Scott Harrison

​

Section 1   (Motive, personal interests and potential conflicts of interest.)

Please tell us why you are running? What community clubs or organizations do you belong to/ or support? How have you been involved in the community? Do you think any of these could put you in a conflict of interest position and how will you handle it? 

 

Response:

The main reason I've run for local government historically, and at present, is to ensure that the structural issues that will prove to be liabilities in the long run are addressed. Housing for workers and families in poverty to prevent an escalation of homelessness, improved funding for accessibility as the community increasingly becomes one of citizens over 75 (more than 28% of the population in the most recent census), and ideally a diversification of both economic activity and housing typology. The former lessens the residential tax burden on households as non-residential taxation is done at a higher rate, and the latter helps people downsize since the overwhelming majority of housing in our community are single storey single family dwellings.

I'm not a board member of any society the town does business with, which post Schlenker v Torgrimson is the legal standard for conflicts of interest in BC. This is largely because groups I want to help would require me to recuse myself from all council business if I was a board member.

 

Section 2 (Skill set and preparedness)

What specific experience/skills do you bring to the role? How have you prepared yourself for the role so that you can be effective from day one?

How much time do you expect to devote to the role? If you are juggling family or job commitments how will you manage those obligations?

 

Response:

I think that I will be able to be reasonably effective from day one as I have two terms experience. However, effectiveness in local government is ultimately a function of the collective whole, not as an individual in terms of action. The amount of time allocated to the role is largely a function of how much this council wants to accomplish, and in which areas. As for family commitments, family is the main reason I reside in the community, however the extent to which it impairs my ability to do the job of a councillor is unlikely to be an impediment.

 

Section 3   (Financial acumen )

Do you feel you currently have sufficient financial understanding to provide meaningful input and assessment in the town's approximate $40 million dollar annual budget? If elected, what steps would you take to put the town in a firmer financial footing? What specific municipal spending areas would you reduce, maintain or increase? If the town received a $1 million dollar grant (without matching funds required) to use in any way you wanted, what would you do with it and why?

 

Response:

I think this term has been one of a council averse to everything that would add revenue, while falling all over itself to spend everything it possibly can. We should be aiming to reduce the share of taxation from commercial and light industrial taxes from under 10% to 15% (as opposed to roughly 25% in Parksville, and 35% in Tofino). To do so we need to further develop the East Village, look at activating the south airport lands, and look to successful downtown revitalization programs in other communities to increase revenues. While I think there's a song that details a variety of options for a million dollars, I'd prefer a recapitalization of the affordable housing reserve after it was spent to buy the golf course, and then the remainder would be used to create a permanent access to the waterfront for people with reduced mobility. I'm not an engineer by trade, so I don't know what the best built solution would be, but $600 000 to $1 million would likely be sufficient.
 

Section 4 ( Transparency)

In the past term we have seen many significant initiatives that were never on the town's 5 year strategic plan, all proceeding to fruition behind closed door meetings. Examples include the introduction of a tree protection bylaw, the renewal of the skateboard park, the commons proposal, the acquisition strategy of Eaglecrest, and donation to the hospital foundation. All significant events/expenses that came out of the blue and did not receive an opportunity for the public to hear council openly debate in public the costs, or where the project should be placed in terms of the town's priorities. What is your opinion and what would you change with respect to the process of new projects proceeding in closed meetings without debate in public view? When do you think the town should report to the public on decisions made in closed meetings?

 

Response:

I think there's also the issue of integrity. The reason I was flagging the purchase of Eaglecrest as an issue in my first term is because I knew that at least two elected officials were advocating it while not subsequently raising the purchase at all candidates debates or putting the issue in their promotional materials. This is by far the largest expenditure in the 21st century by the town, and it was hardly debated during the previous election. I've had more than one experience this term where I've questioned whether something actually was an in camera item, so I would hope that collectively the new council can change how it does business. There's a better way of doing things, where you inform the public of the general topic prior to final in camera decisions. While the law shields certain discussions, I think there's a tendency to hide the broader debate until a select few in the community have made their decision. If there's a huge decision to be made, daylight it. Provide the public with as much information as you can, and then if you need to make a decision in camera, do so.

​

Section 5 ( FireSmart)

In your opinion, is the town providing sufficient resource allocation and direction with respect to FireSmart activities on municipally owned land?

 

Response:

I have mixed opinions on this issue. I think there's a reasonable amount of work being done, however there are some citizens who I've spoken to who are unsatisfied with tree removal issues where a dead tree is close to one house. I can personally attest to the professionalism of our firefighters, but more could be done. Tiger torches are raised perennially, and the prevalence of cedar hedges in close proximity to buildings is another concern. I hesitate to find a legislative response to both of these issues, though. To quote Tacitus, the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state. Corruption here is the wrong term, but a proliferation of bylaws rarely results in a better quality of life. Rather, it tends to lead to confusion. The real conversation, in my view, resides within the regional district to ensure that there are fire breaks if needed and how regional collaboration is maintained. A lot has already been done for the latter.

​

Section 6 (Public consultation and open dialogue with the public)

Would you be supportive of returning the availability of public feedback during council meetings, prior to decisions being made for items on council agendas? What are your thoughts on how letters to council from the public are currently handled and would you support posting letters received on the town's website?

 

Response:

The issue with the comments before the meetings is that it was being weaponized by a small group of people who were often spreading inaccurate information, or debating issues that had already been passed in the meeting. I would also raise the issue that there's a select few who attend the majority of council meetings. Whatever the method is, it will always be somewhat discriminatory. So the public commentary in a meeting, whether after as was done previously, or prior, I'm not a fan of. I prefer a system where everyone has the same chance to contribute, and those contributions are a public record that citizens can readily access. However, how correspondence is currently handled makes if very hard for the public to access the full range of communication council is receiving. There is a direction of privacy related concerns in BC that I feel is going to far in the direction of anonymity. In particular when private correspondence from a select few is resulting in the immediate adoption of a bylaw, as was the case with the tree bylaw, the hoops the public needs to jump through to see that correspondence is not working well enough. As I'm not intimately familiar with all of the provincial legislation that our corporate officer operates under, I hesitate to say what the solution is. At the very least if we have no option we should be communicating to the public that our hands are tied. If not, we should do better.

 

Section 7 (Discretionary community funding)

The town currently provides support by way of operating cash, fee for service agreements, below market rents, property tax exemptions and other incentives to the nonprofit sector. These include arts and culture, sports related, economic, tourism and environmentally focused groups. Do you think the current level of support is fairly distributed? Is it sufficient? Is it transparent? How do you see the town arriving at a predetermined quantifiable overall amount and achieving greater fairness in the distribution of the discretionary support funded by taxpayers?

 

Response:

While the issue of discretionary funding could be taken in many different ways, I think the fundamental questions are looking at the benefits within the organization, how that organization benefits the community, and are we receiving a benefit that is roughly comparable to what other communities receive, or is reasonable in a general sense. I believe that budgets at the local level stem from principles first, then you look at the number, and then finally you try to come to a conclusion where the numbers are reasonable. In our community, you have a very large population that is older and increasingly frail. Support for the arts, whether it be the lawn bowling club or the curling club, TOSH, or the museum makes sense in that context, although the amount of support for each group varies widely. Fairness is difficult to obtain in relation to one another. However, there are significant variances in some of the lease terms. Work remains to ensure greater parity on that front. For the groups themselves, the fair comparable is not their funding amounts, but rather the proportion of funding in other small communities in BC, what they spend for similar functions, and what is accomplished. There's always a bit of game in terms of which communities are compared, but hopefully that can be seen through a good faith lens.

 

Section 8 (Development)

What are your views on the need for development within Qualicum Beach over the next 10 years? How can the town balance the need for growth with the desire to protect the community character? What type of development do you believe the community most needs now and why?

 

Response:

Historically, over half of the homes in our town were built in the 1980s. We have a plethora of single storey ranchers. What is needed is housing for seniors to downsize into. There will simply be too much demand for support services to reasonably expect VIHA or even the private sector to respond. This should take the form of three separate forms of housing. Apartments, patio homes, and secondary dwelling units (SDUs henceforth, i.e. carriage homes).

For the former, we should discuss allowing extra height for ornamental features There are several buildings that are four or more storeys that I never hear complaints about, such as 103 Railway.  Allowing extra height for peaked roofs and other familiar features will ensure broader community acceptance. As well, we should conduct an analysis of the economics of redevelopment in our downtown, and create a policy that creates a reasonable incentive with long-term financial benefit to the town. Density in proximity to amenities also removes the need for cars, which ultimately is the most impactful policy for greenhouse gas reduction. For patio homes, we need to look at why this form isn't being built. Does the town want to play a role in ensuring more of this kind of development? I think the Eaglecrest properties the town is trying to sell should predominantly be this building form.

For SDUs we should look to see if there are programs where you get tax breaks if family is moving in to be closer to family. If you have a single senior, and we probably have over a thousand in our community, who is increasingly finding the bills to maintain their home piling up, then having their kids and grandchildren move into the house could make sense. The younger family is responsible for the mortgage not on a single family home, likely over $800 000, but on an SDU that will be closer to $350 000. This could also help stabilize the school district population which has been in decline for the past three years. For several years I've been advocating for a public competition that would create free plans that any builder in the region could use, ideally in connection with modular housing manufacturers in the region, to ensure the maximum possible affordability.
 

Section 9 (Eaglecrest development going forward)

If the revenue from the planned sale of Eaglecrest lands does not meet the  current budget expectations of $21,199,800, What would your plan B look like? What options would you request staff to explore such as using long term debt, or upzoning further other Eaglecrest lands?  Before executing a long term lease at the  Eaglecrest Golf Course, would you pursue an analysis of the expected financial impact the now revamped Eaglecrest Golf Course  will have on the cash flow of the existing town owned Memorial Golf Course and its ability to repay its current loans to the town? 

 

Response:

In a council meeting this spring I asked staff that if we didn't receive any successful bids for the 18th hole or the majority of the property we wish to sell this year, what would our financial situation be? I was told that they had yet to consider that. Well. Here we are, zero properties have been sold as of the most recent council meeting. There are going to be massive budgetary shortfalls, particularly with the current composition of council. When, as a council, you reject two duplexes in a term for being too much density, and then you go to the development community to ask for top dollar for your land, what do you reasonably expect to be the outcome? You'll be shortchanged, as the prospect of dealing with a ideologically based council that opposes practically everything is considered an additional cost to the property development (longer approval times = more interest paid to banks = less money for the land). Anyone who thinks the current zoning (which includes 5 stories of institutional for no reason other than to cover for the fact that a gorgeous building to provide long-term care was rejected before first reading) is appropriate for Eaglecrest hasn't been paying attention. Anyone who thinks we're going to generate more than $18 million (project costs will inflate over time, so $20 million is likely a fairer estimate) in land sales is suffering from a form of optimism more properly defined as delusion. The timelines and the dollar values do not line up. We should be looking at using all of the tools at our disposal, and prioritizing the long-term benefit to the community for that land, not the need to make a "no new taxes" election campaign. 

The density is wrong, the financial expectations are absurd, and the ramifications are profound. The proper course of action is to prioritize patio homes, leave a portion of the land unsold for future public benefit like permanent non-market housing for town staff or other public sector workers, and then distribute the difference between long-term borrowing and taxation. It will increase costs, but it's more honest. The current expectation simply isn't tethered to reality.

 

Section 10  ( Governance) 

The town currently has 8 committees, commissions and boards set up to advise council. These committees not only use council time and staff resources, but presumably reflect councils priorities. If elected  would you continue with these same entities or are there other more critical issues that you would encourage council to pursue via new committees? 

 

Response:

I think the real issue with committees is the sense that those that are favored by council do a ton, and those that are not favored languish. Disbanding the public safety committee was incredibly short-sighted. We have citizens in our community who've died of overdoses, we have a homeless problem regionally year round, with spikes in the summer in town, and we are not allocating any resources to even discussing these issues. The problem writ large is some members of council have a select group of friends who essentially dictate town policy on what gets built, what gets codified in bylaws, and what gets attention. Greater discipline is needed, in my view, to ensure committees meet with business that needs to be attended to, there is a clear expectation of what can be accomplished and what is the purview of council, and issues that have already been dealt with at the council table are not rehashed in committee. There should be a sense of a task to be completed, not a conversation to be prolonged.

​

Section 11 ( Specific to Mayoral candidates only)

Historically the role of Mayor includes acting as a director in the RDN. What specific actions will you undertake to ensure Qualicum Beach residents are made aware of the RDN issues that affect them? How will you engage with Qualicum Beach residents to ensure your vote is in line with their preferences? RDN taxation will soon exceed the municipal portion of our overall property taxes. What RDN services and costs should be reviewed on a  value for money basis, as it applies to Qualicum Beach residents?

 

Response:

​

To return to the original article, click here.