"If the vote is no it will be a tragic loss of opportunity," Gibsons Mayor Barry Janyk said at a public meeting on the restructuring referendum Nov. 9 hosted by the Town of Gibsons. Billed as an opportunity for open and full discussion about the future of the community the meeting drew about 40 concerned citizens.
All three areas, E (Elphinstone) and F (Howe Sound) from the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) and the Town of Gibsons, affected by the restructuring proposal had voters in attendance at the meeting.
The Town's chief administrator, Bill Beamish acted as moderator for the meeting. He set the tone at the outset.
"This is a chance to consider issues...not an opportunity to hijack the meeting. Treat each other with respect," Beamish said.And although the referendum has heated up as of late, questions rather than rhetoric ruled the Thursday meeting.Janyk advised those present, "We aren't just thinking of the Town or the districts. We're trying to be holistic. Things are going to change regardless of the vote."
He went on to say that the Town isn't empire building rather council is trying to "enshrine what already exists - the community of Gibsons."
If the vote should succeed, Janyk said, "There won't be a cement truck in your front yard laying a sidewalk."
And he took a potshot at the "vote no" side's contention that taxes will rise exorbitantly if the vote is yes.
"If anyone tells you taxes are going down run in the opposite direction. Taxes always go up. How much they go up depends on the politicians you elect," the feisty mayor declared.
At issue for some of the people present is the distribution of votes on the SCRD board.
Right now the weighted vote (based on the population of the areas) on monetary issues gives Sechelt four votes at the board table. Sechelt Indian Band has one vote, Area A (Pender Harbour area) has two votes, Area B (Halfmoon Bay) has two votes, Area D (Roberts Creek) has two votes, Area E has two votes and Area F has one vote.
"The Town is unable to proceed as it wishes because of these ways of sharing votes," Janyk said.
An audience member from Area F agreed with Janyk. That area is only between five and 31 people short of another weighted vote. Gibsons councillors, Gerry Tretick, Chris Koopmans and Bob Curry took turns explaining their yes position on the referendum. For Koopmans a yes vote would "enshrine the neighbourhood."
He's worried that with projects such as the McNabb development proposed by Columbia National Investments (CNI) the entire district could become a development hodgepodge.
"We need to plan together for things like water, regional growth strategy and a transportation system that works. Taxes have gone up every single year. The question is are they being used properly. For me it's all about the future." Koopmans said.
For Tretick it's "about community."
He said there would be more control over social issues, the environment, housing and taxes.
"The risk is we accept the responsibility," Tretick said.
Right now all taxes collected in areas E and F go to the province. The province in turn gives a portion (after deducting five per cent off the top) back to the SCRD.
In a municipality all the taxes collected by the new municipality stay with the municipality. For Area F resident, Len Taylor the "no, stay rural" signs are a sore point.
"If they want to keep it rural shouldn't they have the vote here?" he pondered.
In answer Beamish explained what had happened in Houston, B.C. after restructuring took place.
The area amalgamated in 1969. The composition of the district remained 80 per cent rural and 20 per cent urban.
"There are more cows and chickens than there are people," Beamish said.
Since 1985 there have been 60 restructures take place in B.C. "Each local government has its own unique concerns," he said.
Policing also looms big in the decision of whether or not to become a municipality.
When Beamish asked the audience how many were satisfied with the level of policing in E, F and the Town, only three hands went up.
In 2002 Gibsons lost the local RCMP detachment when the police became headquartered in Sechelt.
If a new municipality were created the population would be just over 10,000. Right now because none of the three areas affected by the vote had populations over 5,000 in the last census the cost and control of policing falls to the province. That would change and about 70 per cent of the cost and responsibility for policing would fall to the new municipality at a tax cost of about $200 to $300 per household. But it would mean a new detachment or storefront here.
Another question posed dealt with the ballot. Audience members questioned whether leaving either question unanswered would spoil their vote.
The answer according to the chief election officer, Joan Harvey is no. The ballot is a "composite" ballot composed of two questions, one asking whether the voter is in favour of creating a new municipality by incorporating the present areas E, F and the Town of Gibsons. The other asks what the proposed new municipality should be named in the event of an affirmative vote, the District of West Howe Sound or the District of Gibsons. Either or both questions can be answered and would be tabulated in the count.
