My view of the Trust, how it operates, and the private dock application

When the Islands Trust was originally set up, in 1974, there were three executive committee members appointed by the government and two locally elected trustees for each Trust island, giving the appointed trustees a clear majority on every Local Trust Committee (LTC).. Much later, the current system was adopted: two locally elected trustees from each island, with four of them (one chair and three vice-chairs) being elected to the Executive Committee (EC) from those 26 locally elected trustees. The EC members serve as chair of each local trust committee.

Each island adopts their own Official Community Plan, saying what is important to them and what they would like to achieve or avoid. Then each island adopts its own Land Use Bylaw, setting out what is permitted and what is not permitted, according to the the desires of the majority of the local residents and electors/voters. In our case, there is usually a long period of discussion and clarification, and usually general agreement. Brief summary: minimum subdivision size 10 acres; one dwelling per parcel, and one guest cabin; short-term rentals only when zoning for this is applied for and granted; no private docks except where a lot is not connected to a public road.

Trust staff are paid to help the LTC with the processes, give advice and do much of the work involved, but our LTC makes the decisions, usually with the clear support of most of the community. The EC has to check our bylaws and approve them before we can adopt them, to make sure that they observe the minimum standards for preserving and protecting, which is the Trust's mandate.

There is no mention in our LUB of roadside stands, spare cars to use as parts, or boats by the road. The Trust has no great desire to control how we choose to live on our island, or to do bylaw enforcement. Bylaw enforcement is expensive and difficult. Compliance with the bylaws is the first choice, and if there is continuing defiance, the local trust committee can ask the executive committee to allocate money to start enforcement, which is by going to the Supreme Court of BC, to obtain an judgment that the bylaw is not being honoured and that it must be. Then the offender, unless they comply, becomes in contempt of the court, and will suffer consequences from that, funded by the province, until they comply.  It doesn't give anyone any great pleasure or excitement to enforce bylaws, as far as I know.

There is no requirement for local trustees to agree with each other on questions that come before the local trust committee. Ideally all three LTC members will agree on most issues. Sometimes the two locally elected ones will have different views and opinions and votes on an issue, and the chair will either call for more information and discussion, or cast the deciding vote. That's how our representative democracy works.  There is no requirement for a locally elected trustee to live full-time on an island,They must be Canadian, BC residents and registered voters in the area that they wish to be elected in., There is no requirement to attend meetings in person. Electronic meetings have many advantages, including more public participation and significantly lower cost.. Sometimes the public participation is the problem, and it can be limited, especially if members of the public behave badly and aggressively or disrespectfully.

I believe that both times this private dock application has come before the LTC it has been turned down by 2 to 1 votes. The public input record shows that there was significantly more public response opposing the application than supporting it.

It is true that more public amenities are needed. When the dock was closed and the ferry asked not to run, and could not use the False Bay Dock, I immediately thought about where there might be an alternate public dock, preferably near False Bay, as we are all used to traveling that way. Then I thought that what we need is not a new dock, but a different place to tie inoperable airplanes or other hazardous things until they can be removed and salvaged. Perhaps a dolphin or piling would do, or maybe just a mooring buoy. It seems perverse to tie a dangerous wrecked piece of machinery to a public dock and prevent the public from using it. This was the second wrecked aircraft I am aware of to be tied to the dock in five decades. It's inconvenient when it happens, and perhaps alternate arrangements could and should be made. Respectful discussion and exchange is the way to proceed, I believe.

If you have questions or comments, please write your comment below, or send it to me in an email.    Thanks, Peter