Wednesdays North Shore front page news article inspired me to write this post. Donna Stewart said many great things in the article about the lack of affordable housing on the North Shore and what might be done about it. She is a true crusader and has worked tirelessly on this issue. That being said does not preclude Donna agreeing with me on my following point of view.
As a resident of Lynn Valley the article reminded me of the concerns I have with the current density and so-called affordable housing proposals. In the past we are told one thing and end up with something completely different. One example is the 1996 referendum with all its glossy brochures depicting and promising a pedestrian friendly town centre, bicycle lanes, etc. which never materialized. Whiteley Court is an example of how District council in a very basic way seems to have ignored the affordable housing needs of the community. There are other examples. Hence I am leery with future proposals and the deceptions that often exist within. As a resident here I will stand guard to the best of my ability because we have had our lions share of development in an area which I would like to see keep it's mountain side village-esq charm if possible---it's part of what makes it a livable area. Lynn Valley has awful traffic congestion at times and very little in the way of infrastructure planned to back up further mass density. More density means more internal combustion vehicles in to this area resulting in poorer air quality and the health problems it creates. With the low vacancy rate and high land values as stated in the News article which are bound to continue it is all the more reason to be on the watch. It would be my fear that any "affordable" housing proposed by developers would never be truly affordable but just more market housing which there is no shortage of.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Low vacancy and rental housing On the North Shore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 opinions/comments:
The Library is just complete. Maybe you should be a bit more patient for the "pedestrian-oriented town centre concept" to come to fruition. From anything I've read, heard and discussed with our elected politicians, the promised town centre is indeed coming. Unfortunately, it's a bit more complicated than re-landscaping your backyard.
ZZZZZzzzzz....ZZZZZZzzzzz...ZZZZzzz
John Sharpe never fails to be irrelevant.
For those of us who are renters John Sharpe is being extremely relevant.
The reality for the City of North Vancouver is that most of the buildings are getting old and they are low density. The plan is to tear down at least 75% of them and replace with very expensive condos.
Think about it there most be hundreds of millions of revenue dollars just waiting to pour into City coffers. Think of the salaries that will be lining the pockets of anyone working for the city including those who are elected.
Does anyone honestly think for one minute that the 50,000 low income renters in the City of North Vancouver have any value at all?
That is why the 3 Musketeers do not care - they know within 3 years we, the poor will all be gone.
Sue Cook
More of Sue Cook's inflammatory hysterical paranoid nonsense and completely inaccurate as well.
CNV Population
2005=46,583
2006=47,506
2007=47,463
www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/mun/Mun2007a.asp
So there can't be 50,000 renters in the CMV. 52% renters has been mentioned at Council meetings, this includes secondary suites.
Tearing down "at least 75% of them and replace with very expensive condos" would involve tearing down every apartment building in the City and quite a few houses as well.
No one is planning to tear down a 12 story apt to build a 20 story building with units for sale.
There is a problem here but this class warfare rhetoric is just plain pointless yelling by Sue.
George,
You are incorrect!
Almost every time rezoning takes place and development occurs, renters are evacuated. This is why we have the problem of homelessness throughout our region, Whiteley Court by way of example.
DNV and CNV Councils talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
Wendy
A friend of mine may have to move off the North Shore because of expensive rental units, with so little available, never mind -- affordable -- as the lease expires.
The North Shore is slowly becoming like a "gated community" for the rich/house "poor"/land "rich". Even we could not afford to buy our house at today's assessments!
But can the North Shore afford to pack more people into the stacked ticky-tacky boxes, called condos, being built on this expensive land, without the infrastructure to carry the population growth?
20,000 renters in the City of North Vancouver - the rest would be the apprx. total for North Vancouver.
At this point of time there is far more apartment stock then houses, and yes I do believe that the plan would be to destroy the majority of rental stock. If you lock at the ownership you will see that a large number of the owners are the same people/companies and they own more then one building especially down the Lonsdale corridor.
Right now there are no bylaws in place to protect rental buildings and very little encouragement for creating of present or future rental stock.
The majority of rental units at the present time are 3 story units and the density is usually around 35 people so it is very easy to tear them down one by one - who will notice the removal of a few people at a time. Perhaps George can tell us what is happening to the building on the corner of 3rd and Forbes for a start?
I am really looking to George running for council and seeing how brilliant he is with the general population. Such a handsome young buck with such a winning personality should do very well indeed.
Sue Cook
Great letter in today's North Shore Outlook, Sue. Bang-on.
As far as Ernie goes, he is dying of lung cancer and this is a fact.
Wendy
Wendy, what an appropriate venue to make such declarations....
Today was another example of the complete neglect on behalf of the City towards it's citizens.
Just saw my assistant manager in the hall. She has a couple of broken fingers, broke her eyeglasses and her teeth falling on a City sidewalk.
This is the second time a senior that I have known has been injured on our sidewalks. A few years ago I walked all the major sidewalks in the City and wrote were they were damaged. Those sidewalks are still in need of repair today.
Why? The City is sitting on a nice bank account at the moment, why are the citizens so far down the list of priorities?
Sue Cook
"As many people lives in cities today as populated the entire planet in 1950. Eighty percent of the planet's greenhouse gases are created by these energy-intensive urban centres. I believes the key to creating climate change solutions resides with cities."
-Ottawa City Councillor and author of Urban Meltdown: Cities, Climate Change and Politics as Usual.
Sue, the sidewalk in front of Starbucks at 3rd/Lonsdale is in particular disrepair.
PS. Who are the three musketeers?
John, is that Alex Munter?
I'm getting tired of the "Wernie" chatter concerning Whiteley Court as I don't think there was anything that could be done legally.
What I very much DO think is that the current DNV council has been reactive when they ought to have been proactive. Whiteley Court SHOULD have been a massive wake-up call to Council but it does not seem to be.
In my opinion, what seems to have happened with the Whiteley Court apartments was that maintenance was neglected for several years and not surprisingly the complex became run-down. The former owners then flipped the property and the new owners came to Council claiming the buildings had become derelict - I'm sorry the phrase was "outlived their useful life" and redevelopment was therefore necessary.
Proactive action by DNV likely COULD have prevented this teardown but the result was net suite loss though the new "non-affordable" rental suites will have about the same number of bedrooms in fewer suites.
More so than the Whiteley Court demolition, I'm annoyed Council hasn't revisited the maintenance bylaw to try to prevent further suite loss - at the rate things are going the predominant rental in DNV is going to be basement suites if they aren't already.
Lyle,
The DNV didn't enforce the maintenance by-laws in the first place. That's why they became as you say, derelict. They let it happen. At a council meeting the mayor said they had only ever received three complaints. They were not diligent. They let the community down. Many renters there did not want to complain.
I'm sorry you're "tired of the Wernie chatter." I would have thought better of you than to stoop that low. It's not respectful.
John
By-law enforcement officers act on complaints. They are not snooping around in neighbourhoods looking for infractions. If no one complains, how on earth do you expect them to know there is a problem. I'm glad it's this way, for who wants a bunch of gestapo agents hunting for opportunities to enforce by-laws. Reminds me of the theory that RCMP officers have quotas for tickets - something they vehemently deny but which is very likely true. The better option is to inform tenants of their rights, and if their homes are not being maintained to an adequate standard, they have recourse, anonymously if need be. To blame DNV council for the situation at Whiteley Court is not only unfair, it is inappropropriate. Having said that, I think it is incumbent upon local government to protect things like rental stock with whatever measures are at their disposal. Has DNV Council done that? Maybe not.
Right and it all sounds like a provincial issue, not a municipal one.
Once again we have to look at the hard reality. Both the district and especially the City have a very rosy future by replacing rental units with ownership. Hundreds of millions of dollars.
Not only should rental stock be kept in decent conditions there should also be a decent replacement of affordable rental stock in community plans. Developers should have to provide rental in return for being allowed to break community plans.
Even renters are providing towards the economy after all.
Sue Cook
By the way George since you are running for council what will you do to preserve rental stock and what are you going to do about the sidewalks?
Sue Cook
John, that's what I meant about the Whiteley Court tragedy being wholly avoidable.
That's why I say District needs to be proactive not reactive. I know you know the difference.
In an extremely tight housing market a lot of tenants would be terrified to call District on this. Absolutely no question about it. Both Whiteley Court and the complex next store had/have pools that are filled in due to being too costly to operate. I could give other examples. One of my few regrets on this matter is that I had the retired superintendent of the other place (I've forgotten the name but it's the complex immediately east on 27th Street) in my store as a customer the Friday before the Council meeting where the Whiteley Court matter was approved and he told me an incredible amount about the two complexes. Due to having customers waiting to be served, I did not have time to take 10-15 minutes to jot it all down and so have only memory to go on.
As for "Wernie" - I apologize though I will say in the strongest possible terms that I know at least 5 people who have told me that they avoid this blog because of the antics of your two friends. While I apologize for the disrespectful term I say bluntly that Wendy has said some extraordinarily disrespectful things about nearly everybody here on multiple occasions. But two wrongs don't make a right so I apologize.
I agree with the anonymous poster who feels uncomfortable with the amount of personal medical detail about Ernie's condition being posted here. I wish him nothing but a safe and healthy retirement - he's earned it.
To woever was Anon 11:12 AM,
Your comment has been removed because it is off topic.
Anon 12:15 AM,
Give me a break. This was housing. One of the mosr basic needs. Council was insensitive to the run down Whiteley Court. I mention the "only three compalints" to put things in perspective and report honestly what I heard at the council meeting that night.
Council does not enforce the by-laws. My understanding is that some of the residents were new Canadians and could have came from lesser living conditions. They may not been aware of their rights either, don't you think? Usually new Canadians struggle and they may not want to complain for fear of rent increases.
IN NO WAY do I suggest council snoop around.
I repeat, housing is a most basic need. Youre out of line.
Lyle,
Apology accepted.
In my opinion the subject of respectful discussion will never be off topic here. That being said,
I agree Wendy has said things that other people find unacceptable. As to those people who have left because of it I can only assume you considered their input valuable. People shouldn't be repulsed by what is said but rather be relatively comfortable with it and exchange respectful dialogue.
There is a time and place and appropriateness for everything.
Ernie does deserve a healthy and safe retirement. Regardless of whether one agrees with his slant on things or not, he served the community for 25 years, looked out for the underdog, and tried in earnest to represent those who elected him.
In that regard Ernie has been and is exceptional.
He is also a very good friend.
Godspeed Ernie.
Hi Lyle:
When one reads some of the awful things on this blog it is completely unfair to blame it all on Wendy.
George Pringle is one of the most offensive and verbally abusive people I have ever had the displeasure to come across and yet no one seems to go after him the way they do Wendy.
A blog is a blog and I am learning that your eally cannot take it that seriously
Sue Cook
John:
How can Council be insensitive to a basic need involving substandard housing when no one is complaining? Indeed Council does not enforce by-laws, that is up to another department. BUT if that department receives enough complaints, it is brought forward to Council which will then take whatever actions are available to it under municipal legislation. That was clearly not the case with Whitely Court. You should read my comments again. I did not suggest that Council snoop around, nor did I suggest that the by-law enforcement officers do so, to the contrary. Council's responsibility is to act on reports from the by-law enforcement officers and clearly, in the case of Whitely Court, there were not sufficient complaints. I reiterate, to blame Council for this is inappropriate. Do I see an election platform taking shape here?
I repeat my earlier statement that tenants should be informed - by landlords if necessary, and by law - as to what their rights are. They should know that they can complain, anonymously if necessary, be advised of the steps to take, and have their issues dealt with.
Housing is a basic need, no one disagrees with that. But to connect it with Council's supposed inaction at Whiteley Court is a bit of a stretch. You're adding up one and one and getting three.
And I am definitely not out of line. Try another one...line that is.
Theh problem is that there is very little affordable rental accomdation around. Renters know this and are terrified to make any kind of waves for fear of being evicted and having no choice.
Perhaps when developers come forward asking for permits for redevelopment then council should do some snopping around to see the conditions of the buildings. If in fact they have been allowed to deteriorate on purpose council could enforce some rental accommodations on the new projects?
Sue Cook
Sue,
Define "affordable".
bach?
1br?
2br?
Sue, that's why I think there should be some sort of "full disclosure" by landlords, or their agents, to let tenants know what their rights are. They should be given a copy of relevant legislation and a complaint form which can be kept confidential if necessary. No one, no matter what their background, should feel that their tenancy is jeopardized just because they ask for what is rightfully owing to them.
As for the term "affordable", there really is no way to define it, unless rent is determined based on an ability to pay. I don't know how any landlord could be expected to forgive the difference between what someone can afford and the market rate on any particular suite. Perhaps that is where the social safety net comes into play and the government (provincial?) pays the difference.
I can't beleive you would compare RCMP ticket quotas with basic housing needs. Anyway I feel you should read my comment again as well. We don't seem to undestand each other. As I said originally, there were only three complaints. This is unacceptable as an excuse for letting affordable housing slide. Whiteley Court had a reputation as a ghetto. You're saying District council knew nothing of this. I have information to the contrary.
Anon 12:51,
Excellent comment and idea. What you are basically talking about is Co-op housing like the complex on Tree Lynn. Unfortunately in the District of North Van.it appears to be too little too late. Bravo developers!
I only hope the old Library site is used for senior housing or some form of affordable housing.
As someone who just turned 61 today I can now refer to myself as a "senior" and I think people should realize there is already a rental subsidy in place for those over 60 who are low income. There is a similar subsidy for families I think making under $30,000.00 per year.
At least one good thing the Provincial government has come up with. Perhaps one way of surveying what is affordable is to take a total of those grants. The other way is to look at the average wage being offered by employers in a certain area. We already have stats on salaries through stats Canada.
Basic human needs are food, water and shelter. Has anyone ever wondered what would happen if our bridges went down and we could no longer get food? I think North Vancouver politicians should start looking at how they will provide the basic human needs in order for communities to be independent. Developers should have to provide a small number of affordable rentals based on the average income in that area as a trade off for greater density.
Sue Cook
Using average income on the North Shore won't work, either, Sue, since I think that it will be skewed by so many high income earners. If developers are going to be setting aside units for low income earners, I think that's all that should be expected of them, and the social service agencies should then be working directly with clients to get them into these units, paying the rents directly to the landlords on behalf of the tenants. Or in the case of condos, perhaps the government purchases the units outright and rents them out at subsidized rates thereby saving a bit of "face" for the tenants.
BTW John, I am 12:15 am, 1:07AM and 12:51 pm, so I'm not the grinch that you may assume me to be. And the comparison with RCMP officers having quotas was in reference to by-law enforcement officers having them, too. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with housing per se. Again, read what I said. And if you do have proof that Council turned a blind eye to the situation at Whitely Court, then "out with it". I would be just as interested as you in learning about that.
John - every single one of the people I mentioned are serious-minded people who you can safely assume are folks who do pay attention to local affairs.
Some are involved in community associations and FONVCA some not. While I haven't included them in the previous count, I know at least 2 senior District managers who hear about goings on here regularly but don't read it for this specific reason.
As for Ernie, he and I have a lot of differences politically but I would never ever wish him ill. I'm well aware of his history and cut him slack I wouldn't cut a lot of people on account of it.
I've had current Council members tell me why they didn't vote him the Freedom - I understand why they felt the way they did but I still say it would have been better to take the high road regardless and then say as little as possible thereafter. I have a former employee who is now a competitor and while I was deeply hurt am glad I took the above approach rather than taking the low road which would have been both easier and more personally pleasant.
As stated previously I wish him good health and a happy retirement.
Now that I've said my peace on Ernie, on to the subject of housing.
It is clear North Vancouver needs a mix of housing of all sorts. There have been several previous attempts to build affordable housing but demand is such some of this get bid out of sight with two years of being built. The Maplewood apartments are a good example.
The problem of rental housing not being built isn't going to get dealt with effectively at the local level. Some sort of program like the MURB program of yesteryear would help.
While not rental, I personally benefitted by the RHOSP (Registered Home Ownership Saving Program) of the 70s and 80s which allowed a $1000/yr tax-free contribution to a savings plan towards one's first home. That would also help.
The bottom line is that for a healthy DNV economy we NEED a mix of housing. I know you people hate the LVCA but I said at the last LVCA Exec meeting that the need for this kind of mix was a "no-brainer" and there was general agreement.
I've spoken about this previously but 10 years ago pretty much my entire staff lived in North and West Vancouver (except for one guy who lived in North Burnaby). Now it's down to about 2/3.
Saying affordable housing isn't going to be effectively dealt with at the local level doesn't mean one washes one's hands - it just means that we do our bit at every level to ensure that there is a place for everyone including young families to live here.
Ottawa has a big part to play here and it's up to us to hold their feet to the fire.
Of course since Ottawa deals with national programs, for any initiative to have any effect here would be impossible to create. It would be far too expensive.
The bottom line of evey theory that we have is that thousands of people are about to become homeless.
Why don't we take a realistic need as to what are housing needs actually are:
Housing for seniors - but do all of our seniors need extra funding? Many are well off financially so just exactly what is the real number of seniors who need assistance?
People with addiction issues - why don't we be realistic here as well. We can put those with addictions in million dollar homes but it will not cure their addictions. Can't we look at some kind of special hospitals type buildings and demand that addicts are off the streets and in these hospitals where their addictions can be dealt with. Safer for those with addictions.
People with mental health issues - again why aren't we being realistic and providing decent housing which will ensure medications and care takes place.
Housing for those who are making the average salaries within the GVRD? The majority wage is $50,000.00. Why should working people compete against the new wave of millionairs most of whom will be new canadians.
Where have all these wealthy people come from and where do they earn their money from? I have asked this question before and I will ask again - just how much is from the drug and other criminal activities
Sue Cook
'Anon' 7:04 PM,
You said,
And if you do have proof that Council turned a blind eye to the situation at Whitely Court, then "out with it". I would be just as interested as you in learning about that.
On a sunny day prove to me that there is daylight. Can you? Didn't think so. It's the same with the Whiteley Court scenario.
But, if you're really interested in doing you're homework then look up council minutes where, on more than one occasion there were Whiteley Court Delegations complaining about its condition, and where there were 'certain' councillors admitting to its state of repair yet there was nothing done about it.
Anon 7:04, you prove to me that I am wrong.
I believe John Sharp is correct - just watch the rental buildings in the City start rapidly running into disrepair. The very fact that the City did not accept the Multi-housing crime free housing program proves that the feeling is the sooner the rental buildings fall apart the better.
Money talks and the working poor walk.
Yet again people are assuming that you can maintain these buildings indefinitely.
The reason they were 'affordable' was because of the ghetto reputation.
BC Housing should receive and act on anonymous complaints. Council is too public to handle these kinds of delicate matters.
You may be eligible for SAFER if you meet all of the following conditions:
1. You are age 60 or older.
2. You and your spouse (with whom you are living)
have lived in British Columbia for the full 12 months immediately preceding your application; and
Meet one of the following Citizenship requirements: Canadian citizen(s); or authorized to take up permanent residence in Canada; or Convention refugee(s).
3. You pay more than 30% of your gross (before tax) monthly household income towards the rent for your home, including the cost of pad rental for a manufactured home (trailer) that you own and occupy.
If you are eligible, SAFER may subsidize part of the rent that is over 30% of your income. The subsidy is calculated to give the most assistance to people with the least income.
You will not be eligible if any of following are true:
You are under age 60.
You live in subsidized housing or a residential care facility funded by the Ministry of Health.
You live in co-operative housing and are a shareholder.
You or your family receive income assistance through the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, excluding the Medical Services Plan.
You have been sponsored into Canada.
You do not live in British Columbia.
You have not lived in British Columbia for the full 12 months immediately preceding your application.
You do not meet the Citizenship requirements.
Your gross monthly income exceeds the following:
Greater Vancouver Regional District Other Areas of the Province
Singles $2,333 $2,033
Couples $2,517 $2,217
Shared $1,625 $1,625
Who is eligible for the Rental Assistance Program?You may be eligible to for the Rental Assistance Program if you meet the following criteria:
Some or all of your annual income must come from employment.
You have a gross annual income below $28,000.
You have at least one or more dependent child under the age of 19.
You have less than $10,000 in assets.
You file an annual income tax return.
You pay more than 30 per cent of your household income towards rent for your home, or pay pad rental for a manufactured home (trailer) that you own and occupy.
You have lived in British Columbia for the full 12 months immediately preceding the date of application.
You meet the residency requirements for the program.
You will not be eligible for the Rental Assistance Program if:
You or your family receive income assistance under the B.C. Employment and Assistance Act or the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (excluding Medical Services only).
If your annual household income is over $28,000.
You live in subsidized housing.
You live in co-operative housing and are a shareholder.
You or a member of your family do not meet the residency requirements or came to Canada under a private sponsorship agreement that is still in force.
You own a home that you do not live in.
In response to Sue, re: the difference between Wendy and George.
Yes, Sue, I will agree - my personal opinion of George is that of an arrogant, offensive slob who has contributed nothing to the community and aspires to a parasitic life living off the taxpayer.
However - he is reasonably intelligent. He could probably have done more with his life if he'd buckled down somewhere along the way.
The difference with Wendy is that she isn't even attached to reality. For all intents and purposes, she does not live on planet earth. She makes ridiculous reactionary statements about how she is going to move, or how people are holding her cat hostage, or blah blah blah, and its total bloody self-aggrandizing rubbish.
George may be a jerk, but he's connected to reality. His point of view, however you may disagree with it, is coherent. Well, more coherent.
wendy and george are each in their own way a complete joke, and neither will hold elected office at year's end
City Council 2008 - 2011
Mayor:
Rod Clark
Councillors: (in order of finish)
Sue Cook
Pam Bookham
Bob Fearnley
Bob Heywood
Craig Keating
Jason Kanigan
------------------------
Barbara Perrault
Sam Schechter
George Pringle
The Olympic Gold Council!!!!!
I believe George Pringle is intelligent, methodical, oganized and well spoken.
He could probably win if he put all of his energy into serving the people instead of putting so much into openly and continually showing some kind of weird obsession in my direction.
Sue Cook
Post a Comment