Jump to content

      



























Photo

Are CRD Laws legal?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 20 April 2011 - 12:23 PM

I'm just curious, here we have a level of 'government' that can enable legislation to the citizens of the region yet they are an unelected body.

What Law is out there that gives them the power of legislation?

I know that the board is comprised of 'elected' municipal politicians, but I live in Oak Bay and therefore have no say over the crd rep from Saanich or Victoria etc....yet they can create supposed 'binding' legislation where I live. I understand thats what happens in Provincial and Federal politics, but at least we get to vote for our MLA/MP in the CRD we dont...thats a decision for Mayor and Council so is it legitimate?

I thought we lived in a democracy where we get to elect our lawmakers...except of course for the CRD.

If the CRD was created through an act of Legislation from the Province then that confuses it even more so as there is no provincial oversight I can tell....

Comments?

#2 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 12:43 PM

I have the same question. Apparently they have instated a bylaw that septic tanks shall be pumped out every 5 years or a fine of $2,500 will be levied. The deadline for this procedure has passed.

They also oversee the testing of "backflow" preventors, but I have not heard of anyone receiving a fine for not having theirs tested.

I guess we need to give them a call and ask some pointed questions.

#3 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 03:36 PM

I have been curious about the CRD's legislative powers for years. As has been stated it would seem they can pass bylaws but have no direct relation to the electorate.

#4 Jill

Jill
  • Member
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 03:40 PM

Regional districts are empowered by the Legislative Assembly. See, for example, the Local Government Act.

#5 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 10:51 PM

The CRD, like every regional district, basically needs its constituent municipalities to agree to certain bylaws. However, unincorporated areas like the Juan de Fuca area are directly controlled by the RD, however, those powers are heavily curtailed by the province and usually require some sort of provincial ok.

#6 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 22 April 2011 - 06:14 AM

Thanks for the comments. I'm glad to see its not just me that thinks this isnt right.

I understand about the Local Government Act and what it entails, but there just seems to me to be 1 small part missing....Democratic Representation, in other words we dont get a say in who gets a seat at the table, its Mayor and Council.

Now I know that we elected the Mayor and council, however it was to represent our needs within our municipality. Whats missing here is the fact that we dont have a say at all in who is appointed to the CRD where they suppsedly have the power to enact Regional Laws such as sewage treatment and enforce taxation. I dont know about you, but I like to vote (or at least have the opportunity to vote) for the people that are going to hold that power.

Doesnt seem very democratic especially in light of the serious infrstructure investments currently under way as well as the land development issues.

#7 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 22 April 2011 - 09:18 PM

I support the electorate choosing which councillor they send to the CRD, but I don't support two levels of direct election for one simple reason: competition. You would end up in situations where local and regional politicians would end up competing with each other and not cooperating, which is the function of the regional district.

#8 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 22 April 2011 - 11:46 PM

You would end up in situations where local and regional politicians would end up competing with each other and not cooperating, which is the function of the regional district.


Or we could just amalgamate all these silly 19th century fiefdoms and do away with the CRD altogether.

#9 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 23 April 2011 - 09:08 AM

^ You're making an assumption that amalgamation would eliminate the CRD government. I am doubtful of that.

#10 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 23 April 2011 - 09:32 AM

I support the electorate choosing which councillor they send to the CRD, but I don't support two levels of direct election for one simple reason: competition. You would end up in situations where local and regional politicians would end up competing with each other and not cooperating, which is the function of the regional district.


Ok I agree with the first part but your 2nd point....can you clarify about competition?

Are we, the electorate not entitled to a say in A) Who represents us and B) Represents the interests of the constituency they have been elected to?

Not to forget the other question which would be; Whose interests take precedence when they vote on something? The Region or their constituents?

#11 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 23 April 2011 - 07:50 PM

Ok I agree with the first part but your 2nd point....can you clarify about competition?

Are we, the electorate not entitled to a say in A) Who represents us and B) Represents the interests of the constituency they have been elected to?

Not to forget the other question which would be; Whose interests take precedence when they vote on something? The Region or their constituents?


Basically, the issue comes down to places where local interests compete with regional ones, especially with regards to funding announcements. It is already bad enough watching the three levels right with each other over who gets to announce what. Now add a fourth level in there.

#12 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 26 April 2011 - 09:33 AM

^ You're making an assumption that amalgamation would eliminate the CRD government. I am doubtful of that.


What purpose would they serve in an amalgamated city?

#13 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 26 April 2011 - 11:29 AM

What purpose would they serve in an amalgamated city?


Well, I highly doubt the entire CRD would amalgamate so there would still be a use for a group to oversee the amalgamated core together with the outlying munis and the Gulf Islands.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#14 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 26 April 2011 - 11:51 AM

...there would still be a use for a group to oversee the amalgamated core together with the outlying munis and the Gulf Islands.


Which either proves the entire region needs to amalgamate, or a much-reduced CRD would be created. Either way the CRD as we know it today would cease to exist. :)

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users