Newsletter August 17, 2019
“Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare.”
It’s very interesting that that two recent accounts of new Municipal Council performances since the October 2018 local Government elections, have reached almost identical conclusions of disappointment (see Appendix #1 for full text).
This disappointment stems from the energy it took to raise public awareness about past Council performances and actions and wrestle the reins from the incumbent politicians in power. Particularly those supported by the Media and Development and Real Estate Industries.
In Oak Bay for example the record voter turnout in the 2018 October Municipal election clearly indicated residents wanted a change of direction and were not happy with the District’s leadership policies and administration.
It is apparent then that just changing some Council members and electing a new Mayor is only part of the new storyline. There has been little understanding the old guard put in place the staff, policies (or lack thereof), bylaw changes and resident commission and committee memberships. These remain intact, and are still in place to continue to carry out the previous Council majority priorities and strategies - in effect the reasons for the resident dissatisfaction and Council membership change.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
What is required to correct this situation in Oak Bay is strong leadership and prioritizing the right changes. So far we nave seen little evidence of this and it pretty much looks like it's business as usual. Gone are the newly elected Council members pre-election commitments to provide more transparency, include residents in decision-making and keep taxes in check.
For example: the 2017 and July 2018 Mayor’s Public Engagement Task Force recommendations are still sitting on the shelf; there is no recognition lots are being clear-cut and replaced with overbuilds and excessive paving; and there is no (logical) sequential, detailed priority plan. However, there has been every indication the Planning Department is bent on stepping up uncontrollable, untaxable development initiatives that will negatively impact not only Oak Bay’s character and desirability but many residents as well.
See Articles Appendix #1
------------------------------------------------
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our “based on facts” newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1
By Elizabeth Murphy a private-sector project manager and was formerly a property development officer for the City of Vancouver and B.C. Housing. [email protected]Vancouver under the influence
16/07/2019
The same outside influences established under the former Vision-dominated council continue to drive Vancouver city policyThe results of the last civic election in October 2018 were a clear signal that the public wanted change, but what started out with so much hope has given us more of the same. The Vision dominated council was eliminated but their policies continue. Campaign finance reform has not removed the influences of the big money unions and developers, while the old Vision-appointed staff continue to guide the process.
The recent launch of the City-wide Plan is a case in point. The outline of the four year planning process was publicly posted only days before it went to council – with no prior public input. At the time of writing, the council decision was delayed, but the proposed planning direction was clear.
As outlined, the planning process is little more than a data-mining exercise while continuing the policies and programs established by Vision. Things are going in this direction because the same background influences driving the previous council are still in play, despite many good intentions to change this.
Although Mayor Kennedy Stewart ran as an independent, as a former federal NDP Member of Parliament he came with party ties and endorsement from the Vancouver and District Labour Council (VDLC).
Provincial campaign reform did not include adequate third-party restrictions for municipal elections, essentially creating the equivalent of US-style “super-PACs” that do not have to disclose political funding outside of the six week election period.
The influence of the development industry continues as well. Stewart has had a series of ten meetings with former councillor Raymond Louie and the major developers he is advocating for. These include Ian Gillespie of Westbank Projects Corporation, Bruno and Peter Wall of Wall Financial Corporation, and Brian McCauley of Concert Properties. Stewart also had lunch with Bob Rennie and met with Ryan Beedie of Beedie Development Group. Similar to former mayor Gregor Robertson, Mayor Stewart recently cited how the city is working with their developer “partners” on building new rentals. He then voted down a motion to protect existing rentals in commercial zones to discourage displacement through demolition.
Although Mayor Stewart doesn’t have a council majority, the Vision-appointed (largely American) senior staff guide the new council to continue with old policies.
The procedure bylaw and code of conduct rules are used to muzzle individual councillors, advisory committees, and even the public. Criticism of how city staff interprets the narrative, data, analysis, assumptions or intentions of city policy are met with hostility, censorship and reprimands that closes down full discussion.
While individual councillors must provide notice of their motions and submissions for comments from staff two weeks in advance, staff continue to bring major policy reports to council with little more than two or three business days allowed for the public and council to respond. The City-wide Plan is no different. It proposes major zoning changes throughout the city without any advanced input on the process from the public.
Rather than city residents determining the future direction of their community, city staff are driving changes to Vancouver that will be transformational rather than incremental. This is regardless of the fact that realistic provisions for growth would not require this. The city already has an enormous amount of zoned capacity – even when only counting the sites likely to be developed or in the pipeline – and has enough to meet actual growth projections well past 2040. The city is aiming for 72,000 units from 2017 to 2027, yet based on census data, only 26,000 units are justified. So the city is setting highly inflated growth targets.
As more new development is approved, more displacement occurs as affordable older housing stock is demolished and replaced with expensive new construction.
The City-wide Plan is also proposed to be coordinated and aligned with areas outside of Vancouver, including the whole region extending as far as Seattle and Portland in the United States.
Instead, what is needed is neighbourhood-based growth management for the people who live and work in the city, rather than the promotion and implementation of growth for vested interests well beyond our boundaries.
For any community planning process there is, typically, an interim rezoning policy to prevent spot rezoning or changes outside of the planning process prior to the completion of the plan. This prevents setting development precedents beyond current zoning. The City-wide plan doesn’t have this.
So the Broadway corridor land use plan continues to be implemented from Clark Drive to Vine Street, and 16th Avenue to 1st Avenue. It crosses multiple neighbourhoods that are broken up into sub-areas, that do not fully follow historic neighbourhood boundaries and are not part of the City-wide Plan. If a subway is extended to UBC, the Broadway corridor is proposed to include all of Kitsilano and West Point Grey as well.
The Broadway corridor continues the strategy of the Cambie corridor that imposed a subway land use typology that excluded neighbourhood-based context planning.
The current rental bonus density programs will continue while the City-wide Plan process is underway. This includes the pilot program that has tower spot rezonings that will set large scale building precedents. One example is the project at Broadway and Birch Street at the old Denny’s site. Since this is in the heart of Central Broadway, a 16 storey tower was previously approved. Under the rental pilot it is now proposed to go to 28 storeys with a floor space ratio of 10.52 – far beyond what is currently allowed in the area.
Another example is at developer Wesgroup’s site at Broadway and Alma Street. An application was originally submitted for a six storey market rental project a few years ago, and now is coming back with a new proposal under the pilot project for 14 storeys and 5.8 floor space ratio, setting a new precedent for the surrounding area of Kitsilano and West Point Grey that currently is mostly under four storeys. With staggered floors and orange in colour, it maximizes the impact.
These kinds of blockbusting projects are just the start, especially where corridor planning is implemented without neighbourhood context while setting development precedents that supercede the City-wide Plan. The city should be pressing pause on current policies set by the previous council to allow for a new direction.
___________
Grumpy Taxpayers of Greater Victoria
July 8, 2019
PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Improve governance by bringing in municipal recall legislation
Province often reluctant to step into local dysfunction
Should Greater Victoria politicians be forced to resign and run in a by-election if they lose the confidence of a large enough bloc of voters? asks the advocacy group Grumpy Taxpayer$ of Greater Victoria.
It's not a new idea: In 1995 British Columbia brought in legislation that allows voters to launch campaigns to recall politicians from office 18 months after the provincial election. If a petition had enough signatures - more than 40 per cent of voters in a riding - a by-election would have to be called within 90 days.
"The basis of trust has been broken for many residents," says Stan Bartlett, chair of Grumpy Taxpayer$. "Eight months into a 48-month term - following the advent of partisan election slates - many residents are distrustful, detached, and quite frankly, disgusted with the actions of their city council."
"If local politicians are overtly populist and partisan when it comes to public policy - and seem to live in an alternate universe - should there be additional remedy for municipal taxpayers?" asks Bartlett.
Recall legislation would give frustrated taxpayers an option when faced with the lack of competence of a council, policies that are completely at odds with most of the public, or a fractured governance model.
It's our understanding BC would then become the first jurisdiction in Canada with recall legislation at a municipal level.
The province - no matter the political stripe of the government - is often reluctant to weigh in on dysfunctional local government. For example, despite several years of dueling lawsuits, criminal investigations, physical alterations and scores of senior staff coming and going, the province never intervened in BC's most dysfunctional city of Naniamo.
Recall legislation would allow local taxpayers to do what the province won't, says Bartlett.
To be clear, Grumpy Taxpayer$ is apolitical and non-partisan, and advocates quality and affordable local services for residents. It also believes most residents think municipal affairs shouldn't be a populist and partisan theatrical event that divides a community.
Provincial voters on the other hand have the ability to recall their politicians, and there are other checks and balances in place that might result in a government falling and an election called. Municipal voters have no such recourse for 48 months.
Any recall of local politicians that aren't up to the job could be part of a general overhaul of the BC Local Government Act - the underlying legislation of municipal government - which hasn't seen a substantial review for more than 50 years.
The Community Charter mandates that local politicians consider "the well being and interest of the community", that's all the constituents, not just the small percentage of the population that put them in office.
16/07/2019
The same outside influences established under the former Vision-dominated council continue to drive Vancouver city policyThe results of the last civic election in October 2018 were a clear signal that the public wanted change, but what started out with so much hope has given us more of the same. The Vision dominated council was eliminated but their policies continue. Campaign finance reform has not removed the influences of the big money unions and developers, while the old Vision-appointed staff continue to guide the process.
The recent launch of the City-wide Plan is a case in point. The outline of the four year planning process was publicly posted only days before it went to council – with no prior public input. At the time of writing, the council decision was delayed, but the proposed planning direction was clear.
As outlined, the planning process is little more than a data-mining exercise while continuing the policies and programs established by Vision. Things are going in this direction because the same background influences driving the previous council are still in play, despite many good intentions to change this.
Although Mayor Kennedy Stewart ran as an independent, as a former federal NDP Member of Parliament he came with party ties and endorsement from the Vancouver and District Labour Council (VDLC).
Provincial campaign reform did not include adequate third-party restrictions for municipal elections, essentially creating the equivalent of US-style “super-PACs” that do not have to disclose political funding outside of the six week election period.
The influence of the development industry continues as well. Stewart has had a series of ten meetings with former councillor Raymond Louie and the major developers he is advocating for. These include Ian Gillespie of Westbank Projects Corporation, Bruno and Peter Wall of Wall Financial Corporation, and Brian McCauley of Concert Properties. Stewart also had lunch with Bob Rennie and met with Ryan Beedie of Beedie Development Group. Similar to former mayor Gregor Robertson, Mayor Stewart recently cited how the city is working with their developer “partners” on building new rentals. He then voted down a motion to protect existing rentals in commercial zones to discourage displacement through demolition.
Although Mayor Stewart doesn’t have a council majority, the Vision-appointed (largely American) senior staff guide the new council to continue with old policies.
The procedure bylaw and code of conduct rules are used to muzzle individual councillors, advisory committees, and even the public. Criticism of how city staff interprets the narrative, data, analysis, assumptions or intentions of city policy are met with hostility, censorship and reprimands that closes down full discussion.
While individual councillors must provide notice of their motions and submissions for comments from staff two weeks in advance, staff continue to bring major policy reports to council with little more than two or three business days allowed for the public and council to respond. The City-wide Plan is no different. It proposes major zoning changes throughout the city without any advanced input on the process from the public.
Rather than city residents determining the future direction of their community, city staff are driving changes to Vancouver that will be transformational rather than incremental. This is regardless of the fact that realistic provisions for growth would not require this. The city already has an enormous amount of zoned capacity – even when only counting the sites likely to be developed or in the pipeline – and has enough to meet actual growth projections well past 2040. The city is aiming for 72,000 units from 2017 to 2027, yet based on census data, only 26,000 units are justified. So the city is setting highly inflated growth targets.
As more new development is approved, more displacement occurs as affordable older housing stock is demolished and replaced with expensive new construction.
The City-wide Plan is also proposed to be coordinated and aligned with areas outside of Vancouver, including the whole region extending as far as Seattle and Portland in the United States.
Instead, what is needed is neighbourhood-based growth management for the people who live and work in the city, rather than the promotion and implementation of growth for vested interests well beyond our boundaries.
For any community planning process there is, typically, an interim rezoning policy to prevent spot rezoning or changes outside of the planning process prior to the completion of the plan. This prevents setting development precedents beyond current zoning. The City-wide plan doesn’t have this.
So the Broadway corridor land use plan continues to be implemented from Clark Drive to Vine Street, and 16th Avenue to 1st Avenue. It crosses multiple neighbourhoods that are broken up into sub-areas, that do not fully follow historic neighbourhood boundaries and are not part of the City-wide Plan. If a subway is extended to UBC, the Broadway corridor is proposed to include all of Kitsilano and West Point Grey as well.
The Broadway corridor continues the strategy of the Cambie corridor that imposed a subway land use typology that excluded neighbourhood-based context planning.
The current rental bonus density programs will continue while the City-wide Plan process is underway. This includes the pilot program that has tower spot rezonings that will set large scale building precedents. One example is the project at Broadway and Birch Street at the old Denny’s site. Since this is in the heart of Central Broadway, a 16 storey tower was previously approved. Under the rental pilot it is now proposed to go to 28 storeys with a floor space ratio of 10.52 – far beyond what is currently allowed in the area.
Another example is at developer Wesgroup’s site at Broadway and Alma Street. An application was originally submitted for a six storey market rental project a few years ago, and now is coming back with a new proposal under the pilot project for 14 storeys and 5.8 floor space ratio, setting a new precedent for the surrounding area of Kitsilano and West Point Grey that currently is mostly under four storeys. With staggered floors and orange in colour, it maximizes the impact.
These kinds of blockbusting projects are just the start, especially where corridor planning is implemented without neighbourhood context while setting development precedents that supercede the City-wide Plan. The city should be pressing pause on current policies set by the previous council to allow for a new direction.
___________
Grumpy Taxpayers of Greater Victoria
July 8, 2019
PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Improve governance by bringing in municipal recall legislation
Province often reluctant to step into local dysfunction
Should Greater Victoria politicians be forced to resign and run in a by-election if they lose the confidence of a large enough bloc of voters? asks the advocacy group Grumpy Taxpayer$ of Greater Victoria.
It's not a new idea: In 1995 British Columbia brought in legislation that allows voters to launch campaigns to recall politicians from office 18 months after the provincial election. If a petition had enough signatures - more than 40 per cent of voters in a riding - a by-election would have to be called within 90 days.
"The basis of trust has been broken for many residents," says Stan Bartlett, chair of Grumpy Taxpayer$. "Eight months into a 48-month term - following the advent of partisan election slates - many residents are distrustful, detached, and quite frankly, disgusted with the actions of their city council."
"If local politicians are overtly populist and partisan when it comes to public policy - and seem to live in an alternate universe - should there be additional remedy for municipal taxpayers?" asks Bartlett.
Recall legislation would give frustrated taxpayers an option when faced with the lack of competence of a council, policies that are completely at odds with most of the public, or a fractured governance model.
It's our understanding BC would then become the first jurisdiction in Canada with recall legislation at a municipal level.
The province - no matter the political stripe of the government - is often reluctant to weigh in on dysfunctional local government. For example, despite several years of dueling lawsuits, criminal investigations, physical alterations and scores of senior staff coming and going, the province never intervened in BC's most dysfunctional city of Naniamo.
Recall legislation would allow local taxpayers to do what the province won't, says Bartlett.
To be clear, Grumpy Taxpayer$ is apolitical and non-partisan, and advocates quality and affordable local services for residents. It also believes most residents think municipal affairs shouldn't be a populist and partisan theatrical event that divides a community.
Provincial voters on the other hand have the ability to recall their politicians, and there are other checks and balances in place that might result in a government falling and an election called. Municipal voters have no such recourse for 48 months.
Any recall of local politicians that aren't up to the job could be part of a general overhaul of the BC Local Government Act - the underlying legislation of municipal government - which hasn't seen a substantial review for more than 50 years.
The Community Charter mandates that local politicians consider "the well being and interest of the community", that's all the constituents, not just the small percentage of the population that put them in office.