Newsletter May 25, 2019
Its Only (Your) Money and Oak Bay’s Character
It is more than half way through the new Council’s first year. What are the indicators so far that there has been any progress in addressing the last Administration’s over-spending, poor management, excessive tax increases, and development friendly agenda?
The main indicators are a 9.15%, 8.4% or a 7.4% (depending on who is reporting) 2019 tax increase; a premature and expensive Infill / Secondary Suite Initiative and the following priority list provided at another poorly publicized important Council Meeting. At the meeting, a Committee of the Whole Annual Report Workshop, the priorities for 2019-2022 were listed as follows:
What does this mean in plain English? How would we measure Leadership, Resilience and Excellence? How will we know when we’re there?
Isn't this similar to the same terminology and rhetoric provided by the previous administration? Or are the same consultants being used?
Some additional detail is included but it follows the same general theme and provides little specific information. It is not clear however, what happened to resident priorities from survey findings, submissions and delegations to Council that specifically identified over-densification and the need to preserve green space. These were main priorities. Many residents don’t even know the main reason their property tax bills (not including costs hidden in their water bills) are creeping up to the double-digit mark: That is: no District Development Cost Charge Bylaw or Schedule, a standard in most BC municipalities.
See Oak Bay News on-line resident letter: https://www.oakbaynews.com/opinion/letter-development-cost-charges-would-lower-property-taxes/ and
May 24, Oak Bay News resident letter to the Editor. Both letters reference this infrastructure charge discrepancy.
Council’s response to this year‘s unprecedented tax increase is to add two more administrative positions. One of the new staff members is to be the Director of Strategic Initiatives, presumably with a director’s pay scale. The job description calls for “developing and implementing a corporate performance management program including key performance indicators”. However, the recently published general, non-specific priorities and goals will make it very difficult to measure progress and performance.
The 2019-2022 priorities leave out the “ground-work” priorities that need to be accomplished first. Mayor Murdoch’s media statement, “Rebuilding Oak Bay Infrastructure - a key pledge for new Mayor Kevin Murdoch” was commendable. However, finding new major revenue sources, notably development cost and housing fund charges, collected just about everywhere else, should be the obvious first step.
It was determined that it is not possible at this stage to improve this year’s Annual Report: however, a commitment was made that next year it will be a different story. On the plus side, the 2019 Annual Report schedule indicates the Annual Report will be presented to the public on June 28, 2019.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
If an immediate start is not made on next years committed Annual Report improvement and more importantly, a Development Cost Charges Bylaw and Schedule (without spending another $50,000 or more on consultants), we will end up with another “picturesque”, uninformative Annual Report document and another unwarranted, inflated annual tax bill.
There have been many indications that one of the primary objectives of the Planning Department and two Council members is to densify Oak Bay’s single-family neighbourhoods. They seem not to understand a foundation must come first before you can start to build. Particularly when improved infrastructure must be provided and there are environmental over-sight, revenue scarcity, Urban Forest Strategy, shoreline protection and, significant public engagement shortcomings involved.
As stated, it is imperative that before any new development is approved a working, easily adaptable Development Cost Charge and Housing Fund Bylaw and Schedule must be implemented. This must be the priority. With the Quest Development looming and being six months from a provisional 2020 budget, now would be the time to ensure these are enacted and operational. It’s no use considering where the money will come from to pay an expected big bill after it arrives.
If a less dense, Community acceptable Quest were approved by Council, it alone, by collecting Development Cost Charges, would represent a 2% reduction in Oak Bay’s “off the charts” current property tax rate. In view of the present tax and cost of living increases residents face they should expect no less.
If adding appropriate density to the District’s village areas on public transit routes is somewhere in the mix, what is the reasoning this has not been prioritized. It seems to us that given the many benefits and most likely Community acceptability, it would be better planning and a much better density starting point than adding more suites and non-revenue population (see Appendix #1 – Vancouver’s Dunbar Neighbourhood experience - first in a series). Adding appropriate density to the District’s village areas would provide the time to adequately research and acquire all of the necessary information to move forward with a balanced growth approach ensuring that all of the public’s interest is included.
---------------------------------
Focus Magazine Editorial Excerpt:
"In this era of media disruption and cutbacks, however, it will come to rest more and more on citizens to investigate, through FOI and other means, government decision-making and truth-telling. Let us know what you learn".
Now that it appears the Oak Bay News is not regularly covering Council meetings perhaps this is why Oak Bay Watch’s readership has increased so much. We do attend Council and Committee and Commission meetings and our members have extensive business, planning, research, journalism and a variety of other backgrounds. We regularly receive information from residents and other Community Groups and we make every effort to ensue the information we provide is accurate and informative. We base our perspectives on the public interest. Other special interest concerns usually have the resources and funding to provide information they consider will benefit them or their members.
----------------------------------------------
*******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 Excerpts from a Vancouver’s Dunbar Neighbourhood Association Newsletter. This is the first in Series of other Communities experience with Infill Development and Secondary Suites. The Dunbar Newsletter does not deal with the very high percentage of non-registered suites or enforcement costs and other difficulties.
Vancouver’s experience is interesting because Infill and Secondary Suite development were presented by the Urban Development Institute’s, Development and Real Estate Industry member’s as keeping housing and rents affordable. How did that work out? Dunbar's Newsletter explains what happened after the initial “foot in the door” Zoning for these types of developments was approved e.g It is leading factor in Vancouver’s dramatically increased Demolition rate and has changed Vancouver neighborhoods look and feel.
Its Only (Your) Money and Oak Bay’s Character
It is more than half way through the new Council’s first year. What are the indicators so far that there has been any progress in addressing the last Administration’s over-spending, poor management, excessive tax increases, and development friendly agenda?
The main indicators are a 9.15%, 8.4% or a 7.4% (depending on who is reporting) 2019 tax increase; a premature and expensive Infill / Secondary Suite Initiative and the following priority list provided at another poorly publicized important Council Meeting. At the meeting, a Committee of the Whole Annual Report Workshop, the priorities for 2019-2022 were listed as follows:
- Demonstrate Leadership in Fostering Community Health and Resilience.
- Enhance and Promote Quality of Life and Sense of Place.
- Provide Service Excellence.
- Achieve Sustainable Service delivery.
- Ensure Access to Diverse Housing Options Within the Built Environment.
What does this mean in plain English? How would we measure Leadership, Resilience and Excellence? How will we know when we’re there?
Isn't this similar to the same terminology and rhetoric provided by the previous administration? Or are the same consultants being used?
Some additional detail is included but it follows the same general theme and provides little specific information. It is not clear however, what happened to resident priorities from survey findings, submissions and delegations to Council that specifically identified over-densification and the need to preserve green space. These were main priorities. Many residents don’t even know the main reason their property tax bills (not including costs hidden in their water bills) are creeping up to the double-digit mark: That is: no District Development Cost Charge Bylaw or Schedule, a standard in most BC municipalities.
See Oak Bay News on-line resident letter: https://www.oakbaynews.com/opinion/letter-development-cost-charges-would-lower-property-taxes/ and
May 24, Oak Bay News resident letter to the Editor. Both letters reference this infrastructure charge discrepancy.
Council’s response to this year‘s unprecedented tax increase is to add two more administrative positions. One of the new staff members is to be the Director of Strategic Initiatives, presumably with a director’s pay scale. The job description calls for “developing and implementing a corporate performance management program including key performance indicators”. However, the recently published general, non-specific priorities and goals will make it very difficult to measure progress and performance.
The 2019-2022 priorities leave out the “ground-work” priorities that need to be accomplished first. Mayor Murdoch’s media statement, “Rebuilding Oak Bay Infrastructure - a key pledge for new Mayor Kevin Murdoch” was commendable. However, finding new major revenue sources, notably development cost and housing fund charges, collected just about everywhere else, should be the obvious first step.
It was determined that it is not possible at this stage to improve this year’s Annual Report: however, a commitment was made that next year it will be a different story. On the plus side, the 2019 Annual Report schedule indicates the Annual Report will be presented to the public on June 28, 2019.
Oak Bay Watch Perspective
If an immediate start is not made on next years committed Annual Report improvement and more importantly, a Development Cost Charges Bylaw and Schedule (without spending another $50,000 or more on consultants), we will end up with another “picturesque”, uninformative Annual Report document and another unwarranted, inflated annual tax bill.
There have been many indications that one of the primary objectives of the Planning Department and two Council members is to densify Oak Bay’s single-family neighbourhoods. They seem not to understand a foundation must come first before you can start to build. Particularly when improved infrastructure must be provided and there are environmental over-sight, revenue scarcity, Urban Forest Strategy, shoreline protection and, significant public engagement shortcomings involved.
As stated, it is imperative that before any new development is approved a working, easily adaptable Development Cost Charge and Housing Fund Bylaw and Schedule must be implemented. This must be the priority. With the Quest Development looming and being six months from a provisional 2020 budget, now would be the time to ensure these are enacted and operational. It’s no use considering where the money will come from to pay an expected big bill after it arrives.
If a less dense, Community acceptable Quest were approved by Council, it alone, by collecting Development Cost Charges, would represent a 2% reduction in Oak Bay’s “off the charts” current property tax rate. In view of the present tax and cost of living increases residents face they should expect no less.
If adding appropriate density to the District’s village areas on public transit routes is somewhere in the mix, what is the reasoning this has not been prioritized. It seems to us that given the many benefits and most likely Community acceptability, it would be better planning and a much better density starting point than adding more suites and non-revenue population (see Appendix #1 – Vancouver’s Dunbar Neighbourhood experience - first in a series). Adding appropriate density to the District’s village areas would provide the time to adequately research and acquire all of the necessary information to move forward with a balanced growth approach ensuring that all of the public’s interest is included.
---------------------------------
Focus Magazine Editorial Excerpt:
"In this era of media disruption and cutbacks, however, it will come to rest more and more on citizens to investigate, through FOI and other means, government decision-making and truth-telling. Let us know what you learn".
Now that it appears the Oak Bay News is not regularly covering Council meetings perhaps this is why Oak Bay Watch’s readership has increased so much. We do attend Council and Committee and Commission meetings and our members have extensive business, planning, research, journalism and a variety of other backgrounds. We regularly receive information from residents and other Community Groups and we make every effort to ensue the information we provide is accurate and informative. We base our perspectives on the public interest. Other special interest concerns usually have the resources and funding to provide information they consider will benefit them or their members.
----------------------------------------------
*******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 Excerpts from a Vancouver’s Dunbar Neighbourhood Association Newsletter. This is the first in Series of other Communities experience with Infill Development and Secondary Suites. The Dunbar Newsletter does not deal with the very high percentage of non-registered suites or enforcement costs and other difficulties.
Vancouver’s experience is interesting because Infill and Secondary Suite development were presented by the Urban Development Institute’s, Development and Real Estate Industry member’s as keeping housing and rents affordable. How did that work out? Dunbar's Newsletter explains what happened after the initial “foot in the door” Zoning for these types of developments was approved e.g It is leading factor in Vancouver’s dramatically increased Demolition rate and has changed Vancouver neighborhoods look and feel.
The Death of Single-Family Neighbourhoods? — Peter Selnar
At the October 21st, 2010, Council meeting, the City Planning Department tabled its internal Report on the monitoring of the first 100 Laneway Houses (LWH) for which permits had been issued. Over 30 members of the public and developers made presentations to Council at this meeting. Other than the developers, the majority of presenters were passionately opposed to Laneway Housing. The primary objections raised were height (almost all LWH being built are two stories high) and the impact on neighbours (there is no permitting requirement for consultation with neighbours). In a letter to Mayor and Council on October 31st, 2010, Ned Jacobs of Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver stated: “Laneway Housing was touted – by our Director of Planning, among others – as ‘invisible density.’ But to a homeowner trying to grow vegetables in the shade of a two-level building, they are anything but. Consequently, many residents were caught unawares of what was actually coming. Now understandably, they feel they were misled.”
Regrettably, Council ignored opposition and recommendations from the public and voted in November to continue with Laneway Housing in its present form throughout the City. So what does this mean for the future of Dunbar and other neighbourhoods across the City? The most important aspect that people need to understand is that single-family zoning no longer exists in over 94% of Vancouver as of July 2009, when Council voted to rezone “RS1 and RS5” zones to permit Laneway Houses on any lot (33 feet or wider), as well as allowing an additional rental suite in the main residence. Secondly, there is no requirement for developers or homeowners who wish to build a Laneway House to obtain approval or to advise neighbours of their intentions – LWHs are now legally an outright use. For residents living in traditional single-family areas, they could at any time be subjected to a second, two-level (20 feet high) structure appearing on the neighbouring property. As more LWHs are built, it is inevitable that other issues will arise, including street parking, privacy, views, loss of trees and reduced natural light. It is curious that the City of Vancouver has decided to vigorously pursue their city-wide densification goals, with Laneway Housing as a major component, without the due diligence that other cities have accorded to this housing form.
“Toronto conducted experiments in LWH over a period of years but, after about 200 had been constructed, concluded that on balance the problems outweighed the benefits. ….Why should such an increase in density be allowed to occur with no consideration as to whether this is in fact the best way to densify? Mayor Gregor Robertson would like Vancouver to become the greenest city on the planet: a laudable aspiration, but one that cannot be achieved by simply pushing through controversial and untested “solutions”. It may be (questionably) argued that a small LWH is energy efficient through the use of double-glazed windows and well-insulated walls and roofs, but what about the impact of the related tear-down of the main house on the property (to be dumped into landfill) and its replacement with a far larger home with numerous washrooms?
Until City Hall truly engages with its citizens instead of merely paying lip service to “greater neighbourhood voice” and “public consultation”, we will continue to head rapidly in that direction.
What Can You Build on a “Single Family Lot” in Dunbar? What about City Services? — Jane Ingman-Baker ,Chair, DVIC
The combined initiatives of Laneway Houses and larger basement suites, brought to Vancouver by the combined NPA/Vision densification initiatives, mean that three separate residences can be built, as of right on any Dunbar lot. Basement suites can now be significantly larger, with a corresponding increase in the total FSR allowed and an additional height allowance for the property. This means that on a 33’ lot, you can build a 2,800 sq ft house with 1,000’ in the basement and the main floor of the house starting 6’ above grade. It also allows for an FSR of .70 without going through the design process. A recent City report states that basement applications are up from 30/year to over 100 last year. Most of the new construction in our area appears to include larger basements.
While many speakers at a recent hearing expressed concern that the present regulations for laneway houses allowed structures that were too high, were invasive and created safety issues in lanes, the present Council is continuing this initiative, started under the last one. a vain attempt to try and reduce the cost of laneway structures. Finally, we learned last year during the budget hearings that residential taxes do not pay for the services that each resident consumes. Thus, to keep adding to the residential load in the City, without a plan to pay for the services these new residents will need, seems to be nothing short of fiscal irresponsibility and certainly not sustainable, however that oft-used term is defined.
-------------------------------------------------
Dunbar and Point Grey residents could hardy be considered activists but as indicated they are clearly not happy with this situation.