I write in response to the front page story in today's North Shore News: "Residents sue city over development."
"NEIGHBOURS who opposed a controversial 18-unit development on Bewicke Avenue on the grounds it was too dense for their neighbourhood are in B.C. Supreme court this week, trying to have the project's approvals overturned..."
"....The North Vancouver project has long pitted those who want the city's official community plan upheld with those who argue greater density is needed to create more affordable housing....."
What is sadly lacking in this report is that all comments regarding "affordable housing" are inane. I have paid REAL attention to politics on the North Shore for 5 years and I don't see any "affordable housing" created. Perhaps I am wrong. If you bloggers would point out my error regarding this issue I would be humbled. There are housing advocates who write letters to the editor and attend meetings, however...there has been ZERO "affordable" housing produced on the North Shore, to the contrary it has been torn down and reduces the rental stock.
Where are the "affordable housing" initiatives on the North Shore? It is simply a developer and municipal staff and council spin to approve developments that produce only market housing.
I will say again, "There is not now, nor has there ever been, a shortage of market housing on the North Shore."
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
"Affordable Housing" a carrot to approve densification
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 opinions/comments:
Nobody should be allowed to put forward any proposal that uses the words "affordable housing". All housing should be "at market".
You assume affordable housing is a necessity (sort of like Translink assume they're a necessity) and that affordable housing is something that's desired by all residents.
Is it a North Van necessity?
Is it something desired by all North Van residents?
Affordable housing generally evolves into unkempt splotches of poorly maintained structures littered with unused toys, dusty un-insured cars, lanky deciduous trees and the crime rates in their immediate vicinities tends to go up.
Why would anyone really want that?
Well said, Anon 4:46! Let people live where they can afford, not have a subsidized lifestyle which is outside of their own means.
I work hard to drive a nice car, to live in North Vancouver - why should others have it easy on my tax-paying dime?
Wendy? What do you say to that?
By the way Wendy, you are entirely free to go buy a few condos on your own and rent them out at what you feel is a "fair" price. Of course you don't want to do that, you want to force us fellow taxpayers to pick up some of the tab too.
Not interested, thanks.
Anons 4;46 Pm and 5:57 Pm,
Your are both wrong and very harsh in my opinion.
A good example of the kind of affordable housing that is good for the community is the Co-op on Treelynn in Lynn Valley. I have known two or three people who have lived there. I have visited there and the derelict 'affordable housing cliche' decription to which you refer does not exist there. Yes, I know the Feds and The Province pulled out of this kind of affordable housing but, I would like to see them get back in. How else can opportunity be created for others in the community who may not be well off? Nobody is "having it is easy" as you say. They are just being helped making it possible to be in the housing market when it might otherwise be impossible. In a Co-op like the one on Treelynn, you never actually own your place but, you are required to come up with a signifigant down payment to reside there.
Do you have no compassion, especially for our children and youth, disabled, and elderly?
That's OK, don't answer the question, I already know your answers.
All housing is affordable to various people. Some can afford it and others cannot. It is the high land values here.
Geez - why don't you all just move to West Van right now.... or maybe a nice gated community patrolled by rent-a-cops who will keep the rabble way from your door?
I guess if you have maid's quarters in your mansion, and a room over the eighteen car garage for your chauffeur it may seem like affordable housing isn't needed.
Truth is that every person needs somewhere safe to live, and yes housing is a right. North Vancouver has a lot of residents who aren't making six and seven figure incomes - the average income is barely $50,000.
"Affordable housing generally evolves into unkempt splotches yada yada yada..."
Can't we come up with something a little more thoughtful than this nonsense? Pride of ownership and community have nothing to do with income of property values. I've walked through inner city Detroit and found homes that were as well kept as any on North Vancouver. For that matter there are groups of people reclaiming entire city blocks and rebuilding communities from the ground up.
There is no question that affordable housing is needed in North Vancouver.
Affordable is a relative term. The proposed development would have provided more units at a more affordable market price than had the lots been left at their current density. Take a single family sized lot and put a duplex on it and you will have two units that would sell for a lower price than a single family home. Take a larger lot that will allow a three or four unit development and you get more units on a lot that would again be priced lower than had the lot been kept single family. Sure, the total value of the development goes up, but the individual units would likely sell at a more affordable price. Extend that notion and you see even lower prices on multi-family developments. It is market housing without a doubt, but it is more affordable housing than single family homes on 50x140 lots.
Affordable housing doesn't automatically translate to subsidized housing as some previous posters have suggested. It is simply more affordable relative to the current market prices in the community. It provides an opportunity for young people, couples or families to get on the property ladder.
Given the proximity, of the development in question, to a major commercial/transportation corridor the location seems perfect for increased density. If you have doubts, I would suggest you go visit the location, which is right above Marine Drive and adjacent a great deal of commercial/light industrial business across Bewicke. There are already duplexes and low-density housing on the street, so I don't think the proposal was at all out of line for the area.
CM
What time is the TransLink meeting at the Quay? And why wasn't it advertised?
Wendy, The meeting is at the Quay Hotel at 6:30 PM, Thursday(tomorrow).
People like Donna Stewart yak about "affordable housing" but nothing gets done. What do you actually do Donna?
Thank you John. Where was this meeting advertised?
Market Housing
DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The term “affordable housing” is always problematic and can mean different things to different people. For example, for some, the priority should be on entry level home ownership for young families or for affordable rental for service workers. Others think the emphasis should be on the homeless and at-risk of homelessness groups.
Affordable housing doesn't automatically translate to subsidized housing as some previous posters have suggested. It is simply more affordable, relative to the current market prices in the community. It provides an opportunity for young people, couples or families to get on the property ladder.
"Affordable Housing".
In the context of the North Shore Housing Forum the following definition is used:
Affordable housing is homeownership and rental housing for low and moderate income households that does not cost a household more than 30 percent of its gross income (before-tax).
Wendy is right this time.
The municipal planning staff are thinking of options - market housing. Not affordable in the rising market! (ie. In one of the new highrise towers in lower Lonsdale, a one-bedroom, with no redeeming features such as a view. starts @ $1,100 a month - up to $1,400 a month. Is this affordable? for the employee in the coffee shop, the new RCMP, the hospital worker? NO.
The real need in the City of North Vancouver is the upgrading - or the revitalization of all the older rental buildings, $700-900 per month for a 1 bedroom suite.
If these buildings are not retrofitted - or upgraded, WHERE WILL ALL THE RENTERS GO? (No sence replacing them with highrises and market rental units! They are not affordable ...
MARKET HOUSING - 'Whatever the market will bear!"
Nothing to do with affordable or social, or helping the lower income or the less fortunate.
Through the OCP, we can create more 'affordable market housing' - coach houses, row housing, additions to the present BC housing properties, which are underbuilt, etc.
Listen to Michael Geller!
"Density need not be achieved through highrise towers ...."
He has 10 great ideas!
See you at the Translink presentation .
Who is Geller?
Anon, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:22:00 PM, if you are going to quote my words, you should provide quotes, etc. Just sayin'.
As for rental housing, you have to understand that the apartment owner is in the business of making money, not to subsidize housing. That is the governments job. One that they have , for all intents and purposes, stopped participating in. Rent is dictated by what the market will bear. There is really no point in whining about the affordability of rental stock and blaming it all on the developer. They're in the business to make money and there's nothing wrong with that. It keeps the economy going. If you want to place blame, place it on the various levels of government who have cut back on funding to subsidized rental housing.
CM
John, while you're at the Translink meeting tomorrow, would you mind asking how much money they've budgeted for this latest ad campaign of theirs (including the salaries and overtime costs associated to these meetings) ? In the last North Shore News, not only was there a 1/4 page colour ad (for the meeting you're attending), but there was a four page FULL colour pullout.
This advertising is on top of previous print advertising on top of radio ads and TV ads. It's unbelievable and completely over the top!
Just a guess - but I'm willing to bet that with the money they've spent, they could have put at least one brand new bus on the road.
Interesting points about "affordable" housing meaning different things to different people.
I support consideration of amendments to zoning and planning that allow and regulate in-home suites, lane/carriage housing, adding case by case duplex zoning, and additional multi-family unit zoning. All of which increase the low cost housing pool at private cost.
I support N. Shore public permanent housing funding for low income seniors and disabled persons.
I support public funding for protected housing of mentally infirm where they live and receive appropriate treatment until they recover to the extent that they can be safely released into the public and not be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people.
Able bodied and able minded persons are on their own to obtain housing that they can afford. No public funding.
I just sat down and calculated the total that I have spent on rent in the past 26 years (prior to that I was a home owner).
It came to just over $350,00.00 dollars. Mind you for most of that time I was a single mom to three children and I was determined that they would grow up in North Van. so that made it much more then renting elsewhere.
I would guess that I have paid more then someone who bought a home 26 years ago.
In fact I would bet that many of the people who post here bought their homes when the average price in North Vancouver was $50,000.00.
Wonder how many of you could buy a home now? If your present salaries would not allow you to buy a home, what right do you have of slamming people who cannot?
I have noticed that rents are starting to come down and there are places at the $600.00 - $700.00range, my son just found a place that is $725.00 inclusive.
One of the problems in the City is that the same owner will own several buildings in a row especially if they are on the Lonsdale corridor, so much easier for the City to get rid of all the three floor wooden buildings and throw up high density apartments which is what Darrell and gang want to do.
As for as all the new projects are concerned we look at the empty Terraces on West 4th which have been that way since they were completed in August 2008. The youth have christened it with the usual graffiti. I think there will be many more empty spaces very soon. The homeless looking at peopleless homes.
What about rent to own be putting into place - surely that would solve a multitude of problems.
ps have you ever given a look into all the programs and people that you do contribute to (Senator Larry Campbell being one of them)
The argument against the Bewicke development was that it was being touted as "affordable" housing, in reality it was not. Each 50ft lot had a large duplex, a single family home, five parking spaces, and a 400sq ft suite. Picture that. For the increase in density, there was NO community benefit, and fees and development charges were "negotiated". Had the proposal been for smaller, liveable, more affordable units there would have been little opposition. Does North Van really need more $800,000 duplexes? The court case continues, you should drop by, great learning experience.
Just want to check for those who are so opposed to any kind of taxpayer help for affordable housing.
I would assume you have no problem with paying for the following:
a) $64 million a year for services for those living on the streets of Vancouver
b)Paying $259.05 a day to support the 153,000 people in prison today
c) The 70,000 people on disability (including the 6,897 who cannot work because of addiction or mental health issues) There are probably more but they cannot be found as they are homeless.
d)The 33,000 children who are being supported by the public (an 15% increase)
e) The 161,000 charities and non-profits in Canada.
The list can to on and on - you are spending billions of dollars on programs you do not know a thing about and yet you have a problem with affordable housing programsÉ
Seylynn is an absolute mess and if you can't see this with your own eyes you're an idiot. If we have developers ready to invest millions of dollars to make it a better place to live let them do there thing. Since I've purchased my house on fern over 6 years ago its becoming a sketchier place to live by the day. I've had a drunk driver hit and run on my house, I've witnessed a massive 20 police car raid on the criminals living next door and have had two vehicles stolen from my driveway. Believe me, any change to this area would be positive. Lets face it, the district of NV has yet to put my tax dollars back into the neighborhood and I don't see that happening anytime soon. The only time I've seen any action from NV politicians in the area is come election time when they want stick their massive election signs on my fence. I'm sick of hearing comments from tire kickers who don't even live in the area voicing irrelevant opinions trying crush the only real chance I see of cleaning up this run down, unsafe, dysfunctional neighborhood.
Less talk, more action..
Why would anyone assume it is their right to live in North Vancouver - or West Vancouver, or Burnaby or anywhere else.
You live where you can afford.
Would you in the "affordable housing" camp suggest we issue furniture and automobiles out as well, or subsidize an all expenses paid annual vacation for those who can't afford these things?
Here's the reality: the majority*** of those who aren't making a lot of money made poor life decisions that you are suggesting we now reward them for with taxpayer-funded gifts.
***Notice I said "majority" not "all"
The bad choices could have included;
1. Not getting an education
2. Not pursuing work
3. Having kids out of wedlock/unplanned pregnancies (which are a result of irresponsible decisions made in relationships- believe it or not this doesn't just "happen")
Or whatever else. And yes there are others who just have bad luck. But you know what I notice? I see my group of friends rallying to help the guy that has had a run of bad luck.
I am not interested in rallying to the cause of someone who was hitchiking while his peers were in university, or was tending bar while playing in a band while the rest of us got good paying jobs.
Everyone has to be accountable for the decisions they've made in life. Or else, where does it end, and what's the incentive if there's an equality of outcome?
Wow! Quite the comments.
I think my comment at this time is that we have to look after our children! Without "affordable housing" we will lose our children in our neighbourhoods, as we have seen recently with the impending closure of Balmoral School.
Would you "bourgeois" people like to live in a neighbourhood with "rich folks" like yourself with no elders and no children? This is simply not the definition of a realistic livable community. And, it goes against all psychology regarding good relations with the neighbours.
Wendy,
Declining student numbers are a problem everywhere, its the reverse-population pyramid problem we're having in the post baby-boom echo.
Another interesting fact though is how much private school enrollment has increased. It used to be that besides the Roman Catholic schools, there were no private schools on the North Shore 30 years ago.
Now there is Waldorf in Lynn Valley, Brockton in Seymour, Collingwood and Mulgrave in West Vancouver, and Lions Gate Christian school.
The fact is, that THOUSANDS of North Shore students are now privately schooled, which is the choice of the parents who nevertheless pay taxes to public schools!
However, if fewer public schools are required as a result of so many people making private education choices, then why keep them open?
That is all said without mentioning that the whole Balmoral issue is a tempest in a teapot. They will merely added to the new, larger Carson Graham campus. So what's the issue?
"We have to look after our children." Right. Let them live with you or help them with the downpayment. I've done both.
Look for inexpensive rent. Sue tells us it's out there.
There's no way other taxpayers are responsible to pay for, or subsidize, my children to live on the N. Shore even though they were brought up here.
Declining student population is NOT declining in other parts of the world neither is the birth rate.
It is only happening to certain groups of people in certain parts of the world.
Nikko 7:52 AM,
I did ask your question. The answer was approx $100,000.
The cost of one new bus? Depends on the kind of bus. It ranges from $600,000 to $1,000,000.
You missing the anti-abortion tirade of Sue. If you forced women to have babies, then the world would be back to the white bread world of the fifties.
Wendy this topic has come up again and again.
There is nothing good about high density but you will never convince the current politicians of that.
I have another concern at this moment and that is the condition of some of the rental buildings in the City. Twice I have helped my son move and twice I have been appauled at the condition of the buildings that he has lived in.
One was on the corner of Lonsdale and Keith road - the ceiling was collapsing in the closet and you could feel the holes in the floor under the thin carpet.
The one he is moving out of now is on 250 East 15th and again the conditions in this building are disgusting. Are there ever any inspections on these places in terms of safety, rodents etc? He was paying $975.00 to live in this dump. Perhaps this is deliberate neglect so this building can be torn down and replaced with a huge hi rise.
More traffic, more pollution, more waste, etc.
Sue, your son can complain about the condition of the apartment to the City and have it inspected for any safety issues. There will always be bad landlords, but there are also a lot of good ones who do look after their property. If the apartments are so bad, why did your son agree to rent in them? Why not keep looking for something more suitable? If the building owner wants to tear down and rebuild, that's his business. He's the property owner, not you. If you want to dictate what happens to an apartment building then you buy it at preserve it. Let's see how well you do making it economically viable.
As for your comments about density, you are making assumptions. Higher density does not automatically mean high rises. It can be achieved with lane way housing, duplexes, suites, medium density development, etc. The market will determine their success.
CM
John-
The post title is "Affordable Housing".
If you want to ignore the topic and have a completely unrelated conversation about Translink meetings then get Lyle, Nikko, Wendy's email addresses and go for it.
How arrogant and thoughtless. So much for your self-described post "credibility."
Well obviously this post has ruffled a few feathers, and that is exactly the point of this blog. As far as John Sharpe talking about the TransLink meeting on my post....Go for it John.
We are not in a rut here, otherwise there would be no blog.
I encourage everyone here to talk about everything and anything that is relevant to North Shore politics.
Sometimes the "post" doesn't cover what is happening. It is sad that there aren't more people who want to step up to the plate and post their comments.
Wendy
Anon 9:37,
All I can say is chill bros. and easy on the 'you know what' retentiveness. If you hadn't noticed Nikko had asked me the question first. Wendy also asked me a question and it is her post. What am I supposed to do, answer it in a different thread? I'm not the only one who wants to try to discuss North Vancouver politics in all it's complexities even within a different topic.
There was no "self described credibility".
I could make derogatory references to you too but, I choose to be respectful.
THANK YOU.
Excellent letter From Elise Roberts in today's North Shore News about how having had 'affordable housing' through some difficult times has now helped elevate her economic situation to the point of being able to afford a mortgage.
Lhttp://www2.canada.com/northshorenews/news/letters/index.html
To Anon 9:37 - I have plenty to say about both Translink and affordable housing though usually (there are exceptions but usually) I try to keep my chatter on topic.
Anybody heard me say "Please explain to me how I am personally better off if I have what is on paper a million dollar house and my grandkids live in Chilliwack because that's what my kids can afford?" - I'll tell you, ALL the DNV Councillors have heard me say that and on more than one occasion as Mr. Little will attest!
In the end I did NOT attend last night's Translink meeting since I had attended meetings on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and got home at 10:30 or later each night and felt I needed a rest.
The ONLY link I see between Translink and affordable housing is that Translink would dearly love to have a financial stake in the properties along potential transit lines in order to profit from the densification they expect to follow their building.
But that's not really "affordable" since Translink expects to command top market rates on these properties.
Frankly I think it's a horrible idea allowing Translink to get their fingers on a penny in real estate development (they're probably thinking of the Mass Transit Railway commission in Hong Kong which is a major landowner and breaks even on their transit operations and makes their profit on the real estate) since I don't think they have either the expertise nor the right to expect our trust based on their record.
John/Wendy-
Objecting to the use of a subject discussion blog as a personal message email site is not retentive. It is disrespectful to those interested in the topic under discussion. Please stick to email. Thanks.
Re E. Roberts' letter. Really like the idea of a community group adding to the low cost housing pool through volunteer and charitable works. Was the land for that project purchased or provided at no cost by the municipality?
John, just a gentle persuasion, you should write a post regarding the TransLink meeting you attended last night.
Anon 5:17
You are anal retentive and your comments are not relevant to my post.
Unclear on the ownership of the land, but from the Lions' website:
"At the beginning club meetings were held in the old Lynn Valley Legion, following at Karen Magnusson Arena and few short stops after that until the late 1980’s when the Lynn Valley Lions Housing Society was formed. This was the largest community project the club had undertaken and the basis was to provide subsidized housing to families in need. The complex was originally called Lynn Valley Lions Premier Court and consisted of 46 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units, was financed by Federal and Provincial grants and opened in 1992. This complex was renamed approximately 2 years ago after one of the club’s great members, Lion John Gardiner who had put many countless hours into the complex passed away. The facility is now called Lion John Gardiner Court and is located at 1055 Premier Street."
From Anon 5:17. Really? Sticking to the low cost housing topic is not relevant to an affordable housing post and having non-related email type chat is?
Boy you public named bloggers are a credible bunch!
Thanks Anon 6:30. The information identifies the complex as originally being financed by Federal and Provincial grants, which leaves the land acquisition costs still in question.
Following the letter in the NS News I had wondered how much of the project was publicly funded and how much was funded through community volunteer services.
It appears to be a blend.
Lyle, perhaps you should retire and move to Chilliwack to be near your kids and grandkids.
Or, Lyle, you could sell the family home, downsize to an affordable condo and give your kids their inheritance early so they can start building up their home equity. Or you could move into a secondary suite in their basement and provide a mortgage helper and free child care. My point is there are options for your kids.
Those options are there, but seem to be scoffed at by the NIMBY mentality of the North Shore. It would seem that nobody else is allowed to move hear.
Alright...enough.
I am a resident of Lynn Valley and I will fight for its livability.
I am disgusted with the Hynes Development project. It projects exactly what this post espouses....more cars and more pollution under the guise of "looking after our seniors."
It is a hoax. Don't fall for it.
Enough of your little sound bites, Wendy. Support your statements with studies and facts. All I see here is a woman trying to scare people with her hysterical misunderstanding of development. How do you propose to keep people from moving to the North Shore? How do you propose to get people out of their cars? Are you going to get rid of your car and lead by example? I hope so, otherwise you're just blowing smoke and trying to close the gates to your community to others who'd like to live there. And how do you respond to the residents of the area who look forward to the improvements the development will bring to their neighborhood? Wendy, what are the solutions? All I ever hear from you is whining and complaining without any suggestions for viable alternatives. You are nothing more than a neighborhood crank who won't be happy until everything is run the way you want it run. You lack any substance to your arguments and I challenge you start doing some real research and post real facts. Until you start doing so, nobody is going to take you seriously. Go read a few books by Jane Jacobs or Christopher Alexander and at least educate yourself about cities and how they work. As it stands, to the educated, your lack of knowledge is glaringly obvious.
CM
Good suggestions for Lyle and all others re kids not being able to afford N. Shore. We've been through it already and had to use our resources to help kids buy property - not on the Shore as it's too expensive to buy as much house as they need for their family.
Separation anxiety is tough but we go through it and adjust. World real estate values and premium area land costs are not going to be reduced by local gov'ts.
Many of you people "just don't get it."
Why should we residents of Lynn Valley, for example, have to put up with densification at our expense? The developers come in, make their money, and leave. The infrastructure costs are paid for by us, the voters, the taxpayers.
The DNV has forever failed to understand that a new "tax base" is inconsistent with the costs of policing, traffic, pollution, etc.
Note that Sam Cooper, a former reporter for the North Shore Outlook, has moved to the Vancouver Province.
We will have more North Shore stories and problems written.
This is a good thing.
Wendy, I love how you avoid my questions to you. What is the background of your expertise in these matters? Being an agitated resident just isn't good enough. Explain why this development is a bad thing. Defend your position! Many residents, as evidenced by the public hearing, are is support of the development. It is the right place for the proposed density. Again, if you are so concerned with too many vehicles and too much pollution, are you going to give up your car? Your infrastructure argument doesn't wash. Higher density results in lower infrastructure costs to the individual tax payer. Single family homes generate the highest infrastructure costs per person. Just look at Calgary, if you'd like a real life example. You're not convincing. Again, I suggest you read some books by the authors I recommended.
CM
CM
I have no clue who you are and I certainly have not avoided questions from you. Chill and explain.
Wendy
"The infrastructure costs are paid for by us, the voters, the taxpayers."
Like the new sidewalks, streetlights and landscaping at E.27th Street and Whiteley Court? Oh wait...that was all paid for by a developer...
Wendy, I asked you several questions in my post at 8:25 AM today. Is that explanation enough?
CM
Thanks John - but I have a hard time believing the ad budget for this campaign is $100K.
In one NS News last week they had a 1/4 page (two colour) ad (on an otherwise B&W page meaning they paid for the entire set-up on their own), and a full 4 page full colout pull-out. Multiply that with every newspaper in the area, along with the radio and TV ads they've been running, and I'm pretty sure the budget is bigger than $100K. If you the ad in the cost of the ad agency, and the cost of the administrative staff at Translink to organize, I'm betting the actual bill will creep close to $1mill.
Translink has a job to do - I get that. But when they put out a "dream future" and claim it's the only reality - I take issue with their stance. And when I see opulent advertising using full-on graphics and colour, I take issue with that. And when I see even more advertising with the main theme being "look at us - we're really good", I take issue with that. And when they then have the nads to begin to prepare me for a massive tax increase - as much as $400/year tacked onto my car insurance, without so much as an annual bus pass tied to it, I take issue with that (note to Translink - charge me the $400, but give me two "family" bus passes o go with it!) . And when they lie - blatantly lie about things like an advertising budget, I take issue with that too.
I've watching tonight's CNV council meeting. I've seen a lot of people trying to ask incomprehensible questions. One of these people was Ivan Leonard who run for Council. I think I've agreed with you but excuse me, you don't make any sense. It's not just you and the same old group of "council talkers".
Is this why the developers win? You all look like a joke. Is there someone who makes sense?
Nikko, John
I thought I heard 1 million, up to 1 and 1/2 m as the ad budget spent by Translink ?
Anon 10:32pm
"watching the cnv council meeting ..."
Without minimizing other concerns such as traffic, shadowing, views, loss of privacy etc, at least 2 important questions came to light:
1)What is the building/operating cost difference from 2005/06 to now, that would put Hollyburn Properties into financial hardship?
2)What is the exact loss and cost, as well as long-term implications, to the NV City Library building re solar energy?
All very well for you to be an arm-chair observer. Some of us took the time to research the facts.
What do YOU predict the council decision will be?
I also viewed the City of N Van discussion last night about the rental building at Chesterfield and 14th Street, on the corner.
It doesn't sound to me as if the rents would be anywhere near affordable. Who are the people that can afford $1,225 per month for a one bedroom in the old Marlborough Tower on 14th Street? (Advertised in the Friday June 19th NS News).
Wish the City would do something positive to help the present renters of N Van and the present rental building owners to fix their buildings. That would be a worthwhile project as these are the rents that NV people can afford.
What is the outcome of the Bewicke Ave court case?
What is the outcome of the Bewicke Ave court case?
The Judge reserved his decision. We wait patiently.
Post a Comment