Matt Todd's Pursuit of Idyll Minds

An item in a report to the GVRD Housing Committee (April 12, 2006) reminded me of a problem described to me by our Planner and CAO a few years ago. The report lists conclusions from a dialogue in the Sustainable Region Initiative series.

“There is a major problem in the planning process; the initiative is left to developers to make proposals in which they have to invest considerably and have no certainty of succeeding. The planning process and planners have been reduced to focusing on negotiating public amenities, servicing and other contributions to the municipality as a condition of success. This is a costly and uncertain process which discourages the needed densification process.”

“We need to put the planning back into planning. Municipalities need to identify and pre-zone areas suitable for densification and then charge the appropriate development fee.”

It sounds like there is a need for the province to provide better tools for cities. Zoning should be about land-use and building form, but cities are using the zoning process to ensure development pays for community amenities or changes to the surrounding area.

Things might work better if zoning was really about zoning and there were other methods or mechanisms available to cities for acquiring public amenities. The whole process would be much more deliberate and less confusing while providing greater certainty for both the community and developer.

Using the rezoning process to obtain public amenities is a clever trick that’s become institutionalized out of necessity, but that’s not really what it’s for. Unfortunately it seems that using it for this end is compromising its real purpose — to encourage and provide direction for development — to move toward implementing the land-use principles in the OCP.

The stats presented last week by Clyde Hertzman show that children living in White Rock (proper) entering kindergarten are not nearly as healthy and school-ready as they were a few years ago. The change is so dramatic that it is among the biggest declines in the province. At the workshop following, I could hear surprise at each of the many tables reviewing maps for the whole school district that White Rock children were doing so poorly — an anomaly on the peninsula.

On the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) website there is a pdf that shows how children’s development has changed over the past few years for the worse.

I’m not as familiar with this one, but the BC Atlas looks like it offers suggestions on how to improve a community’s environment for children.

This pdf shows the difference between the two “cycles” – data collected in (I think) 2002 and 2005. The colour coding indicates province-wide standing.

I’m hoping to get some time to review this stuff closer. When I do, I’ll share what I find.

Having now collected a second ‘cycle’ of data, they are able to gauge change by comparing stats collected a few years ago to numbers from last year. The differences are interesting enough in themselves, but Dr. Hertzman explained that the first set of children have now completed their grade 4 standard test, so their development can be tracked.

Unfortunately, it has proven what academics have long theorized –- that a child’s readiness for kindergarten is an indicator of how successful they will be through their school career. This appears to be a bullet-proof argument for early childhood education.

Dr. Hertzman compared Canada to other developed countries. A chart of GDP:debt shows that we have gone from a critical point a decade ago to having by far the lowest ratio.

He described this as an “addiction” to debt reduction. Clearly, making sacrifices to further pay down the national debt is no longer necessary. It may be politically satisfying, but neglects investments that would make the country stronger.

This is likely not helped by the social sector’s tendency to “cry wolf” non-stop. For example, advocates for the health care system are constantly protesting that they need more money, but evidence shows that more money won’t make a significant difference. Canada, when compared to other countries, gets good value for a high standard of health care.

However, Canada is an absentee parent when it comes to early childhood education. Our level of investment in our children is embarrassing. And now that there is irrefutable evidence that their start in life is a powerful determinant of their health and success in later years, the current government’s failure to establish national childcare standards seems incredibly myopic. It underscores a fear that the Conservatives do not understand that early childhood education is not babysitting, and that their priorities for investing in our future are based on obsolete assumptions.

In contrast, Dr. Hertzman described Finland. It has some of the highest quality of life indicators and their economy is robust. Years ago, with the Soviet collapse, they were suffering 20% unemployment. Yet, their commitment to health care and early childhood education wasn’t slashed. And it paid off.

While Canada may brag of a lower national debt, Finland has higher literacy rates and other enviable strengths that bolster their economy now, and hold good promise for long-term continued success. On the other hand, Canada’s strategy for the future seems to be clinging to a delusional hope that having an exceptionally low national debt will offset an embarrassingly high illiteracy rate and mediocre workforce.

Dr. Hertzman’s HELP is world-renowned, pioneering research that is generating strong conclusions that are sobering and motivating, for White Rock and Canada.

To assist with drafting an amendment to White Rock’s Smoking Regulation Bylaw, I have compiled information and examples from these jurisdictions with regulations on smoking within close proximity to building entrances: Delta, BC; Airdrie, AB; Beaumont, AB; Camrose, AB; St. Albert, AB; Stettler, AB; Strathcona, AB; Huron Shores, ON; Sioux Lookout, ON; State of California; Philadelphia, PA; Santa Fe, NM; Normal, IL.

I have no doubt that this list is not exhaustive. There are likely many other examples throughout North America. However, these are those I have found to date which have their legislation available on the Internet. Unless it would be of further assistance, I do not plan on researching further precedent legislation as I presume these form a sufficient body of reference.

Considering the material I have found and am presenting here, I suggest that the distance for White Rock’s amendment be a minimum of 6m(19.7ft). This would not be unusual in the context of the examples cited below (including the entire State of California) and is supported by scientific evidence currently available.

SIGNAGE

Regulations in each of these jurisdictions have sections regarding signage. However, none require anything more than a sign posted at the entrance. Most had criteria for the size, but not distance of placement from the entrance. Most stipulated certain text and a standard symbol.

ASHTRAYS

Most regulations included sections on ashtrays. It appears standard, not that ashtrays be required, but that they simply not be located (or that they be removed from) within the area designated smoke-free.

DISTANCE FROM ENTRANCEWAYS

Outdoor environmental tobacco smoke has not been extensively studied, as has indoor smoke. A report titled Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Indoor and Outdoor Public Places from the Provincial Health Services Authority in Vancouver BC, June 8 2006, references two studies. This is an excerpt from the conclusion of an unpublished study by James Repace, MSc.

Smoke levels do not approach background levels for fine particles or carcinogens until about 7 meters or 23 feet from the source. Therefore it makes sense to post signs warning smokers not to smoke closer than about 20 feet from building entrances, and to place ashtrays at that distance and no closer. Moreover, because some persons suffer from severe asthma, and secondhand smoke is a known asthmatic trigger, this is another good reason to keep smokers from congregating closer to building entrances than 20 feet.

In the following examples, the radius from an entranceway designated smoke-free ranges from 2m(6.6ft) to 10m(32.8ft) — the shortest distance being in Sioux Lookout ON and the greatest in Delta BC. Most simply state that smoking is prohibited from within a certain distance from an entrance or exit. Delta BC, Santa Fe NM, and the State of California treat the area outside of vents and windows the same as they do doors. The intention seems to be, not just to prevent unwanted exposure to tobacco smoke for people accessing the buildings, but also to prevent smoke from entering the building.

Delta, BC — 2006
There have been media reports of outdoor smoke-free zones being established in Delta. But it seems the only information available is a report to Council from the Chairs of the Parks and Fields Committee, and Civic Properties and Buildings Committee dated August 25, 2006. My understanding is that their recommendation was adopted but I was unable to find any resulting regulation or bylaw at this time. These are the paragraphs that seem most relevant to White Rock’s requested bylaw amendment:

RECOMMENDATION: That establishment of smoke-free zones for exterior areas of municipal facilities and parks, where the public must pass to enter a building, a ventilation system draws air into the building, or where the public tend to congregate to participate or view regularly scheduled events.

Establishment of smoke-free zones would mean that employees who smoke would also be asked to follow the same practice. Relocation of ashtrays to areas further away from the building entries may be necessary. It is suggested smoke-free zones be established at recreation centres, park facilities, and the front entrance to municipal hall, as they are locations where public use is most concentrated.

LEGISLATION TEXT

Airdrie, AB — 2004, 2006
3.1 …the following are Designated Public Places for the purposes of this bylaw:
a) Public Buildings and those areas within 3m of an entrance or exit to a Public Building;
b) City Buildings and those areas within 3m of an entrance or exit to a City Building;
d) Workplaces and those areas within 3m of an entrance or exit to a Workplace.
3.2 No person shall Smoke in a Designated Public Place, whether or not a ‘No Smoking’ sign in posted or visible.

Beaumont, AB — 2003
2.14 “Public Building” means any enclosed building or structure to which the public can and does have access by right or by invitation
2.19 “Town Building” means any building owned, leased, operated or occupied by the Town;
4.1 …the following are Designated Public Places for the purposes of this bylaw:
a) Public Buildings and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Public Building;
b) Town Buildings and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Town Building;
c) Public Transportation Vehicle Shelters; and,
d) Workplaces and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Workplace.
4.3 No person shall smoke in a Designated Public Place, whether or not a “No Smoking” sign is posted or visible.

Camrose, AB — 2003
201 (2) Except when on a public sidewalk, no person shall carry or possess a lit cigarette, cigar or pipe, or burn tobacco in any manner within three (3) metres of an entrance or exit to a public premises.
(4) No person shall provide services or allow services to be provided to any person who is carrying or possesses a lit cigarette, cigar or pipe in an area or premises in which smoking is provided by this By-Law.

St. Albert, AB — 2004
2. (a) “Building” means a fully or substantially enclosed structure constructed such that it may accommodate human occupation. A bus shelter shall be considered a building for the purposes of this Bylaw;
3. (1) Unless an exception applies under this Bylaw, no person may engage in Smoking activity:
(a) at or in any City-owned structural facility;
(b) within a Building;
(c) within 3 metres of any Building entrance or exit, except on a public sidewalk adjacent to a roadway;
(d) on the grounds of an Outdoor Public Event, except in an area reserved for motor vehicle parking;
(e) on a Patio

Stettler, AB — 2004
3.1 Subject to Section 3.2, the following are Designated Public Places for the purposes of this bylaw:
a) Public Buildings and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Public Building;
b) Town Buildings and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Town Building;
c) Public Transportation Vehicles and Public Transportation Vehicle Shelters; and
d) Workplaces and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Workplace.
3.2 No person shall Smoke in a Designated Public Place, whether or not a “No Smoking” sign is posted or visible
4.1 The proprietor and employer of every Designated Public Place shall ensure that no ashtrays are placed or allowed to remain in any Designated Public Place.
4.2 The proprietor and employer of every Designated Public Place shall, if employees or members of the public from time to time gather to smoke at a location outside the Designated Public Place, ensure that ashtrays are placed more than 6m from the entrance or exit of the Designated Public Place.

Strathcona, AB — 2006
2.2 (t) “Public Place” means all or any part of a building, structure or other enclosed area to which member of the public have access… including, …
(iii) within 3m of the main entrance or exit to a Public Place;
4.1 no Person shall smoke;
(a) in a Public Place

Huron Shores, ON — 2004
1.3 “entranceway” means the area within a 4 metre radius surrounding any public entrance to a public building or workplace, but does not include a street, road or highway;
2.1 No person shall smoke in any workplace or entranceway to any workplace within the Municipality, whether or not a No Smoking sign is posted.
3.1 No person shall smoke in any public place or entranceway to any public place within the Municipality, whether or not a No Smoking sign is posted.

Sioux Lookout, ON — 2003
2. (2) The outside area not forming part of the street, road or highway that is within two metres of an entrance to any public place as designated pursuant to Subsection 2(1) hereof is also designated as a public place for the purposes of this By-Law.
3. (1) No person shall smoke in a public place.

California (State of) — 2005
7596. (a) “Public building” means a building owned and occupied, or leased and occupied, by the state, a county, a city, a city and county, or a California Community College district.
7597. (a) No public employee or member of the public shall smoke any tobacco product inside a public building, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance, or operable window of a public building

Philadelphia, PA — 2005
(3)(a) No person shall smoke in any of the following places
(xiii) (.7) Outdoors within ten (10) feet of any entrance to any Enclosed Area in which smoking is prohibited under this Section.

Santa Fe, NM — 2006
10-6.2 E. the city council finds and declares that the purposes of this section are
(1) to protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places of employment;
(2) to guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air; and
(3) to recognize that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke.
10-6.7 (1) Smoking shall occur only at a distance of twenty-five (25′) feet in radius from the entrance to any enclosed area where smoking is prohibited to insure that tobacco smoke does not enter the area through entrances, windows, ventilation systems or any other means.

Normal, IL — 2006
17.6-7 Smoking is prohibited within fifteen feet of any public entrance to an area in which smoking is prohibited.
17.6-8 … the following areas shall be exempt from the provisions of Section 17.6-7.
5. Outdoor patios, except for that area of an outdoor patio within fifteen feet (15’) of a primary public entrance to an area where smoking is prohibited.

REFERENCES

• Provincial Health Services Authority, Vancouver BC: Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Indoor and Outdoor Public Places, June 8 2006
• Repace Associates, Bowie MD: Measurements Of Outdoor Air Pollution From Secondhand Smoke On The UMBC Campus, June 1 2005
• Airdrie, AB
• Beaumont, AB
• Camrose, AB
• St. Albert, AB
• Stettler, AB
• Strathcona, AB
• Huron Shores, ON
• Sioux Lookout, ON
• Berkeley, CA
• Calabasas, CA
• State of California
• Philadelphia, PA
• Santa Fe, NM
• Normal, IL

These are some notes I took today during presentations on different housing strategies in BC at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities conference in Victoria.

Judy Villeneuve, City of Surrey Councillor
Surrey established a charity foundation to manage and distribute funds collected from developers for affordable housing.

There is funding available from BC Housing for measuring the community’s housing needs and determining options for addressing those needs.

Felice Mazzoni, Ucluelet Planner
In Ucluelet, they’ve incorporated LEED and affordable housing design guidelines into their OCP.

They require that 15-20% of units in a development be affordable, as defined by CMHC. It is achieved through the Development Permit process, not rezoning.

They require an appropriate quantity of staff housing to accompany commercial developments. The occupancy permit is held until the staff housing is ready for occupancy.

Crown land might be used if the city has no land of its own.

The developer doesn’t necessarily have to own the land. They could be allowed to build affordable housing on crown land or donated land as part of their density bonus.

He recommends lowering the base density allowable and then allow bonusing. “Don’t give away your density for free.”

Agreements are set in place that allow locals an opportunity to purchase SFD and condos at a discount before they are available on the open market.

Recommended to take cash. Cash provides options.

“You are the leaders of your communities, so be bold with your policies.”

Housing Management Plan drafted by non-profit with assistance from the City. It specifies targets for sizes and types of housing. The City partners with non-profit societies to manage the housing.

UDI
Challenge is how to measure/count private rentals.

Until recently, 25% of the project cost was land. It is now 50%

Lowering parking standards greatly reduces construction costs.

If public land is available, a long-term lease might be an alternate option to selling.

I stumbled across this blog last night: Talking about Vancouver

Naomi is a singer working in food service. She’s from Edmonton and came to White Rock earlier this month. It was her first time seeing the ocean. Her account of the trip is well-detailed. She talks about the traffic, food, weather, and homeless.

I enjoyed reading the unfiltered impressions and unbridled opinions of the area from someone visiting for the first time.

Naomi, I’m glad you had such a great time.

It looks like I probably won’t get where I wanted on tobacco control in White Rock. But it is looking more likely that we will be making some incremental progress… so that’s a good thing.

Yesterday, the Social Committee recommended to City Council that smoking be not permitted at the entrances to public facilities and on patios of bars and restaurants. I was hoping to have parks also be smoke-free, and wanted to have tobacco products hidden from view of minors in corner stores and pharmacies. But one member of the committee noted that society needs time to adapt and making incremental change is progress – better than where we are now. They were concerned about going further than the community is ready for and then having problems with compliance.

They stated that it is the committee’s vision that White Rock become a smoke-free city and that their recommendation should be seen as another step towards that goal. Hopefully council will share that goal and that intention.

The City Council of Calabasas unanimously adopted an ordinance that declares the whole city non-smoking. Instead of listing places that are non-smoking, it lists places where smoking is allowed. The intention is to protect people from secondhand smoke.

The ordinance is very bold and innovative. It recognizes tobacco smoke as a toxic air pollutant and declares exposing someone to smoke a “public nuisance”. Smoking in open places is allowed only when there are no people close by that are not smoking. Smoking is not allowed on sidewalks. There are specific rules about where people are allowed to smoke in public. And, there are hefty fines for cigarette butt litter.

Calabasas is a suburb of Los Angeles, beside Malibu and Santa Monica.

This past weekend I read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. It deals with intuition – how it works, when to trust it, and how to influence it. As an elected person, I found it very interesting to apply his ideas to the problem of disconnect between so-called “common sense” and the decisions elected people make. As it bubbles in my head, I’m sure I’ll write more entries on this. In the meantime, Gladwell’s blog has a posting that describes the difference between the insider and outsider’s perspective better than I could.

"If you want to change the way you act, change the way you think."

Ken Jones told me this when I was explaining that I sometimes realize that I don’t like the way I’m reacting to things – that I disagree with myself. I look within for assumptions that lead to the judgments or biases causing me to behave in a way I don’t like, or pulling me towards a conclusion or belief that clashes with my principles. I talked for a few minutes, but he said it better in a few words.

Jared Diamond, in Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, writes about the differing fortunes of Haiti and the Dominican Republic despite the two countries sharing the same island.

“While [...] environmental differences did contribute to the different economic trajectories of the two countries, a larger part of the explanation involved social and political differences, of which there were many that eventually penalized the Haitian economy relative to the Dominican economy. In that sense, the differing development of the two countries were overdetermined: numerous separate factors coincided in tipping the result in the same direction.” (pg 339)

I find that last line very interesting – many things seeming to be totally unrelated all contributing to the same result. I see that often from my role as a City Councillor.

I also find myself thinking about the same idea in reverse. What about single policies or projects that have a range of impacts otherwise unrelated and difficult to anticipate?

Sometimes it’s very challenging to motivate people to make changes when they see the benefits as being very small. The sum of the many small benefits is hard to appreciate when those pieces appear so far apart.