As an animal lover in general, it’s easy to be drawn into debates about the best approaches to animal management. I’ve been squished by a Burmese python, taken rides on an elephant and played with young cheetahs. I’ve owned my own pets over the years and I live in Port Moody where bears, deer, coyotes and raccoons are regular visitors. I’m one of those people who snaps a photo of the deer munching on my garden and posts it on Facebook, and I had my list of complaints about the bear who finds my yard to be the most ideal access to the green belt behind our house – as well as a nice spot for a brief bathroom break before hopping my conveniently-low back fence. I think animals are great. But I believe we also need to be realistic about safety, and sometimes we humans are not the best at assessing risks and avoiding human-animal incidents.

In the LGMA’s December 2013 edition of Exchange magazine, both Urban Wildlife: Marvel and Menace and Dealing with Dangerous Pets, focus on the primary themes that safety comes first, training humans is critical and every community has the opportunity to develop local solutions that match local interests. It’s also fair to say that focusing on the local perspective can be challenging when external groups start to take ownership of the issue. For local governments, it’s clear that their mandate is focused on their local community but that doesn’t mean it’s easy when under external pressures. It appears that in some cases, situations need to be escalated through bylaws and the courts to get action. In others, it’s a public relations exercise to ensure residents and taxpayers support local actions.

The debates about whether the problem with dangerous dogs is based on the breeds or owners will likely not end any time soon. As an outsider looking in, it appears to me that it’s a bit of both. While the owner may be remiss in teaching its dog proper behaviour – or even encourage aggressive behaviour – the ramifications of that bad behaviour will differ by breed. A really rude teacup poodle is simply not the same threat level as a large dog with a bite that can’t easily be released until the dog agrees to do so. And as a former dog owner, I believe that even the best-trained dogs can have moments of unpredictability. So if you can’t guarantee the dog’s behaviour, and there is a proven physical risk based on data and past behaviours, I’d rather see safety measures even if they seem to infringe on a dog’s rights. But that’s just my opinion. The beauty of the shared stories in this edition of Exchange is that every community can make it’s own decisions on domestic pets, and the Province has regulations that set standards for wildlife and exotic animals. 

After working at a provincial level and later in local government, I had developed mixed feelings about how much government can do to facilitate investment and economic development. At a provincial level, I had seen positive results stemming from tax incentives and exploration grants, but at a local level, it seemed like the best approach was to remove barriers and then stay out of the way. This was fed in part by the reliance on a single goal to attract a major overseas investor who would build a new enterprise in the community and single-handedly re-energize the corporate tax base.

What I’ve observed in the crafting of the September edition of Exchange is that a lot has changed in the field of economic development, and my past experiences are not representative of today’s approach. Successful communities across the province have recognized the importance of hiring individuals with expertise in economic development and business. The result is a better understanding of what is required to attract new business investors, and what local governments can do to retain existing businesses. As well, it quickly become evident that the idea of one major investor to save the day has slid away to be replaced with a strategic approach that assesses the needs and opportunities of the community, and the steps needed to move forward towards new jobs and more diverse local economies.

In both Every Step Counts and Trust Partnerships, it was refreshing to learn that the idea of partnership is expanding to include neighbouring municipalities, working groups involving multiple levels of government including First Nations, and public-private operations that reflect local values. There is a growing cadre of experts along with convenient tools available through the Province and the BC Economic Development Association to support local governments in their efforts to attract and retain businesses. Plus, resources including funding, expertise and networking are making it possible to take ideas and turn them into success stories. Challenges are being viewed as opportunities to try new approaches in Tension that Transforms, and there is a concerted effort to streamline processes and remove barriers that have limited the scope for innovation.

It’s exciting to hear about how local governments across B.C. have successfully implemented a range of projects that have positioned them for future growth, created new jobs and attracted attention of business investors. Every step towards generating new business opportunities and ensuring business retention is a positive step for local communities and the province as a whole.

Most often, when the topic of new service delivery and expanded scope of responsibilities comes up in local government, the discussion has been around downloading or the challenging demands from residents and businesses shouting “More service, less taxes!” or the ever-popular “Do more with less!” scenario. As the editor of Exchange, the Local Government Management Association (LGMA) member magazine, I had the chance to connect with local governments who looked at the needs and opportunities in their community, explored options to do things differently and implemented innovative solutions. The results of their initiative have paid off in multiple ways.

The success of the City of Coquitlam’s QNet initiative is exciting, not just because of the value and benefits it’s bringing to the City, but also because of the potential for regional networks and for other local governments to tap into this new market opportunity. I remember when the City of Coquitlam launched QNet, (I had the pleasure of working on the branding, marketing and communications materials). What stood out at the time was the entrepreneurial thinking involved in looking beyond the standard use of a City’s fibre optic infrastructure to see the incredible business opportunity. Next it took strategic business development tactics to create a company that would successful leverage the tremendous potential of this asset. This involved engaging people with the knowledge, experience and expertise to deliver a new type of service effectively.

In a similar way, when Abbotsford, Williams Lake and other local governments took on municipal airport operations, they were responding to the need to protect an important asset for their communities. They not only assumed responsibility for the asset, they tapped into the knowledge and expertise of staff at the existing airports and leveraged the benefits of existing municipal services to offset costs. Moving forward, these local governments continue to explore options to generate revenue, adapt to regulatory changes, plan for future infrastructure requirements and take steps to secure the long-term success of these operations. As a result, they are successfully managing and delivering a very non-traditional service.

It’s also interesting that working outside of the box is not just about leveraging an asset or operating in a new business model. In Operating Outside of the Box we also learn about how the City of Vancouver has created programs tailored to the needs of its inner city community. Some of the factors that distinguish local government are the direct customer interaction experience and the variety of services delivered to residents. Every community will have distinct challenges in service requirements, but it’s refreshing to see how a city can address those challenges with effective programs that meet very basic needs in the community. Instead of the standard “that’s outside of our role or not our job” response – which is quite often correct – there may be times when a new approach can be achieved through partnerships and shared funding. The trick seems to be looking at the challenges from the perspective of identifying the most important needs and being open to solutions that may not fit traditional parameters.

Through these shared experiences in Exchange, we learn that new ideas and approaches can be introduced into organizations, that a non-traditional service model can sometimes be the best solution and that success in other communities can be a catalyst for change – or even motivation – for others.