Agenda Item 9.6. Bylaws 8080 and 8094: Rezoning and Housing Agreement- Some quotes of note from the meeting;
"We should not be advancing any development proposals until after that meeting (a phased implementation plan meeting on January 21st)." - Counc. Muri
"To make a blanket statement of, "I'm not willing to support" prior to a matter would indicate a prejudice and perhaps a closed mind". - Counc. Bassam
"I'm calling for a pause and I believe the electorate supported a pause". - Counc. Hanson
"We can't just stop in mid progress".- Counc. Hicks
"We can't just stop the boat in the middle of the ocean". - Counc. Bond
"It's not prohibition, it's phased development so her (Counc. Muri) mind is in fact open".- Counc. MacKay-Dunn
8 comments:
Bravo to Councillor Lisa Muri for standing up to her election platform! At the Dec. 15 regular meeting of DNV Council she put forward a motion to defeat the Bowser development plan from going to First Reading.
The motion was seconded by new Councillor Jim Hanson and went down to defeat 4:3 with Couns. MacKay-Dunn on board.
The comments of the 3 councillors and Mayor who voted in favour of the development going to public hearing I found contradictory to their campaigns. Couns. Hicks said we couldn’t just stop progress. Couns. Bond said that you can’t stop the boat in the middle of the ocean. What does this mean? Mayor Walton and Couns. Bassam were pro-development at all costs as usual.
Unfortunately, I think it means that development will continue at an unprecedented rate in the DNV and the 4 of the 7 will continue to live in a lala world where traffic doesn’t have anything to do with development permits.
"4 of the 7 will continue to live in a lala world where traffic doesn’t have anything to do with development permits. "
Oh come come, Anonymous..
Surely you understand about 'getting us out of our cars'. Those THOUSANDS of new residents will all be biking and walking and working close to home so they wont BE on the roads, don't you know?
Sadly, this is what Bond and Walton and the rest are feeding us.
DENSITY is what so called 'Sustainable Development' calls for and so it will be forced upon us until our former neighbourhoods will be unrecognizable.
I was in the Orpheum to hear The Messiah performed recently and so had occasion to head down Lonsdale to the Seabus and take in quasi Yaletown. During theperfomrance I thought to myself how our expensive and 'expert' planners, indoctrinated one and all with the SD meme of density density density, have yet to build or cause to be build a single structure that a generation hence would inspire a fight to preserve it, like the Orpheum. Not a one.
And that is the best reason I can think of for us to fight the breakneck development of SD condobox towers and roundabouts in our green and pleasant north shore land.
Share with us your idea of sustainability, L Leeman.
I prefer roundabouts over traffic lights and I won't be getting out of my car.
"I think it means that development will continue at an unprecedented rate in the DNV"
Unprecedented? We used to have much higher growth rates than 1%.
Sounds like Bond votes like Nixon and Hanson votes like Little. Nothing new here move along.
I watched the video, what I noted was that there was no discussion about the appropriateness of increasing the zoning from 1 FSR to the higher Marine Drive classification... They didn't really get that far in the discussion and all of a sudden it was passed (To 2nd reading). Instead they got side tracked in 'Yay development' or 'Nay development' and ignored the specific project. Bassam's assertion that councillor's must keep an open mind is actually misplaced. In a public hearing you must have an open mind, but prior to First Reading you certainly have the ability to enact effectively a moratorium on development. (I'm not arguing for it, I'm saying that councils can lawfully decide to not do anything). When council as a whole passes first and refers to a public hearing, then they are in effect, corporately agreeing that they will consider public arguments with an open mind, even if just a crack as Councillor Mackay-Dunn suggested. Furthermore, it is completely reasonable for Councillor Muri to use the tool of a deferral motion so she, and council, can benefit from the debate about phasing prior to taking on more rezoning proposals. It demonstrates a willingness to consider how things fit together. Moving defeat would have been more indicative of a closed mind.
IMHO, The broader phasing discussion is not effected by a 16 unit development vs. the 10 units allowed under the zoning, so I would not have let that discussion derail this process. Instead I would be trying to extract CAC's from this project to replace the burned down daycare (Novaco) down the road.
The Mayor broke the tie vote, he being the loyal lapdog of Metro Vancouver dictats. No surprise there.
Post a Comment