Councillor Boyle’s motion sought up to 12-storeys in every neighbourhood, with no public hearings (Motion failed)

Photos: On left, a 12-storey tower (2nd and Ontario) as an example of what Clr Boyle is proposing for any part of any neighbourhood in all RM, RT, RS, and CM zones. On right example of a building currently permitted in RM-4 (1656 Adanac Street).

(Updated 5/25 – After hearing the final speaker of 126 registered and then going through several who had missed their chance, Council debated, defeated/withdrew amendments, and then voted. The motion failed with 3 in favour, 7 opposed, and one abstention. The closing statements repeated many of the concerns and points raised by speakers, and are worth a listen when posted online on the City’s agenda page within a couple days. CityHallWatch will do a follow-up post soon.

**********

… Meanwhile, here is a fresh article about how speculation and price escalation occur from zoning changes that significantly increase height and density, relevant to our current discussion: “Home prices go up nearly 300 percent of assessment on Vancouver street with new six-storey condo project” (Carlito Pablo, Georgia Straight, 24-May-2021). Supporters of Clr Boyle’s motion to rezone most of Vancouver for greater height and density for buildings that could have up to 70% market rentals may claim that price escalation won’t occur, opponents of her motion say that what counts is not the use but the size and form of the building, so Boyle’s motion will indeed escalate land prices, profit expectations, displacement of people, and demolitions.

**********

Councillor Christine Boyle has put a motion on the Council agenda for Tuesday, May 18, 2021 (see Motion 2 under B. Council Members’ Motions). It is entitled “Reducing Barriers and Deepening Affordability for Non-Profit, Co-op and Social Housing in Every Neighbourhood.

It would more accurately be named “Fast-tracking 12 storeys and 6 FSR* in every neighbourhood for 70% market priced housing and  30% below-market rental via fast-track processes and no public hearings.” (*FSR is “floor space ratio,” a measure of density on a site, and 6 FSR would mean a building with square footage six times the site area.)

It would affect RM3A  and RM4 zones (currently for 3-4 storey apartments) and RS / RT zones (currently for houses and duplexes with secondary suites and laneway houses) and C2 zones (existing 4 storey shopping areas). In other words, most of the city (see map below).

While it is stated to be for 100% social housing, the city would allow up to 70% of the units with market priced rents.  So this claim is very misleading. Regardless of the tenure, the main issue is the scale of 12 storeys and 6 FSR. These buildings would be huge and put development pressure on existing more affordable housing that would displace people. Further, the towers would be allowed within zoning so it would not require a rezoning public hearing. This motion undermines community planning.

If the motion is approved, it sets a virtually unstoppable train in motion. The motion text was made available to the public just a few days ago, which poses considerable challenges for neighbourhoods and citizens to analyze, digest and discuss on such a short time frame, Clr Boyle and current mayor Kennedy Stewart and so-called “abundant housing” activists have apparently worked together and had a head start of several days, using online letter generators to inundate council members in support of the motion. The OneCity political party, and Vancouver District Labour Council (VLDC) also have an organized campaign to activate members to lobby City Council on the misleading slogan that “It should not be harder to build social housing in Vancouver than it is to build million dollar homes.”

We provide action-related information first, then analysis below. Note that the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods has written to Council opposing the motion, with their own detailed analysis.

ACTION

Anyone with concerns about this motion is encouraged to write to Council and may also wish to speak (deadline to sign up to speak 8:30 am May 18, and speakers will likely be on Wed. May 19). People can write to Council via e-mail but messages must go via the City’s online form in order to be counted in official numbers.

City’s online form (update – evening of Tuesday, May 25): https://vancouver.ca/your-government/contact-council.aspx
Requests to speak: The Speakers list closed on May 18.

OVERVIEW

The motion is purportedly to promote “non-profit, co-op and social housing” but the “therefore” section of the motion only mentions “social housing.” And as we have covered before, the City continues to use a deceptive definition of social housing not used anywhere else (see our post “An update on Vancouver’s bizarre definition of ‘social housing’“). In a nutshell, social housing proposals in Vancouver are “not as advertised.” Due to changes done by Vision Vancouver, “social housing” is defined as 70% market rental and 30% below market rental.

Clr Boyle’s motion would lead to a staff report, then one single rezoning public hearing with just several days notice for the public to review documents, after which development applications would go straight to the Development Permit Board (four senior managers at City Hall), and in some cases, straight to the desk of the just one person (the chief planner) for approval, basically circumventing any real opportunity for neighbourhood input. (Our new chief planner as of April 2021 has only lived in Canada, and in Vancouver, for two years, so one wonders how much a grasp of Vancouver’s neighbourhoods, history, and culture, she would have to guide momentous decisions.) Applications developed with staff and then going straight to the DPB or chief planner would make our elected officials unaccountable and instead give enormous power and responsibility to just one or a few public servants. The City often uses the words “deepening” and “deeper” affordability and this motion mentions it several times. “Deep” may be a convenient adjective to sell the concept of “affordability,” and people can make their own assumptions, but no clear definition is provided for what it really means.

BELOW: Map of RM, RS, RT, C2 Zoning Districts. Clr Boyle’s motion fails to indicate visually what areas are affected, so we have created a basic map from VanMap. Areas affected by the motion are shaded light blue. Basically, it’s most of Vancouver. We have confirmed with Clr Boyle by e-mail that blue areas of the map are indeed subject of her motion. She also wrote, “What makes sense in one place on this map may not make sense in another.” We followed up asking for her general criteria of what “makes sense,” and the response was that in RS and RT zones the “appropriate height and density would be lower,” but as we have seen from other planning processes at the City, you give an inch and they take a mile.

Now, we get into the details.

Whatever Clr Boyle’s intentions as stated in the preamble to the motion, what really counts is the exact wording in the “therefore” section (copied here – and see the full text of the motion further below):

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
A.THAT Council direct staff to bring forward recommendations for Council to consider referring to Public Hearing that would allow development of up to 12 storeys (with a corresponding increase in FSR) in the RM-3A and the RM-4 and RM-4N zoning districts where 100% of the residential floor area is developed as social housing, or social housing in conjunction with a child day care facility.

B.THAT Council direct staff to report back with considerations and recommendations to allow additional height and FSR in other zoning districts (including RS, RT, RM, and mixed commercial-residential zones) where 100% of the residential floor area is developed as social housing, or social housing in conjunction with a child day care facility, and any corresponding improvements in the TRPP that staff would recommend. Consideration should be given, but not limited, to:

i. Options that could be incorporated as part of current work on the Secured Rental Policy, including additional height and density specifically for social housing in new standard rental district schedules intended to streamline future site-specific rezonings in RS and RT zoned areas, with a report back to Council targeted in Q3 2021; and

ii. Options, including City-initiated zoning changes, that would enable more social housing projects to proceed without a rezoning, that could be delivered as part of longer-term work through the Vancouver Plan, as well as through the Broadway Plan.

***********

ANALYSIS

Here is our own brief analysis of what is actually being proposed by Clr Boyle.

What the motion seeks to do is to again double the height and density that was recently doubled in the changes to the base RM-4 and RM-3A zones in Grandview-Woodland, Mount Pleasant, Kitsilano, Marpole and Fairview. For example, RM-4 zones previously had limits of 35 ft (3 or 4 storeys) and 1.45 FSR maximum.

Council voted in April to change these zones to 65 ft height and 3 FSR (and not 2.5 FSR, as they amended upwards after closing the speakers list). (See our post and a postscript for details.)

Now Clr. Boyle wants to double that again, to “12-storeys” and 6 FSR, which is about 400% (four times) what is permitted under existing zoning.

This is for the City’s definition of ‘social housing’ which can mean up to 70% rental. The stipulation is that the building has to be run by a non-profit. There’s no clarity on how partnerships with for-profit firms (for financing or construction/development) are allowed, as players like Colliers (the “largest commercial real estate services firm in Canada”) are in this space. They are not a “non-profit” by any means.

Clr. Boyle is trying to justify this by saying it is limited to sites in these zones that fit the City’s definition of “social housing,” and she is also claiming that there might be a limited “window” for funding from the tax dollars via the federal and provincial governments. The motion is claiming it will shave off time from the rezoning process and thus save costs. Yet the sought-after changes would be permanent.

There’s a part ‘B’ of the Motion’s “Therefore” section that not only includes the RM zones (should part A fail), but also the RT, RS, and commercial C2 zones for this kind of upzoning, to be brought back to Council by the third quarter of 2021.

For clarity, this would affect RM3A /RM4 zones (currently for 3-4 storey apartments) and RS / RT zones (currently for houses and duplexes with secondary suites, laneway houses) and C2 zones (existing 4 storey shopping areas).

This motion has a number of drawbacks that were already noted by groups who opposed the upzoning of RM-4 and RM-3A zones this April:

  • Up to 70% of the units can be expensive market rental.
  • Demovictions would cause major displacement of established communities, there is no guarantee that everyone displaced will be able to return (at some future time at the same rates and conditions), and there is uncertainty on how tenant relocation would occur.
  • “Land lift” (increases in land value due to zoning changes for increased height and density) would occur regardless of the proposed use of the land, which sets precedents in the surrounding area for height and density. The result: speculation, and more expensive land.
  • Lot assemblies and buying out existing rentals (Clr Boyle’s motion offers enough of a margin to make this viable).
  • The Motion goes against community planning practices and consultation processes.
  • Housing Vancouver Strategy numbers referenced in the motion are not based on reality, and staff have to this day still failed to provide data that was requested by City Council (former chief planner Gil Kelley gave an incomplete response on July 31, 2020, and the new chief planner Theresa O’Donnell has not yet complied with Council request).
  • The motion references “12 storeys” and provides no actual dimension height, but her proposal actually means heights of 120 to 130 feet, with FSR density of 6.0, and these could be located anywhere in the zones referenced. This could make for poor urban design, and this motion is not the right approach for a city to embark on such significant changes in the design of neighbourhoods. There’s a reason why larger and denser buildings are typically located on arterials (as one side of the building will front a street that is 66- or 99-feet wide and the back will likely have a laneway, thus providing separation and space. Doing 12-storeys with 6 FSR anywhere in “every neighbourhood” on narrow side streets throws urban design principles out the window.
  • A 12-storey and 6 FSR option becomes the base or starting point for a rezoning (in neighbourhoods where the it might be a 3 or 4-storey and 1.45 FSR base).
  • There’s nothing stopping the City from developing an expedited rezoning process just for ‘social housing’ units that could shave much time off their process that can be lengthy (waive letter of enquiry, UDP review, and other steps).
  • There are environment impacts of tearing down and landfilling buildings that may be 30 to 50 years old (versus preserving the existing affordable rental housing stock and building on sites without rental).
  • Don’t be fooled with the “non-profit” wording. There is significant money in ‘non-profit’ housing construction, in terms of fees, building materials, financing, construction, all of which are generally paid at market rates.

OTHER INFO

Mayor Kennedy Stewart since last week has been circulating a link to an online petition asking for support of Councillor Christine Boyle’s motion to “build on council’s recent vote to allow six story housing developments in select areas by increasing it to allow taller buildings and expanding elsewhere in the city. The plan is to “greatly accelerate the development of thousands of affordable homes across Vancouver, from Point Grey to Killarney, from Dunbar to Hastings-Sunrise.” His e-mail campaign links to his donation-seeking, data-collection, election campaign website, which stores your personal data outside the country, in the United States. One could say that anything goes, but citizens are right to wonder it if is appropriate for the mayor to be operating a fundraising and data collection campaign based on a petition targeting his peers on City Council to support a motion by one of the elected officials. Meanwhile, motion proponent Christine Boyle is running a social media campaign leading to a one-click letter generator that spams all members of City Council seeking support for her motion.

FULL text of motion (PDF below, followed by actual text)

Click to access b2.pdf

***********

FULL TEXT at this link – https://council.vancouver.ca/20210518/documents/b2.pdf

COUNCIL MEMBERS’ MOTION

Submitted by: Councillor Boyle

B.2

2. Reducing Barriers and Deepening Affordability for Non-Profit, Co-op and Social Housing in Every Neighbourhood

WHEREAS
1. An increasing number of residents in Vancouver are struggling to find stable, secure housing at a rate that is affordable for local incomes. Renters, including seniors, people with disabilities, single parent (often female-led) households, youth, and Indigenous communities are particularly squeezed by this housing crisis, and are in even greater need of being able to access secure, affordable housing;

2. In addition, the need for accessible and adaptable rental housing for seniors and people with disabilities, at prices that are affordable to middle and
low-income residents, is significant and will increase even further over the next two decades;

3. Vancouver’s housing market has seen significant increases in land values and housing costs, pricing a growing number of residents out of the housing market. The escalation of home prices has also led to significant displacement, particularly of renters, and low and middle-income residents;

4. Complete, walkable communities rely on essential workers such as health care workers and grocery store clerks, who should have the opportunity to work near their jobs, rather than having to commute long distances to get to their jobs. Research suggests that mixed-income communities have better outcomes for all residents (not just low-income residents) because of a greater access to services;

5. The Housing Vancouver Strategy (2018-2027) includes a target of 12,000 new social, supportive and coop homes by 2027. As of Q4 2020, the City has approved new development applications to meet 47% of this target. The City is also committed to partnering with urban Indigenous organizations to deliver culturally appropriate housing developments. The high number of households in Vancouver paying over 30% of their income in rent indicates that more non-profit, co-op, and social housing is needed;

6. The City’s definition of social housing in the Zoning and Development By-law requires the housing be owned and operated on a not-for-profit basis by
non-profit housing societies, co-op, or government agencies. And that at a minimum 30% of the units are occupied by households with incomes below Housing Income Limits set out by the Province. Many new developments rely on mixed-income housing models, with a mix of affordability levels to cover costs, typically with affordability deepening over time or deepening through access to senior government funding;

7. The Community Housing sector, made up of non-profit and co-op housing providers, is an important partner in the provision of affordable non-market housing across Vancouver, and the sector’s capacity in Vancouver has grown significantly over recent years;

8. Housing created in partnership with the community housing sector is “speculation free” housing because of the requirement through the CRA to maximize affordability, and because of the ability to place covenants on non-profit buildings that prevent sale for profit;

9. City staff analysis has demonstrated that half of recent social housing developments have required rezoning through a public hearing process, compared to less than a third of market condominium development. Single detached homes do not require a public hearing, even when a new detached home is significantly larger and more expensive than the one it is replacing. The added time and cost of requiring a public hearing impacts what type of housing gets built, and it is currently not aligned with what type of housing is most needed;

10. Rezoning for a non-profit typically takes a year or longer, and can add approximately $400,000-$800,000 onto the cost of a project, as well as requiring significant municipal staff time. This results in rents that are higher at occupancy and/or means that limited capital subsidies from senior levels of government get expended more quickly, meaning less housing overall. Reducing the cost, time and risk required to build non-profit and coop housing will result in savings for residents and deeper affordability in the new housing created;

11. We are in a window of strong alignment between Federal and Provincial governments in terms of developing affordable and non-profit housing. Some of these senior government funding programs require approved zoning for eligibility. Having appropriate municipal zoning in place allows non-profit and co-op housing providers to access this senior government funding much more easily, speeding up timelines and achieving deeper levels of affordability;

12. Major redevelopments still include opportunities for public engagement. Even when they don’t require a public hearing, the Development Permit process includes public notification and opportunities for comment, and could still require a Development Permit Hearing process, providing residents an opportunity to address the Development Permit Board in a public meeting;

13. There are currently about 526 non-profit and government owned housing properties in Vancouver, serving 26,000 households. 107 of those properties are in the RM-3A, RM-4 and RM-4N zoning districts;

14. Vancouver’s Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy, updated by Council in 2019, outlines specific protections for tenants in the case of a redevelopment for non-profit social housing. These protections are more stringent than for for-profit market development, and include:

a) Ensuring permanent rehousing options that limit disruption to residents;
b) The alternative accommodation option provided must be affordable based on income; and
c) Support with relocation and consideration of special circumstances;

15. At Public Hearing on April 20, 2021, Council unanimously approved recommendations to allow development of up to six storeys in the RM-3A and the RM-4 and RM-4N zoning districts where 100% of the residential floor area is developed as social housing, or social housing in conjunction with a child day care facility; and

16. At the above Public Hearing, numerous local experts in non-profit and co-op housing expressed a need for Council to be more ambitious in terms of both height and FSR to give non-profit housing providers the flexibility to optimize the number and affordability of new homes possible on each site. In response, City legal and planning staff outlined that significant amendments at the Public Hearing stage are not ideal, and that if Council wanted to be more ambitious in this regard, a preferable route would be through a separate Council motion.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED

A. THAT Council direct staff to bring forward recommendations for Council to consider referring to Public Hearing that would allow development of up to 12 storeys (with a corresponding increase in FSR) in the RM-3A and the RM-4 and RM-4N zoning districts where 100% of the residential floor area is developed as social housing, or social housing in conjunction with a child day care facility.

B. THAT Council direct staff to report back with considerations and recommendations to allow additional height and FSR in other zoning districts (including RS, RT, RM, and mixed commercial-residential zones) where 100% of the residential floor area is developed as social housing, or social housing in conjunction with a child day care facility, and any corresponding improvements in the TRPP that staff would recommend. Consideration should be given, but not limited, to:

i. Options that could be incorporated as part of current work on the Secured Rental Policy, including additional height and density specifically for social housing in new standard rental district schedules intended to streamline future site-specific rezonings in RS and RT zoned areas, with a report back to Council targeted in Q3 2021; and

ii. Options, including City-initiated zoning changes, that would enable more social housing projects to proceed without a rezoning, that could be delivered as part of longer-term work through the Vancouver Plan, as well as through the Broadway Plan.

* * * * *

ADDENDUM (5/18)

CHW responses on Clr Boyle’s typical responses on this topic. We may do a separate post with FAQ.

OUR questions to Clr Boyle were:

  • We have done a post on your motion for May 18 and did our best to show the areas affected. Something like that would help Council and the public better understand things. Could you please check this map attached to confirm it generally represents the areas affected (RM, RS, RT, CM) by your motion? If you have something better, pls let us know!

She replied – The motion proposes we look at these areas, in terms of non-profit and co-op housing, but without a specific recommendation for the appropriate height or density in them. What makes sense in one place on this map may not make sense in another. But should we make it easier to build affordable housing than not-affordable housing in all of the areas on this map? Yes, I think so.

We the asked –

  • Your response is “YES” this map represents the subject areas in your Motion, correct?
  • Also, in your response here… as the proponent of the motion, what do you have in mind when you say “What makes sense in one place on this map may not make sense in another?” What are your general criteria for what “makes sense”?
  • Your THEREFORE wording says “additional height and FSR in other zoning districts (including RS, RT, RM, and mixed commercial-residential zones)…” Presumably, you have some range or magnitude in mind, since you went through the effort of preparing the motion. Are 12 storeys and 6 FSR indeed within the realm of what you will be advocating for and/or supporting?
  • Finally, the THEREFORE wording says “100% of the residential floor area is developed as social housing.” The wording is confusing people. With the City’s definition of “social housing,” 100% of residential floor area is considered “social housing” even if only 30% of the building floor area is “below market” rental. Is your motion using the City’s definition?

She replied – Like I said, the motion proposes we look at these areas, in terms of non-profit and co-op housing, but without a specific recommendation for the appropriate height or density in them. And I sincerely don’t have a specific height/density in mind for these areas. “Up to 12 stories” is what I’m proposing in RM3/4 zones, where we know there are already many multi-family buildings between 4-12 stories in height. Obviously the context in RS/RT zones is different, and the appropriate height and density would be lower. I am not prescribing in the motion what that height should be.

On the question of the definition of social housing, the specific requirements are:
1.) That the housing be operated on a not-for-profit basis (meaning that even if there are units rented at “market” rates, the revenue generated by those units needs to be used to subsidize the deeper affordability of other units, as there can’t be a profit made).
2.) That a minimum of 30% of the units be rented below HILS.

What I know from the non-profit housing sector is that their mission is to provide as deeply affordable housing as possible. Reducing barriers and speeding up timelines (and adding more units) helps make this possible. And because their CRA status requires them to not make any profit, all of the savings from those actions get put back into deeper affordability. And typically that affordability increases over time, as up front costs are paid off.

So while the second requirement above isn’t a very significant affordability requirement, it is the minimum. And the first requirement is, I think more important.

OUR comments on Clr Boyle’s response –

  • RM3A and RM4 are only zoned for 3 to 4 storeys not 4 to 12 storeys as she suggests. Any taller buildings are grandfathered from before that zoning was put in place in the 1970s to prevent more of those tall buildings.
  • A non-profit may be not be permitted to gain a “profit” as an organization, but the consultants, builders, developers, financiers, managers, and employees will not be required to be non-profit and their profits will be deducted first. There are many ways companies extract profits from “non-profits.”
  • The bigger these buildings are, the more they will attract developers who can create a “non-profit” corporation.
  • The scale of the buildings will set precedents for future market condo projects in the subject zones. This potential will invite significant land speculation. Developers will buy up existing rentals with the intent to redevelop.

8 thoughts on “Councillor Boyle’s motion sought up to 12-storeys in every neighbourhood, with no public hearings (Motion failed)

  1. I like the photo of the 12 storey building at 2nd and Ontario that you posted. It illustrates well the 6 FSR density and massing. Many people do not understand the concept of FSR and massing.

    An FSR of 6 with a 12 storey max means a building can be 12 storeys tall, but cannot have a floor area of more than SIX times the area of the lot that it is built on.

    So, with a two storey podium covering the entire lot, that uses up 2 FSR. The remainder of the building, from floor 3 to floor 12, is set back from all property lines a bit, so that the floor plate covers less than 50% of the size of the lot. There you have your remaining 4 FSR.

    Elizabeth Murphy points out that amenity spaces and childcare facilities are EXEMPTED from the FSR limits in the city’s FSR calculations. So in fact, the TOTAL FSR of the building can be somewhat GREATER than 6 FSR.

  2. This City Council is ruining our City for future generations. They are definitely taking away OUR DEMOCRACY! and creating a haven for criminals. Vancouver has a history of being a beautiful city with tremendous diversity and cultural richness. I am tired of being lied to by City Council. They speak with a forked tongues! Citizens are not being given the whole picture. This is not the City’s way of getting the homeless off our streets. It is, yet again, a way to give developers a quick access to build and a licence to rape and pillage our beautiful city.

  3. Rahter than considering a doubling of permitted height perhaps the Council should make it less onerous for people to rent suites in their houses, without doing massive renovations and even then being rejected. New houses with brand new basement suites at code are not being allowed to rent their suites which in a time of chronic housing shortages is nothing less than criminal.

    • Candace, such suites are mainly rejected because the owners “meet code” but are not willing to go through the approval process, either because they are afraid of it, because they do not want to incur additional costs, because they do not want their taxes and utilities to go up, or MOSTLY, because they do not want to provide onsite parking for the tenant, but to have 100% heir yards for their own use.

      Do you want to see a proliferation of suites and the consequent demand on limited street parking? This happened in the Clayton Heights area of Surrey and it was a massive gong show.

      • No Adam, I do not want to see a proliferation of parking spots created for people, but rather I hope to see more use of Evo, car-sharing, bikes, public transit, wealking (to stores and schools close by – not greater than 8 blocks!) and I want to see the City end it’s prohibitive, costly and over-complicated system of monitoring people’s homes!
        Mo Adam, I want to see the housing crisis in Vanoucver solved, by making use of suites in homes that are highly priced and hard for owners to adfford, and I hope that the city will follow through on its priorities for other methods of transport than the personal car which is parked for most of the time and making moving around the City difficult for some and impossible for others! I think more people would be happy to get involved with City approval process because it is so drawn out, costly and onerous! I don’t think we should give up ANY green space for cars AT ALL. I know from towns in the UK and Europe built before cars that some clever parking spots can also be created – but clever is just not an option in Vancouver it seems.

  4. What has happened to transparency and democracy in Vancouver housing development? And what happened to common sense? None of these are at play when the city councillors and mayor decide to enable the construction of non-market, social and co-op housing up to 12 storeys without the need for rezoning or public hearings.

    I find it shocking that BC Housing will not be required to seek a rezoning application to build its proposed 12-storey tower at Arbutus and 7th Avenue, nor will Council hold public hearings. In a low-rise neighbourhood, such an action, taken without the input of the community that will to be directly (and adversely) affected is unconscionable and undemocratic. It is not council’s prerogative to shove its ideas down our throats without consultation. You are supposed to be our representatives, not self-appointed dictators.

    Not only is the process autocratic, but the idea of introducing a 12-storey building for any purpose in a low-rise neighbourhood is ludicrous. Kitsilano does not want to or need to become an extension of downtown.

    BC Housing is seeking an exception to zoning based on the idea that this 12-storey monstrosity for social housing is the correct one (disputed by experts!) and that the supposed good (and there are far more humane and effective solutions than warehousing!) of a small group of people is more important than the safety and health of the pre-existing community, including the 1,700 kids who go to school in this area.

    What other options have been explored?

    City Hall should be able to articulate and have data to show that such a plan is workable, functional, safe, and better than other housing options. Instead, they’re trying to rush this through without due process.

    Wake up, Kennedy and councillors. Warehousing the homeless in a 12-storey building is not a good solution for them or for the neighbourhood! The homeless are not cattle. They deserve a solution that works. Furthermore, you couldn’t pick a worse spot: smack in between a children’s park, a school and the well-used greenway. What a recipe for disaster on all counts!

    Please hold proper consultation, and respect the needs and integrity of the entire neighbourhood.

    Regards,

    Glenda Leznoff

  5. I was born and bred in Vancouver and am offended how this city ended up with fentanyl and homelessness as a results of the Vancouver Model. To add some history and facts to your thoughts statements and the motion:

    1) All apartment zones were originally designed to accommodate 12 story buildings under The Tower Development Guidelines first established after the second world war into 1970’s. Under the city’s authority due to nimbyism, lack of foresight with short term patches, bylaws such as the Rate of Change Bylaw and others is exactly how we have ended up as the favourite speculation market of the world and our original planning for growth was thrown away. Everything became a Development Permit or Rezoning mostly only available for the ultra rich.

    2) Yes you are correct there have been density increases given to large areas of the city. With the city first opening up large areas across the city for market sales, rentals, etc, this results in all the city’s populace benefiting. Both for renters and owners while stopping speculation and allow growth to reduce rental rates

    3) Many of you appear to of forgotten that the Broadway Corridor Review has locked off the primmest development area of the city; from 16th to the water & Clark to Vine street since June 2018 for 3 years. This in fact is where many of the non profits, affordable housing , day care and medical support housing are truly needed. Further a strong and clear mandate of the Broadway Corridor Planning Study was to reduce speculation. Didn’t you read the document or updates?

    4)The highest speculation area is or would of been surrounding the Broadway corridor will now induce social, medical, affordable housing, day care and dramatically reduces speculation. I believe people who live here, or were born here and care for each other will see this as a gift, one that we are taking care of our poor, senior children and indigent; return our City’s soul. By doing that in conjunction with legalizing drugs to removing black market profit we have a chance to promote kindness versus the plague of 100’s of addict’s with $500 to 1000 dollar a day habits.

    5) Lastly the comments regarding financing I saw are either naive or ignorant. I highly compliment The Council for aligning the City’s needs to the Federal and Provincial Governments financing programs. I am aware of many of these highly beneficial programs and the direct and indirect benefits to the City. It was a brilliant and calculated move to grow a wise and healthy city in all ways.

    In the 1960’s to 70′ I often walked down Pender street near Main, then onto the back alleys to the Green, Screen and Grey doors and believe we can return to that soon. Some of you may of remembered those times. So instead of fighting the change that must happen lets embrace it and make Vancouver the jewel it was and still is.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s