The Tsawwassen Developments Ltd. (TDL) proposal for the Southlands that was defeated in 1989 had a housing component of 1,895 units.
It kept 55% of the land as open space and included a 220-acre park donation.
That proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Tsawwassen after an exhaustive public process.
The new development proposal is apparently using 2,000 units as its target number, in addition to planned commercial space and institutions.
Michael Geller, the project manager for the 1989 TDL proposal, spoke at one of the recent charrette meetings, noting that TDL had initially received a quite positive reaction from the community before it went on to face heavy opposition. He encouraged all supporters of the new development to tell their friends and neighbours of the benefits of the new design.
Hearing him talk reminded me of a theme I noticed while doing research on the land.
TDL and their supporters, back in 1989, seemed to think that their communications strategies, or the successful strategies of their opponents, were somehow to blame for the proposal's poor reception and eventual defeat.
The idea was that they just needed to explain the positive aspects of development more clearly, or that their message needed only to be adjusted a little here and there and their promotional materials be made more attractive.
The people of Tsawwassen were seen as being reactionary, or poorly informed, or mere sheep under the sway of a very loud minority.
There was very little recognition at the time that the TDL proposal might have been failing because it was just plain not wanted. That the people of Tsawwassen had looked at the proposal and decided against it based on the merits of the case was an idea given little credence.
The last few proposals for the Southlands have started with a developer saying that public input is needed, that the community's needs are paramount.
Then, when public opinion begins to turn against the project, you'll hear representatives say public policy is more than just opinion polls and that developments of great magnitude and import should not be decided by a popularity contest.
That was certainly the line TDL spokesman Norm Couttie employed upon hearing that 5,959 Tsawwassen residents had voted 94% against his proposal in a 1989 plebiscite.
5,959! That's more people than had voted in the previous general election.
Those 5,959 people are just some of the citizens who helped to preserve the Southlands.
They are also some of the people that this present process chose to ignore when it took as its foundational principle the development of a large housing component on prime agricultural land.
You are quite correct, and we need to be clear that this developer is a bit more crafty than most.By creating a planning group and getting them involved he has led them into developing an emotional connection that trumps rational thought.This is evident in many of the comments on the developer’s website (“Southlands in transition”) that demonstrate very clearly the potential danger of ideas and groupthink.To put this all in perspective, the planners of the Iraq war thought their little project was a great idea and there were enough of them preaching back and forth to the converted that they convinced themselves of utterly ridiculous notions (e.g., the US forces would be greeted as liberators, it would only take a matter of 6 weeks or 6 months at the most, the war would pay for itself, and so on).Those of us with some knowledge of history and psychology knew that it was doomed from the start, but we were drowned out by the herd of bleating ‘patriots’ (the real sheep) who were more intent on patting themselves of the back and singing the praises of their ‘great’ leaders.
The war is a grave example of why people should not try to judge their own work and ideas.Instead, people best advance knowledge and understanding by subjecting their ideas to the critical examination of others outside of their group and not by cheerleading and spinning their cause while making cheap, ad hominem attacks on those with differing viewpoints and/or glossing over or ignoring the cold hard facts and questions.Sadly, both of these are done repeatedly on the developer’s site and no amount of cheerleading or repeating erroneous beliefs (e.g., the demonstrably false notions that growth is somehow both inevitable in Tsawwassen and required for its survival) will offset that in the eyes of a reasonable person.
Whether it is concocting plans to develop the Southlands or any other project, once people invest time in something, it is far easier for them to focus on what they believe are its strengths and convince themselves that is great than it is to recognize its weaknesses and admit that it may be seriously flawed and that they may have wasted their time.The reality is though that as a person from the outside, without the emotional connection to the plans, this project is indeed seriously flawed.Duany’s principles seem promising, but Century should be using them to buy up and re-develop the sprawl they built before instead of trying to add potentially ‘less bad’ development to an area replete with what Duany considers ‘bad’ development.For that matter, Windsor Woods seems a far better example of Duany’s ideas than these plans.People are going to need to bank, and go to Shopper’s Drug Mart, Thrifty’s, etc. so a local store or two dropped on the Southlands will not stop the driving. In fact, these plans create a lot of development about as far from the town centre as you can get.That is a terrible idea.Another example involves the post secondary education component.Post secondary institutions are enormous traffic centres.Even SFU and UBC, both served by numerous buses and far more centrally located, are terribly auto dependent.Any institution on the Southlands site by virtue of the transit out here and by virtue of being in Tsawwassen (15-50km from everyone else) will introduce tremendous traffic and result in unnecessary driving and pollution relative to a more centrally located institution (e.g., in Ladner near the bus loop).This list could go on, but the point is that the proposed huge development away from the town centre will cause traffic to go the furthest possible distance.Accordingly, the proposed Southlands project fails based on its own underlying principles (many that could be referred to as ‘common sense’) and this cannot be compensated for with even endless amounts of PR and spin, e.g., stacking the charrette/charade meetings with supporters (including those from the team and others who have written letters to the editor threatening a sea of greenhouses if we don’t cave in to the developer’s demands) who were instructed to clap at every comment (occasionally with humorously unintended results) and dominate the questions with obsequiousness and softballs to the point that many of us left in disgust. Eventually though, people will figure it out and hopefully, unlike the Iraq war, they will realize that the costs outweigh the benefits before it is too late.
2,000 units
The Tsawwassen Developments Ltd. (TDL) proposal for the Southlands that was defeated in 1989 had a housing component of 1,895 units.
It kept 55% of the land as open space and included a 220-acre park donation.
That proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Tsawwassen after an exhaustive public process.
The new development proposal is apparently using 2,000 units as its target number, in addition to planned commercial space and institutions.
Michael Geller, the project manager for the 1989 TDL proposal, spoke at one of the recent charrette meetings, noting that TDL had initially received a quite positive reaction from the community before it went on to face heavy opposition. He encouraged all supporters of the new development to tell their friends and neighbours of the benefits of the new design.
Hearing him talk reminded me of a theme I noticed while doing research on the land.
TDL and their supporters, back in 1989, seemed to think that their communications strategies, or the successful strategies of their opponents, were somehow to blame for the proposal's poor reception and eventual defeat.
The idea was that they just needed to explain the positive aspects of development more clearly, or that their message needed only to be adjusted a little here and there and their promotional materials be made more attractive.
The people of Tsawwassen were seen as being reactionary, or poorly informed, or mere sheep under the sway of a very loud minority.
There was very little recognition at the time that the TDL proposal might have been failing because it was just plain not wanted. That the people of Tsawwassen had looked at the proposal and decided against it based on the merits of the case was an idea given little credence.
The last few proposals for the Southlands have started with a developer saying that public input is needed, that the community's needs are paramount.
Then, when public opinion begins to turn against the project, you'll hear representatives say public policy is more than just opinion polls and that developments of great magnitude and import should not be decided by a popularity contest.
That was certainly the line TDL spokesman Norm Couttie employed upon hearing that 5,959 Tsawwassen residents had voted 94% against his proposal in a 1989 plebiscite.
5,959! That's more people than had voted in the previous general election.
Those 5,959 people are just some of the citizens who helped to preserve the Southlands.
They are also some of the people that this present process chose to ignore when it took as its foundational principle the development of a large housing component on prime agricultural land.
The planners of the Iraq war thought their idea was great also
You are quite correct, and we need to be clear that this developer is a bit more crafty than most. By creating a planning group and getting them involved he has led them into developing an emotional connection that trumps rational thought. This is evident in many of the comments on the developer’s website (“Southlands in transition”) that demonstrate very clearly the potential danger of ideas and groupthink. To put this all in perspective, the planners of the Iraq war thought their little project was a great idea and there were enough of them preaching back and forth to the converted that they convinced themselves of utterly ridiculous notions (e.g., the US forces would be greeted as liberators, it would only take a matter of 6 weeks or 6 months at the most, the war would pay for itself, and so on). Those of us with some knowledge of history and psychology knew that it was doomed from the start, but we were drowned out by the herd of bleating ‘patriots’ (the real sheep) who were more intent on patting themselves of the back and singing the praises of their ‘great’ leaders.
The war is a grave example of why people should not try to judge their own work and ideas. Instead, people best advance knowledge and understanding by subjecting their ideas to the critical examination of others outside of their group and not by cheerleading and spinning their cause while making cheap, ad hominem attacks on those with differing viewpoints and/or glossing over or ignoring the cold hard facts and questions. Sadly, both of these are done repeatedly on the developer’s site and no amount of cheerleading or repeating erroneous beliefs (e.g., the demonstrably false notions that growth is somehow both inevitable in Tsawwassen and required for its survival) will offset that in the eyes of a reasonable person.
Whether it is concocting plans to develop the Southlands or any other project, once people invest time in something, it is far easier for them to focus on what they believe are its strengths and convince themselves that is great than it is to recognize its weaknesses and admit that it may be seriously flawed and that they may have wasted their time. The reality is though that as a person from the outside, without the emotional connection to the plans, this project is indeed seriously flawed. Duany’s principles seem promising, but Century should be using them to buy up and re-develop the sprawl they built before instead of trying to add potentially ‘less bad’ development to an area replete with what Duany considers ‘bad’ development. For that matter, Windsor Woods seems a far better example of Duany’s ideas than these plans. People are going to need to bank, and go to Shopper’s Drug Mart, Thrifty’s, etc. so a local store or two dropped on the Southlands will not stop the driving. In fact, these plans create a lot of development about as far from the town centre as you can get. That is a terrible idea. Another example involves the post secondary education component. Post secondary institutions are enormous traffic centres. Even SFU and UBC, both served by numerous buses and far more centrally located, are terribly auto dependent. Any institution on the Southlands site by virtue of the transit out here and by virtue of being in Tsawwassen (15-50km from everyone else) will introduce tremendous traffic and result in unnecessary driving and pollution relative to a more centrally located institution (e.g., in Ladner near the bus loop). This list could go on, but the point is that the proposed huge development away from the town centre will cause traffic to go the furthest possible distance. Accordingly, the proposed Southlands project fails based on its own underlying principles (many that could be referred to as ‘common sense’) and this cannot be compensated for with even endless amounts of PR and spin, e.g., stacking the charrette/charade meetings with supporters (including those from the team and others who have written letters to the editor threatening a sea of greenhouses if we don’t cave in to the developer’s demands) who were instructed to clap at every comment (occasionally with humorously unintended results) and dominate the questions with obsequiousness and softballs to the point that many of us left in disgust. Eventually though, people will figure it out and hopefully, unlike the Iraq war, they will realize that the costs outweigh the benefits before it is too late.