BOX

Continued from Page C2
and sewage studies, increasing
<gssessments, tightened government
spending (provincial), the need to
revamp the way we allocate taxes,
and a downtum in the economy,
some tough decisions and strong
leadership will be required.

lan
ameron

Question One:
While I am opposed to develop-
ment in Central Saanich generally,

IAN CAMERON

it is difficult or impossible to
prevent the owner from doing
something with the land. Any
development, however, must be
sensitive to the ecological role of
the area, native Indian concerns,
and the propinquity to Butchart

. Gardens, the area’s major tourist

attraction.

Question Two:

The Panorama Centre was built
with the understanding that Cen-
tal Saanich would not contribute
tax dollars, and I personally do not
see any reason to change that.
However, this is not an election
issue with me and I would support
a referendum if Central Saanich
residents requested one.

Question Three:

The key issue in Central Saa-
nich is development, especially

Wednesday, November 14,1990 — C3

HLeCtion JV TheReview 3
SS a a SS

the use of agricultural land for
development. Using greenhouses,
Central Saanich can be a major
supplier of fresh winter vegetables.
If we give up our farmland we will
become dependent on other coun-
tries for an important part of our
food supply.

Frank
Gruber

Question One:

Yes, with qualifications. I would
insist a portion of this develop-
ment offer suitable housing for
families with average incomes.
Would local suppliers and trades
have an equal opportunity to sup-
ply goods and services to this

project? With me on council, deve-
lopers will quickly discover they
are wrestling with a pro.

Question Two:

Is there currently a deficit —
how much is it and why is there
one? What is the proposed expan-
sion going to offer? How much
will it cost? How will the cost be
shared? If I can satisfy myself that
the centre is being run efficiently
and a substantial proportion of our
residents are using it I think it only
fair we support it.

Question Three:

Realistically, I can’t see the Mt.
Newton slopes being developed,
Tod Inlet has about a 60 per cent
chance of proceeding, and then it
would take at least five years. Our
residents want to keep our rural
Continued on Page C4

Eight Fallacies in the Developer’s Rhetoric

With municipal elections approaching, voices on all sides
of the real-estate development issue are quickening to
new pitch.

Those wishing to preserve and conserve a rural atmo-
sphere, maintain environmental quality and a “human-
scale” rate of neighbourhood and community change are
confronting those who extol the virtues of yet another
subdivision, condo-complex, housing development, golf
course, etc.

One interesting feature of this debate is the difference in
the way the motives of the pro-development forces are
characterized: while “environmentalists” tend to stress the
conflict between the natural commonwealth of the com-
munity and the financial profits of developers, the develop-
ment sympathizers rarely acknowledge big money profits
as worth a mention.

Instead, much pro-development rhetoric is clothed in a

by Bruce Tobin!

fascinating array of quasi-logical and pseudo-moral argu-
ments that contain just enough truth in their error to be
seductive: an alliance by convenience of fallacies against
which to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Listen for them to be paraded past us in the public debate,
and consider carefully their refutations as advanced by
slow-growth environmentalist proponents.

FALLACY 1. We can’t stop development.

No reasonable person would believe that we could entirely
stop all community development, nor would he advocate
that we should.

But there are many obvious good reasons for slowing our
rate of development down, and there is much that can be
done to slow it.

The bad news is that it will be very difficult to do — if we
have mayors and councils who hold this self-defeating,
self-fulfilling fallacy.

The good news is that we do have the democratic
institutions so that as a majority we can determine our own
destiny and decide what kind of a community we want to
live in.

Municipal councils have real power when it comes to
controlling the quality and rate of real estate development
through Community Plan and zoning bylaws, and councils
across this country are beginning to prove it.

But they need the will to do so, and they need to share with
the community a quality-of-life vision which goes beyond
money values.

FALLACY 2. There’s too much pressure for

development.

Yes, there is a lot of pressure for development.

But where specifically is coming from? Is it not primarily
from developers themselves?

It's only natural, of course, that the development lobby will
continue to press for more zoning changes, more develop-
ment permits, higher density.

That doesn’t make them monsters; they’re exercising their
right to ask for what they want, and no one need accuse
them of being crooks.

But the community has rights too. And our right is to
expect that our councils will stand up to this pressure when
it's at odds with the commonwealth good of the community
as voiced by its citizens.

It's time for councils who can’t deal with the heat to leave
the kitchen.

FALLACY 3. We need development to in-

crease our tax base.

The apparent story of development all over North America
is that taxes and revenue needs don’t go down with
development, they increase.

Do residents in downtown Vancouver pay less taxes than
we do? Are they better off than we are in any way?
Perhaps the development lobby can tell us exactly how
many more offensive mega-projects like Port Royal Es-
tates on Brentwood Bay we need before our tax base is
finally big enough.

The truth is most likely that our tax burden will steadily
escalate as we slide down the development slope: ever
higher costs for police, fire, schools, sewers, roads and
other services.

Communities who succumb to this fallacy enter an
addictive cycle in which the victim is always hungry for
more, never satisfied.

In the terminal phase the addict sells the family heirlooms
to raise cash for another fix.

FALLACY 4. If we don’t build more houses,
our children won't be able to live in their own

community.

Its a human tragedy when children canot afford to live in
the same community they grew up in.

But the sad truth is that so much of the current housing
being built or contemplated is the “luxury” type'— not the
type of thing affordable tc our young people starting out —
which drives up land prices for the whole area.
Moreover, much of today’s housing development requires
the destruction of smaller, older houses — culturally richer,
and precisely the type affordable by our young adults.
FALLACY 5. We need housing developments
because we owe less advantaged people
inexpensive housing.

Most reasonable people acknowledge responsibility to
assist those less fortunate in their quest for the good life.
But this admission does not imply that we owe all such
people cheap housing.

There are all sorts of ways in which the less fortunate can
be effectively assisted: educational programs, job skills
training, social services such as counselling and daycare
to facilitate these people advancing economically.

In some cases, inexpensive housing is the best way to
assist the less fortunate.

But even those cases do not imply that we are morally
bound to sacrifice our forests, farmland, and other
environmental amenities to build that housing.

The real truth seems to be that the ubiquitous “luxury
condos’ of today’s developments are unaffordable for less
advantaged as well as the next generation of adults.
Should we not conserve our cottages, our modest
dwellings as a pool of inexpensive housing for those with
need?

FALLACY 6. It’s not respectable to be a
NIMBY.

A NIMBY, of course, is someone who rejects with a “Not in
my back yard!” response the prospect of a development
near his home which interferes with his environmental
amenities.

This term has been used more than once in current debate
as a bad word, an accusation of unworthy selfishness.
But one cornerstone of the democratic process is respect
of the individual to voice his self-interest.

And in many cases where NIMBYs protest, their self-
interest is clearly consistent with the interest of the
community as a whole.

In reality, isn’t it the developer, whose gains are so often
fundamentally at odds with the natural commonwealth of
the community, who must be viewed as the selfish one?
FALLACY 7. We need to build more houses
and condos because so many people want
to live here. Its unfair to pull up the draw-
bridge behind us.

Its true, many of us in our community came from
somewhere else outside the municipality.

And since we were permitted to come into the municipality,

its not fair that we should close the door to others who also .

want the same thing. True again.

But the fallacy here is that these truths are used to imply
that we as a community owe a spot here to anyone who
wants one.

Think of the implications of that reasoning.

First, if we make space available for a home in Central
Saanich to everyone who wants one we will eventually be
overrun to the point where our municipality will be endless
wall-to-wall condos. There will be no end of people who
will want to make the Saanich Peninsula their home.
(Victoria has been recently identified as one of the seven
most desirable spots to live in the world!) We will ultimately
have a community that is so densely populated that few of
us who live here now will want to continue living here. It will
be ruined for all. :
Second, suppose a Central Saanich resident wants to live
in a highly developed community like Oak Bay. Does Oak
Bay owe them a spot? Is that community morally
compelled to subdivide an existing lot to make room for the
newcomer? Of course not! But if there’s a house for sale:
or rent, and the newcomer can afford it, then he is
welcome to join that community. Same for Central
Saanich; those are the terms under which any newcomers
have come into our community. The slow-growth propo-
nent is not trying to keep anyone out who would buy or rent
a house in the community; neither is he caving in to the
absurdity that we owe the world a home in our small
neighbourhood.

FALLACY 8. We should encourage develop-

ment because its good for the community.
While some development — schools, hospitals, recreation
centers, moderate shopping facilities, etc. — is undoubted-
ly good for our community, much of today’s development is
so clearly not. Its effects are surely to be more people,
blacktop, traffic, noise, congestion, pollution, crime, and
general degradation of our environment and quality of life.
This possible future has already scarred most communi-
ties of the lower mainland, not to mention places like
California. It can be different here but we need to act
decisively NOW, :

Wherever we stand with respect to their truth or falsehood,
these above fallacies highlight issues that each communi-
ty must carefully consider on the road to a fully responsible
decision at the polls.

A growing number of citizens are realizing that the time for
the defeatist rhetoric is over, that we cannot do through the
90s what we did in the 60s through the 80s. They realize
that we as a community are at a crossroads: whether to
squander our remaining special God-given natural beauty
and to squeeze yet another dollar out of it or to say
“Enough is enough. Its time to stop sacrificing what money
can’t buy for what money can buy.”

The ball is now clearly in the pro-development court: let
them now come out to convince the community that we
will truly benefit from new schemes like the Tod Inlet
proposal or the impending sacrifice of Mt. Newton.

So far, however, have we yet heard one single person offer
one single good reason why schemes like those should be
permitted to go ahead?

Bruce Tobin is a twelve-year. resident of Brentwood Bay. He is a marriage and family counsellor in private practice, and lecutres at the University of Victoria.

Bruce Tobin for Central Saanich Council

1. Minimal Growth!
2. Preservation of Rural Life Style!
3. Enchance Environmental Quality!

4. Open Municipal Government!
5. Hold Down Taxes!