This is the third in a
series of posts on how we lost the fight to protect the Urban Containment Boundary which protected from development the rural “green-fields” in the southernmost area of the city. Plans for a golf course resort and a big box retail “master planned community” didn’t proceed. A new proposal has come forward however, ahead of our upcoming Official Community Plan review.
In the first post I mention that a Downtown Business Improvement Area (BIA) had been organized. It had a board of directors that included two city
councillors and met at the council table of the day at City Hall on
Wallace Street.
Funding for the Downtown Nanaimo Business Improvement Association, from both a commercial property levy and matching funds from general revenue (the only BIA in the province double-funded like this), was withdrawn by the last Council and we're left with
the cautionary tale of how not to structure a BIA. Its greatest failing was its inability to stand up to the perhaps greatest threat to downtown's future, the elimination of the UCB.
Over its history it had suffered membership revolts and the removal of its President by City Council. It was increasingly unaccountable and opaque.
It ran on hubris and too much money. It thought of itself as an unelected arm of government, directors sat around the Council table for their meetings giving them an inflated view of their own importance. Two City Councillors were also on the board of directors, if memory serves, Diane Brennan and Bill Holdom.
Individually board members would express opposition to the removal of UCB, but were compromised and co-opted by City Hall. The BIA had one job, protect downtown from the force that had done it harm: low population density car-dependent sprawl and the subsequent corporate-owned shopping centres. At the public hearing at which the UCB was eliminated the BIA didn't speak up, board members sat on their hands afraid to displease the Councillor board members or risk the loss of City funds.
Our downtown is again threatened by sprawling growth on remote green-field lands and there will be no doubt calls for the creation of a new downtown BIA. I hope we’ve learned how not to do it.
It’s time, in my view, for a comprehensive downtown plan, best organized around a modification of Vancouver’s
Grandview-Woodlands Citizens’ Assembly. The success of small and large business downtown is important but it’s only one element of a vibrant urban core. Time too, for a review and updating of the National Urban Design Award winning 2008
Downtown Urban Design Plan and Guidelines.
As a long time Board member of the DNBIA I disagree with both your historical observations and your conclusions.
ReplyDeleteThis is the third of three posts on the loss of our Urban Containment Boundary. Many people may not know that the forested rural area of the city was protected from sprawling development by the UCB, so my intent was to offer some background for anyone interested. My criticism of the Downtown BIA is harsh but I’ve, as always, avoided any personal attack. If a new BIA is to be organized it needs to be independent, arms-lenth from City Hall.
ReplyDeleteCities successfully making the 21st Century transition from car dependent sprawl to walkable neighbourhoods and localized commerce have strong proactive Urban Planning and Urban Design departments in the leadership role. Nanaimo needs to move in this direction too.
The current Council’s Strategic Plan is organized around 4 themes : Economic Health, Livability, Environmental Responsibility, and Governance Excellence. The Sandstone proposal for a “master planned community” on these formerly protected rural lands fails the test on all four.