Wednesday, February 03, 2016
Non market housing discussed on District council
Agenda item 9.6 of the Feb.1st regular District Council meeting saw robust discussion on the topic of District land that could potentially be used for non market housing. Council unanimously accepted this motion that originated from Councillor Hanson. During the last Municipal election in 2014 this was an issue that kept coming up at All Candidates Meetings and seemed to have support from the voting public. The purpose of bringing this motion forward was to determine if Council would at first support the idea in principle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Where does a Co-op fit in their spectrum of housing? Next to basement suites, it is the most common source of low income housing on the North Shore and it is not specifically mentioned in the report.
I am fairly supportive of the Co-op model including some leased land, and federally backed mortgages on construction, but where I am struggling is that I have no interest in chopping down a forest to do it. So where are the unused, DNV owned brown field sites?
There may be some lands around Maplewood that are not forested, but they may also be serving as wetlands. So laying aside two major issues, Cost and Density, is the community willing to take previously undeveloped land and commit it to this purpose?
The District owns most of the single family houses on Old Dollarton Road, east of Riverside, many of which are not great and currently rented. They also own some building lots on Mount Seymour Parkway that are not particularly "treed" and the land across from the sports field on Riverside Drive but it is treed and some would definitely have to come down should it be "re-purposed". I don't like to see trees coming down either, but I prefer that to having people moving away from the District because they cannot find accommodation within their means, especially when they had homes that came down due to redevelopment.
In the article in the NSN, Cllr Hanson was standing by the unofficial parking lot close to Phibbs Exchange. If the goal is to get people out of their cars and onto public transit, building on that land will be counter productive, IMHO. Every day, that little parking lot probably keeps 100 cars or more from going back and forth over the bridge, and out of the downtown core.
There is definitely a trade-off for the District. They provide some land for co-op housing or purpose-built rentals designed for families with young(er) children so they can still afford to live here and keep our schools populated. Entry level jobs, like those provided by McDonald's are also great experience for teenagers, but if there are no locals to fill them, those jobs get filled by employees who have to commute.
Long story short, I fear the graying of our community more than I fear a few trees coming down. At this point, I think we can spare a few of them if it means attracting or keeping families with children.
Time to start assembling single family lots and put them to better use.
There's a whole swath of Seymour area CMHC land that is going to waste due to the former NIMBYism of the old G.U.A.R.D. And because it's not "central", it could become the most affordable housing land DNV has available.
The social engineers must have never got the message of King Canute. If DNV thinks it can stem the tide of the global real estate market by zoning for a few publicly subsided housing units it will be a painful lesson for the taxpayers.
I embrace the graying of the N. Shore. More amenities and programs for seniors who have lots of disposable income due to the extraordinary rise in their real estate value should be the first business of council. I would like to see upscale gated communities for downsizing seniors built on District lands so that they can age in the communities that they have built after they sell the large family homes that they no longer need.
How about serving the demographic that really exists instead of trying to create an artificial demographic that must rely upon public subsidy?
"having people moving away from the District because they cannot find accommodation"
This is my main struggle with non-market housing. I think we have a responsibility to provide a variety of housing options in each of our West, Central and East areas, but I know that we have zero ability to retain non-market housing for long time residents that are in need. When a non-market unit is built, it will be used to house anyone, regardless of whether or not they were a North Van Resident, and that person is likely to stay there until they move into an assisted living facility.
Perhaps it is just sour grapes on my part, but when I drive through the Co-op in my neighborhood, the cars in the parking lot are pretty nice and there are Seadoos and ATVs, so I am skeptical that their decision to live in a co-op is a lifestyle choice not because of ongoing need.
How many of those Seadoos and ATV's are paid for and how many are on 60 or 72 month payment plans? Just because there are lots of toys in the yard doesn't reflect responsible spending.
DNV is having a Council workshop on Rentals & Affordable housing, Feb.15th at 6pm. Knowing Council, there will probably be no time for "public input", though.
Thank you for another great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am on the look for such information. demonhouse.org |
Post a Comment