(Updated 3:15 pm) Only The Province (click to vote in their online poll) has so far questioned the recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability, the Final Report of which was just released last Wednesday, and which Mayor Gregor Robertson hopes Vancouver City Council will adopt unanimously in Regular Council on October 2, 2012.
The Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Courier, Globe and Mail, Metro News, 24-Hours, and other major media outlets have so far failed the public by failing to ask more questions. They have generally reported on just the content of the Task Force Final Report, but failed to mention public concern about many aspects of the Task Force selection process, discussion process, consultation process, final report, and recommendations. On October 2, 2012, Vision Vancouver intends to adopt sweeping changes in land use policy, enabling future rezonings of large swaths of the City — without public consultation. Since most of the major news outlets are falling down on the job, we share here some of the comments flowing around in social media and independent media. More will be added. Mayor and Council will receive comments sent in before the meeting, but we suspect that especially the Vision Vancouver councillors are not motivated to read them, and public comments will not become part of the meeting record, probably only available through Freedom of Information inquiry. But people need to know what others are saying.
Send in your comments to citizenYVR [at] gmail.com.
Newsletter of the Upper Kitsilano Residents Association (UKRA). Excerpt - In our view, in the 20 years of UKRA’s existence, this proposed action plan has more potential to dramatically change our neighbourhood than any previous proposal. Download — excellent analysis. UKRA Residents Newsletter September 30, 2012.
********************************************************************************
From Jane Ingman Baker, Chair Dunbar Vision Implementation Committee
Dear Mayor and Council:
1) We urge Council to accept the Task Force Report for information only. The report was released late last week. Therefore, Councilors cannot digest and analyze its impact and properly exercise their judgment as required both by law and by the electorate.
2) Wholesale up zoning of land cannot lead to greater affordability. We will see increased land values and corresponding price rises. Trying then to control prices through artificial financing schemes is a flawed policy doomed to failure.
3) The most affordable housing is that which already exists. The sale and demolition of existing housing stock would eliminate affordable housing. Increased density bonusing will just accelerate this process.
********************************************************************************
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association (UKRA) letter to Mayor and Council, 1-Oct-2012, with detailed analysis. (Upper Kitsilano Residents Assn on MTF, 1-Oct-2012) Excerpts: In our 20 years of existence, we have not seen a proposal that raises as much concern, especially while supposedly supporting a worthy objective, that of increasing housing affordability.… [Proposed recommendations...] Approves for implementation two action items immediately that have huge impacts for every neighbourhood in the City, irrespective of how much density they have, what their existing community plans may call for, what Vancouver CityPlan may suggest, how many rental units they have, what the neighbourhoods pricing is for housing, etc., based solely on a developer-dominated panel’s recommendations….
********************************************************************************
From Darlene Marzari (Former Vancouver City Councillor)
Five points after a cursory reading ….
1 This undoes the whole residential component of the zoning bylaws by bringing in sweeping changes allowing density in a crapshoot fashion.
2. It’s an experimental blanket which literally shoots first and asks questions later
3. It is cloaked in language about affordability with no obligation on the part of the bylaw or the developer to guarantee low or affordable housing.
4.It overrides any community consultation or credible neighbourhood planning process which has been a basic foundation of the bylaw since the’70′s.
5. It can be seen as nothing more than a sop to developers who, to their credit and self interest, have generally sought a level playing field and consistent rules to work with. This undoes all of that by pulling the plug and favoring a first come first serve operation. I won’t speculate on who this serves in the long run.
********************************************************************************
From Gerard Charlton (Vancouver)
Dear Vancouver Sun. Regarding the Thursday, 27 September Front page and A section WestCoast News articles on ‘Thin Streets’ and ‘Affordability’, thank you for printing one of the most one sided, unbalanced and overly stacked commentaries I have ever seen in a newspaper. If I didn’t know differently, I would suspect that The Sun was on the Mayor of Vancouver’s or the Greater Vancouver Homebuilder’s Association payroll. Indeed, within two very large articles gracing the front page and front sections of the paper, there was not one tidbit of journalistic integrity in seeking out newsworthy facts. These two articles were nothing but a pulpit for the developer friendly types to pontificate to the masses. Furthermore, we have people like Peter Simpson, who may be a contractor / developer and CEO of the Homebuilder’s Association; however, he has no credentials of a ‘urban planner’ nor should he be given the audience of your readers to pontificate about matters that he knows nothing about other than furthering his own and his developer buddy’s self interests. In fact, with only a cursory glance, these articles are both so full of conflict of interest when considering the people who are involved with the commentary, it is akin to asking a Ponzi scheme master to solve our national debt problems.
The articles also reveal just how out of touch and misguided our current civic leaders are. They are attempting to justify that the housing ‘affordability’ issue is one of simple supply and demand. Nothing could be further from the truth. They could double the number of houses (or housing options) in Vancouver and nothing much would change. Certainly, by putting up more brand new million dollar houses on ‘thin streets’ under the auspices of affordability shows just how gullible they think the electorate is.
Affordability has never been, nor ever will come through anything newly built: That goes for anything from housing, cars, clothing, toys or furniture. If you want something affordable, you seek ‘used’ goods. The current council is simply ‘in bed’ with all the developers and their associates – full stop. This should be a call to arms, in which the people of Vancouver call for a mass resignation of anyone supporting these ridiculous ideas. Our affordability issues are far more complex, and what the current VISION dominated council is proposing is something that will simply destroy all of what makes Vancouver a livable and decent City.
********************************************************************************
Sample letter now circulating.
Email addresses for Copy & Paste:
gregor.robertson@vancouver.ca ; clraffleck@vancouver.ca ; clrball@vancouver.ca ; clrcarr@vancouver.ca ; clrdeal@vancouver.ca ; clrjang@vancouver.ca ; clrmeggs@vancouver.ca ; clrreimer@vancouver.ca ; clrstevenson@vancouver.ca ; clrtang@vancouver.ca ; clrlouie@vancouver.ca ; mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca
September 30, 2012
Mayor and Council, City of Vancouver
453 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C., V5Y 1V4
Re: Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability (Final Report, in Council October 2, 2012)
Dear Mayor and Council:
Thank you for providing the opportunity for me/us to express our views on the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability final report which is being reviewed by Mayor and Council for approval on Tuesday, October 2.
We wish to express our disagreement/agreement with the Final Report . Specifically we would like to comment on:
Regards,
Your name(s)
********************************************************************************
From Randy Helten, CityHallWatch.ca
To the Vancouver Courier: You may have heard similar comments from others, but I would like to say that I was disappointed in the Vancouver Courier’s front page article last week, due to its failure to look even slightly beyond the surface and ask some more serious questions about the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability. (The public disappointment is not just directed at the Courier, however.) Alas, your issue has already long gone to print and stands as a record of your paper’s coverage an important issue. Any further coverage will be too late if Mayor and Council adopt the Task Force recommendations as the Mayor wishes tomorrow. Social media and grassroots networking are filling in the gaps left by major media outlets. For future coverage you may find some of the following links useful on what may be one of the most important City Hall decisions in a long time.
Follow-up to Vancouver Courier: In fact the real issue was not just time and staff constraints at the Vancouver Courier. The problem is at City Hall. How could any civic government expect to have a meaningful public discourse on any important topic if a major policy report is made public on a Wednesday and the mayor expects it to get passed unanimously in a daytime council meeting only three working days later, when is it difficult for working people to attend? The answer: It is impossible.
********************************************************************************
From Rand Chatterjee (Vancouver)
It is patently ludicrous to strike a “Task Force on Housing Affordability” without ever defining affordability. The specific meaning of this term must be spelled out EXPLICITLY and this meaning EXPLICITLY shown as a measurable benchmark outcome of every adopted recommendation of the Task Force. To do anything otherwise is a rank farce, and a waste of taxpayer money, City resources, and citizen consultation time.
The common definition of affordability is here: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/faq/faq_002.cfm#5.
Starting with this definition, The Task Force should have focussed on issues specific to Vancouver, especially the City’s low median household income in comparison with average income, the extreme range of income disparity that contributes directly to homelessness, its lack of any effective industrial or jobs policy and poor recent performance thereto, and the City’s own failure–in comparison will ALL other large OECD cities–to further develop its own housing stock, owned an operated by the City to support both its residents and the City treasury.
************************
Blog by Jak King (Vancouver — Grandview-Woodland)
It is vital that City Council be stopped from such precipitous action. The Task Force Report has only been made public for less than a week and no time is being allowed for response to recommendations that include significant upzoning that will affect many neighbourhoods across the city — without public hearings.
http://jaksview3.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/urgent-city-council-needs-to-stop-and-talk/
*******************
From Jonathan Baker (municipal lawyer and former Vancouver City Councillor)
Excerpt: …this first step of adopting the policy might offend a few principles of Municipal Law. Zoning can only be done by bylaws and not by resolutions or policies of Council. (The proper method is to hold a public hearing and adopt an Official Development Plan.) The legal issue will be whether, by adapting a policy to rezone in advance of an application to rezone, the Council has evaded statutory requirements. Has it revealed such a degree of bias as to be unable to equitably deal with the rezoning?
http://jonathan-baker.blogspot.fr/2012/09/vancouver-does-affordability.html
***************
