Sheila Bailin’s letter to the editor, titled: North Saanich bylaw deserves more discussion, published on 12 June deserves a more in-depth look at what is happening in North Saanich. Two years ago, North Saanich Council made a deliberate decision regarding the structure of municipal administration. The decision was debated, approved and presented as being in the best interests of the community. Now, in 2026, council has reversed course and adopted a controversial bylaw that effectively returns the municipality to the minimum officer structure required by provincial legislation.
The obvious question for residents is simple: what has changed?
Has there been a significant financial crisis?
Has there been a failure in municipal operations?
Has new evidence emerged showing that the previous structure was ineffective?
If the answer to these questions is no, then residents are entitled to ask why council is undoing a decision that was made only two years ago. Municipal government depends heavily on public trust. Unlike provincial or federal politics, local government operates closest to the people it serves. Residents expect consistency, transparency and a clear explanation when elected officials reverse previous decisions. When that explanation is missing or unconvincing, people naturally begin to wonder whether other interests are driving the agenda.
That leads to a second question: who is council serving?
North Saanich residents repeatedly tell council that they value environmental protection, agricultural land preservation, neighbourhood character and meaningful public consultation. These themes have appeared consistently throughout debates over housing, zoning, tree protection development (and even pickleball!). At the same time, the municipality is under increasing pressure from the Province of British Columbia to accelerate housing approvals and modernise planning regulations. The province has already appointed a housing adviser after North Saanich was slow to reach provincial housing targets.
Residents might find themselves asking whether council’s priorities remain aligned with the people who elected them or whether they are increasingly responding to external pressures.
This does not mean developers are villains. North Saanich needs housing. Young families need opportunities to live on the Peninsula. Workers need affordable places to rent. Development itself is not the problem. The concern arises when residents perceive that decisions are being made primarily to facilitate development rather than in line with agreed and cherished community values and actual policy like the OCP. This distinction matters. The electorate is asking if the elected have lost sight of who they are accountable to.
People are more likely to accept change when they believe they have been consulted and heard. They become resistant when they feel decisions are predetermined and public input is a mere tick-box exercise rather than a meaningful part of the process.
This concern is not unique to North Saanich. Across British Columbia, municipalities are wrestling with new provincial housing legislation, density requirements and housing targets. Local councils face pressure from Victoria to build more homes, approve projects faster and remove barriers to development. The result is growing tension between local autonomy and provincial direction. North Saanich now finds itself at the centre of that debate.
The district has historically defined itself through a semi-rural character, agricultural land, forests, coastline and low-density neighbourhoods. Yet recent planning discussions, zoning updates and housing targets indicate that significant change is coming. The district’s own zoning review explicitly references alignment with provincial housing directives and new development regulations.
Against that backdrop and when council has now suddenly reversed a previous bylaw that prioritised multiple levels of accountability, it’s only normal that this action would raise questions and attract deeper scrutiny.
Residents may reasonably wonder whether this is an isolated administrative adjustment or part of a broader shift in governance. Is the council seeking greater efficiency? Is it centralising authority? Is it preparing municipal structures for a more development-focused future?
These are some of the questions that residents might suggest deserve clear answers to.
Perhaps the most important issue is not the bylaw itself but the message it sends.
When councils revisit settled decisions after only a short period of time, citizens might question whether long-term plans are stable, whether previous consultations mattered and whether present and future decisions will be equally subject to reversal.
North Saanich is entering a period of change. Housing pressures, provincial intervention and climate concerns will continue to shape local politics for years to come. In such an environment, public trust is the municipality’s most valuable asset. The real question facing council is therefore not whether it can pass controversial bylaws. It has shown us, it clearly can. The question is whether residents understand why those decisions are being made and whether they believe those decisions are being made in their best interests.
Because if North Saanich residents begin to conclude that council is more responsive to external pressures than to local voices, the controversy surrounding this bylaw may prove to be the beginning of this council’s undoing.
