On December 1st, the Sunshine Coast Chamber of Commerce wrote to local governments asking us to open a discussion on possible municipal amalgamation on the Sunshine Coast. (Read Letter) As far as I’m aware, there has been no official response from local governments yet, but I could not resist penning my own. So…
Dear Chamber of Commerce,
I am writing this on my own behalf, not as official spokesperson for the SCRD, so the views expressed herein are strictly my own.
While I support your desire to find opportunities for collaboration and increased efficiency between our various local governments, it’s pretty clear that you haven’t taken time to research the levels of government currently operating on the Sunshine Coast.
Yes, indeed, there are “three municipalities” on the coast, as mentioned in your letter. They are:
- District of Sechelt
- Town of Gibsons
- shíshálh Nation Government District
There are also:
- Sunshine Coast Regional District (regional district)
- shíshálh Nation (First Nation)
- Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation (First Nation)
- Islands Trust
The SCRD is one of 27 regional districts in BC which provide a vehicle for shared services, regional collaboration, and the administration/governance of unincorporated areas. The province has no intention of dissolving any regional district, nor the Islands Trust (which governs land use on North and South Thormanby, Keats, Gambier, Anvil and the Pasley Islands).
Yes, this is certainly a lot of bureaucracy for our approx. 34,000 residents, but the alternative is not obvious. I think we can assume that the SNGD, having achieved its landmark status in 1986, is not interested in dissolving. Which leaves only the option of a marriage between Gibsons and Sechelt. And if those happy nuptials included absorbing any of the SCRD electoral areas, the newly formed municipality would have to shoulder the burden of hundreds of $millions of liability for our literally crumbling rural roads, with only a residential tax base to fund them. This was one of the primary reasons for the failure of the Gibsons/Area E/Area F Restructure Referendum in 2006.
Speaking of which, the province has a mandatory process for local government restructure which involves a thorough study, even more detailed than what the Chamber proposes. As a survivor of the 2005/2006 restructure committee in Gibsons, I would be happy to expound on my experience of that process.
If the Chamber is eager to investigate alternate governance models, I suggest you start by doing your homework locally, and then look at other communities across BC that have already gone down this road to see what can be learned from them. I suspect you will find that there are no easy answers. Even where there is a strong business case for political restructure, it is extremely difficult to get voters to agree. Almost every restructure referendum in BC in the last 25 years has failed—sometimes spectacularly—because residents invariably focus on possible losses far more than possible gains. You can gather all the data you like, but slogans like “Stay Rural” will drive the votes.
Could local governments realize cost savings and efficiencies from sharing more of our services, equipment or staff? It’s certainly worth exploring. But I caution against trying to rearrange the governance deck chairs in the hopes of a big win. The prospect of Gibsshelt could prove a hard sell.
