Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Finally, the small group of politicians determining the Okanagan’s future has clarified its role.

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star - February 06, 2008

Finally, the small group of politicians determining the Okanagan’s future has clarified its role. It’s adamant that it is only interested in addressing issues of a valley-wide basis, such as water and transportation, and not amalgamating municipalities, boundary extensions or incorporation. While that should bring the rumour mill to a screeching halt, we should keep in mind that this is only a clarification from the Okanagan-Similkameen regional governance working committee. There is still the suspicion that the provincial government has a secret plan that could include shotgun weddings between municipalities, and rural areas being absorbed by the closest municipal entity.

And while it may not be related, a position paper from the Society for the Future Governance of the North Okanagan could feed the theory that Victoria hasn’t put all of its cards on the table. The society — which includes businessmen Jack Borden and Pat Lett — has assumed that a single valley-wide body will be formed to tackle common issues. If that occurs, it wants wholesale changes to how North Okanagan communities are governed. In a nutshell, it recommends that all electoral areas be merged into adjacent municipalities, and that three municipal groups be formed through amalgamation or other arrangements. I’m not sure if society members played the game Risk as kids, but the divide and conquer principle only looks good on paper.

First, consider the geography behind the plan. The Village of Lumby itself only covers about 5.27 square kilometres while Cherryville is a staggering 2,613 square kilometres and rural Lumby is 1,797. Or how about the notion of amalgamating Spallumcheen, Armstrong, Enderby and Area F (rural Enderby)? That sounds great, until you realize Spallumcheen goes as far south as a golf course by the same name and Area F includes Mara and Kingfisher. How do you create a sense of community out of that sprawling mass? Greater Vernon may be the easier, more compact situation, but even then there are some challenges. Is it realistic for city hall in downtown Vernon to be overseeing rapid development at Silver Star? And if Lavington still doesn’t really feel part of Coldstream after 100 years, what would its relationship with Vernon be?

Society members speak of efficiencies by bringing jurisdictions together. And certainly there is a case for that because fewer politicians would be involved. But most of the conflicts are more related to personalities than the actual governance structure. If Coldstream, Vernon and the electoral areas were one, there would likely still be tussles to meet the interests of individual areas. The argument is also made that fewer jurisdictions are less costly, but with the exception of a few senior administrators getting pink slips, the bulk of the bureaucracy would remain to provide services. And in some cases, costs may climb as Vernonites become responsible for the huge road network in Coldstream and the BX. Do people in Lumby all of a sudden want to pay for roads and water lines in Cherryville? Not likely. Yes the governance model we have is expensive. But if residents of individual communities feel having their own council or regional director meets their needs, what is the price of democracy? One can argue that smaller jurisdictions are more responsive because they are closer to the grassroots. Time will ultimately tell whether Victoria has no master plan, or if it wants to shoehorn communities together. But whatever happens, the ultimate decision should be left in the public’s hands.

No comments: