local press for weeks, and i t was this — not the regional d i s t r i c t concept — that was apparently perceived as the main purpose of the referendum. The situation began in Ap r i l , 1965, when local leaders from the three neighbouring communities of Comox, Courtenay and Cumberland com-menced a series of "closed meetings" with municipal affairs personnel 19 to discuss the formation of a regional d i s t r i c t . On May 17 the coun-c i l of Courtenay, the regional trade centre, unanaimously adopted a resolution favoring the creation of a regional d i s t r i c t . This was a f u l l month before B i l l 83 was passed by the legislature. Then, at the beginning of July, a l l three communities approved two questions for inclusion in a public referendum about hospitals. Substantively tha 31 voters were asked i f they favored: \ 1. . . . (the creation of) a regional d i s t r i c t for hospital purposes . . . 2. . . . a 2.5 mill assessment (to finance construction of a new private hospital). Since the area already contained a public and a private hospital, the two questions were not mutually exclusive; what was required were additional f a c i l i t i e s . The private hospital would have replaced f i f t y three year old St. Joseph's hospital in Cumberland. Between the announcement of the referendum and the vote, a bitter debate raged over whether the taxpayer should be asked to support public or private hospitals, the local press gave generous coverage to advocates on both sides, but hardly c l a r i f i e d the purpose of the referendum when i t declared editorially: If you desire a regional d i s t r i c t for hospital purposes you may vote yes to that. If you decide . . . that you would prefer a publicly owned, publicly administered hospital, you may vote no to the second part of the plebescite.20 The residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of the f i r s t propor-i sal, but were almost evenly divided on the second one. The seemingly innocuous regional d i s t r i c t proposal was thus completely overshadowed by a more topical issue and blithely adopted. It was only subsequent to this decision that the local press began to speculate about the implica-21 tions of membership in a regional d i s t r i c t . Rather ironically, the f i n a l decision on which hospital to finance was l e f t to the province which, after some hesitation, approved funds for both hospitals. Characteristics of the regional d i s t r i c t s The confusion attending the birth of the f i r s t regional d i s t r i c t was probably atypical, as in other areas they were quickly and even enthusiastically adopted. A review of th£ dates of incorporation reveals 32 a distinct pattern, with 11 of the 28 d i s t r i c t s (or 40 percent) being formed within the f i r s t nine months, (see Table I). There is then a break of over a year before the remaining d i s t r i c t s began to incorporate 22 one by one. • By August, 1968, 28 of the designated 29 dis t r i c t s were 23 in operation; i t had taken just three years for virtually the whole province to accept the new institution. No explanation for the interrup-tion could be found, although the introduction of the "companion" Regional Hospital Districts statute which occured during this period 24 could have had an influence. This is suggested by the fact that the legislation makes hospitals a " l o c a l " responsibility (with provincial financial assistance) and provides for the regional hospital districts and regional d i s t r i c t s to have common board members including electoral area representatives, (i.e. from the unorganized areas). The c r i t e r i a announced by the province for establishing the regional d i s t r i c t boundaries were: a population of at least 30,000; an assessment base (taxable for school piirp'bses) of at least $40 million; a well-integrated transportation infrastructure, and the presence of at 25 least one trade centre. Very few of the d i s t r i c t s could be construed 26 as natural geographic or economic regions. Their borders are based on what may have been the only feasible set of existing administrative boun-daries — the school d i s t r i c t s -- because they cover the entire province. As a result each regional d i s t r i c t encompasses two or more of the 70 school d i s t r i c t s into which the province was already divided. While on the one hand the presence of immense unorganized areas, some of them heavily populated, made the use of municipal boundaries impractical, the most l i k e l y rationale for employing school dis t r i c t s was simply one of expediency. Certainly education was never seriously discussed as a TABLE I CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS" Number of Board Members i n : Name of Date of Population Assessment E l e c t o r a l Incorporated Regional D i s t r i c t Incorporation- (June,, 1966) Base (19.69)' Areas Communities T o t a l Alberni-Clayoquot A p r i l 21, 1966 27,810 80,222 6 4 10 Bulkley-Nechako February 1, 1966 19,771 50,-856 7 7 14 C a p i t a l Regional February 1, 1966 181,366 485,538 7 n 18 D i s t r i c t . Cariboo July 9, 1968 31,257 82,012 10- 3 13 Central Fraser V a l l e y October 17, 1967 41,167. 97,577 1 7 8 Central Kootenay November 30, 1965 44,632 99,348 11 10 21 Central Okanagan August 24, 1967 33,854 125,129. . 9 2 11 Columbia-Shuswap. November 30, 1965 25,463 49,877 4 4 8 Comox-S trathcona August 9, 1965 38,838 136,9.52 10 7 17 Cowichan V a l l e y September 26, 1967 32,464 . 124,934. 9>. 5 14 Dewdney-Alouette October 27,. 1957 32,512 68,728 5 4 9 East Kootenay November 30, 1965 30,593; 90,481 7. 5 12 Fraser-Cheam September 29, 1967 39,256 80,976' 6 6 12 Fraser-Fort George March 8, 1967 50,993^  196,026 7 6 13 Greater Vancouver June 29, 1967 891,365 2,769,464 3 19 22 Kitima t - S t i k i n e September 14, 1967 25,338? 97,670, 3 4 7 Kootenay Boundary February 22, 1966- 31,147 81,773 5 8 13 Mount Waddington June 13, 1966 8,396, 26,370 4 4 8 Nanaimo August 24, 1967 39,219 158,031 9.< 4 13 North Okanagan November 9, 1965 27,046 63,475. 6 6 12 Ocean F a l l s July 16, 1968. 5,923 26,098, 5 5 Okanagan-Similkameen March 4, 1966 35,319: 152', 326 8, 8 16 Peace R i v e r - L a i r d October 31, 1967 40>842 142 ,,662. 5. 6 11 Powell River December 19y 1967 16,168 59,731 4 2 6 Skeena A August 17, 1967 20,452 65,793 4 4 8 Squamish-Lillooet October 3, 1968 9,588 28,926 5 3 8 S t i k i n e Sunshine Coast January 4, 1967 8,039; 42,101- 6 2 8 Thompson-Nicola November 24,. 1967 56,178 175,917 1'4 7 21 ' 35 regional d i s t r i c t function. An alternative to school dis t r i c t s would have been agglomerations of the .80 "economic areas" employed for some 27 years by the province's Bureau of Economics and Statistics. These in turn are grouped into ten economic regions V Even i f some compromises were made to accommodate local preferences or to achieve a more "balanced" assessment base, somewhat larger (and therefore fewer) dist r i c t s might have been seriously considered — and publicly discussed. Some of the most conspicuous anomalies are the Squamish-Lilldoet d i s t r i c t which encompasses part of the coastline and part of the interior plateau and is not even linked by public road. Its population and i t s assessment base are both well below the proposed mihimums (see Table 1). It would have been far more logical for the Squamish half to have been linked to the Sunshine Coast and the Lillooet end made part of the Thompson-Nicola d i s t r i c t (see Figure 1). Another example i s the Mount Waddington d i s t r i c t covering the northern tip of Vancouver I s land. It has a relatively small population and assessment base arid might well have been included with Comox-Strathcoria (see Figure 1). The above two cases have an overiding logic that i s d i f f i c u l t to refute. Other combinations were allegedly discussed including Powell River and the Sunshine Coast; Kitimat-Stikine and Skeena A; a single regional d i s t r i c t for the Okanagan; 28 and possibly two, rather thari four d i s t r i c t s for the Lower Mainland. In each instance p o l i t i c a l pressures from the local or provincial level were apparently decisive. Although never made explicit, i t is possible that the potential of developing a regional perspective also influenced the decisions to establish particular boundaries, especially iri those dist r i c t s where the presence of a single, regional trade centre was found. 36 Organization of the regional d i s t r i c t s ' The decision-making arm of the regional d i s t r i c t is the Regional Dist r i c t Board. In order to ensure that there i s equitable fepresenta-tion on this board from both organized and unorganized areas, a formula of representation by population units i s employed, with each member enti-tled to a maximum of five votes, depending on the size of community he represents. A few very large communities have more than one representa-tive: for example, the City of Vancouver has five, Victoria, Penticton, and Oak Bay have three each, and several other centres have two represen-tatives. The unorganized areas are divided into "electoral areas", gene-r a l l y corresponding to census subdivisions (upon which in turn school d i s t r i c t boundaries are often based) and the board representative i s directly elected by residents at the same time as municipal elections are held. Incorporated municipalities second one of their council members to the board. The number of members on any given board ranges from 5 to 21, (see Table 1). The number of representatives from electoral areas varies from one in the Central Fraser Valley to fourteen in the Thompson-Nicola regional d i s t r i c t . In five d i s t r i c t s members from electoral areas actu- •'. all y hold a majority of the votes and in several other dis t r i c t s they f a l l just short of having a majority. In this respect at least, citizen participation in regional decision-making see-as assured; Another of the basic considerations proposed in this study, coor-dination between and among different levels of government appears rather uneven. Because of the board structure described above, liason with local governments i s well provided for. A reasonably good interface with the Department of Municipal Affairs also seems li k e l y both by direct contact (regional d i s t r i c t s are under i t s purview) and because of mutual 37 concerns with the residents of electoral areas. Other than this the only formal provision for liason between the d i s t r i c t s and the province is by means of the Technical Planning Committee system. It brings staff mem-bers of the regional d i s t r i c t s , e.g. the planning director and/or the secretary-treasurer, together with the regional supervisors or other representatives of provincial departments and agencies in order to discuss and coordinate their respective programs. Normally a representa-tive of the Planning Division of the Department of Municipal Affairs also attends the monthly meeting of the committee. However, unlike Ontario, there is no provision in the regional d i s t r i c t legislation (or any other legislation) which requires the various programs to mesh with one another or with an overall provincial policy. As w i l l be seen, this has been i perceived by a number of informants as one of the concept's most serious shortcomings. In theory the powers delegated, to the regional districts by the province appear to be a mandate for them to take on a host of tradition-ally municipal functions ranging from fireworks control and solid waste disposal to planning and building inspection (see Table II). In practice, regional planning has become the only mandatory function. Any other functions adopted are voluntary and may involve two or more member communities (or. areas). A conspicuous advantage is that i f the provi-sion of a particular service involves heavy capital costs, the assess-ment base of the whole d i s t r i c t , not just the area concerned, can be used as security: The province's Municipal Finance Authority, established in 1969, and whose members are appointed by the boards, now handles this type of financing. Debentures are issued by the Authority and areas or communities requiring assistance borrow directly from i t . TABLE IT-SERVICES AND STUDIES ADOPTED BY REGIONAL DISTRICTS (to December 31, 1970) Number of Service Districts or Study Adopting It A. . Service Functions Water Supply 3; Sanitary Sewage 3 Solid Waste Disposal 10 Transportation 1 Contract Services (to members) 24 Local Works and Services 24 Pest Control 4 Electrical' Distribution 1 Airport Management 1 Grants-in-Aid 5 Cemeteries 1 B. Regulatory Functions Building Inspection 27 Fireworks Regulation 7 Air Pollution 2 Family Court 1 Soil Removal Regulation 6 Firearms (Discharge of) 6-Untidy Premises 3-Nuisance Removal 1-Noise Control 1 Oyster Bed Leases (pending) 1 Dog Licensing (pending) 1 Service or Study Number of Districts Adopting It C. Planning Services Regional Planning 28 Local Community Planning (contract) 27 Urban Renewal" 1 D. Health Care. Services^ Ambulance 7 Home Nursing 1 Health Regulation .2 Emergency Answering Service 1 German Measles Immunization 3 Elderly Citizens Housing 3 E. . Special. Studies Water Resources? 4 Functions and Boundaries (of Regional District) 5 Library Services: 1 Ecological Study (pending) 1 Taxation Study (pending) 1 F: Parks and Recreation Functions Parks (Regional Parks) 9 Recreation.Facilities 1 Recreation Program 5 NOTE: Regional parks are administered, under the Regional,. Parks Act; like the Hospital Districts, a "companion" statute to the legislation establishing regional d i s t r i c t s . 3 9 Members may also contract services directly from their regional d i s t r i c t , (e.g. local planning). In some electoral areas the regional d i s t r i c t has almost become a surrogate local government in the sense that a number of local services may be provided by i t and the costs recovered from the province which, in turn, passes them on as local taxes to the area involved. What apparently is involved is a voluntary transfer of powers from the local to the regional level in the case of incorporated areas, but in the case of the electoral areas i t is d i f f i c u l t to say whe-ther or not i t should be characterized as a transfer of provincial respon-s i b i l i t i e s to the regional level. The element of doubt is created by the fact that while the province established the framework to f a c i l i t a t e (among other reasons) the provision of services to unorganized areas, i t is s t i l l up to them whether or not they request a particular service. Since the services, or functions, are added incrementally i f and when a particular d i s t r i c t perceives a need for them and because the districts are registered as corporations, a device known as Letters Patent is employed; these can be amended by ministerial order whenever a board decides to take on a new function — subject, of course, to provincial approval. It i s the provision for the delegation of power to administer almost any municipal or regional function that leads to the great f l e x i -b i l i t y which has, in a sense, become the hallmark of the regional dis-t r i c t concept. The legislation also provides.for the amendment of d i s t r i c t boundaries i f requested. In most circumstances and for most functions, a request from the local council or councils concerned, and in the case of an electoral area, a referendum, help to ensure local control is retained as an integral part of the decision-making process. 40 In some instances, such as the adoption of a regional plan, decisions which w i l l affect the whole of the region require the approval of a major-ity of the directors having a majority of the votes. Except for this, a majority of the votes is sufficient. There is also provision for an appeal by a council or electoral area delegation against any decision or by-law passed by a particular board. The appeal l i e s to the Inspector of Municipalities, and is a further constraint on the apparent amount of power delegated to the d i s t r i c t s . Thus, in summary, the regional districts could be perceived as glorified municipalities since, in spite of their undoubted advantages, they remain very much the creatures of the Department of Municipal Affairs. Their policies and decisions cannot be reviewed by or appealed to any form of interdepartmental committee or board, 2 9 n Q r can decisions made by another department or agency which might conflict with regional goals be challenged by the d i s t r i c t . I ) CHAPTER FOUR CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS A. Five regional d i s t r i c t s — a review Introduction In addition to preparing a history of the regional di s t r i c t s two other strategies were employed to generate information. The f i r s t was to select five d i s t r i c t s possessing a variety of characteristics as a more or less representative cross-section of the province's. 26 non-metropolitan units. The five were the Central Fraser Valley, Dewdriey-Alouette, Comox-Strathcona, Sunshine Coast and Cariboo regional di s t r i c t s The populations range from the second smallest d i s t r i c t in the province (the Sunshine Coast) to the third largest, (the Central Fraser Valley). They include the f i r s t and last d i s t r i c t s to be incorporated. Two dis-t r i c t s were formerly part of a planning region, two more are on the edge of a metropolitan area; two are oh the coast; and one is located dri the Interior plateau* They contain a diversity of economic bases. Three d i s t r i c t s rely heavily on forestry and associated industry, one is tra-ditionally an agricultural area, while the f i f t h i s popular as a resort and retirement area. Whiie five, examples do not constitute a large enough sample to attempt any s t a t i s t i c a l inferences, they do indicate the diverse areas which have been incorporated into regional d i s t r i c t s . The information can also be used to suggest hypotheses which might be 4 1 4 2 tested in future studies. Central Fraser Valley Regional District This d i s t r i c t has a common boundary with the metropolitan Greater Vancouver Regional District and is directly in line with the logical eastward expansion of the metropolitan area. Several sizable nodes of urbanization have already appeared since, outside of peak t r a f f i c periods, no part of i t is more than an hour's drive from down-town Vancouver. The d i s t r i c t contains the two small, incorporated communities of Abbotsford and Langley, three rural-urban municipalities — the Districts of Langley, Matsqui and Sumas — and one small electoral area. The rural municipalities control 17 of the regional board's 21 votes; a good indication of how urbanized they have already become. Exploratory meetings between provincial representatives arid councillors began in November, 1966 and the idea of forming a regional d i s t r i c t was, apparently, quickly endorsed.''' The following year some councils, already in conflict with the LMRPB, asked to have the new 2 d i s t r i c t absorb the planning function, and this was done December 31, 1968, just three months before the formal dissolution of the LMRPB. In an interview, the planning director suggested that in spite of resentment towards the LMRPB, most councillors appreciate and sup-3 port the O f f i c i a l Regional Plan, but otherwise have l i t t l e grasp of the planning process and are generally reluctant to take a stand on land use policies* (similar sentiments were expressed by planning directors interviewed in other d i s t r i c t s ) . It was suggested by the director that in spite of urbanization, many decision-makers in the area s t i l l have a strongly parochial attitude towards regional plan-ning. Other incidents support this. For example, three municipalities, 43 Matsqui, Langley, and the City of Langley, employ private planning consultants rather than contract for local planning with the regional d i s t r i c t . Furthermore, the District of Langley has declined to adopt a zoning by-law because this w i l l exempt the municipality, from compli-ance with the O f f i c i a l Regional Plan's regulations. A f i n a l symptom is the scarcity of Municipal Planning Commissions; the two existing ones apparently never meet. One result i s that the planning director comprises the entire planning staff for an area whose population is estimated to be in excess of 50,000 people (in 1971: see Table I). Dewdney-Alouette Regional District Located across the Fraser from the Central Fraser Valley d i s t r i c t , residents of this d i s t r i c t are also within easy commuting dis-tance of Vancouver (see Figure 2) and i t s incorporated areas were also formerly members of the LMRPB. Like i t s neighbour across the river, i t was formed in October, 1967 arid the event was preceded by a number of 4 informal meetings with c i v i l servants. Otherwise, there aire few points of similarity between the two. The rural-urban municipalities of Maple Ridge and Mission have almost 90 percent of the population between them. The remainder of the d i s t r i c t i s divided between the small farming municipality of Pitt Mea-dows and five sparsely populated electoral areas. The economy is f a i r l y diversified with the forestry arid wood products industry the largest single employer.'' Less than 10 percent of the population resides on farms compared with 30 percent in the Central Fraser Valley. About the time of incorporation the proposed establishment of a Regional Hospital District received a lot of attention in the local press.^ The fact there are two hospitals in the d i s t r i c t , both 45 competing for government funds, paralleled the situation encountered in Comox-Strathcona. In fact,, once the hospital dispute was resolved, the paper began to give generous coverage not only to the potential of regional d i s t r i c t s , but also to outstanding local planning issues. The new concept received grudging acceptance; e.g. " ( i t w i l l work the same way the province) made school d i s t r i c t s work twenty years ago — by l e g i s l a t i o n . 1 , 7 There was also some pointed criticism. A typical editorial suggested,-"one thing seems clear: Victoria wishes to trans-fer a much larger percentage of government capacity to the local 8 lev e l . " The context implied this benevolence was not necessarily doing local government a favor. It was evident from repeated referen-ces that the paper lamented the demise of the LMRPB. The d i s t r i c t hired a planning director in April, 1969 and; in an interview, he suggested two-thirds of his staff's time was spent on local planning contracted for by member municipalities. The integra-tion of local and regional planning activities in the di s t r i c t is greatly simplified by the fact the dis t r i c t ' s two service centres, Haney and Mission City, are pol i t i c a l l y , amalgamated with the rural-urban municipalities surrounding them and further segregated from one another by a spur extending from the nearby mountains. Current plan-ning issues include influencing — i f possible — the routes selected for a proposed four larie highway and a hydroelectric transmission line; protecting the natural environment in the mountain wilderness that covers much of the d i s t r i c t ; and coping with growing pressure from recreational v i s i t o r s . The latter i s the result of the area's prox-imity to Vancouver. There are many day visitors and local councils are adamant about not spending money on amenities which primarily benefit 4 6 non-residents. A tentative comparison between these f i i s t two di s t r i c t s shows that Dewdney-Alouette, while i t has a smaller population and assessment 9 base, has a larger staff and budget for planning purposes, enjoys public support (judging by the media), i s deepLy involved in local planning, and shows much less evidence of bein ; hampered by negative, parochial attitudes. It might be hypothesized that the strong agricul-tural tradition found in the Central Fraser Valley municipalities has had a significant effect on the respective attitudes of the two di s t r i c t s . Comox-Strathcona Regional District This d i s t r i c t contains a portion of northern Vancouver Island, several islands in the Gulf of Georgia, and a large, almost uninhabited area of the mainland. Its unlikely configuration can be rationalized by the presence of a f a i r l y coherent transportation infrastructure which includes land, water and ai r routes. Over 80 percent of the population lives in the vi c i n i t y of either Campbell River or Courtenay, the two d i s t r i c t service centres. The story behind i t s incorporation has already been told. No evidence was uncovered in the research to show why a larger region wasn't created, although transportation and local attitudes may have been factors. In spite of the apparent enthusiasm for regionalism (noted in the previous chapter), a planning director wasn't hired until 1970. The planning staff has since grosm to four people (in 1971) and the planning director indicated that some problems in establishing plan-ning priorities existedj since the d i s t r i c t board had not yet assigned a planning committee to give p o l i t i c a l direction in this area."^ In 47 spite of the transportation linkages, he f e l t the diversity of inter-ests and fragmentation of the atea made evolution of a genuine reg-ional perspective unlikely. The most immediate need was for community rather than regional planning studies. Two outstanding conflict areas were the perceived prerogatives the logging industry held over such potential a c t i v i t i e s and capabilities as recreation and the preserva-tion of wilderness areas and, second, the almost unregulated subdivi-sion, of land for vacation cottage sites, particularly in the unorgan-ized areas where subdivision approval was s t i l l being administered by the d i s t r i c t highways engineer. Sunshine Coast Regional District v A population of a l i t t l e over 8,000 people makes this the small est d i s t r i c t in terms of population. Located less than ten miles by air from the edge of metropolitan Vancouver, i t i s separated from i t by Howe Sound and the two hour tr i p (from the city centre) by highway and ferry makes commuting impractical. Virtually a l l the population lives along the highway which parallels the coast. The villages of Gibsons and Sechelt form the nominal "service centres" and* except foi the employment provided by a pulp m i l l on Howe Sound, i t remains an area of retirement homes and weekend cottages. Although incorporation did not take place until January, 1967, members had already passed resolutions at earlier meetings to adopt local works and services, garbage disposal, and parks and recreation 11 as regional services. The minutes of the board meetings show evi-dence of a tremendous zeal for regionalism. This has sometimes mani-fested ' iifcself i n clashes with would-be developers and provincial government departments, (e.g. the Department of Highways over access 48 a.solid waste disposal ground). In i t s short history the board has also survived two threatened l i b e l suits and successfully expropriated the assets of a local water board. Its incorporation was delayed by the fact this d i s t r i c t and the Powell River d i s t r i c t , lying along the coast to the north, were i n i t i a l l y conceived of as a single d i s t r i c t b y the province. Local leaders in both areas rejected this proposal* A planning director was hired in 1971 and the biggest issue he had to contend with at the time was a projected multi-million dollar sand and gravel operation which would involve loading barges in the middle of the small, remarkably pretty bay that l i e s off the resort village of Sechelt. Since the project is on an Indian Reserve and thus under federal jurisdiction and the activity i t s e l f regulated by the Mining Act rather than the Municipal Act, the prospects of the d i s t r i c t preventing i t are poor. The directors generally are strongly in favor of environmental protection, at least partly because, as a retirement area, an unspoiled environment represents a great asset. With an average of 16 meetings a year since i t s inception, the board of directors is possibly the most active one in the whole prov-ince. To account for this phenomenon, i t is postulated that with 8,000 people aligned along some thirty miles of coastal highway, the granting of regional d i s t r i c t st; tus transformed the Sunshine Coast into a linear municipality rathei than a true region. Cariboo Regional District The Cariboo covers an immense area of the province's interior plateau. Three service centres, Quesnel, Williams Lake, and 100 Mile House, contain a third of the d i s t r i c t ' s population with the remainder 49 f a i r l y evenly distributed among ten electoral areas. Although forestry and recreation contribute more to the economy, i t is traditionally cattle country and ranchers s t i l l exert a great deal of local influence. In many ways the Cariboo retains a "frontier" culture and many of the residents are genuinely baffled by the concept of land use controls. These suddenly became an issue some eighteen months after the d i s t r i c t was formed when a member of the board's technical planning committee began to press for the adoption of a, "Rural Zoning By-Law", he had 13 -drafted. While there was a legitimate urgency for some form of regu-lation to check the endemic urban sprawl and creation of scattered recreational subdivisions, a clause in the proposed by-law limiting subdivision to parcels of ten acres or more touched off a storm of protest at increasingly frequent, and increasingly acrimonious, public hearings. The by-law was presented late in 1969; In February, 1970 a firm of planning consultants was engaged. They rejected the by-law as unsuitable, but endorsed the idea of a land freeze limiting a l l subdivision to a ten acre minimum unti l a comprehensive planning study could be carried but. Faced with mounting opposition, the board re-jected both the proposed freeze arid the by-law. They retained the consultants, however, and the latter adopted a strategy of encouraging public involvement in the planning process through numerous public meetings and the generous distribution of carefully prepared brochures. The firm also engaged experts from several other disciplines to make the study more comprehensive. The introduction of the regional d i s t r i c t concept to the Cariboo is especially interesting for two reasons. F i r s t , the Cariboo and the 50 Central Fraser Valley were the only two of the five d i s t r i c t s to show a definite antipathy to regional planning. They were also the only two with a sizable agricultural component in the economic base which also meant large areas of privately owned rural land (as opposed to the vast areas of forested, Crown-owned land found in the other three districts) were affected. The second reason was the decision of the consultants to employ a multidisciplinary approach to regional problem solving. This cannot be dismissed as simply the modus operandi of the firm involved, since the planning directors in Comox-Strathcona and Dewdney-Alouette indicated that they also leaned towards including professionals from other disciplines on their staffs. Summary The examination of the five d i s t r i c t s was only exploratory in scale; A more rigourous* cdmprehensive study of a carefully selected grbiip of regional d i s t r i c t s would undoubtedly be rewarding, i f only to analyze adaptive mechanisms and the diffusion of innovation into different milieus. Some general observations are presented here in point form. 1. Although the LMRPB acquired immense prestige both in the areas under i t s jurisdiction and elsewhere in the province, there was no apparent correlation of favorable attitudes towards regional plan-ning and prior membership in a regional planning agency. 2. There was no apparent correlation between proximity to a metro-politan area and attitudes towards planning or regionalism. 3. It could be tentatively hypothesized that a correlation does exist between essentially agricultural rural areas, (i.e. Cariboo and Central Fraser Valley regional districts) and a negative 51 attitude towards planning. 4. A positive correlation may exist between concern for the pro-tection of the natural environment and the amount of undeveloped land in a particular d i s t r i c t . 5. The influence of c i v i l service personnel from the Department of Municipal Affairs was very apparent in the early, formative stages of almost every regional d i s t r i c t contacted. This "personal touch" may have been crucial in the relatively painless adoption of the concept. 6. While regional d i s t r i c t staff apparently enjoy excellent coopera-tion from the Department of Municipal Affairs they indicated, during interviews, there was often a sense of frustration in dealing with other provincial government departments. 7. While the planning philosophies of the directors contacted varied, one consistent suggestion was that a regional planning agency should have a variety of disciplii.es represented on the staff — not a l l of them necessarily planners. 8i The study provided ample evidence that, as suggested in art earlier chapter, the planning and p o l i t i c a l processes are closely interrelated. B. Attitudes of the members of Regional Boards Questionnaire design The purpose of the questionnaire was to generate information, rather than test specific hypotheses. For this reason a panel study was f e l t to be highly appropriate both to the subject and the circum-stances. The role of the panel study has been well defined: "Panel studies do not aim for great pre cision and frequently do not have control groups; their function is more often to throw light on processes of slow, informal influence and change or to i l l u s t r a t e the stages through which people go in adapting themselves to a new variable."14 In the present study there were two variables which i t was assumed would be perceived as important by the respondents. These were the intro-duction of the planning function and the introduction of a new in s t i t u -tional structure, the regional d i s t r i c t . The questionnaire was addressed to a majority of the board members of the province's 26 non-metrbpblitan regional d i s t r i c t s . The questions themselves were grouped into four categories, beginning with generally worded questions and narrowing down to more specific ones.''""' Section "A" concerns the general level of activity of members in regional affairs and their opinions on some key options. The next section seeks to determine which specific activities and functions they feel the dis t r i c t s should become involved in. Section "C" s o l i c i t s comments about their attitudes towards their own community and itg needs, in view of the fact each board member plays a dual role as either ah elected councillor or an electoral area representive and as a member of a regional board. The f i n a l section requests a minimal amount of bio-graphical information and ends with an open-ended request for further comments. Since i t was to be a mailed questionnaire, and since i t was hoped to receive data from a variety of categories of respondents, a high response rate was judged extremely desirable. To achieve this objective i t was reasoned that an overly long, bulky manuscript might seem intimidating to the recipient and be ignored, i f not promptly discarded. Conversely, the more questions that could be included, the i 53 better the prospects of obtaining a usable amount of data. A stra-tegy of making the questionnaire appear shorter than i t actually was, was adopted by typing the original in a narrow format, then having the five double-spaced pages reduced slightly on ah electronic copier and printed on both sides of a single sheet of paper; (see Appendix A). To further encourage high returns, and to expedite coding and tabulation, check-off replies were employed as far as possible. Finally, a stamped, self-addressed envelope was included with each questionnaire. Out of 195 questionnaires mailed out, 106 (or 55%) were completed and returned. Distribution of the questionnaire The boards of the 26 dis t r i c t s being studied contain exactly 300 members. Ambhg the di s t r i c t s themselves the representation from electoral areas and organized municipalities differs widely from brie to another. The number of electoral areas i n a given d i s t r i c t varies from one to twelve and the size of the organized communities from less than 300 to over 30,000. One result is that even though voting is weighted to reflect the population represented, in f u l l y one third of the dis t r i c t s the votes controlled by delegates from electoral areas equal or exceed those controlled by municipalities. It was found that even the most generous random sampling tended to omit or under sample either a d i s t r i c t or a category that might generate useful data. To overcome this problem questionnaires were forwarded to a l l board members representing municipalities as well as to a randomly selected one third sample of the representatives of electoral areas in each d i s t r i c t . This resulted in a total distribution of 195 questionnaires. 54 TABLE III DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Directors of Electoral Areas Directors of. Municipalities Total Number of Directors Sam pledl Replied Sampled Replied Sampled Replied Alberni-Clayoquot 2 (6) 2 4 3 6 5 Bulkley-Bechako 2 (7) 2 7 3 9 5 Cariboo 3 (10) 1 3 1 6 2 Central Fraser Valley 1 (1) — 7 3 8 3 Central Kootenay 4 (11) - 10 3 14 3 Central Okanagan 3 (9) 2 2 1 5 3 Columb ia-S huswap 2 (4) 2 4 2 6 4 Comox-Strathcona 3 (10) 1 7 3 10 4 Cowichan Valley 3 (9) - 5 3 8 3 Dewdney-Alouette 2 (5) - 4 4 6 4 East Kootenay 2 (7) 2 5 4 7 6 Fraser-Cheam . 2 (6) 2 6 3 8 5 Fraser-Fort George 2 (7) 2 6 5 . 8 7 Kitimat-Stikine 2 (3) 1 4 3 6 4 Kootenay-Boundary 2 (5) 1 8 4 10 5 Mount Waddington 2 (4) - 4 3 6 3 Nanaimo 3 (9) 2 4 2 7 4 North Okanagan 2 (6) 2 6 2 8 4 Ocean Falls 2 (5) 1 - - . 2 1 Okanagan-Similkameen 3 (8) 2 8 4 11 6 Peace River-Liard 2 (5) 2 6 5 8 7 Powell River 2 (4) 1 2 - 4 1 Skeena A 2 (4) 1 4 1 6 2 Squamish-Lillooet 2 (5) 1 3 2 5 3 Sunshine Coast 2 (6) 2 2 1 4 3 Thompson-Nicola 4 (12) 3 9 6 13 9 TOTALS 61 (168) 35 130 71 191 106 1. The numeral in brackets indicates the total number of director of electoral areas from which a sample was taken. Since ques-tionnaires were sent to a l l the directors of municipalities, the samples in that column are equal to 100%. •55 Results and analysis of preliminary question Since they contain comparable material in their replies, the f i r s t and fi n a l questions are described and analyzed as a separate group. Both were open-ended questions concerning what the directors perceived as the goals and problems of the regional d i s t r i c t s . The tabulation of replies to both questions concentrated f i r s t on grouping a l l identical, or nearly identical answers, then aggregating the resulting categories into more general ones for comparison add analysis; Question A asked, "Briefly, what would you consider to be the major goal of gbais of the regional d i s t r i c t concept?" Out of 106 respondents, 99 replied to this question — a response rate of 94%. I n i t i a l tabulation produced 32 categories. These were reviewed and the ones judged substantively similar consolidated into the nine cate-gories l i s t e d on Table IV. The f i r s t seven describe broad regional d i s t r i c t goals, while the f i n a l two, labelled " c r i t i c a l of regional d i s t r i c t s " and "miscellaneous" respectively, are considered residual categories. Ranking i s on the basis of the frequency with which goals , were mentioned. Of the seven identified, six are very close and only < the f i n a l one has significantly fewer supporters. A chi-square test for significance was carried out for each response category to determine i f there were meaningful variations in the response from organized and unorganized areas respectively. In three categories, (see Table IV) there was a significant difference at the 0.10 level of significance between the attitudes of respondents for organized and unorganized areas. Brief comments on these and the re-maining categories follow. . 56 TABLE IV GOALS OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS PERCEIVED BY RESPONDENTS Electoral Organized Total Significant Areas Areas Replies Difference 1. Encourage Regional Perspective 9 27% 15 23% 24 No 2. Protect the Environment 12 36% 1 ! 18% 24 Yes 3. Introduce Regional Planning 6 18% ] ' 26% 23 No 4. Provide Joint Services 5 15% 1 26% 22 No .5. Promote Democratic Ideals 3 9% 1' 29% 22 Yes 6. Introduce Land Use Controls 9 27% H 15% 19 No 7. Serve Smaller Communities 4 12% • 12% 12 No 8. Criticized Regional Districts 4 12% 2% 5 Yes 9. Miscellaneous 1 3% > 8% 6 N/A NOTE: Percentages are weighted by relative number of respondents: 33 from electoral a -eas and 67 from organized areas; 1. Encourage Regional Perspective The replies in this group were almost ec ually divided between those employing such terms as; "regional outlook", "regional development", "unite and integrate (act i v i t i e s ) " , and those proposing better liason between municipalities. Both groups appeared to emphasize a regional I . perspective. 2. Protect the Environment This categbry includes the following goals, ranked in order of frequency: ecology and conservation; optimal use of land and resources; control of pollution. It could be noted that representatives from 57 unorganized areas showed somewhat more concern in this regard than did those from organized municipalities. . Since twice as many replies were received from organized areas overall, the relative percentages were 36 percent and 18 percent (see Table 4). 3, Introduce Regional Planning Of the 23 replies included here, 12 categorically gave planning as a goal; 6 gave "zoning", and 5 more referred to "planning for rural areas", A somewhat arbitrary decision had to be made in assigning re-sponses to this category; i f the replies grouped under the heading, "strengthen land use controls" (see below) were combined With i t the total would then increase to 37, There was no way of determining i f some of the respondents perceived them as different goals or considered them to be synonomous. The replies were placed in a Separate category, f i r s t because they represented a sizable body of opinion and ought not to be "hidden", Secondly, because i t was reasoned that in the minds of most non-planners, zoning and planning might have similar connotations, but the control of land use might not, 4, Provide Joint Services The phrasing of the replies in this category was quite diverse; the cdtnmon denominator employed was some reference to reduced cost; an increase in efficiency, or other improvement in the provision of public services at the local level,, It seems remarkable that a greater number of elected representatives, particularly those from municipal councilsj did not note this potential of regional d i s t r i c t s . 5, Promote Democratic Ideals This category was introduced because a number of replies expressed 58 concern with either bringing elected government "closer to the people" or at least providing the residents of unorganized areas with some form of direct representation. The latter sentiment was predominant among representatives from the organized areas, in a ratio of three to one. The results of the chi-square test were significant at the 0.10 level, (29 percent of the respondents from organized areas, but only 9 percent from electoral areas gave this as a goal). 6. Introduce Land Use Controls As noted earlier, this could have been subsumed under the general goal of planning. The most frequently used term was, "orderly control of development". Two replies specified control for rural areas, while others may have been equating land use control primarily with protection of the environment. 7. Serve Smaller Communities The essential difference between this category and the one labelled, "provision of public services", was one of emphasis. One group expressed concern about effecting economies of scale; the second wanted unorganized areas to have (or contribute to) public services. It was f a i r l y apparent that in most instances the "communities" referred to were those lying in unorganized areas. Five of the twelve respondents selecting this goal suggested more equalization of tax loads or responsi-b i l i t i e s were necessary, clearly implying the unorganized areas delin-quent in this respect. 8. Criticized Regional Districts C r i t i c a l comments were received from five respondents who suggested, in every case, some disenchantment or lack of faith in the new 59 system. It Is f e l t they reflect not only a distinct point of view but a strongly held one in the sense that the question was hardly phrased to stimulate this kind of answer. It seems significant that four of the five were from electoral areas. 9. Miscellaneous Six replies were judged too unique to be placed in any of the. general categories. One mentioned parks, another building inspection, and the remainder l i s t s of individual local services. An even broader generalization of the goals as perceived by the directors is obtained by combining categories (3) and (6), i.e. planning and land use controls, as well as categories (4) and (7); i.e. those concerned with provision of public services. When this is done two very prominent categories aire formed with 42 and 34 respondents contained in them. These results are plausible in view of the publicity Recorded regional planning in the province (see previous chapter) and the wide-spread concern about providing public services discussed in Chapter One. Of the remaining categories, protection of the natural environment i s consistent with contemporary social values and concerns. The suggestions of regional perspectives and democratic.ideals as goals were not an t i c i -pated and no rationale for them could be adduced from the study. Issues involving the regional d i s t r i c t s In the second open-ended question, respondents were asked to indicate, "the most important situations, issues or problem areas that involve, of in the near future might involve, the regional d i s t r i c t . " A l l but 4 of the 106 questionnaires returned offered comments, many of them in considerable detail. The preliminary tabulation yielded 44 60 categories. These were consolidated into the 13 more general cla s s i -fications listed on Table V . I . Three categories, planning, pollution, and provision of public services are very prominent. Another three, regional recreation, major regional functions, and land use control appear to be considered f a i r l y consequential by board members. 1. Planning . Although this was the most frequently mentioned item, i t was invariably phrased so as to suggest a function rather than an issue. It could, of course, be argued that the respondents included i t in the sense that a lack of planning was an issue. It was typical of many replies to this question in that they also suggested various functions the regional di s t r i c t s might adopt. This tended to increase the over-lap with question A 1, which had asked for goals. Comparisons With the latter question were made in each questionnaire and when the dupli-cations were cancelled out, It was noted that 28 respondents had categorically mentioned planning as a desirable function in one context or the other. Since this represents 26% of a l l replies received, i t can be concluded that a reasonably strong endorsement of planning exists. 2. Pollution .The term, "pollution" rather than, "environmental concerns" has been used as a heading deliberately as only 3 of the 32 replies referred to protecting the environment; the remainder specifically mentioned pollution as an issue to be tackled by the regional d i s t r i c t s . Almost twice as many replies (proportionately) came from organized areas — precisely opposite to the previous results (Table V I ) where protecting the environment was a goal not a problem. 61 3. Municipal Services The items mentioned in this category (see Table V) are logical in the sense that one or more of them have already been adopted by some of the regional d i s t r i c t s . Garbage disposal i s by far the most frequent service problem, with 63 percent of the 27 respondents in this category mentioning i t . 4. Regional Recreation Although regional parks have been included, slightly more re-spondents mentioned recreational f a c i l i t i e s as a perceived need. Some directors may feel the two are virtu a l l y synonomous, but such specific amenities as community arenas were also noted on occasion. 5. Major Functions The functions lis t e d under this category in Table V were not assigned to the, "municipal services" group mainly because they were judged to be beyond the resources of a l l but the largest non-metropolitan areas to provide. Thus they must logically be considered as regional functions. It could also be noted that such functions as assessment, and approving the location of transportation and u t i l i t y right-of-ways are not l i k e l y to be ceded to a regional' body. This was clearly a pro^-blem the organized areas were more conscious of. 6. Land Use Control The earlier comments under the discussion of this category in question Al. also apply here. 7. Taxation Issues The comments were mostly expressions of discontent over the levying of taxes and the inadequacies of municipal revenues. Some 62 TABLE V ISSUES THAT INVOLVED OR MIGHT INVOLVE THE REGIONAL DISTRICTS Electoral Organized Total Areas Areas Replies 1. Planning: including zoning and 11 31% 24 36% 35 subdivision control. 2. Pollution: including pollution; 7 20 25 37 32 industrial pollution; water pollution and ecology. 3. Municipal Services: including 8 23 19 28 27 garbage disposal; water supply; sanitary sewer; f i r e and ambulance; and nuisance control by-law. 4. Regional Recreation: including 7 20 12 18 19 regional parks. 5. Major Functions: including 3 9 16 24 19 building inspection; assessment; transportation; locating u t i l i t i e s ; and welfare administration. 6. Land Use Control. 7 20 10 15 17 7. Taxation Issues: including more 4 11 7 10 11 revenue; more equitable tax sharing; and taxing mobile homes. 8. Liason Among Governments. 6 17 4 6 10 9. Promote Industrial Development. 1 3 3 9 7 10. Promote Regionalism. 1 3 4 6. 5 11. Province Unloading i t s 4 11 Responsibilities. 63 perceived the regional d i s t r i c t levy added to the m i l l rates as justi another form of provincial taxation. 8. Liason Among Governments " There were three distinct variations in the replies received. The lack of lateral communication and coordination between different government departments as well as between different levels of govern-ment was c r i t i c i z e d . On the other hand i t was f e l t that liason between municipalities has been enhanced by the regional d i s t r i c t system. The preponderance of replies from electoral areas is notable. 9. Promote Industrial Development Although only one of the seven respondents was from an elec-toral area, no other pattern was discernable; the remainder came from communities of every type and size. 10. Promote Regionalism There is a sharp contrast between the fact only five respondents mention this item here yet 24 advocated regionalism as a goal in the previous open-ended question. 11. Province Unloading Its Responsibilities This rather trenchant comment emanated exclusively from unor-ganized areas. It is interesting to note that o le of the newspapers and two of the planning directors cited earlier made a similar accusation. Miscellaneous comments and issues These include 12 of the categories in the i n i t i a l tabulation of replies. They tend to reflect either more localized issues or the apprehensions of individual directors.' The hardship of travelling long distances to the monthly board meetings is a conspicuous problem in a 64 few d i s t r i c t s ; i t was particularly mentioned by members from Bulkley-Nechako. The replies from another d i s t r i c t indazate that board meetings there have become the arena for a bitter interim l i c i p a l conflict. Other issues were noted by no more than jne or two respondents, and although they could be aggregated into catef >fies, i t was suspected most of them reflected "personality" conflicts . c individual biases rather than legitimate regional issues. They included accusations of parochialism, domination of boards by executive committees or cliques of mayors, and also accusations of the domination of electoral area representatives by members from organized communities. Four wanted to, "educate the public"; three feared a loss of l o c t l autonomy; and one feared (and another favored) a fourth level of government. It would be f u t i l e to speculate about the relevance of these comments. Further inquiries or interviews and a review of local newspaper f i l e s would undoubtedly reveal further interesting data about each dis t r i c t ' s growing pains. Multiple choice questions The remainder of the questionnaire consisted of multiple choice questions. Section "A" contains general questions designed to e l i c i t information about the attitudes of the respondents towards regional a c t i v i t i e s . Section "B" contains more specific questions about planning and other services respondents may feel the regional districts should be-come involved in. In Section "C" an attempt was made to discover how respondents f e l t about particular local, as opposed to regional, concerns. It i s f e l t this i s valid, since each1"director must play a dual role, 65 responsible both to the electorate in his own community and to the region as a whole. The f i n a l section requested a minimal amount of biographical information and the open-ended request for comments already presented. Replies to the multiple choice questions were classifed on the basis of two dichotomies: urban/non-urban and organized areas vs. 16 electoral areas. The results are summarized in Tables VI, VII, and VIII. Comments on the more notable results follow; Section "A" Question A2 yielded two significant results. Both non-urban areas and electoral areas showed a tendency to rely on, "prominent local citizens" as preferred sources of information. Secondly, electoral areas were decidedly more dependent on local newspapers as sources of information. The typical director from an electoral area attended an average of 44% more meeting than did his counterpart from organized municipalities, (see A3). On the other hand those from urban areas attended 75% more than did the ones from rural areas. In contacts with the general public members from the Okanagan-Similkameen d i s t r i c t reported an average of 27 contacts per member (out of 6 respondents), this tends to corroborate the previously noted evidence of intense intermunicipal conflict. Questions A5 and A6 show an overwhelming proportion (89%) think the chairman of the Regional Board should not be elected directly; almost as many (77%) believe the board should "gradually acquire more real legislative powers". The negative replies to question A7 were virt u a l l y a l l from regional d i s t r i c t s that were too large for convenient 66 contact between members. The Bulkley-Nechako, Peace River-Liard and Thompson-Nicola d i s t r i c t s are the ones most affected. TABLE VI MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS: SECTION "A" Electoral Organized Urban Rural Total Areas Areas Areas Areas Replies A2 Sources of Information Other Board Members 16 46% 35 49% 13 54% 38 46% 51 48% Regional Staff 22 63% 46 65% 18 75% 50 61% 68 64% Local Organizations 16 48% 31 43% 9 38% 38 48% 47 45% Local Newspapers 18 51% 22 31% 9 38% 31 38% 40 38% General Public 15 40% 24 34% 8 37% 31 37% 39 36% Prominent Citizens 10 29% 7 10% 1 21% 16 21% 17 17% Attended Meetings 28 80% 51 72% 17 71% 62 76% 79 75% Average Attendance 6. 5 4. .5 7 4 5. .5 (Average) A4 Public Contacts 10 12 13 11 10 (Average) A5 Do not elect Chairman 32 91% 60 87% 21 79% 72 91% 93 89% A6 L e g i s l a t i v e Powers 10 83% 17 74% 6 86% 21 75% 27 77% to Regional Board? Yes NOTE: Percentages are based on total number of respondents: 35 from electoral areas and 71 from organized areas. Respondents from urban communities (population 2,500 or more) totalled 24 compared to 82 from rural areas. Section "B" In reply td questions Bl and B2, 66% of the respondents, favored assigning service functions to the regional d i s t r i c t rather than a special d i s t r i c t . There appeared to be some doubt in the electoral areas 67 TABLE VII MULTIPLE CHOICE OUESTIONS: SECTION "B1 Question Number Electoral Organized Urban Rural Areas Areas Areas Areas Total Replies Bl Some functions in the d i s t r i c t should be on a regional basis (Yes) > 11 31% 30 42% 13 54% 28 34% 41 38: B2 Some functions should be controlled by a special d i s t r i c t (Yes) 9 26 12 17 4 17 17 21 21 20 B3 By 1975 the d i s t r i c t w i l l employ: - 5 people or less 9 26 19 27 6 25 22 27 28 26 - 6 to 10 people 12 34 24 34 7 29 29 35 36 34 - over 10 people 11 31 22 31 8 33 25 30 33 31 - don11 know 2 6 5 7 3 12 5 6 8 8 B4 To make planning a compulsory function was: - long overdue 9 25 27 38 11 46 25 30 36 34 - overdue 13 37 21 30 7 29 27 33 34 32 - well timed 8 23. 19 27 5 31 22 27 27 25 - premature 1 3 3 4 - - 4 5 4 4 - not appropriate 1 3 - - - - 1 5 6 6 B5 Our regional d i s t r i c t should adopt: - ambulance - f i r e protection - garbage disposal - education - public works - none of these B6 In electoral areas there should be: - a water supply - a sewer system - a regional plan - zoning - regional board regulations - none of these B7 Regional board should control land use (Yes) 19 57 43 6.1 :.6 67 46 56 62 58 34 48 18 51 17 71 35 43 52 49 26 71 50 70 :.6 67 60 73 76 72 4 11 15 21 6 25 13 16 19 18 5 14 7 10 3 12 9 11 12 11 5 14 11 15 1 4 15 18 16 15 5 14 17 24 3 12 19 23 22 21 21 60 42 59 13 54 50 61 63 59 15 43 49 69 17 71 47 57 64 60 19 54 62 87 24 100 57 70 81 76 5 11 30 42 8 33- 27 32 35 32 3 9 2 3 - - 5 6 5 5 27 75 50 70 18 75 57 70 75 71 '. Appendix "A" for o rigin a l questions. rcentages are based on the relative number respondents from each t; 'pe of area 68 where the majority was reduced to 55%. Although question B3 (antici-pated staff requirements at the end 0 1 " five years) drew a wide range of responses, i t is significant that most respondents thought staffs would increase, implying an expectation that regional d i s t r i c t activities would continue to grow. The responses to question B4 suggest the prospects for regional planning are very promising. Two thirds of those replying to the ques-tion f e l t the decision to make regional planning a compulsory function of the regional d i s t r i c t s was either, "overdue" or "long overdue". Slightly less enthusiam was encountered in the electoral areas and slightly more in the urban ones. Only 5% of the respondents f e l t i t was, "premature" or "not appropriate". Under question B5, garbage disposal, ambulance services, and f i r e protection a l l rated highly (in that order) as suitable functions for a regional d i s t r i c t to administer. Urban areas seemed especially concerned about f i r e protection, (71% of respondents vs. 49% overall), -possibly because of costs or possibly because they f e l t a moral obliga-tion to . attend . fires in neighbouring rural areas. It is remarkable that 18% of the directors overall and 25% of those from urban areas implied they are willing to do away with the traditional separation between school boards and local government by making education a regional function. ; Question B6 concerns the desirability of introducing various land use regulations into unorganized areas. There is general consensus in support of: a regional plan; regulating sanitary sewage; and not regulating water supplies. In the case of requiring the unorganized ' areas, to conform to, "regional zoning or subdivision regulations", there 69 is a definite polarization of opinion. Over 87% of the directors from organized areas, (and 100% from urban areas) favor such a move in con-trast to only 56% of their colleagues from electoral areas. The same pattern appears when regulation of residential development by the Regional Board is proposed (as an interim measure). 42% of the direc-tors from organized areas concur, but only 11% of those from electoral areas. Finally, in question B7, a majority (72%) agree that a l l land-use, control should eventually be handed over to the Regional Board. Section "C" There is nothing of apparent significance in the responses to question CI and C2. It could be noted that "tourist potential" and "industrial growth" were given almost equal ratings. Question C3 was essentially exploratory; i t sought to discover i f attitudes on a number' of potential ci v i c issues varied appreciably among .the different groups. Again, nothing of significance was noted. The negative attitude of the electoral areas towards a surcharge for sewage treatment is plaus-ible, since many of them may not require i t . It is suggested the lack of enthusiasm for regional parks (23% overall) was stimulated by the suggestion of a two mill contribution. A proposed contribution of a quarter or a half mill might have received a more positive response. In question C4 the f i r s t two choices were deliberately worded differently to disguise the fact that virtually the same question was being asked. The replies received are revealing. Just over one half of the directors (51%) w i l l accept a, " f a i r l y flexible zoning plan", but only 15% w i l l consider a, "closely adhered to", master plan for their  own community. Also, in question C4, 7% of the respondents were willing I 70 TABLE VIII MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS: SECTION "C" Electoral Organized Urban Rural Total Areas Areas Areas Areas Replies Cl Has the regional d i s t r i c t benefited your community? (Yes) 22 63% 53 75% 18 75% 57.70% 75 71% C2 Which are the preferred community goals? -long range policy 8 23 14 20 6 25 16 20 22 21 -flexible approach 25 69 46 65 17 71 54 65 71 66 -industrial growth 16 46 47 66 15 62 48 59 63 59 -tourist potential 18 51 43 61 13 54 49 59 61 58 -minimize taxes 12 34 35 49 8 33 39 48 47 44 -provide amenities 16 46 50 70 16 66 50 61 66 62 C3 Favor the following proposals for their c ommuni ty. - fluoridation 15 43 38 54 15 62 38 46 53 50 -industrial growth 20 57 43 61 19 79 44 54 63 59 -Sunday sports 27 77 .56 79 19 79 64 78 83 78 - mobile home park 15 43 44 62 17 71 42 51 59 56 -sign control by-law 27 77 59 80 38 75 66 80 84 79 -sewage treatment 12 34 44' 61 26 66 40 48 56 52 -regional park 8 23 16 •23 7 29 17 21 24 23 C4 Preferred approach to land use regulation in their community. -comprehensive plan 4 11 12 17 5 21 11 13 16 15 -flexible zoning plan 19 54 34 49 1.1 46 43 52 . 54 51 -a land use plan exists - - 20 28 7 29 13 16 20 19 -regulation by the regional d i s t r i c t 6 17 1 1 - - 7 9 7 7 -no present need 2 6 1 1 - - 3 4 3 3 Note: See Appendix "A" for original questions. Percentages are based on the relative number of respondents from each type of area. 71 to place land-use regulations, "under the regional d i s t r i c t " , yet when asked the almost identical question in B7, (should, " a l l land-use control, i.e. zoning power . . .be transferred eventually to the Regional Board"), where the question was not in the context of their own community, 70% stated that i t should. The wording of the questions undoubtedly accounts for some of the discrepancy, but i t can be inferred that many representatives favor land-use regulation far more readily i f i t s enforcement is not imminent —; at least not in their area. Section "D" Nothing of particular significance could be extracted from the biographical data. The mean age of the directors was 51 and they had served an average of 3 years on the Regional Board. Not surprisingly, directors from organized areas had more experience in public elected office than those from electoral areas; the figures were 9.5 years and 6 years respectively. There were very few responses to the query about service on civic boards or committees. CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS introduction The purpose of this study was to compile a history of British Columbia's regional d i s t r i c t concept and evaluate i t as an example of an institutional innovation i n the context of regional planning for non-rmetropolitan areas. It has been suggested that i f a regional plan-ning institution is to be successfully, "created, fostered, and sup-ported""'" It w i l l require not only sponsorship, but an i n i t i a l stimulus. It seems evident from what has occurred in British Columbia, as well as in Alberta and Ontario; that in a Canadian setting both the stimulus and the necessary support must emanate from the provincial government level. It was postulated that any province contemplating the introduc-tion of regional institutions must take five key considerations into account, these were: the delimiting of suitable regions; provision for local government involvement; coordination between and among different government levels; the delegation of adequate power to the new units; and a reasonably flexible structure. Whether regional dis t r i c t s meet these c r i t e r i a is reviewed here on the basis of the data obtained. Delimiting a planning region This i s probably the most fundamental and yet one of the most elusive of the c r i t e r i a . For many purposes, (e.g. trading areas, or 72 73 watersheds) the boundaries of a region are more or less elastic, but for administrative purposes they must be made explicit. In British Columbia where less than two percent of the province is organized into municipali-ties, school d i s t r i c t boundaries were employed as the "building blocks" of the regional d i s t r i c t s . The decision to include virt u a l l y the whole province, rather than only i t s populated areas could have been rational-ized on the basis that man and his ac t i v i t i e s have permeated virtually everywhere (or have the capacity to do so). However, such a rationale — assuming i t existed — would have been far more persuasive i f a l l govern-ment activities had been subsumed under the regional d i s t r i c t s . Since they were not, i t remains ah open question what relevance the vastj v i r -tually uninhabited hinterlands of the province have for a system 6f regions which are primarily oriented towards municipal ac t i v i t i e s and services. If i t is t a c i t l y accepted that the whole province was included on the grounds of expediency, then a considerable latitude remains in how the boundaries themselves were to be delimited, even using school d i s t r i c t s as the basic units. The province announced that population, assessment base, transportation infrastructure and trading areas were to be the key factors. The f i r s t two are somewhat related. The proposal that 30,000 people is a suitable minimum appears to be aS arbitrary and unsupported 2 by empirical data as examples found in the literature. Since municipal financing is beyond the scope of this discussion, i t w i l l be assumed that the minimum assessment proposed i s r e a l i s t i c for most municipal or regional requirements that might be encountered. The questionnaire results do suggest that because of the province's rugged topography, 74 the existing transportation network i s , in some areas, a valid constraint on the size and configuration of a regional d i s t r i c t . For example, some board members found travelling to board meetings was a definite hardship. Since no indication was provided of whether a distinct regional service centre was considered desirable, the significance of the reference to trading areas seems minimal; in several d i s t r i c t s no such centre exists. It is significant, when these various factors are considered, that a number of anomalies -- such as Squamish-Lillooet -- were tolera-ted. In effect, i t appears that of the four proposed factors, popula-tion, trading areas, and transportation linkages are a l l negotiable. The one area where there does hot appear to have been any real compromise is in the minimum assessment base. As can be seen from Table I, the three d i s t r i c t s which drop below the minimum a l l have very small populations. With the establishment of the Municipal Finance Authority in 1969 i t becomes questionable whether assessment base remains a relevant factor. The question of why the particular configuration of dis t r i c t s was set up remains unanswered, although evidence was obtained t6 suggest that the wishes of local leaders influenced some decisions. It might be inferred that a maximum, not a minimum population was considered appro-priate for non-metfopolitan•districts. While a case can be made for allowing a very small population to form a regional d i s t r i c t , (e.g. the vety isolated community of Ocean Falls) in order to provide an equal opportunity for a l l populated areas to benefit from the new system, i t does not account for the fact that the largest of the non-metropolitan d i s t r i c t s contains just over 50,000 people (Table I). If interaction among component units is assumed to be as crucial (or more crucial) than the four factors cited, then in several cases existing di s t r i c t s might very well coalesce into larger units. Since the identical structure is operational in metropolitan areas, increased population and assessment base are not a matter of concern. A multitude of trading areas already exist in some di s t r i c t s (although conflict between larger regional cen-tres could develop). This leaves transportation, which is almost by definition a prime component of any regional interaction. If the above reasoning i s accepted, then prime candidates for consolidation would be, in addition to those discussed in Chapter Three, the Central Kootenay and Kootenay-Boundary d i s t r i c t s , the three non-metro Lower Mainland dis-3 t r i c t s , and also the Alberni, Cowichan, and Nanaimo di s t r i c t s . In addition, Columbia-Shuswap might be divided between the East Kootenay and an amalgamated (or reorganized) Okanagan area. Whatever the virtues of such proposals they could not hope to be implemented without considering the role local governments would play. Local;_government involvement Citizen participation either directly or through the medium of local government has been repeatedly noted as a v i t a l factor in the 4 successful introduction of regional planning and regional institutions. The province appears to have lai d great emphasis on such involvement. This is apparent from the frequent meetings between local councils and c i v i l servants during the formation of the dis t r i c t s as well as from the readiness of the senior government to defer to local pressures in allow-ing two or even three d i s t r i c t s where only one had been envisaged. The questionnaire results suggest that citizen participation and the local government involvement aspects of the decision-making process were on the minds of more than a few respondents. Finally the permissive approach <5a— 76 taken towards membership in the d i s t r i c t s and the adoption of services as regional functions can be perceived as another aspect of this desire to ensure and even encourage local participation, especially by the residents of the unorganized areas. Coordination and integration of programs The comments of planning directors interviewed as well as those of a number of respondents to the questionnaire suggest that while lateral coordination between municipalities was enhanced, serious problems remain in the interface between regional d i s t r i c t s and various government depart-ments. The technical planning committee was apparently intended to help resolve this situation but, since the employees of a provincial depart-ment are locked into a hierarchical structurej those at the regional level seldom have the discretionary powers to make policy commitments, and in fact may be uninformed concerning policy matters. Possibly the only "adequate" solution to this i s to adopt a more ho l i s t i c approach such as the one apparently introduced in Ontario. In that province, overall social and economic planning and other policy guidelines, for example capital spending programs, are established at the provincial level so that local and regional units can operate within an overall .i policy framework. The absence of this appears to be a conspicuous deficiency in British-Columbia's approach to regionalism. Delegation of adequate power Power was undoubtedly delegated to the regional d i s t r i c t s , both i n the form of financing and in the form of regulatory authority, (e.g. the passing of by-laws governing land use). However, i t is debatable to what extent this represented power transfered from the province down to the regional level and how much represented a reapportionment of powers previously held by local governments. The only circumstance where provincial powers — and responsibilities — were clearly dele-gated was in the province's relinquishment of the administrative chore of caring for the unorganized areas. Some parallels can be drawn with the approaches adopted by the other three provinces reviewed during the study. New Brunswick obviously withdrew delegated powers from the local level and subsequently retained many of them. In Ontario a complex arrangement occurred and i t would not be practical in.this discussion to assess whether there was a net gain or net loss of local or regional authority. In Alberta there has been some transfer of power from the local to the regional level, but l i t t l e (if any) power was ceded by the province. A tentative generalization might be made from this: the reorganization of administrative and institutional structures at the regional level seldom involves the concession of any provincial powers. What may occur i s , as some comments in the study suggested, an "unloading" of irksome responsibilities by the province onto the new institutional structure.— particularly those normally handled by the Departments of Municipal Affairs. If and when otheif departments, such as those concerned with agricultural, resource develop-ment and transportation functions are made answerable to regional units (or even made to integrate their programs with regional policies), then a genuine redistribution of the power structure could take place. What remains obscure, in a rapidly shrinking world, is whether i t is s t i l l , possible -- or w i l l ever.again become possible — to distinguish what are purely "loc a l " concerns. By extension, i t must then be asked, how are regional concerns, planning or otherwise, to be defined. These 78 are bound to be even more intractable, since they must mesh with poten-t i a l l y competing institutional structures both superior and inferior to them in scale and authority. F l e x i b i l i t y as an institution This appears as one of the strongest features of the regional d i s t r i c t s . The strategy bf employing ah almost entirely permissive, open-ended approach seems to have proven highly successful. The strong-est evidence in support of this conclusion is found in the array of functions already undertaken voluntarily by the various d i s t r i c t s . With-in five years of the passage of the enabling legislation, not only had the 28 d i s t r i c t s formed, but they had collectively adopted no less than 37 different services or functions and no two d i s t r i c t s had adopted the identical combination of services. This situation, together with the allocation of a certain amount of power to the regional level, suggests the System has the capacity to cope with changing needs for some time. Conclusions of the research The most conspicuous result was the evidence of the rapid accep-tance of the innovation. It required less than three years for 28 re-gions, many of them with widely divergent geographic, economic and cultural characteristics tb voluntarily adopt the new system. The following are proposed as the most pertinent factors which contributed to this phenomenon: 1. The permissive aspect towards the adoption of functions. 2. The proselyzing by provincial c i v i l servants at local meetings. 3. The prospect of being able to borrow against a larger assessment base. 4. The opportunity perceived by the unorganized areas to par-ticipate in decisions affecting them. 5. The awakening of a latent sense of regionalism in some areas. 6 . The placing of regional functions under the control of an elected rather than an appointed body. 7. The inherent logic of the concept, i n the sense that a device for taking care of patently regional functions was being offered. It should be noted that no clear cause and effect relationships could be established to confirm whether or not one or more of the above were crucial factors. The advantages of the regional d i s t r i c t s include a solution to the chronic problem of meshing local government activities with regional programs, including regional planning. They also brought land-use plan-ning, or at least the opportunity for land use planning, to many areas of the province which previously had had to rely on provincial assistance. A third advantage was the successful introduction of the identical admin-istrative framework into metropolitan and non-metropolitan milieus. This tends to support the contention discussed earlier that the "metropolitan problem" and the "non-metropolitan problem" are basically similar and thus amenable to common solutions. Finally, they provide an opportunity for regional planning to be integrated with other programs originating or being administered at the regional level. One major disadvantage, in addition to those already discussed, is that the new concept did not address the question of regional economic planning goals. Although they are not necessarily precluded, i t is fe l t this i s a serious shortcoming, as some way of resolving this dualism 7 80 inherent i n regional planning would be highly des i r a b l e . Summary The regional d i s t r i c t concept i s far from being a panacea where the conundrum of achieving a balance between c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and decentral-i z a t i o n of powers i s concerned. At the present stage, i t can only be regarded as a promising experiment. The r e s u l t s , when compared and contrasted with the r e s u l t s of other experiments such as Ontario's regional units and the various forms of metro government now extant, w i l l provide the raw material from which more "mature systems" can be evolved. Even though a number of weaknesses were suggested by the research r e s u l t s , they do not detract from the most innovative and p o t e n t i a l l y rewarding feature of the concept; the scrupulous cafe taken to keep the system from being made too r i g i d and thus unable to adapt to d i f f e r e n t needs and changing conditions. I t would, i n any instance, have been a considerable challenge to design a regional system which could cope with B r i t i s h Colum-bia's diverse problems. It may even be that the f l e x i b i l i t y of the regional d i s t r i c t s i s as much the r e s u l t of complying with e x i s t i n g c i r -cumstances as i t was of i n s p i r a t i o n . None of t h i s weakens i t s p o t e n t i a l as a model of i n s t i t u t i o n a l innovation. I t s designers recognized, i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y , that the pundits of regionalism are s t i l l a long way from answering the questions of what constitutes an "optimum" population or trade area or, for that matter, what constitutes a region. Most important of a l l , they appear to have recognized that i n manipulating the roles and powers of l o c a l and p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l s of government they were dealing not with economics or geography, but with p o l i t i c s — "a congeries of evolving complex proces-ses which no human's actual experience can adequately comprehend".7 They 81 thus decided to leave well enough alone, assume no pat answers, and quietly establish the simplest possible framework within which a new regional institution could develop. The regional d i s t r i c t is not, by any means, a perfect instrument; i t does have the potential to become an effective one. One very real risk i s that, in spite of the provi-sions for change and f l e x i b i l i t y , regional d i s t r i c t s may become too well entrenched and, when threatened with change, such as the amalgamation of d i s t r i c t s , follow the classical behaviour pattern of institutions and make their survival the highest priority. Suggestions for further research This report has focused on the generation of data, rather than the testing of rigourous hypothese. It has also, perhaps inevitably, raised more questions than i t answers. These questions can provide the departure point for further research into a subject area that has been perceptively described by Leonard 0. Gertler: . . . every provincial planning system has i t s own history and i t s own inner logic. (And) the inner logic of a system that produces regional or joint planning boards with neither the authority to dispose of the matters that are i t s unique concern nor, because of financial strictures, with staffs qualified to do a competent job, leads not to joint planning but joint frus-tration — accompanied by public disrespect and demoralization. This i s not to lose sight of the advisory form as a step in the evolution of regional planning and as a continuing feature in the form of technical advice on local matters. There is room for criticism only when the advisory form of planning is consi-dered a terminus.^ In the context of the research and Gertler's comments, the following questions may be asked: 1. If the regional d i s t r i c t s are assumed to have an "inner logic" (because of the province's history and geography) where is this logic l i k e l y to lead? What should be the next stage? 82 2. Which of Canada's two markedly d i f f e r e n t approaches to regional i n s t i t u t i o n s ( i . e . B r i t i s h Columbia and Ontario) has the most general a p p l i c a b i l i t y ? Do either? 3 . Is i t reasonable to assume that urban areas are more recep-t i v e to innovation than r u r a l areas, or i s there a more subtle d i s t i n c -t i o n associated with whether or not the " r u r a l " area has an a g r i c u l t u r -a l l y based economy? Is B r i t i s h Columbia's hinterland comparable to an, "underdeveloped country"? 9 4. Do the perceptions of the r o l e of the regional d i s t r i c t held by planners d i f f e r appreciably from those of the secretary-treasurers or the regional d i r e c t o r s ? If so, i n what way? 5. What, employing various sets of c r i t e r i a , are "optimum" plan-ning regions for B r i t i s h Columbia? How do they d i f f e r from e x i s t i n g ones? 6. How can the dualism inherent i n regional planning, i . e . the "agglomeration" of l o c a l plans versus the implementation of regional econ-omic planning goals be integrated? In B r i t i s h Columbia? Elsewhere? 7. I f , as was discussed, regional i n s t i t u t i o n s must safeguard l o c a l autonomy, should they (artd i f so how can they) safeguard the "autonomy" of various p r o v i n c i a l departments and agencies? 8. What should the r o l e of the p r o f e s s i o n a l planner be i n the i n i t i a t i o n or encouragement of i n s t i t u t i o n a l innovations for the p r o v i -sion of regional planning and other regional services? 9. If the property tax system were modified (e.g. as i n New Brunswick, where the province took i t over i n many areas), what would be the implications for regional i n s t i t u t i o n s ? The above represent only an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the many l i n e s of inquiry that could be followed i n pursuit of the goal of a, "mature system". FOOTNOTES Chapter One "'"Among the many discussions of the subject see: Alan A. Altshuler, The City Planning Process: A P o l i t i c a l Analysis, (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1965); Norton E. Long, " P o l i t i c a l Science and the City" in Leo F. Schnore and Henry Fagin, eds., Urban Research  and.Policy. Planning, (Beverly H i l l s , California, Sage, 1967); David C. Ranney, Planning and Politics in the Metropolis, (Columbus, Charles E. M e r r i l l , 1969); and Robert A. Walker, The Planning Function in Urban Government, (Chicago, University Press, 1950). Ranney, ibid., esp. p. 106. Also see F. F. Rabinovitz, City Poli t i c s and Planning, (New York, Atherton Press, 1969); Eric Hardy, Administrative Organization: A Brief to the Royal Commission of Canada's Economic Prospects, (Toronto, 1955), mimeo.; and John Fischer, "Innovations in Government", in Planning 1969: Selected Papers From  the ASPO National Planning Conference, Cincinatti, April 19-24, 1969, (Chicago, ASPO, 1970). 3Ranhey, op. c i t . ; Hans Blumenfeld, "Some Lessons for Regional Planning From the Experience of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board", in Paul D. Spreiregen, ed., The Modern Metropolis: Its  Origins.^ Growth, Characteristics, and Planning, (Montreal, Harvest;' House, 1967); Robert C. Wood, "A Division of Powers in Metropolitan Areas", in Arthur Maass, ed., Area and Power, (Glencoe, The Free Pressi 1959); and Lowden Wingo Jr., "Regional Planning in a Federal System", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, May, 1964. 4R. T. Dumoulin, "Regional Districts in the Province of British  Columbia", The Canadian Bar Association Papers (1966), (papers given at annual Association meeting, 1966), 197-204; Ted Rashleigh, "British Columbia's Regional D i s t r i c t s " Community Planning Review, (Winter, 1966), 9-11. The Department of Municipal Affairs in Victoria has also printed occasional brochures and s t a t i s t i c a l summaries about regional d i s t r i c t s . ^Brian C. Smith, "The Justification of Local Government" and Hugh Whalen, "Ideology, Democracy and the Foundations of Local Self-Government", both in, Lionel D. Feldman and Michael D. Goldrick, eds., Politic s and Government of Urban Canada: Selected Readings, (Toronto, Methuen, 1969) and Z. Werner Hirsch, "The Supply of Urban Public Ser-vices" in Harvey S. Perloff and Lowden Wingo, Jr., eds., Issues in  Urban Economics, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1968). ^John C. Bollens and Henry J. Schmandt; The Metropolis: Its  People, Politics and Economic Life, (New York, Harper and Row, 1970); and Amos H. Hawley and Basil G. Zimmer, The Metropolitan Community: Its People and Government, (Beverly H i l l s , California, Sage, 1970). 83 84 7Simon R. M i l e s , e d . , M e t r o p o l i t a n Problems: I n t e r n a t i o n a l  P_erspectives, a Search fo r a Comprehensive S o l u t i o n . (Toronto , Methuen, 1970) . o Hans B lamenfe ld , "Regional P lann ing" i n Spre i regen, e d . , op. c i t . , 84-87. Q The boundaries of the area to be annexed and the terms of annexat ion are a r b i t r a t e d by a p r o v i n c i a l l y appointed Local A u t h o r i t i e s Board who normal ly ho ld a hear ing to rece ive submissions from the l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s and landowners a f f e c t e d . The comments are based on the a u t h o r ' s personal exper ience. " ^ A l t s h u l e r , op. c i t . , p.410. "'""''For a comprehensive d i s c u s s i o n see: J . C . B o l l e n s , Spec ia l D i s t r i c t Governments i n the Un i ted States (Berke ley , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press , 1967). 12 B o l l e n s , i b i d . ]3 Wood, op. c i t . , p. 1 ^The a r t i c l e s i n A r t h u r Maass, Area, and Power, op. c i t . , and the s e c t i o n i n Feldman and G o l d r i c k , op. c i t . , e n t i t l e " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e " are e s p e c i a l l y r e l e v a n t . ^ A d i scuss ion of t h i s sub jec t i n a g l o b a l context i s found i n Frank Smallwood, " M e t r o p o l i t a n P o l i t i c a l Systems and the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e s s " , i n Simon R. M i l e s , ed.. , M e t r o p o l i t a n Problems: op. c i t . 16 Me lv in R. L e v i n , Reg iona l , Area and Community P lann ing : Issues i n P u b l i c P o l i c y (New York , Praegeri; 1969) , p. 129 17 Donald H. Webster, "Urban Planning and Mun ic ipa l Pub l i c P o l i c y , (New York , Harper , 1958) p. 557 18 The few except ions incLude: A lan J . Hahn, "P lann ing i n Rura l A r e a s " , and Ray C. Buck and Robart A. Rath , "P lann ing as an I n s t i t u t i o n -a l I n n o v a t i o n i n the Smal ler C i t y " bo th i n , Jou rna l o f the American. I n s t i t u t e of P lanners , January, 1970. Also see, Harold H. Baker, "The Small Community and P l a n n i n g " , Canadian Planning Review, Spr ing , 1965. 19 Gerald Hodge, "Urban Systems and Regional P o l i c y " , Canadian  Pub l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , June, 1966, p. 18. A lso Alan J . Hahn, op. c i t . 20 Hardy, op. c i t . , p. K-12 ( t h i s form o f p a g i n a t i o n i s used i n the r e p o r t ) . 21" See Hans B lumenfe ld , "Regional P lann ing" i n Spre i regen, e d . , op. c i t . , f o r a d iscuss ions of t h i s p o i n t . 85 22 A.R. Kuklinski, "Regional Development, Regional Policies and Regional Planning: Problems and Issues." Regional Studies, (4:3, 1970), p.270 (Italics in Ithe original:. 23 Hans Blumenfeld, "Some Lessons for Regional Planning From the Experience of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board," in Spreiregen, ed., op. c i t . , p. 91. 24 The five common denominators are essentially a composite of cr i t e r i a suggested by various authors. They include: Hans Blumenfeld, esp. in "Some Lessons Fof... Regional Planning . . . "(above citation); L.O. Gertler, "Regional Planning and Developmentj" in Resources for  tomorrow: Conference Background Papers, Department of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources, (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1961) Vol. I, 401-402; Regional Districts in .the Lower Mainland, (Vancouver: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, 1969), Mimeograph,7-20; A.R; Kuklinski, "Regional Development . . . " (above citation), esp. pp. 274-275; Donald C. Rowat, "Proposal fof Regional Government," Municipal World, (June, 1968), 169-170; and Lowden Witigo Jr.; "Regional Planning in a Federal System", op. c i t . , 153-154. This by no means exhausts the writers who have touched on the subject; the ones cited have, however, prepared l i s t s of what they feel to be necessary conditions (or specific weaknesses) where regional institutions are concerned. 25 Lowden Wingo Jr., op. c i t . , 153. His concept of the hierarchi-cal, collateral and functional aspects of policy making are enlarged on in Chapter Two. Chapter Two "^Juliusz Gorynski and Zygmunt Rybicki, "The Functional Metropo-l i s and Systems of Government," in Metropolitan Problems: International  Perspectives, A Search for a Comprehensive Solution^ ed. by Simon R. Miles (Toronto: Methuen, 1970) esp. 299-306. 2 J. Stefan Dupre, "Intergovernmental Relations and the Metropo-l i t a n Ar .," in M e t r o p o l i t a n P r o b l e m s . . . , Miles, ib i d . , p. 353. 3 J.C. Bollens, Special District Governments in the United States (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967). For further discussion see Dupre, ibid., esp. 347-349. 4 Hans Blumenfeld, "Regional Planning," in The Modern Metropolis:  Its Origins, Growth, Characteristics, and Planning, ed. by Paul D. Sprei-regen (Montreal: Harvest House, 1967), p. 84-87. ~*For example Rbwat believes 50,000 i s a necessary minimum. See Donald C. Rowat, "Proposal for Regional Government;'" Municipal World, (June, 1968); p. 169. Hans Blumenfeld, dp. c i t . , p. 86. 86 7 For an example see; Br'.an J, L, Berry, Geography of Market  Centers and Retail Distribution Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. ; Prentice-Hall ? 1967) g Lowden Wingo Jr., "Regional Planning i n a Federal System," AIP Journal, (May, 1964), p. 153. 9 Wingo, ibid., p. 154. "^Leonard 0. Gertler, "Some Economic and Social Influences oh Regional Planning in Alberta," in Planning the Canadian Environment, ed. by L. 0. Gertler (Montreal: Harvest House, 1968) p..90; 11 The Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board was a good example. Its history is summarized in the following chapter. 12 Gorynski and Rybicki, op. c i t . , pp. 310-312 13 One of the better known examples i s ; J. Friedmann and W. Alonso, eds., Regional Development and Planning (Cambridge,. Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1964) 14 ( Hans Blumenfeld and A.R. Kuklinski are among the few exceptions, (see earlier citations). 15 Eric J. Hanson, Local Government in Alberta (Toronto: McLelland and Stewart, 1956) is the source for the exposition of Alberta history. Comments about the current status of planning commissions in Alberta are based on the author's personal experience on the staff of a commission. 16 Ralph K. Kreuger, "The Provincial-Municipal Revolution in New Brunswick," Canadian Public Administration, (Spring, 1970), pp. 51-99 is the source for the discussion of New Brunswick. "^Kreuger, ibid., feels this was a s.rious oversight, although he generally endorses the change. 18 The Ontario Committee on Taxation, "Reconciling Structure with Finance," Report (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1967), Vol. II, Chap. 23. 19 For a c r i t i c a l review see: Dominic DelGuidice and Steven M. Zacks, "Why the Ontario Committee on Taxation Made i t s Excursion into Regional Government," in Polit i c s and Government of Urban Canada:  Selected Readings, ed. by LiOnel D. Feldman and Michael D. Goldrick (Toronto: Methuen, 1969) pp. 265-285. 20 In sharp contrast to British Columbia, as w i l l be seen, a great deal of publicity in the form provincial government publications and studies preceded incorporation of each unit. Issues of Municipal  World, the provincial government's monthly magazine, provide many details, including transcripts of speeches by the Minister concerned. 87 21 Alberta, The Planning Act, Chapter 276 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 1970 (as amended), 22 Based on the author's personal experience on the staff of one of Alberta's planning commissions. Chapter Three "''This theme has been reiterated in speeches by the Honourable Dan Campbell, (former) Minister of Municipal Affairs and in the few government documents on regional d i s t r i c t s . For example, Government of British Columbia, Statistics Relating to Regional and Municipal Govern- ments in British Columbia (Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1970). 2 Based on an interview with Mr. Don South, Director, Planning Division, Department of Municipal Affairs on February 17, 1971. 3 Ibid. 4 Within five years, 27 of these agreements were concluded; eighteen of them for the provision of home nursing care, (ibid.). ^Estimated from population st a t i s t i c s quoted in, Statistics  Relating to . . . , op. c i t . ^Based on interviews (cited below) and numerous newspaper accounts in the latter part of 1967 and early 1968. 7D.M. Churchill, Local Government and Administration in the  Lower Mainland Metropolitan Community, Report to the Metropolitan Joint Committee, Volumes I and II, (Vancouver, 1959). Much of the following exposition is based on this report. 8 The f i r s t was allegedly the New York Regional Planning Commission founded in 1929. 9 Churchill, op. c i t . , Vol. I, p. 18. ^ I n a speech by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Churchill, op. c i t . , Vol. I, p. 43. "'""'"In addition to Churchill (cited above), companion reports were prepared on the functional and financial implications of metropolitan government, 12 The population figure was suggested by Mr. Don South, op. c i t . 13 The Honourable Dan Camph j l l made pointed remarks about this on more than one occasion. For exan )le, see text of an address to the 1964 Union of British Columbia Municit l l i t i e s conference. Minutes of the  61st Annual Conference, pp. 108-] 19. 88 14 The conference was held on June 22, 23, and 24, 1964. Over f i f t y representatives from municipal and unorganized territories in the Greater Victoria area attended, The description is based on the accounts which appeared in the Victoria Daily Colonist at the time, 1 5 A r t i c l e , The Daily Colonist, June 23, 1964, p. 13. 16 ' Interview with Mr. Don South, op. c i t . I 17 ' This assertion i s based on a review of the library indices of v British Columbia's three metropolitan dailies; The Daily Province, the Vancouver Sun, and The Daily Colonist, over a six year period (to 1970). 18 The following exposition is largely based on news items and editorials appearing during 1965 in the weekly Comox Free Press, Courte-nay, B.C. 19 A responsible informant in Courtenay referred to these meetings and later interviews (see Chapter Four) suggested they were not uncommon. 20 Editorial, Comox Free Press, July 25, 1965, p . l . 21 Article, Comox Free Press, September 19, 1965, p. 1. 22 The Sunshine Coast Regional Di s t r i c t , which incorporated in January, 1967 is an exception. However, as w i l l be discussed in Chapter Four, they had made a resolution to form a d i s t r i c t almost two years earlier. 23 The regional d i s t r i c t of Stikine, which covers a large, almost unpopulated area in the extreme north of the province, remains unincor-porated and under the direct administration df the Department of Municipal Affairs (see Figure 1 ) . 24 This was inferred by Mr, Don South in an interview, op. c i t . A prelude to the legislation was the creation of new hospital d i s t r i c t in Vancouver in 1966. Article, The Vancouver S i n , Oct. 30, 1971, p.6. 25 Interview with Mr. Don South, op. c i t . 26 For data on the latter see, Bureau of ]conomics and Statistics, Regional Index of British Columbia (Victoria: Qi een's Printer, 1966). 2 7 T , . , Ibid. 28 For a detailed discusssion see, Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Regional Districts in the Lower Mainland (Vancouver: LMRPB; 1969). 29 In contrast; for example, to the interdepartmental Provincial Planning Board in Alberta which acts as an appeal body above the planning commissions. 89 Chapter Four "'"Based on an interview with the planning director, Mr. Eugene Lee, February 26, 1971. 2 There are unsubstantiated accounts that the influence of local councils in this area led to the decision o create four rather than two regional di s t r i c t s for the Lower Mainland. 3 Interview with Mr. Eugene Lee, op. c i t . 4 Based on articles appearing in 196 in the weekly Haney Gazette. Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Regional Index of British Columbia, (Victoria: Queen's Printer; 1966). A review of the newspaper f i l e s during this period shows ail art i c l e or editorial appearing at least once a week on the subject. 7 E d i t o r i a l , The Haney Gazette, October 20, 1967. g Editorial, The Haney Gazette, October 27, 1967. 9 See Table I. "^Based on an interview with the planning director, Mr. Robin Sharpe, March 6, 1971. "'""'"The following exposition is based on a review of the minutes of the Board meetings over a three year period and an interview with the secretary-treasurer, Mr. CF. Gooding on February 20, 1971. 12 The account here i s based on an interview with Mr. Ron Mann, the di s t r i c t ' s consultant planner, on February 10, 1971 and on various informal discussions with Mr. David Zirnhelt ( a fellow student) who had acted as recording secretary at a number of the public hearings. 13 Technical planning committees, required under the regional d i s t r i c t legislation, are comprised of regioral representatives of various provincial government departments and one or more staff members of the regional d i s t r i c t . 14 Abraham N. Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measure- ment, (New York: Basic Books, 19"6), p. 19. "^An approach recommended by Oppenheim, ibi d . , pp. 41-43. 16 Urban areas are a r b i t r a r i l y defined as those with a population of 2,500 or more. A review of the populations of the communities in the province showed some evidence of a modal sp l i t in this area, i.e. there were Only three communities with populations between 2,001 and 2,500 compared to seven with populations between 1,501 and 2,000 and eight with populations between 2,501 and 3,000. 9 0 Chapter Five "'"Lowden Wingo, J r . , "Regional Planning i n a Federal System," AIP Journal, (May, 1964), p. 154. 2 This i s discussed i n Chapter Two. 3 This example, p a r t i c u l a r l y , could have been strongly influenced by l o c a l p o l i t i c a l pressures, (see e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n ) . 4 . . This issue was c i t e d by v i r t u a l l y a l l the authors whose c r i -t e r i a i n s p i r e d the f i v e key considerations used i n the study, (see footnote 24, Chapter One). "'this a s s e r t i o n i s grounded i n the author's personal experiences i n communications with p r o v i n c i a l government departments i n Alberta: 6 • -the term dualism i s used i n the sense of regional planning being perceived as e i t h e r the coordination of planning among l o c a l units or the d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n from the p r o v i n c i a l or federal l e v e l of regional economic planning programs, (see discussion of t h i s point i n Chapter One). 7Hugh Whalen, "Ideology, Democracy,- and the Foundations of Local Self-Government," i n P o l i t i c s and Government of Urban Canada: Selected  Readings, ed. by L i o n e l D. Feldman and Michael D. Goldrick (Toronto: Methuen, 1969), p. 325. 8 Leonard 0. Gertleir, "Regional Planning and Development," i n Resources for Tomorrow: .Conference Background Papers, Department of Northern A f f a i r s and Natural Resources (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1961). p. 402. 9 This analogy was suggested by Mr. Robin Sharpe, planning d i r e c t o r f o r Comox-Strathcona regional d i s t r i c t . He referred to i t i n the sense that, unlike most other Canadian provinces, BiC.'s hinterland i s exploited for raw materials rather than a g r i c u l t u r e . Much as the developed nations have only a narrow vested i n t e r e s t i n the resources of the t h i r d world, so might a p r o v i n c i a l government view the province; s p e c i f i c a l l y those areas not i n p r i v a t e l y owned land. SOURCES CONSULTED Books Adrian, Charles R. Governing Urban America. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1965. Altshuler* Alan A. The City Planning Process: A P o l i t i c a l Analysis. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965. Ash, Maurice. Regions of To-morrow. London: Evelyn, Adams and MacKay, 1969. Berry, Brian J.L. Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prehtice-Hall, 1967. Bollens, John C. Special District Governments in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957. Bollens, John C. and Henry J. Schmandt. The Metropolis: Its People,  Politi c s and Economic Life. New York: Harper and Row, 1970 Camu, P., E. P. Weeks and Z.W; Sametz. Economic Geography of Canada:  With an Introduction to a 68-Region System. Toronto: MacMil-lan, 1964. Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Resources for  Tomorrow: Conference Background Papers. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1961. Dupre, Stefan J. "Applied Areal Analysis: the Case of Canada." Area and Power. Edited by Arthur Maass. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959. Feldman, Lionel D. and Michael D. Goldrick, eds. Politics and Govern- ment of Urban Canada: Selected Readings. Toronto: Methuen, 1969. Gertler, L.O., ed. Planning the Canadian Environment. Montreal: Harvest House, 1968. Hanson, Eric J. Local Government in Alberta. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart, 1956. Hawley, Amos H. and Basil G. Zimmer. the Metropolitan Community: Its  People and Government. Beverly H i l l s , Calif.: Sage, 1970. 91 92 Hirsch, Werner Z. "The Supply of Urban Public Services," Issues in Urban Economics, Edited by Harvey S, Perloff and Lowden Wingo, Jr, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1968, Isard, Walter, et a l , Methods of Regional Analysis: An Introduction  to Regional Science. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1970. Levin, Melvin R. Regional, Area and Community Planniri&j, Issues in  Public Policy. New York: Praeger, 1969. Lithwickj N;H. and Gilles Paquet, eds. Urban Studies: ..A Canadian  Perspective. Toronto: Methuen, 1968. Long, Norton E. The Polity. Chicago: Rand, McNally, 1962. Maass, Arthur, ed., Area and Power. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959. Miles, Simon R., ed., Metropolitan Problems: International Perspectives, A Search for Comprehensive Solutions. Toronto: Methuen, 1970. Oppenheim, Abraham N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books, 1966. Rabinovitz, F.F. City Politics and Planning. New York: Atherton Press, 1969. Ranney, David C; Planning and Politics in the Metropolis.; Columbus: Charles E. M e r r i l l , 1969. Walker, Robert A. The Planning Function in Urban. Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. Webber, Melvin M. and Carolyn C. Webber. "Culture, T e r r i t o r i a l i t y , and the Elastic Mile." Taming Megalopolis. Edited by H. Wentworth Eldridge. Vol I. New York: Doubleday, 1967. Wood, Robert C. "A Division of Powers in Metropolitan Areas;" Area and Power. Edited by Arthur Maass. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959. Articles in Journals Beckman, Norman. "Legislative Review, 1968-196' : Planning and Urban Development." AIP Journal, (Sept; 1970;, 345-359. Baker, Harold H. "The Small Community and Planr Lng." Community Plan- ning Review, (Spring, 1965), 2-8. Buck, Ray C. and Robert A. Rath. "Planning as £ i Institutional Innova-tion in the Smaller City." AIP. Journal, (Jan., 1970) 59-64. Clavel, Pierre.. "Planners and Citizen Boards: iome Applications of Social Theory to the Problem of Plan ImpLementation." AIP  Journal, (May, 1968), 130-139. 93 Gertler, L.O, "Regionalization and Economic Development." Community  Planning Review, (Spring, 1970), 10-12. Hahn, Alan J, "Planning in Rural Areas." Al? Journal, (Jan. 1970), 44-49. Hare, Kenneth F. "Regionalism and Administration." Canadian Journal  of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, (lov. 1967) 28-42. Hodge, Gerald. "Urban Systems and Regional PcLicy." Canadian Public  Administration, (June, 1966) 15-32. Krueger, Ralph K. "The Provincial-Municipal I evolution In New Brunswick." Canadian Public Administration, (Spfii 1970), 51-99. Kuklinski* A.R. "Regional Development, Regioi i l Policies and Regional Planning: Problems and Issues." Regj mai Studies, (4:3, 1970) 269-278. Leven, Charles C. "Establishing Goals for Rej Lonal Economic Development." AIP Journal, (May, 1964), 100-110. Rowat, Donald C. "Proposal for Regional Gove, nment." Municipal World, (June, 1968), 169-170. Rashleigh, Ted. "British Columbia's Regional Districts." Community  Planning Review, (Winter, 1969), 9-11 Smith, P.M. "What Kind of Regional Plan." Ui ban Studies, (3:3, 1966), 250-257. Wingo Jr., Lowden. "Regional Planning in a F. deral System;" AIP Journal, (May, 1964), 153-154. Published Reports Baker, W.B. Changing Structure of Local Gov rnment, Proceedings of of the Institute of Public Administra ion of Canada, 1957. 171-185. Catanese, Anthony J. and Alan W. Steiss. Reg onal Planning: A Summary  of American Contributions, a paper d. Livered to the American Institute of Planning Conference, Mini aapolis/St. Paul, October, 1970. Mimeo. Churchill, D.M. Local Government and Administration in the Lower Mainland  Metropolitan Community, report to the Metropolitan Joint Committee, Volumes I and II, Vancouver, B.C., 1959. Dumoulin, R.t. Regional Districts in the Province of British Columbia, The Canadian Bar Association Papers, 1966, 197-204. Government of British Columbia. Municipal Statistics: Including Regional  Districts, Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1970. 94 Government of British Columbia, Regional Districts in B r i t i s h Columbia,  1971; General Review — A Series of Questions and Answers, Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1971, Government of British Columbia, Statistics Relating to Regional and  Municipal Governments in British Columbia, Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1970. Second edition. Mosely, W.E, Canadian Royal Commission Studies of Local Government, Municipal Finance Officers Association, Special Bulletin, 1966. Rowat, Donald C. The Special Tax Conference on the Report of the  Ontario Committee on Taxation, Report of the Proceedings, Toronto: Canadian Tax Foundation, 1968. Spicer, Richard B. Increasing State and Regional Power in the Develop- Ment Service, Report to the American Society of Planning Of f i c i a l s , Chicago: Planning Advisory Service, March, 1970. Report No. 255. Unpublished Reports Bryden, R.M. Saskatchewan Planning Legislation Study, Regina: Queen's Printer, 1968. Mimeograph. Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. Submission to the Government of Canada with Respect to Certain Problems Affecting  Municipal Governments Arising from Federal Legislation or Policy, Brief to the Federal Government, January 13, 1956. Mimeograph. Corbett, D.C. A Survey of Metropolitan Governments, Department of Econ-omics and P o l i t i c a l Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1958, Mimeograph. Hardy, Eric Administrative Organization, Brief to the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, Toronto, 1955. Mimeograph. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Regional Districts in the Lower  Mainland, Vancouver, 1968. Mimeograph. Interviews Interview with Mr. Eugene Lee, planning director Central Fraser Valley regional d i s t r i c t , February 26, 1971. Interview with Mr, Ron Mann, planning consultant, Cariboo regional dist-r i c t , February 10, 1971. Interview with Mr, Robin Sharpe, planning director, Comox-Strathcona regional d i s t r i c t , March 6, 1971 Interview with Mr. Don South, Director, Planning Division, Department of Municipal Affairs, February 17, 1971 95 APPENDIX "A" TBS RSGIOHAL DISTRICT IK GEHSRAL B r i e f l y , what would you cons ider to be tee major goal or goals of the regional d i s t r i c t concept? Among the following potential sources of information, which ones do you refer to most often to keep o to date or. l o c a l matters that might concern the regional d i s t r i c t ? Other Board members Local newspapers Regional d i s t r i c t s t a f f .The general pu'i-l.ic Representatives of Prominent l o c a l organisations l o c a l c i tizens Other (specify) Besides meetings of the Regional Board and Y33 i t s cosraitteas, did you attend any other nestings during the l a s t s ix sonths of 1970 ' where the regional d i s t r i c t or regional problems were tho main t t p i c of discussion? I f "yes", approximately how many? Could you estimate hov often during December, 1970, Esabers of the general public - either as individuals or as groups - contacted you about regional matters? iio you f e e l the chairman of the Regional Board should be elected d i r e c t l y by the voters? YES KO DON'T KNOW K' c v.' Should the Reg iona l Board/r-sz::lsa e s s e n t i a l l y a coordin-ating body, e^ sssfessSEsSft gradually acquire more r e a l l e g i s l a t i v e powers? I3S NO DON' T KKOW Are the•present boundaries of your regional d i s t r i c t satisfactory? I f notj please i n d i e a t a what changes you believe would be desirable. B. E2C-I0HAL DISTRICT ACTIVITIES. 1. Are there any functions now handled in'your YES d i s t r i c t by a single purpose board or commission NO which, i n your • opinion, would be better. hand led by the regional d i s t r i c t / ? I f "yes", which ones? :DON'T KKOW 2. Conversely, do you think there are functions YES which would be better controlled by a single NO purpose authority than by the rerionai d i s t r i c t ? ., DON'T KNOW I f ''yes", wnich ones? — regicaai d i s t r i c t now has a secretary-treasurer and some also have other s t a f f members. Do you anticipate that i n the near future - say by 1975 -your regional d i s t r i c t w i l l employ: - a t o t a l ataff cf 5' people or l e s s . - a staff of between 6 and 10 people. - mere than 10 people on the whole s t a f f . I t i s too early to try and anticipate. i i - The planning function was recently made eo.-npulsory for the regional d i s t r i c t s . Do you feel this decision was: - Premature - Far too premature - Long overdue - Overdue - Well timed Planning i s not an appropriate regional function 5. Indicate which, i f any, of the following f u n c t i o n s should be adopted by your regional d i s t r i c t . - Ambulance services' - Fire protection - Garbage disposal - Education - Public Works - None of these Indicate which of the following saethods of regulating residential (non-«agricuitural use) development you think i s appropriate for the unorganised areas of your regional d i s t r i c t at the present tlata. (Check arm or more.). Permission tc build would depend on: - connect ion to a raunicl pally approved w.u u>r supply - connection to a sanitary sewage systeir. or approval of septic tank f i e l d by & health ^ f f . c e r . - conforming to an o f f i c i a l regions' o l • •:, - conforming to regions"1, zoning or r.uoiivision re gula t i on s . - approval by the 8of,icv»l fic-rd ir: absence of regional regulation . At present none of these measures ceeas ir. be necessary i n ycur regions! d i s t r i c t . Do you f e e l that a l l Inno-use control, i.e. zoning power should ba transferred svsntusliy to the TES Regional Board? NO DON • T KNOW ' C. THE LOCAL COMMUNITY 1. U n t i l the present time, at least, has the existence of the regional d i s t r i c t bensfited your ccraraunity? YES 7 . Y.0 DON'T KNOW If "yes", i n what vay? 2. Which of the following do you f e e l are the most desirable goals- f o r your coaarunlty? - (Chock one or more) Anticipate long range needs and assign policy accordingi.y> Maintain a f l e x i b l e approach and adapt po l i c i e s to changing conditions. Attract cloan, desirable industry and ccsraercial investment. Develop and attract investment i n recreational and tourist potential. Keep tax'ss as loy as possible -while naintaining essential ssrrloas such as. roads, water supply etc. Try to create a high l e v e l of amenities such as parks, good street l i g h t i n g , recreation centres etc. I f ttee f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s a l s w e r e made f o r y o u r c o m m u n i t y , a n d y o u v a r e a s k e d t o comment on e a c h o f t h e m , w h a t w o u l d y o u r r e a c t i o n b e : ; N o t N e e d [ I n I n M o r e F a v o r F a v o r D a t a F l u o r i d a t e t h e l o c a l w a t e r - s u p p l y . 1 _ F o r m a n i n d u s t r i a l d e v e l o p s n t c r a j s i i t t e e L e g a l i z e S u n d a y s p o r t s . P e r m i t d e v e l o p m e n t o f a new-m o b i l e home p a r k . R e g u l a t e b y b y l a w t h e s i z e a n d l o c a t i o n o f s i g n s a n d b i l l b o a r d s . A t w o m i l l t a x i n c r e a s e f o r new sewage t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s . A t w o s i l l t a x i n c r e a s e t o h e l p p u r c h a s e a new r e g i o n a l p a r k . . W h i c h o f t h e f o l l o ' i r i n g i s , i n y o u r o p i n i o n , t h e m o s t s u i t a b l e a p p r o a c h t o l a n d - u s e r e g u l a t i o n i n y o u r Ceng-unity a t t h e p r e s e n t t i n e ? ( C h e c k o n e ) . A c o m p r e h e n s i v e , #r m a s t e r p l a n f o r l a n d - u s e , c l o s e l y a d h e r e d t o . A f a i r l y f l e x i b l e s o i l i n g p l a n w i t h c h a n g e s a p p r o v e d on t h e i r m e r i t s . The c c r s r o i n i t v a l r e a d y h a s a c o m p r e h e n s i v e l a n d - u s e p l a n i n e f f e c t . A t p r e s e n t , land-U3e r e g u l a t i o n s i n t h e coBusunity s h o u l d be u n d e r t h e r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t . T h e r e seems t o be n o n e e d f o r z o n i n g o r l a n d - u s e r e g u l a t i o n s a t t h e p r e s e n t s t a g e o f d e v e l o p m e n t . B I O G R A P H I C A L INFORMATION How w o u l d y o u d e s c r i b e y o u r r e g u l a r o c c u p a t i o n ? I n w h i c h o f t h e s e a g e g r o u p s a r e y o u ? U n d e r 35 36 t o US ___ h& t o 55 56 t o 65 95 APPENDIX "A" Rov; many years have you served on the Regional Board? How many y e a r s h a v e y o u h e l d e l e c t e d p u b l i c o f f i c e ? H a v e y o u s e r v e d o n a n y e l e c t e d o r a p p o i n t e d c i v i c b o a r d s o r c c r e m i t t e s s , s u c h a s a R a t e p a y e r ' s A s s o c i a t i o n , p l a n n i n g C c s u a i s s i o n e t c . ? T E S M O I f "y83", p l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h i c h ones a n d t h e a p p r o x i m a t e l e n g t h o f t i n e s e r v e d w i t h e a c h . P l & a s e i n d i c a t e b r i e f l y w h a t , i n y o u r j u d g e m e n t , a r e t h e c o s t i m p o r t a n t s i t u a t i o n s , i s s u e s o r p r o b l e m a r e a s t h a t i n v o l v e o r i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e m i g h t i n v o l v e t h e r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t . T h e s e may o r may n o t h a v e b e e n t o u c h e d o n i n t h e p r e c e d i n g q u e s t i o n s . 

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.831.1-0099972/manifest

Comment

Related Items