Population Caps....why, how, when, US?

[Carol MacKinnon]

In the recent Open Space gathering looking at how to move the OCP Vision to Action, I convened a conversation around the fact that at the last OCP meeting there were many strong opinions held (both pro and con) around the topic of POPULATION CAPS.

We began with exploring some questions:
- is there a limit to how much "life" any island can support ? (and before we get too whimsical, Brad reminded us of Bermuda, and Manhattan, both islands about the size of Bowen). And what can we learn from Belgium, and other 'small spaces'? the Adriatic islands? small villages that are self-sustaining...
- How can we now know ALL the sustainable ways to support more life on a small space, given that we are such a creative and resourceful species?
- how can we pull up the drawbridge, just because we're here, now, and "you're NOT"? How would we/could we imagine a cap...as of when, for how long? Is any of this manageable? moral? why?
- How could we ensure there is protection for charter rights, and other potential areas of discrimination? How would you enforce it? Why?

We explored why this question attracts so much energy? What's the story, what's the projection? Is it somehow about some resistance to change? That there is a kind of cultural cognitive dissonance going on....that is distressing people, prompting them to hunker down? pull into their shells? is it fear? is it microbial change? Is it planetary change?>

Our conversation morphed into one of possibilities...the primary vision being one of seeing the OCP Update as a continual process that creates social capital (where, for instance, we get into a rhythm of having Open Space conversations, as friends...and a realization that we need places like this to tell our story, this story, to the world.

We moved to imagining Bowen as having 6 or 7 villages...rather than everything focused in Snug Cove. (Our conversation referenced C. Alexanders's "Pattern Language" and I. Ilich's "Towards a History of Needs".)

And we moved again, into talking about what is needed, here, now? What is the need that convinces me? What's the need? what is the fear that Population Caps surface? Is there a need....

and we concluded by talking about the galvanizing effect of a crisis...we'll know who we are as a community when we have a crisis....or do we already have a crisis? We act differently when we feel there is a real need...Human physiology....brains are wired to respond to the local and the urgent...Disaster prompts us to be creative....(the Easter Islanders, the Classic Maya... are examples of when we were prompted...(and how did we respond) to the need to be creative...)

that's our conversation: Convened by Carol, joined by John, Chris, Brad, Kim and Shasta

[Paul Rickett]

In effect, zoning provides a current population cap. Typically this is well below any physical capability. There is no doubt we can build to house many, many times more people than anything anyone on island could contemplate. Simply build upwards and Bowen can easily house hundreds of thousands. Water, ferries - no problem, build a bridge and pipe water over.

The challenge comes more from managing the rate of growth. Growth in itself begets more growth, more demand for amenities and services, These cannot lag too far behind the growth either. So agreeing and planning on rate of growth is more needed than any discussion on absolute population caps.

For instance, the GVRD as a whole will grow by 40% from by 2030. Should we, as a community, seek to accept growth lower, equal or higher than that rate. If we could agree on that, then many things become a lot simpler to discuss.

the Pattern Language tenet is a village of 7500 people. Arguably, each of those 6-7 villages contemplated should be of the same size so that they form whole and integrated communities (albeit with interdependence). So on that basis one sees an island population of around 50,000 people. But maybe another way is to say one village of 7500 plus outlying residences (in any form) acting as a hinterland for that focus point. That might bring the population down to around 15,000.

Both of the above cases represent growth rates well in excess of the region. To stay in line with regional growth our population should increase by around 2000 people by 2030. This number is relatively easily to digest. That said, the scale of dense developments already proposed if they are or had been accepted (let alone take up of existing unused zoning) would carry us well over the rate of regional growth.

I have been unable to trace any authoritative data on existing zoning so here's a hypotheses.

Total acreage on Bowen - 12,500
Publicly owned 40% - subtract 5000
Privately owned (i.e. zoned already) 7500

Population levels at 2.4 residents per household (assume all existing zoning built out)
.5 acre average lot size - 36,000
1 acre average - 18,000
2 acre average - 9,000
5 acre average - 3,600

The challenge I have with the density argument is not the fact of density, but the fact that it totally additive to existing zoning and is a growth accelerant. When a dense development eventually gets zoned its not taking away zoning from another part of the island, it compounds an increase in the amount of potential residents.

This, although some proponents will not discuss the ramifications, it means massive social change. It does mean having an island totally different to todays. It may not be a bad thing - but it something that changes the essence of the island and why most moved here in the first place.

If we want to build Whistler on the Rock, fine - but lets have an honest discussion about it. Its nothing to do with preservation of natural or green space - its about social engineering and the benefits and costs of doing so.