The last time we posted a picture on the Tsawwassen Mills and Commons development, going up on First Nations land (map here) off Highway 17, the soil was being loaded:
.
.
Here’s a shot from yesterday as construction begins:
.
Two questions still stand out: How is this consistent with the beliefs (not to mention the rhetoric) of First Nations?
And where is the market for this? It can hardly be just the municipality of Delta, much less nearby Tsawwassen, which can expect its local shopping district to be undermined. Does the developer, Ivanhoe-Cambridge, expect a good part of Metro will drive here, thanks to the billion-dollar expenditures on new roads and bridges provided by the Province?
Stephen Rees has been documenting the project as well – here – going back to 2011. (Comments also worth reading on “the Walmart School of Planning.”)
It’s the Simcity-view of the world. Agriculture is the lowest form of industrial zoning. It makes more money than empty land but it pollutes a lot (though less than medium and dirty industry).
Medium level commercial doesn’t pollute and will bring in more tax dollars. Of course, now that there’s a mall you can build some low density residential and the sims will have somewhere to work that is a short drive away.
I can’t wait for all the roads to turn red. Maybe they’ll put in a bus stop or two or turn the roads into highways.
Does native commercial land generate taxes ? Who pays for roads and infrastructure to this land actually ? Who governs commercial (or residential) land developlment on native land close to or in urban areas ?
Certainly native commercial land generates taxes. The government that has jurisdiction plans and governs land development on any land within its jurisdiction, as well as collecting taxes on that land.
I think it just proves the point that everyone sells out.
My feeling is that it’s their turn. We are in no position to have any say in the matter at all. Doesn’t mean I agree with their choices…but that’s irrelevant.
Author
Yes, it may be their turn. But it’s not consistent with the notions of stewardship, generational responsibility and harmony with nature – particularly given the location of this paved-over project on the international flyway. Tsawwassen First Nation can articulate those beliefs or they can do Tsawwassen Mills – but not both.
Indeed because Canada is a racist country, with special right for special races, much like South Africa when Apartheid ruled ..
Do members of the second nations have less say than members of the first nations ?
The Indian Act is racist. Why has no one launched a constitutional challenge yet ?
Trashing the environment is not a human rights issue. This project is an example of the need to broaden our understanding of development impacts, to bring together urbanists, environmentalists, and policy makers. These separate and sometimes opposing disciplines need to forge a bioregion based framework for intelligent governance of development.
I don’t know about this one, Gordon. The development may indeed be vile, but how many non-aboriginal developments are “consistent with the beliefs (not to mention the rhetoric)” of the people behind them (ie: Genstar Corp), or with the appropriative propaganda used to market those developments? Singling out the Tsawwassen Band for this treatment mainly because they are an easily-identifiable “other” (or for that matter referring to “them” as if it’s a given that aboriginal people don’t read urban affairs blogs) doesn’t, in my view, make for the most compelling content on your otherwise interesting and useful site.
Thanks, Hedley. Well-expressed.
How is this “singling out” on a blog that coined the term motordom and regularly bemoans poor urban investment choices everywhere (and praises good ones). It would be inconsistent to turn a blind eye, especially given all the end-of-the-ALR coverage in the area.
I’d be interested to know how you would prefer this to be covered?
Regarding “them”: I believe I’ve seen Gordon write that of Australians, for example, after trips. I would guess it’s more a matter of a different government, than a different readership.
I agree, Gord, that it’s not consistent with their expressed ideals. Having said that, I think we’re the pot calling the kettle black. I just don’t think we have the moral authority to take this high ground. Translation: When I imagine talking to Kim Baird and asking her about this contradiction, my cheeks flame up with embarrassment at the contradiction of my asking the question and what has been done all around the TFN by people other than that First Nation for decades. Can you truly imagine speaking the words directly to a member of the Tsawwassen First Nation and not turning crimson when they just look back at you in disbelief?
Why ? At least in a democracy we have regional planning authorities approving larger projects, within a regional context. Different rules somehow seem to apply to First “Nations” projects. Why is that ? Why do we treat one race different than all others ? it is akin to treat Asian immigrants differently than European or black immigrants, by law. Why do we let this racism to continue in Canada when it has been abolished in almost all other countries ?
You can’t correct past wrongs by ignoring present ones.
It’s not “why are you doing this, can’t see it’s horrible by some set of subjective values”, but instead “why are you doing this, can’t you see we ran that suburban experiment already and it’s failing badly on any metric – health, environmental, economic – and anyone who thinks about it recognises the post-war break with pre-motordom development patterns was a bad idea and is pushing full tilt in the opposite direction…”
Southlands is right across the street, for example.
I think we can simply say that it’s a bad project, rife with 1980s era thinking, without bringing race or culture into it. No matter who is developing this, it’s bad, bad, bad.