Are you aware that the District of Oak Bay is a member of a Major Urban Development Lobbying Organization?
For some time now many members of the Community and Oak Bay Watch have been trying to get to bottom of:
A possible explanation for all this is that the District is a member of the Urban Development Institute (UDI). Furthermore, the Director of Building and Planning is Oak Bay’s representative. What Is UDI and who belongs? The Urban Development Institute describes itself as the “the voice of the Development and the Real Estate Industry; the UDI team of industry leaders and professional staff who are active in promoting the interests of the Development Community”.
An important function is to lobby all levels of Government. UDI states that it represents thousands of individuals involved in all facets of land development and planning, including: developers, property managers, financial lenders, lawyers, engineers, planners, architects, appraisers, real estate professionals.
Oak Bay residents will be familiar with many of the names of its 164 members in the Capital Region: Abstract Developments, Large & Co., Pemberton Holmes, Royal Lepage, Engel & Volkers, RBC, CIBC. This is but a sample. To discover more, refer to udi.bc.ca. Residents will remember that they were asked to accept that the Cadboro/Bowker Condo Development the King George Terrace Subdivision and the Quest Luxury Condo Development are the way of the future for Oak Bay.
The Urban Development Institute recommends joining its, “team of industry leaders and professionals who influence the issues that affect your bottom line”. The dictionary refers to the “bottom line” in the context of: “Most companies aim to improve their bottom lines through two simultaneous methods: growing revenues and cutting costs. Investors when considering a potential investment, look strictly at the bottom line”.
The Urban Development Institute claims to be "a partner in Community Building" and states that they "work to create and achieve the vision of balanced, well-planned and sustainable communities. The Urban Development Institute promotes wise and efficient urban growth, good planning and good development practices".
However, the communities they develop in already exist complete with the required infrastructure. It is common knowledge that UDI member organizations mainly build condominiums and they freely admit, “given the current obstacles in development, high-rises are more feasible for developers to build” - albeit much more environmentally damaging.
UDI members’ development practices have resulted in many demolitions, their new builds are often disproportionate to the lots they occupy and also cause significant ongoing environmental impacts. While many of the new subdivisions they build can certainly be described as well planned and sustainable, more often than not new housing is “packed-in”, has limited green space and parking, and much lower sustainable materials are used. (See Appendix #2 for examples.)
The Urban Development Institute’s main solution to solve the housing crisis is to lessen the restrictions on development, reduce or eliminate development impact charges and keep increasing supply. In an interview with the Vancouver Sun the UDI Chairman called for a paradigm shift in the definition of a “home” suggesting densification with, Infill, Micro-Suites, Tiny Homes and Laneway Houses”.
Oak Bay Watch's Perspective
The District should not be rubbing shoulders with a major lobbying organization and its members that make no secret that they oppose the recent Federal and Provincial government interventions to limit speculation practices and make housing more affordable. Let alone using tax dollars to support this purpose. Lobbying is described in the dictionary as:
It is our opinion that: If BC legislation provides strict rules and monitoring for lobbyist activities then the District of Oak Bay should not provide the opportunity for its Director of Building and Planning unrestricted (perhaps paid) access to a Major Lobbyist Organization that is mainly concerned with promoting Developer and Real Estate interests.
The Federal Government is currently dealing with (at great expense) inappropriate, internal lobbying issues regarding the prosecution of a large international Corporation. In BC the Real Estate Industry, according to the Attorney General, is responding to public criticism and in anticipation of a new Money Laundering Report. He stated on April 16, 2019, “There is no question that the Real Estate Industry has failed to do what is necessary to prevent money laundering”. Money laundering has played a large part in fueling the hot (lucrative) real state market for many years and making housing unaffordable for families
The BC Lobbyist Registration Act (Current to April 10, 2019) states "lobby", “subject to section 2 (2), means, (a) in relation to a lobbyist, to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence. Key lobbying legislation principle: “It is desirable that public office holders and the general public be able to know who is engaged in lobbying activities”.
While the BC Lobbyist Registration Act does not apply to local government, we would think that, as there is BC legislation to control lobbyist activities and there is no doubt lobbing practices get results, then it would seem reasonable that the Lobbyist Act‘s principles should be applied at the local level.
There are so many questions about the District’s UDI membership:
We are sure, now that this information has been made public, that residents will want to know specifically what the benefit is of Oak Bay’s paid membership in an obviously very influential, pro-development lobbying organization whose goals are often at odds with residents’ interests. The Planning Department is funded by residents to look after those interests.
We are aware that Development Lobbying Organizations are opposed to paying their fair share of infrastructure related costs for their new developments. However, we are at loss trying to understand why any municipal council would want to tax their citizens for the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to provide the infrastructure to accommodate the profits of developers. This, unfortunately, is the situation in Oak Bay.
We note that the Planning Department has been approving mainly maximum-sized big-box houses that more often than not involve demolitions, clear-cutting and paving over lots. Also, subdivisions that override even the current liberal building standards, as well as, multi-residential units that far exceed our massing and parking requirements. These are thanks to the District’s generous Zoning Bylaw and variance policy.
With the revelation that the District is a UDI member and that the Director of Building and Planning is its representative, we wonder if UDI lobbying and its promoted “Partnership in Community Building” played a role in this!
We also cannot understand how the Municipality and its Council do not understand the conflict of having their chief negotiator, the Director of the Building and Planning Department and experienced UDI Representative, negotiate development application terms with developers on behalf of Oak Bay residents.
Perhaps this is why there have been so many questions about:
- some of the negotiated development terms,
- large developments that have been fast tracked,
- development applications submitted to Council have been
incomplete and
- variances have generally been supported
As stated the Official Community Plan interpretation always seems to favour developers and financial compensation for development impacts has been totally inadequate. There have been many attempts by residents to return to the pre-2007 more moderate development environment and introduce some design standards. However, this form of “Public Interest Lobbying” has been very unsuccessful.
In the last two Council terms the District of Oak Bay has lost at least $3,000,000 in development charge revenues – this could have been used to help residents pay for development processing costs and development impacts. If there is a better explanation than the one suggested we would like to hear it.
It should be obvious that Membership in the Urban Development Institute is inappropriate to say the least. Council and the Planning Department continue to process the types of developments that are unsustainable if Oak Bay is to maintain its Heritage and Character. It is hoped the new Council will prioritize correcting this situation and implement the necessary changes that will preserve our Community.
-------------------------------------------------------
*******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 and have your friends sign for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1: The Development Charges “Holdup”
The District has failed to act in the best interests of its residents. Past and present Councils and the Planning Department must have been aware there have been excessive impact costs for Development for many years now resulting in very high property tax increases. Council minutes will confirm residents have brought this matter to Council’s attention time and time again.
However despite the obvious benefits and relief to taxpayers, the only Council action was in May 2016. At that time Council used up even more tax dollars for a Consultant’s Development Cost Charges “study”: however, no further action was taken.
We are not talking pocket change here:
In February 2019 the Times-Colonist reported that Tofino obtained $750,000 in Development Cost Charges after approving one 23 Condominium Development. If the same development cost charges schedule were applied to:
More than $3,000,000 in Development Cost Charges would have been contributed. Although his would not have covered all future infrastructure and impact costs, it would have been a very big help. And certainly residents would not be looking down the gun of an $8.5% 2019 Budget tax increase
Appendix #2: Building Material & Subdivision Examples
For some time now many members of the Community and Oak Bay Watch have been trying to get to bottom of:
- Why the obviously still broken Zoning Bylaw has not been corrected.
- Why there have been resident complaints about the Planning Department‘s withholding reports and providing incomplete reports.
- Why the Official Community Plan is consistently interpreted in favor of developers.
- Why introducing “intensive densification” - Infill and Secondary Suites has been promoted so consistently and expensively by the Planning Department notwithstanding recent Council direction.
- Why the Tree Bylaw has not been strengthened given so much development.
- Why, after many resident requests and an expensive Consultant report, Development Cost Charges (DCCs) have not been implemented. The District has preferred instead, to charge its existing citizens very high tax increases to fund the impacts of the many new developments (See Appendix #1 for lost revenues and many more details about why this is clearly wrong).
A possible explanation for all this is that the District is a member of the Urban Development Institute (UDI). Furthermore, the Director of Building and Planning is Oak Bay’s representative. What Is UDI and who belongs? The Urban Development Institute describes itself as the “the voice of the Development and the Real Estate Industry; the UDI team of industry leaders and professional staff who are active in promoting the interests of the Development Community”.
An important function is to lobby all levels of Government. UDI states that it represents thousands of individuals involved in all facets of land development and planning, including: developers, property managers, financial lenders, lawyers, engineers, planners, architects, appraisers, real estate professionals.
Oak Bay residents will be familiar with many of the names of its 164 members in the Capital Region: Abstract Developments, Large & Co., Pemberton Holmes, Royal Lepage, Engel & Volkers, RBC, CIBC. This is but a sample. To discover more, refer to udi.bc.ca. Residents will remember that they were asked to accept that the Cadboro/Bowker Condo Development the King George Terrace Subdivision and the Quest Luxury Condo Development are the way of the future for Oak Bay.
The Urban Development Institute recommends joining its, “team of industry leaders and professionals who influence the issues that affect your bottom line”. The dictionary refers to the “bottom line” in the context of: “Most companies aim to improve their bottom lines through two simultaneous methods: growing revenues and cutting costs. Investors when considering a potential investment, look strictly at the bottom line”.
The Urban Development Institute claims to be "a partner in Community Building" and states that they "work to create and achieve the vision of balanced, well-planned and sustainable communities. The Urban Development Institute promotes wise and efficient urban growth, good planning and good development practices".
However, the communities they develop in already exist complete with the required infrastructure. It is common knowledge that UDI member organizations mainly build condominiums and they freely admit, “given the current obstacles in development, high-rises are more feasible for developers to build” - albeit much more environmentally damaging.
UDI members’ development practices have resulted in many demolitions, their new builds are often disproportionate to the lots they occupy and also cause significant ongoing environmental impacts. While many of the new subdivisions they build can certainly be described as well planned and sustainable, more often than not new housing is “packed-in”, has limited green space and parking, and much lower sustainable materials are used. (See Appendix #2 for examples.)
The Urban Development Institute’s main solution to solve the housing crisis is to lessen the restrictions on development, reduce or eliminate development impact charges and keep increasing supply. In an interview with the Vancouver Sun the UDI Chairman called for a paradigm shift in the definition of a “home” suggesting densification with, Infill, Micro-Suites, Tiny Homes and Laneway Houses”.
Oak Bay Watch's Perspective
The District should not be rubbing shoulders with a major lobbying organization and its members that make no secret that they oppose the recent Federal and Provincial government interventions to limit speculation practices and make housing more affordable. Let alone using tax dollars to support this purpose. Lobbying is described in the dictionary as:
- “The process through which individuals and groups articulate their interests to federal, provincial or municipal governments in order to influence public policy or government decision-making”.
- “Activities to promote certain goals and attempt to influence legislation -(commonly known as lobbying)”.
It is our opinion that: If BC legislation provides strict rules and monitoring for lobbyist activities then the District of Oak Bay should not provide the opportunity for its Director of Building and Planning unrestricted (perhaps paid) access to a Major Lobbyist Organization that is mainly concerned with promoting Developer and Real Estate interests.
The Federal Government is currently dealing with (at great expense) inappropriate, internal lobbying issues regarding the prosecution of a large international Corporation. In BC the Real Estate Industry, according to the Attorney General, is responding to public criticism and in anticipation of a new Money Laundering Report. He stated on April 16, 2019, “There is no question that the Real Estate Industry has failed to do what is necessary to prevent money laundering”. Money laundering has played a large part in fueling the hot (lucrative) real state market for many years and making housing unaffordable for families
The BC Lobbyist Registration Act (Current to April 10, 2019) states "lobby", “subject to section 2 (2), means, (a) in relation to a lobbyist, to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence. Key lobbying legislation principle: “It is desirable that public office holders and the general public be able to know who is engaged in lobbying activities”.
While the BC Lobbyist Registration Act does not apply to local government, we would think that, as there is BC legislation to control lobbyist activities and there is no doubt lobbing practices get results, then it would seem reasonable that the Lobbyist Act‘s principles should be applied at the local level.
There are so many questions about the District’s UDI membership:
- Should Oak Bay residents’ tax dollars be used without their knowledge to pay the Urban Development Institute’s annual fee, and how is the public interest satisfied by such a relationship?
- Should the Director of Building and Planning represent the District particularly as he came to Oak Bay with previous UDI connections?
- When was Oak Bay’s decision to join UDI made, by whom, who was consulted and why are so few municipalities’ members? We note that the Federal and Provincial Governments have resisted joining UDI.
- Is remuneration for attendance at UDI events paid for by our taxes as expenses or attached to salaries? (See Appendix #3 for more information).
We are sure, now that this information has been made public, that residents will want to know specifically what the benefit is of Oak Bay’s paid membership in an obviously very influential, pro-development lobbying organization whose goals are often at odds with residents’ interests. The Planning Department is funded by residents to look after those interests.
We are aware that Development Lobbying Organizations are opposed to paying their fair share of infrastructure related costs for their new developments. However, we are at loss trying to understand why any municipal council would want to tax their citizens for the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to provide the infrastructure to accommodate the profits of developers. This, unfortunately, is the situation in Oak Bay.
We note that the Planning Department has been approving mainly maximum-sized big-box houses that more often than not involve demolitions, clear-cutting and paving over lots. Also, subdivisions that override even the current liberal building standards, as well as, multi-residential units that far exceed our massing and parking requirements. These are thanks to the District’s generous Zoning Bylaw and variance policy.
With the revelation that the District is a UDI member and that the Director of Building and Planning is its representative, we wonder if UDI lobbying and its promoted “Partnership in Community Building” played a role in this!
We also cannot understand how the Municipality and its Council do not understand the conflict of having their chief negotiator, the Director of the Building and Planning Department and experienced UDI Representative, negotiate development application terms with developers on behalf of Oak Bay residents.
Perhaps this is why there have been so many questions about:
- some of the negotiated development terms,
- large developments that have been fast tracked,
- development applications submitted to Council have been
incomplete and
- variances have generally been supported
As stated the Official Community Plan interpretation always seems to favour developers and financial compensation for development impacts has been totally inadequate. There have been many attempts by residents to return to the pre-2007 more moderate development environment and introduce some design standards. However, this form of “Public Interest Lobbying” has been very unsuccessful.
In the last two Council terms the District of Oak Bay has lost at least $3,000,000 in development charge revenues – this could have been used to help residents pay for development processing costs and development impacts. If there is a better explanation than the one suggested we would like to hear it.
It should be obvious that Membership in the Urban Development Institute is inappropriate to say the least. Council and the Planning Department continue to process the types of developments that are unsustainable if Oak Bay is to maintain its Heritage and Character. It is hoped the new Council will prioritize correcting this situation and implement the necessary changes that will preserve our Community.
-------------------------------------------------------
*******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 and have your friends sign for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item.
Appendix #1: The Development Charges “Holdup”
The District has failed to act in the best interests of its residents. Past and present Councils and the Planning Department must have been aware there have been excessive impact costs for Development for many years now resulting in very high property tax increases. Council minutes will confirm residents have brought this matter to Council’s attention time and time again.
However despite the obvious benefits and relief to taxpayers, the only Council action was in May 2016. At that time Council used up even more tax dollars for a Consultant’s Development Cost Charges “study”: however, no further action was taken.
We are not talking pocket change here:
In February 2019 the Times-Colonist reported that Tofino obtained $750,000 in Development Cost Charges after approving one 23 Condominium Development. If the same development cost charges schedule were applied to:
- The 43 Unit 2018 Bowker/ Cadboro Bay Development, likely with more expensive condominium units,
- The 24 million dollar asking price for the 2017/2018 approved King George Terrace Subdivision Development; and
- The over-massed Clive Development
More than $3,000,000 in Development Cost Charges would have been contributed. Although his would not have covered all future infrastructure and impact costs, it would have been a very big help. And certainly residents would not be looking down the gun of an $8.5% 2019 Budget tax increase
Appendix #2: Building Material & Subdivision Examples
Oak Bay New Build – pressboard (oriented strand board – OSB) is the material of choice. It has limited durability compared to other materials and absorbs moisture, but is much less expensive. It is often used exclusively in Subdivision Developments throughout BC.
Providing adequate parking and setbacks reduces profits.
“I see no trees”
One could certainly not argue that Developers don’t have the “Subdivision Community Building” part down: – the livability however might be questionable.
Appendix #3: District UDI membership Concerns
It is not known how long the District has been an Urban Development Institute member. It is also not known if taxpayers have paid for Council members’ expenses to attend UDI events. It is known, however, that the Times Colonist reported that an Oak Bay Council Member was a panel member at a lunch hosted by the Urban Development Institute at the Union Club. The stated preference was to allow more secondary suites in Oak Bay.
It is not known how long the District has been an Urban Development Institute member. It is also not known if taxpayers have paid for Council members’ expenses to attend UDI events. It is known, however, that the Times Colonist reported that an Oak Bay Council Member was a panel member at a lunch hosted by the Urban Development Institute at the Union Club. The stated preference was to allow more secondary suites in Oak Bay.