Newsletter: September 16, 2023: Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. This expression is used to express a determination to continue with a plan, task or action, regardless of the risks or dangers that might accompany it.
Definition: https://grammarist.com
This undoubtedly will be the outcome if Oak Bay Council continues to approve their densification initiatives.
The Provincial government leadership objective is to force municipalities to build more and more housing supply. They have told municipalities they must increase their housing supply substantially or else sanctions will be imposed.
However, the Province is not the one with huge infrastructure deficits (Oak Bay’s for example is well in excess of $400,000,000) and the Province will not be paying the District’s exceptionally high property tax bill year–after-year, or funding the District’s administrative staff. A staff complement that has gotten so big it is a challenge for homeowners to pay such high salaries and the cost of all the new offices and support systems to house them all.
This infrastructure information has been provided by the BC Municipalities Union and a number of BC Mayors.
An August 31,2023 Vancouver Sun article, written by a former editor and reporter of that newspaper, points out the downside of a Density Strategy. A City of Vancouver July 25, 2023 staff report states these downside impacts will result if the City’s new density plan is approved:
The Article goes on to explain, “this asks a lot from (existing) residents in return for minimal affordability.“ (See full article and detailed accounts of impacts Appendix #1)
If these density impacts seem familiar, they are. Oak Bay Watch has been pointing out these impacts to Councils and residents for a number of years now. Also, that this type of infill and multi-tenant suite density doesn’t generate the property tax dollars required for the municipal services, safety inspections and increased amenity costs. It does however, add a significant financial burden for homeowners.
Oak Bay Council is oblivious to the impact new development and excessive lot coverage has on the District’s failing infrastructure. They continue to ignore the accumulative effect that it has and who has to pay when it fails
A Times Colonist article, responding to Oak Bay’s latest August 2023 serious infrastructure pipe breaks, has provided alarming data (see Appendix #2) that clearly puts the District’s infrastructure problem into perspective.
For some time now Councillors and staff have pointed out that previous Councils have underfunded the District’s infrastructure annual budgets. However, this awareness has not stopped their approval of over building lots and failing to ensure multi-dwelling projects pay their way. These developments result in environmental and infrastructure impacts and property tax shortfalls.
Isn’t it time our planners and engineers acknowledge that there isn’t enough sewer and storm drain capacity to accommodate the additional stressors that this Council’s planned and the Provincially forced density will place on it?
Home
Oak Bay Watch Perspective – Please read the very informative Appendices
The Province and Senior Governments are good at dictating densification. However, these Governments (despite their promises), have failed to do their part in controlling housing speculation, short-term rentals, or stopping foreign Real Estate Investment Trust (REITS) conglomerates from driving up Canada’s rents and gouging renters.
Vancouver is the poster child for more and more housing supply with construction cranes a permanent fixture on its skyline. And Victoria is not that far behind, yet housing prices and land values in these cities have continued to rise for decades.
Densification of single-family neighbourhoods, the last bastion of livability, is clearly in the Development Industry’s sights. Is it possible our politicians don’t understand 80% of Canada’s population lives in its urban areas? Do they really think packing more and more people into our cities is going to reduce housing prices in the short or long term?
It should be obvious to voters by now while our Governments have been constantly telling us for the past three years, “we are going to get those speculators”. they have no such intention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention” Oak Bay Watch
Oak Bay Watch is a volunteer community association and its members have a variety of professional backgrounds in both the public and private sector.
*******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 the bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed and sign up for our newsletter – at the bottom of the Newsletter top Menu Item.
Appendix #1
DENSITY STRATEGY DOWNSIDES MAY BE TOO MUCH TO LIVE WITH
Housing plan asks a lot from residents for a minimal return in affordability
Vancouver Sun – August 31, 2023: https://www.pressreader.com/canada/vancouver-sun/20230831/page/10/textview
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. This expression is used to express a determination to continue with a plan, task or action, regardless of the risks or dangers that might accompany it.
Definition: https://grammarist.com
This undoubtedly will be the outcome if Oak Bay Council continues to approve their densification initiatives.
The Provincial government leadership objective is to force municipalities to build more and more housing supply. They have told municipalities they must increase their housing supply substantially or else sanctions will be imposed.
However, the Province is not the one with huge infrastructure deficits (Oak Bay’s for example is well in excess of $400,000,000) and the Province will not be paying the District’s exceptionally high property tax bill year–after-year, or funding the District’s administrative staff. A staff complement that has gotten so big it is a challenge for homeowners to pay such high salaries and the cost of all the new offices and support systems to house them all.
This infrastructure information has been provided by the BC Municipalities Union and a number of BC Mayors.
An August 31,2023 Vancouver Sun article, written by a former editor and reporter of that newspaper, points out the downside of a Density Strategy. A City of Vancouver July 25, 2023 staff report states these downside impacts will result if the City’s new density plan is approved:
- Lack of parking – streets lined with cars
- Tree loss – more climate change impacts
- Strain on infrastructure – increased taxes
- Higher land values – less housing affordability
The Article goes on to explain, “this asks a lot from (existing) residents in return for minimal affordability.“ (See full article and detailed accounts of impacts Appendix #1)
If these density impacts seem familiar, they are. Oak Bay Watch has been pointing out these impacts to Councils and residents for a number of years now. Also, that this type of infill and multi-tenant suite density doesn’t generate the property tax dollars required for the municipal services, safety inspections and increased amenity costs. It does however, add a significant financial burden for homeowners.
Oak Bay Council is oblivious to the impact new development and excessive lot coverage has on the District’s failing infrastructure. They continue to ignore the accumulative effect that it has and who has to pay when it fails
A Times Colonist article, responding to Oak Bay’s latest August 2023 serious infrastructure pipe breaks, has provided alarming data (see Appendix #2) that clearly puts the District’s infrastructure problem into perspective.
For some time now Councillors and staff have pointed out that previous Councils have underfunded the District’s infrastructure annual budgets. However, this awareness has not stopped their approval of over building lots and failing to ensure multi-dwelling projects pay their way. These developments result in environmental and infrastructure impacts and property tax shortfalls.
Isn’t it time our planners and engineers acknowledge that there isn’t enough sewer and storm drain capacity to accommodate the additional stressors that this Council’s planned and the Provincially forced density will place on it?
Home
Oak Bay Watch Perspective – Please read the very informative Appendices
The Province and Senior Governments are good at dictating densification. However, these Governments (despite their promises), have failed to do their part in controlling housing speculation, short-term rentals, or stopping foreign Real Estate Investment Trust (REITS) conglomerates from driving up Canada’s rents and gouging renters.
Vancouver is the poster child for more and more housing supply with construction cranes a permanent fixture on its skyline. And Victoria is not that far behind, yet housing prices and land values in these cities have continued to rise for decades.
Densification of single-family neighbourhoods, the last bastion of livability, is clearly in the Development Industry’s sights. Is it possible our politicians don’t understand 80% of Canada’s population lives in its urban areas? Do they really think packing more and more people into our cities is going to reduce housing prices in the short or long term?
It should be obvious to voters by now while our Governments have been constantly telling us for the past three years, “we are going to get those speculators”. they have no such intention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is inevitable if you are paying attention” Oak Bay Watch
Oak Bay Watch is a volunteer community association and its members have a variety of professional backgrounds in both the public and private sector.
*******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 the bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed and sign up for our newsletter – at the bottom of the Newsletter top Menu Item.
Appendix #1
DENSITY STRATEGY DOWNSIDES MAY BE TOO MUCH TO LIVE WITH
Housing plan asks a lot from residents for a minimal return in affordability
Vancouver Sun – August 31, 2023: https://www.pressreader.com/canada/vancouver-sun/20230831/page/10/textview
- CAROL VOLKART Carol Volkart is a retired Vancouver Sun editor and reporter with a continuing interest in civic issues.
A public hearing on Vancouver's missing middle housing strategy has been set for Sept. 14.
On the surface, Vancouver's missing middle housing strategy makes sense. Who wouldn't agree that more types of less costly housing are needed in low-density areas of the city? Seventy-seven per cent of the 1,895 people who took the city's survey this spring agreed it was a good idea.
But how many knew about the downsides? They're spelled out surprisingly clearly in a July 25 staff report to council: lack of parking, tree loss, strain on infrastructure and higher land values, all in return for minimal affordability.
Now that a public hearing for the plan has been set for Sept. 14, we should be deciding whether the positives outweigh the negatives, and whether modifications are essential. As it stands, the plan will mean a massive transformation of Vancouver.
Up to six housing units per lot will be allowed throughout the vast areas of the city once called single-family residential zones. No on-site vehicle parking will be required. Among other changes, laneway houses will be bigger and single detached houses smaller.
This fall's public hearing is the public's last chance to weigh in before the plan gets final approval. Here are some of the staff reports less rosy points that residents may want to consider.
Parking strife: The report acknowledges each new “multiplex” household is likely to have one car, so not requiring on-site parking could lead to problems. But it predicts such development will be gradual throughout the city and says, “Staff do not expect significant impacts to street parking at this time.”
However, it goes on, “demand for street parking will gradually result in an interest in residential permit parking zones and fees to manage the street space.” Remember the outrage over the previous council's residential pay-parking scheme? It was dumped because of the furor, but apparently it's not dead; it's only resting. In the meantime, any number of multiplexes can go up on any block, and residents may find themselves spending a lot of time finding a place to park. Vanishing trees: When the priority is building as much as possible on every lot, trees don't have a chance.
“It is important to note that larger building footprints and increased hard surfacing will result in more trees being removed on individual lots,” the report says. “Similarly, city street trees will frequently need to be removed to provide new utility connections.” To compensate for the lost canopy, multiplexes will either have to retain trees in the front yard or replace them — one (1!) tree for standard lots and two (2!) for larger lots. Curiously for a city that declared a climate emergency in 2019, there is no mention of the effect of tree loss on climate change or heat domes, or any promise that the impact will be tracked or compensated for. Strained utilities: Nobody cares about sewers and electricity until they don't work. This plan will stress both, with the solutions adding to the cost of housing.
“The increase in the number of units and impermeable surface will put pressure on the already strained sewer system as additional rainwater run-off volume and additional sewage discharge enters the system,” the report warns. The solution? Rainwater retention tanks on most multiplex lots.
Most multiplexes will also require an electrical upgrade and a pad-mounted transformer, gobbling up space and money. A city FAQ says transformers will need a 12-by-12-foot space and cost $70,000 to $150,000. The city and B.C. Hydro are trying to find ways of distributing that cost “more equitably,” potentially through a fixed surcharge on all new and upgrade connections. More costs, no matter how they're spread around.
Higher land values: Adding density adds land value; staff admits multiplexes could lead to land speculation. To counter this, there will be density bonus contributions based on location, lot size and number of units, ranging from $3 to $140 per square foot, with large lots on the west side paying most. Alternatively, builders could provide one below-market home ownership unit, or make all units permanently market rental.
No trial period: Staff have recommended against any pilot project, despite the plan's potential impact. Even former Vancouver mayor Kennedy Stewart suggested a pilot project of 100 lots when he proposed an initial version of the plan in 2020. The staff report notes that a 2022 council motion proposed a pilot of 2,000 lots, and the Vancouver Plan referred to a pilot project on multiplexes.
While staff will “monitor” the first 100 multiplexes, they ruled out a pilot project because it would “require individual site rezoning, adding lengthy processing time, uncertainty and significant cost for the applicant.” That raises a question. What is more important: avoiding major startup problems for the public, or inconveniencing applicants?
Lack of affordability: Even the staff report sounds underwhelmed about the affordability of this new housing. “While the cost of new multiplex units will still be out of reach of many households, these new options will cost less than the ownership housing options available in these neighbourhoods today,” it says.
“Staff anticipates that a new multiplex unit will be priced at 50 per cent of the cost of a new single-detached house, and about 75 per cent of the cost of a new duplex in a similar location.”
Politicians and advocates have been pushing the benefits of densification for years, with the negatives getting little attention. Now that staff has spelled them out, residents have a chance to consider what they'll mean to their neighbourhoods.
Do we want an untested citywide plan that will diminish the tree canopy, cause parking problems, boost land values and strain the infrastructure, all for limited affordability? While nobody can halt the densification train barrelling toward us, perhaps there are more moderate, thoughtful ways of bringing it into the station. We should all be ready to weigh in on Sept. 14.
Even the staff report sounds underwhelmed about the affordability of this new housing.
Appendix #2: Times Colonist - Aug 7, 2023
Water main breaks keep Oak Bay municipal crews busy on long weekend
Report in 2021 said "significant portion" Oak Bay infrastructure is in dire need of replacement. Water lines alone would cost an estimated $168 million.
Aging infrastructure in Oak Bay is becoming an increasing problem.
A district report in 2021 found that a “significant portion” of the district’s water, sanitary sewer, storm and road assets are in dire need of replacement and are past their “recommended useful life.”
“Not addressing it will result in an increase in water main breaks, water quality challenges, sewer backups, and storm water issues,” the report said.
According to the report, the useful life expectancy of a water main is 50 to 80 years. It would cost around $168 million to replace all the water lines in the district, the report said.
It said current funding levels mean that Oak Bay will need to borrow $855 million and incur interest costs of about $395 million to fund all necessary infrastructure replacements.
Oak Bay has 116 kilometres of water mains, 100 km of sanitary sewers and 141 km of storm drains.
Climate change will also increase the cost of infrastructure replacement, the report said. Due to more intense and frequent rainfalls, storm and sewer mains will have to be re-engineered to be about 15 per cent larger to respond to peak flows.
Upsizing 20 to 40 per cent of mains was estimated to cost between $4.8 million and $9.6 million in 2021.
Oak Bay increased its property taxes by around nine per cent this year, one of the higher property tax increases in the capital region.
mjlo@timescolonist.com
On the surface, Vancouver's missing middle housing strategy makes sense. Who wouldn't agree that more types of less costly housing are needed in low-density areas of the city? Seventy-seven per cent of the 1,895 people who took the city's survey this spring agreed it was a good idea.
But how many knew about the downsides? They're spelled out surprisingly clearly in a July 25 staff report to council: lack of parking, tree loss, strain on infrastructure and higher land values, all in return for minimal affordability.
Now that a public hearing for the plan has been set for Sept. 14, we should be deciding whether the positives outweigh the negatives, and whether modifications are essential. As it stands, the plan will mean a massive transformation of Vancouver.
Up to six housing units per lot will be allowed throughout the vast areas of the city once called single-family residential zones. No on-site vehicle parking will be required. Among other changes, laneway houses will be bigger and single detached houses smaller.
This fall's public hearing is the public's last chance to weigh in before the plan gets final approval. Here are some of the staff reports less rosy points that residents may want to consider.
Parking strife: The report acknowledges each new “multiplex” household is likely to have one car, so not requiring on-site parking could lead to problems. But it predicts such development will be gradual throughout the city and says, “Staff do not expect significant impacts to street parking at this time.”
However, it goes on, “demand for street parking will gradually result in an interest in residential permit parking zones and fees to manage the street space.” Remember the outrage over the previous council's residential pay-parking scheme? It was dumped because of the furor, but apparently it's not dead; it's only resting. In the meantime, any number of multiplexes can go up on any block, and residents may find themselves spending a lot of time finding a place to park. Vanishing trees: When the priority is building as much as possible on every lot, trees don't have a chance.
“It is important to note that larger building footprints and increased hard surfacing will result in more trees being removed on individual lots,” the report says. “Similarly, city street trees will frequently need to be removed to provide new utility connections.” To compensate for the lost canopy, multiplexes will either have to retain trees in the front yard or replace them — one (1!) tree for standard lots and two (2!) for larger lots. Curiously for a city that declared a climate emergency in 2019, there is no mention of the effect of tree loss on climate change or heat domes, or any promise that the impact will be tracked or compensated for. Strained utilities: Nobody cares about sewers and electricity until they don't work. This plan will stress both, with the solutions adding to the cost of housing.
“The increase in the number of units and impermeable surface will put pressure on the already strained sewer system as additional rainwater run-off volume and additional sewage discharge enters the system,” the report warns. The solution? Rainwater retention tanks on most multiplex lots.
Most multiplexes will also require an electrical upgrade and a pad-mounted transformer, gobbling up space and money. A city FAQ says transformers will need a 12-by-12-foot space and cost $70,000 to $150,000. The city and B.C. Hydro are trying to find ways of distributing that cost “more equitably,” potentially through a fixed surcharge on all new and upgrade connections. More costs, no matter how they're spread around.
Higher land values: Adding density adds land value; staff admits multiplexes could lead to land speculation. To counter this, there will be density bonus contributions based on location, lot size and number of units, ranging from $3 to $140 per square foot, with large lots on the west side paying most. Alternatively, builders could provide one below-market home ownership unit, or make all units permanently market rental.
No trial period: Staff have recommended against any pilot project, despite the plan's potential impact. Even former Vancouver mayor Kennedy Stewart suggested a pilot project of 100 lots when he proposed an initial version of the plan in 2020. The staff report notes that a 2022 council motion proposed a pilot of 2,000 lots, and the Vancouver Plan referred to a pilot project on multiplexes.
While staff will “monitor” the first 100 multiplexes, they ruled out a pilot project because it would “require individual site rezoning, adding lengthy processing time, uncertainty and significant cost for the applicant.” That raises a question. What is more important: avoiding major startup problems for the public, or inconveniencing applicants?
Lack of affordability: Even the staff report sounds underwhelmed about the affordability of this new housing. “While the cost of new multiplex units will still be out of reach of many households, these new options will cost less than the ownership housing options available in these neighbourhoods today,” it says.
“Staff anticipates that a new multiplex unit will be priced at 50 per cent of the cost of a new single-detached house, and about 75 per cent of the cost of a new duplex in a similar location.”
Politicians and advocates have been pushing the benefits of densification for years, with the negatives getting little attention. Now that staff has spelled them out, residents have a chance to consider what they'll mean to their neighbourhoods.
Do we want an untested citywide plan that will diminish the tree canopy, cause parking problems, boost land values and strain the infrastructure, all for limited affordability? While nobody can halt the densification train barrelling toward us, perhaps there are more moderate, thoughtful ways of bringing it into the station. We should all be ready to weigh in on Sept. 14.
Even the staff report sounds underwhelmed about the affordability of this new housing.
Appendix #2: Times Colonist - Aug 7, 2023
Water main breaks keep Oak Bay municipal crews busy on long weekend
Report in 2021 said "significant portion" Oak Bay infrastructure is in dire need of replacement. Water lines alone would cost an estimated $168 million.
Aging infrastructure in Oak Bay is becoming an increasing problem.
A district report in 2021 found that a “significant portion” of the district’s water, sanitary sewer, storm and road assets are in dire need of replacement and are past their “recommended useful life.”
“Not addressing it will result in an increase in water main breaks, water quality challenges, sewer backups, and storm water issues,” the report said.
According to the report, the useful life expectancy of a water main is 50 to 80 years. It would cost around $168 million to replace all the water lines in the district, the report said.
It said current funding levels mean that Oak Bay will need to borrow $855 million and incur interest costs of about $395 million to fund all necessary infrastructure replacements.
Oak Bay has 116 kilometres of water mains, 100 km of sanitary sewers and 141 km of storm drains.
Climate change will also increase the cost of infrastructure replacement, the report said. Due to more intense and frequent rainfalls, storm and sewer mains will have to be re-engineered to be about 15 per cent larger to respond to peak flows.
Upsizing 20 to 40 per cent of mains was estimated to cost between $4.8 million and $9.6 million in 2021.
Oak Bay increased its property taxes by around nine per cent this year, one of the higher property tax increases in the capital region.
mjlo@timescolonist.com