By Matthew Burrows, March 21, 2011

Coquitlam city council is set to vote at tonight’s (March 21) meeting on whether or not to ratify Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy.

Coquitlam staff haverecommended that council “not accept” the RGS “on the basis that it does not address long-standing objections” of the city.

Coun. Selina Robinson told theStraight her mind is already made up.

“I’m not going to support it,” Robinson said by phone today. “I’m not going to support it. I just think it’s so flawed. Philosophically, how can I support something that says it’s going to do something, and yet the plan isn’t actually going to do it?”

The strategy, which succeeds the Livable Region Strategic Plan adopted in 1996, outlines how the Metro Vancouver area will be developed until 2040. Metro directors approved the plan on January 14.

The deadline for municipalities to vote on ratifying the document is Tuesday (March 22). Councils in Coquitlam, Port Moody, Maple Ridge, and the District of North Vancouver have yet to respond.

Vancouver council voted to ratify the strategy on March 4.

In outlining her reasons for opposing the RGS, Robinson said her main concerns are that it is a “stone soup” where each municipality has tossed its own preferred ingredients into the “hodgepodge” mix.

The RGS has five main goals: build compact areas and avoid sprawl; build a sustainable economy; provide a plan equipped to tackle climate change; develop complete communities, and provide sustainable transportation choices.

“For me it’s the overarching thing,” Robinson said. “They are never going to achieve the goals that they were setting out with this kind of plan. The fact that everybody got to identify what lands go into conservation and recreation, what lands go in…everyone gets to make a hodgepodge, their own decision. I was looking for some guidance. Help me figure out which lands are regionally significant. But they don’t offer any of that really.”

Coquitlam city staff’s objections to the RGS include the “Extent of Metro Vancouver’s direct oversight and involvement in municipal land use planning and development approval processes”; “Lack of details regarding the legal, administrative and financial cost implications”; “Lack of clarity concerning the proposed dispute resolution processes”; and “Lack of a clear definition of land uses/activities which are deemed ‘regionally significant’”.