Paradise Lost: The Evisceration of Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes Regional Park

Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes is a a paradise: a piece of wilderness the size of the Halifax peninsula, just 10 km from the downtown core. A mere bus ride away, it contains a series of lakes that form a complete canoe loop, and local non-profits are working to develop a trail system in the area. You can literally step into the forest behind the Kent in Bayers Lake, and lose yourself in wilderness. It's like a small piece of Kejimkujik in our backyard, and one of the many things that make Halifax a great place to live.

Most cities would give their right arm for a jewel like this: a near-urban wilderness tract that offers amazing outdoor recreational opportunities. As Tim Bousquet said in his 2009 article about the area, "It's hard to believe this place exists."

Unfortunately, this place may not exist as is much longer. Private landowners/developers are pushing to open up a significant portion of the Birch Cove Lakes to development, and the HRM is currently consulting on a facilitator's report that would allow them to do just that.

Blue Mountain and a portion of the Birch Cove Lakes are already protected as a provincial wilderness area, designated in 2009 and expanded in 2015. However, much of the remaining land is in private hands, some of it in prime lakefront or wilderness areas.

In the 2006 Regional Plan (updated in 2014), the HRM made clear its desire to create a Regional Park in Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes, identified park boundaries, with the intention that private land would be acquired for inclusion in the park. Private lands within the proposed park boundaries were designated "urban reserve", meaning they were not to be developed until at least 2031.

The facilitator's report is the result of a multi-year negotiation process between the HRM and developers in an attempt to determine the boundaries of the proposed regional park, and in particular, how much private land will be purchased and added to the park. Unfortunately and unusually, the facilitator seems to have come down pretty much entirely on the side of the developers. Her conclusions would use the park boundaries as proposed by the developers, which would open up most of the remaining lakes to development, defeating one of the main purposes in creating the park in the first place. It also seems to contemplate major infrastructure to make the park more "accessible" to the public, which seems inconsistent with much of the park's status as a wilderness area. Most alarmingly, it seems to propose opening up those private lands for immediate development, which is contrary to the Regional Plan.

While the report talks a great deal about "cost" and "economic feasibility" of the park, it makes little or no reference to ecological integrity, or to water quality, biodiversity or wilderness protection, which are the primary reasons for establishing the park in the first place. It ignores the huge public benefit that a park like this provides. It also glosses over the cost to the HRM of opening up these lands for development, and the benefit to the developer of the creation of a regional park on their doorstep. It ignores the fact that HRM already has enough land available for development to meet demand for the next 28 to 35 years. There is no need to open these particular lands up for development.

Blue Mountain Birch Cove Lakes is already under development pressure, and HRM already lost recreational opportunities when a popular mountain biking and hiking area was cleared to allow for further expansion of Bayers Lake.

However, the long fight to protect Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes is not over. There is a public presentation on the facilitator's report on Monday, June 20, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. at the Future Inns Aspin/Birch Room, 30 Fairfax Drive, Halifax, Nova Scotia. And we have until  3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 4, 2016 to submit your comments to the Municipal Clerk's office by fax, 902-490-4208; or by e-mail, clerks@halifax.ca.

I also urge people to contact the Mayor, and their regional councillor, to let them know that both the process and the proposal are deeply flawed, and that they need to stand up for Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes, and a regional park that protects the entire area for now and for future generations. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect a jewel that most cities only dream of. Let's not let it slip through our grasp.

Dear Mayor and Council: Don't Destroy the Regional Plan

I have written before on Regional Planning issues in HRM.  Draft 4 of the Regional Plan is going before regional council for first reading on Tuesday, and a number of councillors have indicate their intent to seek significant amendments to the Plan.  Below is a brief open letter to Mayor and Council explaining why I think this is a bad idea. Please consider contacting the Mayor and your councillor as well.

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

As you know first reading of Draft 4 of the revised regional plan is to come before council tomorrow. I understand that some councilors plan to advance a number of amendments to the draft Plan, which include amendments to:

- have part of the Purcell’s Cove backlands re-designated from Urban Reserve to Rural Commuter;
- re-designate the entire Urban Reserve in Cherry Brook to Urban Settlement; and
- make sewer and water boundaries overlap;

Draft 4 of the Regional Plan is the result of over two years of extensive public consultation and committee work through the RP+5 process. While it is not perfect, it is a step forward from the original regional plan, and balances a number of competing interests, while making sure the Municipality is on a path to financial and environmental sustainability. The public feedback through the RP+5 Process has generally been supportive of the changes contained in Draft 4.

The proposed amendments are not minor amendments. In fact, they represent a complete abandonment of the underlying principles of the plan, including directed growth. This change of direction is being brought to council at the absolute last minute, with no meaningful public input. The proposed changes were never consulted on, and in fact fly in the face of what residents asked for in the RP+5 process.

These amendments would essentially abandon the concept of directing growth to our urban and rural growth centres in favour of allowing growth in areas where it will be expensive for the HRM to provide services. It would allow for development of areas that the community has clearly identified as wanting to preserve, such as the Purcells Cove backlands. They would represent a giant step backwards, not just from Draft 4 of the Plan, but from the 2006 Plan. To make such a significant change in direction at the last minute and contrary to public input would do irreversible damage to the public confidence in municipal decision-making processes like RP+5.

I urge you to vote against these amendments. Let us move forward with the plan the people have asked for.

Regards,

Derek Simon

HRM's Sewage Debacle: Who Pays for the Pipes?

If you've been following the HRM's recent decision to spend $25 million to pipe sewage from Timberlea to Halifax, you could be forgiven for having a difficult time figuring out who, exactly, is going to be paying for all these new sewage pipes.  As has been pointed out elsewhere, regional council has been provided with a series of confusing, and often conflicting explanations as to who, exactly, is paying for these new sewer pipes.   The decision to tear up the Chain of Lakes trail to run sewage from a handful of new subdivisions to be treated in Halifax has been criticized by some as "bad planning".  It's an example of bad accounting as well.

One of the major costs of urban sprawl in the HRM is the extension of sewer and water pipes to service new development.  Not only does it cost money to build new sewer and infrastructure, it also increases the future costs to service and maintain this growing infrastructure.  Water rates are often not enough to cover these ongoing costs.

Residents of the HRM are justifiably angry about recent and substantial increases to their water rates.  Yet much of the debate has ignored the significant geographic growth of the water and sewer system, and the spiralling cost of maintaining ever-growing infrastructure.   While HRM has a sewer and water service boundary, that boundary covers a substantial area.  In addition, regional council has frequently made decisions to extend that boundary, often to provide sewer and water to specific new subdivisions.

While developers pay the cost of installing all sewer and water pipes within the subdivisions they build,  these pipes then need to be connected to the larger water and wastewater systems.   As a result, developers pay a complex series of sewer development charges, trunk sewer charges and capital cost contributions levied by HRM and meant to cover the costs of all new infrastructure.  Unfortunately, these charges haven't proven adequate to cover the costs of new pipes, which has also contributed to rising water rates.  Halifax Water is now proposing a simplified and higher regional development charge meant to replace existing charges and cover the costs of new development.

There is no question the current system is confusing, as evidenced by council's recent decision regarding the Chain of Lakes pipe.  It would seem that when council originally voted to approve the extension of municipal sewer and water services to Brunello Estates and nearby subdivisions in 2007, they were told that the developers of these subdivisions themselves would pay for the pipes directly through capital cost charges in their area.

Halifax Water is now stating that while 10% of the cost of the new Chain of Lakes pipe will be paid by existing ratepayers, 90% of the cost will be paid by developers.  But not by the developers whose subdivisions actually require the pipes.  By charges levied on ALL developers in HRM.  And therein lies the shoddy accounting.  A developer who chooses to build in an area where infrastructure already exists, or requires minimal upgrades, will pay the same amount into the fund as the developers in Timberlea who require $25 million in new pipes.  This is effectively a subsidy for bad planning.

Unfortunately, Halifax Water's proposed new regional development charge won't change that.  Developers will pay a single standard charge, regardless of where a development is located relative to existing infrastructure.  While the higher charges will take some of the burden of paying for growth off of ratepayers, it will put that burden onto developers in general, not those that are driving up costs by demanding more infrastructure.  These costs will eventually be passed on to homebuyers, driving up the cost of ALL housing in HRM.

There are lots of valuable planning lessons we should learn from the Chain of Lakes sewage pipe debacle.  One of the most important is that if we are going to make growth pay for itself, we need to find a better way of accounting for it.  One way would be to ensure that development charges reflect the actual cost of servicing new developments.

Understanding Indian Reserves

The ongoing Idle no More campaign has thrust Aboriginal issues back into the spotlight in Canadian politics. Much of the public and media attention has focused on the Indian Act reserve system, and the role it is seen to play in many of the social and economic issues facing most First Nations in Canada.  Media have referred to Indian reserves as everything from "incubators of misery" to "tax-free havens". 

Proposals have ranged from support for the Harper government's proposal to introduce private property rights on reserve, to abolishing the reserve system outright.  Yet much misinformation seems to surround the Indian reserve system and how it works, making it difficult to make sense of the debate. 

While it is hard to generalize, the truth is that most Indian reserves are neither third world enclaves nor a tax-exempt wonderland where people live well on the government dime.  They are communities, where people live, die, grow up and raise families.  They are often impoverished communities with grave social challenges, but for many Aboriginal Canadians, they are home.

In fact, Canada's Indian reserves are home to over 400,000 people, 98% of whom are status Indians.  The majority of status Indians reside on-reserve, although when including non-status Indians, the majority of First Nations people reside off-reserve.  Yet for many off-reserve First Nations people, the reserve is a place they often return to for events, ceremony, or to visit friends and family.  Reserve communities remain important to Aboriginal culture.  First Nations languages remain much more widely spoken on-reserve than they are off-reserve.


Collectively, Canada's 2600+ reserves make up over 26,000 square kilometres, or just over a quarter of one percent of Canada's land base, for an average size of about 10 square kilometres.  Unlike the United States, where most reserves are large, contiguous parts of land which often sustain their own internal economies, Canada's reserves tend to be small and fragmented, which creates its own economic and social challenges.


Some reserves are located on the sites of former villages or camps, or in the proximity of hunting grounds, burial grounds or sacred sites.  However, many were simply a result of programs of forced relocation or centralization: the most convenient or inexpensive piece of land the government could find to house Indians where they wouldn't interfere with non-Native settlement or resource development.  Indian reserves were meant to be a temporary expedient: it was generally felt that Indians would get an education, buy property, join the military, marry out, or pursue another path that would cause them to lose their Indian status and become fully assimilated members of Canadian society, and/or that they would simply cease to exist. 

Yet after so many generations, Indian reserves persist, and in many cases the location of these reserve communities has come to have some meaning to the people who live there.  And as time has passed, some reserves have also become economically attractive, although rarely by design.  Cities have grown and previously remote lands have become more valuable.  Resource projects have sprung up on or around reserve lands, providing opportunities for resource revenues or job creation.  Or land lost has been reclaimed through specific or comprehensive claims processes, sometimes in valuable locations.

Reserve communities face a variety of challenges.  Incomes are far lower than the Canadian average, and many reserves are plagued by social ills including alcoholism, drug use, and violence.  While the root causes of these issues are complex, some have called for the reserve system itself to be abolished, and for First Nations to be relocated to less remote locations to "start over".

This solution ignores many of the root causes of on-reserve poverty and social problems.   It also ignores the reality that while off-reserve First Nations people tend to fare somewhat better economically than on-reserve, they still generally do poorly compared to the Canadian population as a whole.  Many Natives leave the supposed poverty trap of reserve life only to find themselves in some of Canada's worst urban ghettoes.  Solving the social ills plaguing Canada's Aboriginal population is not simply a matter of relocating them to urban areas.

The Harper government's solution has been to push private property on-reserve.  Their view, which is shared by some conservative think-tanks, academics and First Nations leaders, is that creating private property rights will unlock economic potential and bring prosperity to reserve communities.

However, the fact is that that private property interests already exist, in one form or another, on many  reserves.  Bands have the ability to grant certificates of possession (CP's) which give band members the right to sole possession of a lot on reserve.  CP's can be sold, transferred or willed to other band members, and can be mortgaged.  CP holders can even lease their land to others.  The only appreciable way in which it differs from fee simple ownership is the fact that it can't be transferred to non-members.

Bands can also designate lands on-reserve for leasing to third parties, including non-Natives, usually by way of long-term lease, which can also be mortgaged.  A great deal of economic development on-reserve has been enabled by designation.  

One of the controversies with Bill C-45 is that it made the designation process easier by watering down the community approval process for designation.  In doing so, it eliminated many of the democratic safeguards that would require designation of land to have a reasonable degree of support in the community.  And while the details are still scant, the Harper government apparently plans to go further with private property rights on reserve, likely making it easier to transfer reserve lands to non-natives.

Much of the backlash of the Idle no More movement is directed at the agenda of privatization of reserve land.  The backlash is understandable.  While some First Nations have had success with designating land for leasing, this has generally been those reserves closest to urban areas.  This is not a panacea that is going to work for many remote or rural First Nations.

Further, given the existing small size of the reserve base, many First Nations struggle to find enough land to house their people.  They simply do not have available land to lease or to grant to private interests.  In addition, having endured government policy that resulted in the expropriation (often forced, often without compensation) of most of their land, First Nations are understandably reluctant to give up any remaining land.  Some First Nations have already lost control of their land base through the indiscriminate granting of CP's and leases as well, which makes them leery of creating more private property interests.  They are also familiar with the experience of the Dawes Act in the US, which broke up reserves and resulted in large transfers of land from Indian Tribes.


The privatization agenda also ignores another reality: in Canada, a significant amount of economic activity takes place on publicly-owned land.  Simply privatizing your land base does not open the road to prosperity.  In fact, those provinces with the highest percentage of private land (such as PEI, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) tend to be the poorest, while many of those with highest amount of public land (Alberta, BC and Ontario) are generally the most prosperous.

This is not to say that private property is not important to economic development, nor is it entirely anathema to First Nations culture.  At the time of European contact, First Nations generally had sophisticated systems of land management that included a mix of rights and responsibilities vested in individuals, families and broader communities.  Like any land system, First Nations recognized a mix of community and individual rights.

The issue is more that the land base that First Nations control is already too small to allow for healthy and prosperous communities.  And further fragmentation of an already small land base is not going to address the problem, it will actually exacerbate it.  To succeed, First Nations need a larger land base, which can support an appropriate mix of private and public property.  In fact, this has already been done with some success through modern self-government agreements or land claims settlements such as those with the James Bay Cree, Nisga'a, and Tswassen First Nations.


Any solution to the problems facing the reserve system must take history into account.  Trying to create better social and economic opportunities is a vital objective.  However, the solution can't simply be another forced relocation or centralization program: any choice to relocate First Nations communities must be voluntary.  Further, any solution must take into account the cultural dimension: if there is anything that First Nations have proven after 500 years of contact, it is the resilience of their cultures.

The solution must also not result in further fragmentation and loss of the land base: if we want First Nations land to provide a base for prosperity, then they need an adequate land base, and an appropriate mix of publicly and privately owned land.  In my view, the best way to achieve these is and the related aims of improving governance and building viable communities and economies is to expedite the comprehensive and specific claims processes in order to restore more lands to First Nations control, while providing for governance mechanisms with the authority and functionality to manage the land successfully. With adequate land, revenues and governance tools, First Nations would be in a better position to build healthy prosperous communities, and can take their rightful place as full partners in Confederation.