By Brian Lee
The last (and first)time the official community plan was being worked over, it was a pretty big deal. It provoked a stir because it asked a simple question:
How do we want to preserve all that’s good about our community and what do we need to encourage change?
It’s a noble exercise.
Much of the heavy lifting was accomplished in creating the first OCP. It is an excellent document (visit www.scrd.ca/EgmontPender-Harbour) that compiled a massive amount of research and thought. But, as Area A director Frank Mauro points out in his column this month, much has changed since it was adopted in 1998.
But there’s much that hasn’t changed too. One thing that has persisted, despite a short blip a few years back, is a seemingly chronic wavering of confidence in our community’s employment outlook. As we debate — and we will — how our OCP should define our future community, it will require solid input from a variety of sources.
With much of the geotechnical, heritage preservation and recreation information just needing a quick kick around, what will be pressing this time? It should be our economic future — which, I would argue, is just another way of saying, "our future."
We’re facing busier summers and quieter winters. As many residents leave for part of the year, the remnant caretaker population — those who work here and populate our schools — are also finding it increasingly difficult to stay. They are the people who are most invested in the future of the area and drive our micro-economy because they depend on it to exist.
But they’re leaving. So, as we refine the framework for our community’s future, I encourage those who are still here to counter the voices who will inevitably suggest we must accept a future defined by promoting tourism and retirement services. Visitors and seniors are often considered to be the overwhelming face of our demographic but that may be because those under 50 are all at work.
Besides, it’s a cop-out. Tourism and retirement are here to stay and are important for our future but it sets the bar too low to suggest that’s all we can hope to accomplish. Better would be a community with a healthy mix of seniors, parents, kids and seasonal residents. Industry — gravel quarries, construction, logging and fishing — still fuel this community and if we had more, everybody would benefit. And more services that are geared, not only to retirees, but to families to encourage them to move and invest here.
Actively promoting the area’s economic future should be a defining goal of any future plan for Area A because I’ve lost count of people between the ages of 20 and 50 who have been forced out in the last 15 years.
I know our schools can’t take much more. And I wonder if I can.
Comments