A town that has seen its fair share of public consultation controversy is leading the way in a case study for dialogue.
Over five Sundays between February and May, 25 Gibsons residents selected by lottery across demographics and neighbourhoods, convened in a residents’ assembly to discuss the future of land use within the municipality.
Gibsons is one of the smallest municipalities to participate in such an assembly, said the initiative’s final report from Simon Fraser University’s Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, which partnered with the town on the endeavour. The assembly “offers a glimpse into what the future of democratic engagement for land-use planning could look like,” said the report.
The highly interactive sessions included crash courses on land use, housing, local government and reconciliation, presentations from experts, field trips and passionate discussions. At the assembly’s conclusion, by consensus vote, the assembly passed recommendations that they hoped would become binding resolutions for the Town of Gibsons’ Official Community Plan update. (There was a 75 per cent threshold for recommendations to be endorsed.)
The Official Community Plan (OCP), a foundational policy document for municipalities, guides everything from land use and growth to environmental stewardship to infrastructure. Gibsons’ OCP was last updated in 2015 and the town is just embarking on a substantive review. The update will include reviewing development permit areas, and the town’s various plans (stormwater management, active transportation, climate resilience etc.) with an eye to having it done by fall 2025.
In the assembly, residents, from high school to retirement, renter to homeowner, deliberated over the question, “How can Gibsons best plan for the future and meet the housing needs of our growing population?”
Along the way, the assembly found they had a “surprisingly similar set of values,” participants told town council on June 4.
“We were all allowed to express our perspectives and reach agreement in what seems like quite a remarkable way,” participant Ezmina Samaroo told council. “It confirmed to me that information and education on areas of concern, along with the ability to have open dialogue in a non-confrontational manner is very important, as it allows us to feel involved and empowers us to be part of the solutions that will ensure that all members of our community are provided for.”
“The process left me feeling empowered and encouraged and quite proud of our little town,” another participant, Donna Hall, told council.
The assembly passed six recommendations, including a set of values and support of reconciliation, housing densification, small scale, multi-unit housing, residential buildings taller than six storeys where appropriate, and housing above public facilities.
Rather than adopt binding resolutions, council opted to “prioritize” the recommendations in the OCP update. Though profuse in their thanks, council members noted the recommendations’ alignment with their strategic plan, commented on concerns about legal obligations should resolutions be binding, and the need to engage with the wider public on the OCP update “in good faith.”
What is Renovate the Public Hearing?
Where the town is looking at revamping its OCP, SFU’s Wosk Centre for Dialogue is looking to overhaul public process with its Renovate the Public Hearing Initiative.
The initiative, funded through the Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC), has been evaluating public hearings around the province – how they work in different jurisdictions – and piloting alternatives, Amina Yasin, told Coast Reporter at a break during the assembly’s last session, on May 5. Yasin is director of public hearings and planning for the Centre for Dialogue and the assembly’s co-facilitator and chair.
Last year, the province introduced sweeping housing legislation, including a restriction on holding public hearings when rezonings align with Official Community Plans.
Yasin called the Gibsons Residents Assembly one of their “most exciting” projects, as it piloted an alternative to the public hearing. (It was later confirmed that the Gibsons assembly was the first such completed assembly tied to an OCP update in Canada, possibly internationally.)
“This will actually end up being an international case study as much as it is locally, provincially and nationally,” said Yasin.
Where public hearings often draw wealthier, whiter, more homogeneous groups, the assembly endeavoured to include representation of the diversity of racialized people, people with disabilities, people from different family types (including single parents) and included representation from precariously housed residents, Yasin shared.
So as to make the sessions as inclusive and accessible as possible, much consideration was given to timing, location and space, Participants were paid $225 per session, as well as reimbursed for childcare costs or other costs to accommodate what otherwise could have prevented them from attending, and sessions were catered.
Through the selection process, they heard from people who “wouldn’t necessarily show up and speak to public policy,” said town director of planning, Lesley-Ann Staats on May 5.
“There’s just this empowerment feeling around it,” said Staats. “People say, ‘Oh, I wouldn’t normally say anything about this,’ but it shows that we want to hear from everybody. And if they’re residents, they matter.”
And where at a public hearing, the consideration is for a single development, this required attendees to “zoom out,” said Staats. ”We're stepping back and going. We need housing in Gibsons and where's it gonna go?”
“It’s a very different conversation.”
It’s also a different conversation from social media. Instead of the instant gratification of likes and comments, “It really is about getting into what are our individual values?” commented Yasin.
“Non-confrontational” was a theme through the reports and comments to council.
“Staff found it very valuable to hear from the community, not from a place of fear of change or opposition to a specific application,” Staats said to council June 4.
What comes next?
For the town, Staats said on May 5, they’d love to keep assembly members as the OCP review proceeds, but the funding was SFU’s and not the town’s. There isn’t necessarily the budget to hold such intense public engagement through the update process.
A communication and engagement strategy is to come for the OCP update. (An update to the update was provided at the June 4 meeting.)
For the Renovate the Public Hearing project, part of the goal project is working on “assessing and evaluating the true costs of public engagement at this scale,” said Yasin on May 5.
They are looking at how there could be substantive process change in terms of rigour of public engagement and will provide the feedback to the province.
Twenty-five locals participated in the Gibsons Residents Assembly over the spring, coming up with six recommendations to present to council for their consideration in the official community plan review.
