Tuesday, October 04, 2016
DNV Land Disposition for Affordable Housing Initiative
At the September 12th, 2016 Regular meeting of Council the disposition of 6 or 7 undeveloped lots in the DNV were on the table for discussion. These lots, if sold would be worth approximately 7 million dollars and the idea would be to use this money towards affordable housing. Being public information I had occasion to view several of the lots under question in the Lynn Valley area where the majority of them exist. I was quite interested that there were actually any undeveloped lots like these in Lynn Valley. As examples; One lot was on Kilmer, one on Hoskins, and another on Lynn Valley Road and Henderson. I did not venture out to view the other one or two lots that were I believe, in the Blue Ridge area. So the question becomes to sell or not to sell these lots for the aforementioned reason? Discussion at the council meeting on the 12th of September suggested this money could be used in transportation corridors 'in line' with the current OCP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
116 comments:
The problem with District of North Vancouver is that they have mostlikely frittered away much of their surplus funding on frivolous pursuits like a couple hundred grand thrown at the feet of the unworthy NSMBA in recent years.
There have been a lot of bad decisions made by our Council that make me feel cynical about this new revenue from land sales being used in a responsible fashion. Some of the more questionable abuse of this revenue may have resulted in District's ethical Financial Officer, Nicole Devereau leaving DNV.
If anyone here knows more about this, please do chime in.
Responsible fashion? How is selling an appreciating asset like land, to create a bottomless pit, provincial download like 'affordable' housing, responsible?
Isn't subsidized housing a Federal download? Are municipalities really in a position to act as landlords? And can we have a descussion without bringing mountain biking into it, please? We get it, you hate Councillor Bond. Get over it and move on.
There is little point in having a discussion on this blog given the tsunami of misinformation regarding the subject of housing affordability and its various options. Affordable housing IS NOT only subsidized housing. Co-op housing is NOT managed by municipalities. The largest landlord in Canada is, in fact, a municipality. It is the City of Toronto through Toronto Community Housing. Empty land that does not generate income has NO economic value to a municipality or anyone else. Only on the sale of the land is economic value realized.
Having written the above I know it is just a matter of time before Tesluk and Hewitson start in with their invective and mud slinging, claiming anyone with knowledge of the matter is a troll or liar, and shutting down any informed discourse.
Rather than sell the land, why not develop it into housing that displays what's possible on a District lot? Duplex with suites, subdivide and provide a small house with suite and coach house on each lot, etc. Explore the possibilities of the missing middle densities that bridge the gap between the usual single family homes and the higher densities that are better suited to town centres. These could then become part of the Districts long term rental stock. If any of the lots in question are located where higher density is warranted, then develop accordingly. But don't discard the land, keep it in the District portfolio.
Finance GM Nicole Deveaux has not left the District, she is on leave.
Anon, Tuesday, October 04, 2016 3:16:00 pm:
I said I was CYNICAL about responsible use of land funds by the District.
Come on Trollbert, no consultation with Smedley Pennyworth, and the always on time Ms. Quackfaster on this one? How come the poor denizens of North Van Politics don't get both barrels of fun?
Toronto ≠ District of North Vancouver
"Empty land that does not generate income has NO economic value to a municipality or anyone else" True enough, but it does have a natural benefit, and sometimes a social benefit and since we are a triple bottom line community that needs to be considered.
I am torn on some of those lots because they have become informal pocket parks in otherwise busy streets. I don't benefit from one of those spaces now, but when I was a kid, those properties typically had goat trails on them to some other great place. I like our low density community and I believe a majority of the community does too.
Don't care if Toronto is a big landlord. Prefer that munis provide muni services like roads, garbage pickup, police, fire, libraries, parks, rec centres etc. and leave public sector administration of low income and coop housing to the province and feds.
Like to see the revenues from land sales defer the costs of municipal services and equipment as a shared benefit to all taxpayers.
The person using the pejorative Trolbert is Andrew Hewitson. For some months Hewitson has trolled every social media site, and blog for which Mr. Hazen Colbert has posted - some posts going as far back as 2009.
Hewiston has hacked Mr. Colbert's Facebook profile and may have tried to hack his email addresses. He may even have taken Colbert's identity on social media.
In all cases Hewitson spews invective and hatred at Colbert. His hated is incendiary and designed to provoke.
Hewitson is a long time close friend of Mathew Bond and his family.
Is it possible to discuss anything on this blog without being dragged into the minutiae of this dysfunctional menage? I for one have heard more than enough detail about Colbert, Bond et al. You guys may be fascinated by yourselves but WE DON'T CARE. Recommend you meet out behind the Municipal Hall and beat the tar out of each other and get on with life.
Meanwhile, back at the subject. Municipalities cannot possibly hold back the tide of global real estate pricing. Its a fools game. Outside of assisting with housing for the elderly and special needs stay out of it.
I do not condone any form of violence.
Municipalities are the only stakeholders than can zone land. As a result they cannot remove themselves from the affordability debate. Metro Vancouver has restricted the amount of land available for residential housing thus driving up the price of land. The DNV has done the same. Limited land in Hong Kong, Singapore, London, San Francisco and Boston is the primary driver of price increases in those jurisdictions. Land that is zoned for co-op housing in perpetuity creates a supply of land with a cap on price. The DNV has considerable surplus land that could be used for co-op housing including a substantive land tract surrounding the Seymour Golf Club. presently zoned park & recreation space but not used except for a large forest expanse around the Golf Club, land also owned by the DNV and leased for pennies on the dollar.
Well aren't you special.
Metro Vancouver is restricted due to its geography. Sea, border, mountains. A handful of co-ops are not going to stem the tide of rising real estate values targeted at the most desirable, and limited, world locations. No one has a "right" to live in any area of Metro because that is their preference. Not a fan of parkland rezoned for multifamily occupancy. I'd like some West Van waterfront, maybe we could get some co-op housing there if they would just rezone Lighthouse Park.
Has anyone asked themselves why the mountain biking cult figures so prominently in discussions such as these? Perhaps the fine District needs more revenue from land sales in order to feed the insatiable maw of the NSMBA?
Does anyone have a clue how much District funding has been poured into the free ride on our mountain slopes? That includes protecting the esteemed Counc. Bond from litigation.
I believe, without a doubt, this land-based revenue will not be spent on affordable housing solutions. That word "affordable" has been bandied about for too many years, and rendered it meaningless.
Seriously, shut up about the mountain biking. Go start your own topic if you want to discuss it. It's been done to death here and doesn't need to be brought into every discussion. Don't like the mountain bikers, take it up at a council meeting and have your say where it will be put on public record. Now, can we discuss the topic at hand? John, how about moderating this blog of yours and get rid of the off topic posts that do nothing for the topic of discussion?
Has anyone looked at what is actually on the table? Hint: It isn't about affordability.
Just ahead of the UN Habitat III Conference in Quito, Ecuador later this month, where a new global urban agenda for the next 20 years, will be adopted, the United Nations fully intend to reshape 100% of the world’s cities and towns: Cut water and power usage in half and force public transit to 60%. Worse, most of the leaders of world nations are fully on board with the plans like this.
What has this got to do with District of North Vancouver? Plenty. They take their direction from Metro Vancouver which is fully onboard with the UN's agenda in all areas of "complicity"
Conserving energy and water is bad? Shifting our transportation to more efficient modes is bad?
Rather than looking for boogiemen, how about just focusing on the discussion; affordable housing within our communities on the North Shore. Lots to talk about here, without getting sidetracked by conspiracy theories.
UN Habit III is actually about affordable housing and wealth equality. Municipalities have been given the mandate to redistribute the benefits of urbanization, which historically have are highly concentrated among about 10% of urban land owners, to all people living in urban communities. The following statement is only one mission statement in that regard:
Municipal Finance. For a good management and maintenance of the city, local fiscal systems should redistribute parts of the urban value generated.
The problem the UN is having is that many proponents of urbanization are NOT redistributing the parts of urban value generated throughout the urban-sphere. Developers and builders have become extremely wealthy, municipal politicians routinely waive CACs and DCCs while placing onerous demands on residents to pay higher property taxes and user fees. Density savings was to pay for high speed mass transit but the beneficiaries of urbanization are paying nothing toward transportation infrastructure.
There is no better example of local fiscal systems failing to redistribute urban value generated than the District of North Vancouver. The DNV is the ONLY municipality in the lower mainland with NO Metro Vancouver social housing. The DNV has waved almost ALL CACs that were supposed to be collected from the development of town centers over the past 5 years. And worse, the DNV has sold off valuable public land for cents on the dollar to developers, receiving nothing of value in return when the land could have been monetized and the value shared among DNV residents, the best example being the almost criminal sale of the old Lynn Valley Library to Bosa for half its economic value.
Affordable housing in all its forms, whether it be co-op housing, subsidized housing, seniors housing etc. etc IS a condition for urnbanization. Yet local councils, senior planners etc who are on the take with swollen off shore bank accounts have failed their local residents by hogging the benefits themselves or allowing it to remain in the pockets of the development lobby.
If we want housing affordability, we need electoral reform starting with councilors disclosing all their assets and income, including assets held in tax havens.
Lets try to stay focused on affordable housing options on the North Shore.
It makes sense that beneficiaries of densification and urbanziation should be sharing the horn of plenty with all. We are a wealthy country and there is certainly enough for all.
I would start by taxing any increase in a property due to rezoning as a capital gain for the property owner and require the owner to bring 50% of the gain into income. The principal residence rule would not apply to capital gains from rezoning as that rule was never intended to allow windfall profits. The same approach should apply to land assembly and subdivisions.
Development applicants should also have to "open the kimona" and show their profits on development for stringent analysis.
There is one valid argument for municipalities not managing affordable housing units. Can one imagine who would be approved for such units if CNV or DNV Council's were controlling the access? The Hicks family. The Mussatto family. The Walton family. The Keatings. Just don't go near the issue.
1. Unless there is evidence that municipal staff is "on the take" from developers please stop making those statements. Without verifiable proof these type comments are unsubstantiated and baseless.
2. Solutions proposed for Ecuador are not necessarily appropriate for North Vancouver.
3. Numerous UN committees are dominated by left-leaning second and third world countries who want broader internal distribution and external acquisition of aid. Their solutions are not universally applicable.
4. "Sharing the plenty" through heavy taxation and public appropriation was attempted in the failed USSR. Didn't work there won't work here.
5. No one has an entitlement to live in the neighbourhood that they prefer other than seniors who have helped build the community and special needs folks who should be supported proximate to their loved ones.
6. Not convinced the N. Shore needs increased population in the first place. The pressure on roads, hospitals, public amenities, mountains, shopping areas is great enough now. Wouldn't mind seeing a no-growth/low-growth approach to population increase. Provision of reliable quality public services to existing residents should be the first and highest priority.
The UN meeting to formulate GLOBAL policy is taking place IN Ecuador. It is not about policies FOR Ecuador.
Since 75% of the world is, in fact, 3rd World, of course these countries dominate an assembly which includes all of the countries of the world.
Eight of the top 11 countries of the world by standard of living have policies of sharing the wealth including Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, France, Canada etc. Sharing the wealth through tax and spend policies works. The issue is how to do it efficiently.
Social infrastructure is a service.
The lack of basic and fundamental knowledge of some of the electorate often results in poor decisions and bad judgment in council chambers.
"The issue is how to do it efficiently." Yes, and how to do it without scaring away capital. Investors like the benefits of working in a social democracy to a point, and then they bail to a human rights pariah like China.
Yeah, China. You know communist China that nationalized private property, killed millions, tried out the idea of sharing the wealth with the people and discouraged private ownership through high taxation, realized that it doesn't work, and now is a repressive capitalist dictatorship. Same thing with Russia. The template of failed states is not a prudent one.
"Social infrastructure is a service."
Yes it is and the subject at hand addresses the housing piece of social infrastructure.
The discussion is fundamental. Is there an appetite to increase social housing at the municipal level or not?
The proponent thinks yes and looks to the UN for direction.
The opponent thinks no and prefers the lions share of social infrastructure be directed to quality public services and senior/disabled housing.
I would not jump to the conclusion that the electorate has a "lack of fundamental and basic knowledge".
It is entirely possible to understand the proponent and have equivalent or greater knowledge and disagree with his perspective.
Even if there is no appetite, do those elected to lead still have a moral obligation to act on behalf of ALL the electorate, even the minority? Or the most vulnerable?
Don't forget their obligation to future generations. If they can't stay here, this will be a community of seniors and the very rich.
The "obligation" of elected municipal representatives in the context you propose is found in the following sections of the Community Charter:
1 (1) Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government within their jurisdiction that
(a) is democratically elected, autonomous, responsible and accountable,
(b) is established and continued by the will of the residents of their communities, and
(c) provides for the municipal purposes of their communities.
(2) In relation to subsection (1), the Provincial government recognizes that municipalities require
(a) adequate powers and discretion to address existing and future community needs,
(b) authority to determine the public interest of their communities, within a legislative framework that supports balance and certainty in relation to the differing interests of their communities,
(c) the ability to draw on financial and other resources that are adequate to support community needs,
(d) authority to determine the levels of municipal expenditures and taxation that are appropriate for their purposes, and
(e) authority to provide effective management and delivery of services in a manner that is responsive to community needs.
So, if Council determines that, given "the differing interests of their communities", there is a "community need" to target a significant "municipal expenditures and taxation" and the majority of the electorate is supportive of raising taxes and targeting the extra funding to municipal social housing instead of other municipal services, then they may decide to do exactly that.
If there isn't a "will of the residents" to pursue those expenditures and related taxation then they likely would not vote to undertake them, and they have no obligation to do so.
Real estate is global. If North Vancouver is broadly viewed as a highly desirable area it may well become a community of seniors and the wealthy. This can no more be stopped by some local social housing than King Canute could hold back the tide.
Once again the discussion has an obvious solution.
For those that think there should be greater resources put towards municipal social housing, then organize a group of like minded people to lobby council to undertake your wishes and/or run for council yourselves on a platform of expanded social housing, get elected and go from there.
For those that don't want additional NV population growth do the same thing or elect others that want to keep a lid on our population.
Another solution would be to organize and lobby the Province to legislate municipalities to provide social housing and set annual quotas for municipalities to create social housing capacity. The Province can commit Provincial funding as well as act as a conduit for Federal funds. The ultimate power of the Province in this regard would be to change the Community Charter to force an amalgamation of a municipality that refuses to provide adequate social housing with another municipality. Just think of how fast social housing for North Vancouver residents would rise in the CNV and DNV if the Province said,"You have two years to create 1,000 units of social housing, or we merge you with both WITH the City of Vancouver, still require you to build the social housing but now you must make it available to residents of the downtown Eastside." It is called gunboat diplomacy and by God it is exactly the approach that should be used with the sloths at City and District Hall!
Additionally Metro government can require ALL municipalities to provide social housing. Note that the DNV has NO Metro housing units but Doug MacKay-Dunn sits on the Metro Housing Board, a truly bizarre situation.
That's fantastic!! I think I will sell my house, and stop paying those pesky mortgage payments so I can qualify for a tax payer funded one in North Vancouver, maybe I can even cut down my work hours and have other people pay my bills for me. Great Idea!
Its all about learning the system and taking advantage of it. Do not sell the house. Draw down all the equity in a home-line-of-credit then move the funds offshore along with your investments. Pledge the house as security for more loans. The default on the mortgage. Stop working. Eventually you can declare bankruptcy. Then retire to a taxpayer funded home with your MSP and Fair Pharma Care covering medical expenses. Get monthly payments from the government, may as a disability by claiming you cannot work because you are addicted to pornography on the Internet. It all sounds terrible doesn't it? But what I have just described in the financial profile of a retired teacher, or a nurse or maybe a provincial or municipal employee isn't it? They learn the system and live well within it. Why not the rest of us?
The community charter being amended to force amalgamations, create "quotas" and demand compliance or else sounds like something right out of Stalinist Russia. No thanks Comrade.
If we can be forced to comply with no-smoking rules in a public park, and no talking on the cell phone in a car, then we can live with forced amalgamations and social housing.
The Shore doesn't need more density and more people.
What do you think the sale of Grouse Mountain is all about? A development application - probably 400-600 condos
Has anyone else been able to hear the incessant dripping? So(drip)cial(drip)ism(drip)
Unless you own land, you don't really own anything. Condos and townhouses are strata properties. Owned by someone else who has a hell of a lot of money. Private property ownership/freehold is being priced out of the stratosphere for most.
"Socialism is seductive in theory, but tends toward tyranny and serfdom in practice." - Perry E. Gresham.
Oh God help us all.
Dr. Gresham, a reincarnation of Adam Smith has shown up on this blog.
Adam Smith invented the concept of trade based on natural competitive advantage after studying trade of oranges, cotton and....YES....slaves.
Adam Smith claimed that government should stay out of the marketplace, since the private market would always balance supply and demand. He called it the "invisible hand."
As I have said more than once to the followers of Adam Smith, "The reason it is invisible and that we cannot see it IS......because it doesn't exist."
Its always fun to take a discussion to the academic level.
From a more practical perspective, is higher density and increasing population on the North Shore desirable? Do we want more pressure on our streets, parks, transit, mountains, shopping etc?
If the land must be sold then let it be zoned as single family to minimize the addition to the existing population.
While they are at it beg NVC to stop building low rises and high rises on former single family zoning in a mad policy driving the population up in our limited living space.
This is at the heart of the "mad policy' at play in the fields of Metro Vancouver:
Removal of:
Private Property ownership
Single-Family homes
Private car ownership and individual travel choices
Privately owned farms
The Metro Vancouver regionalism plan openly targets private property. For over thirty-five years the UN has made their stance very clear on the issue of individuals owning land:
"Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole."
Source: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I),Vancouver, BC, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Preamble to Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report.
Municipalities no longer represent their communities.
The dual objectives of urban densification and development of high-speed, high capacity public transit is laudable.
The funds for transit were planned to come from wealth redistribution from tbe beneficiaries of the higher density including those entities profiting from rezoned land and those entities profiting from the very rates of return on multi-family buildings including the long promised massive increase in rental supply.
Regrettably, no such wealth redistribution occurred. Instead all manner of funny business took place. The CRA failed to amend tax policy to capture extraordinary gains from the sale of rezoned land. Municipalities waived all the CACs and DCCs required to fund transportation and worse, waived property tax collection on rezoned properties through arcane and esoteric land assembly and subdivision processes. Right here at home we have the DNV allowing redeveloped properties to claim their first year of property tax as a CAC. The rezoning at Lynn Valley Mall accompanied by a highly suspect land division, then reassembly allowed half the rezoned property to receive a $0.00 assessment (the land previously assessed at $20 million) and thus a waiver on property tax. The one person responsible for signing off on the land division was Brian Bydwell, General Manager of Planning for the DNV. When the trickery was disclosed in January, 2016 Bydwell took early retirement.
Excluding equity in single family homes there are more millionaires in Canada who formed their wealth from property development than from any other source!!! And much of the wealth has come from speculative activity.
Oh and what about all that promised affordable rental housing supply. Nothing there.
So we get the density, a reduction in affordability, and a loss of the freedom of single family homes. In return we have traffic congestion. And all of it enabled intentionally by municipal policies controlled by just a handful of people with a voter turnout, during a good election, of 19%.
Not sure that NVC council is a tool of the UN but the "mad policy" on steroids (have you had a look at E. 3rd St?) simply diminishes the quality of life for each resident with the addition of higher density and higher population in a geographically small space.
The higher density and higher population alone does not diminish quality of life, albeit there is science that shows that people living in building over 12 stories experience isolation and depression, and commit suicide at a higher rate than the general population.
High density and high population absent ownership or affordable rent, quality employment, social and physical infrastructure and absent high quality public transit does diminish quality of life.
From the period 2009-2015, wages in Metro Vancouver rose at 1/2 the national average, the region has arguably the worst traffic congestion in the country, home prices more than doubled and rent rose far faster than the rate of inflation. None of these consequences were expected from the charge to higher density. Despite the abject failure of high density both the CNV and the DNv are absolutely committed to it.
At least the DNV learned from the failure of the Seylynn project (it was supposed to be complete at the end of 2016...there is now talk of maybe 2019 as long as the third tower is dropped from 24 storeys to 12) and near all further development was limited to 12 storeys or less (most 5-6 storeys). The CNv however is committed to massive development in Moodyville where people already constantly complain about the train noise from Port Metro Vancouver, development absent even one metre of additional road, no businesses, no social infrastructure, no additional public transit, no jobs etc.
Sorry but you are mistaken. Density and population have a tipping point. Rent, employment, infrastructure and transit all permit higher densities to work better but even then there still is a tipping point where the quality of life diminishes.
Your points talk about what should be and that is fine. I am talking about what actually exists and going forward with additional density which is the topic of this thread. Two different perspectives.
Given current reality we have exceeded the tipping point when comparing current N. Shore quality of life to a prior era when density and population were lower. NVC is the most responsible for this state of affairs. Adding more density just exacerbates an already diminishing quality of life for existing residents.
Therefore I do not support further densification zoning other than for seniors and special needs residents.
I do agree there is a tipping point. And it seems we agree the rush to densify along 3rd is an example of such a tipping point.
I also agree with further densification for seniors and special needs.
But limiting population growth alone will not address North Shore problems particularly with transportation. Dr. Corrie Cost of FONVCA has repeatedly pointed out, at least to DNV Council, that the growth in ownership of passenger cars on the North Shore FAR, FAR exceeds the growth in population. Even with population held constant, a 30% in car ownership will cause transportation problems. Neither the CNV or DNV will address that issue.
Eliminate free street parking. That might be a starting point. Why should tax payers subsidize storage for other homeowners multiple personal and business vehicles not stored on their own property?
Perhaps eliminating population growth alone will not address all of our problems but it is a starting place. Increasing density zoning is the root of the problem.
I am well acquainted with Corrie Kost.
If, as you say, the population remains constant and the number of drivers remain balanced between those losing their licenses (old age and death) and those gaining a license and N. Shore car ownership increases and we agree that a resident can only drive one car at a time then additional car ownership, other than storage, is not a major issue as the number of North Shore cars on the road must also remain constant.
You're forgetting the offspring who become driving age and have cars of their own and still live at home. It used to be that a family had one car. Period. Now, it isn't unusual for a single family to have a car for each member of that family. In my neighbourhood, I can count the number of houses where there is only a single car on one hand.
Yes, we have more cars per person, and that is still increasing, but it is driven by higher incomes and will eventually be subject to diminishing returns and is not indicative of higher household kilometer hours. My wife used to drive me to work, and after using our one VW Jetta for the day she would pick me up at the end of the day. Yes we bought a second car, but while we doubled our number of cars, our actual household kilometers driven only went up by about 20 percent. Eventually I would love a convertible to show off my forties, a third vehicle will mean a fifty percent increase in the number of cars, but since I cannot drive two cars at once, my household percentage of kilometers driven will only rise marginally, inversely compared to my hairline.
Anon 2:37. Not forgetting the offspring who become of driving age. If the population remained constant then we would constantly have a similar number young and old folks aging. In a constant population the number of offspring of driving age would also be constant as you are forgetting the elderly who stop driving and are replaced by the constant number of babies who age into driver's licenses in a never-ending circle of life (see the Lion King).
This is state of equilibrium is ruined by converting existing single family zoning to high density.
There are streets on the North Shore that are clogged with parked cars. The odd thing is that every single family home on those streets has 2-3 cars in the laneway There are two members of DNV Council, Robin Hicks and Doug Mackay Dunn, for whom they and their wives are retired - they still own two cars. One member of DNV Council - her family has three cars in the driveway and only one family member holds a real job! The elderly do not stop driving LOL. In fact they now drive to the corner store instead of walking. Why? Because with all the new development there is NO increase in commercial services. Think of Seylynn Village. How does someone there get a litre of milk or a loaf of bread, or even a coffee from Timmies - they have to drive!
"One member of DNV Council - her family has three cars in the driveway and only one family member holds a real job!"
Are you visiting the Councillor's houses and counting their cars? Do they put their garbage out before the bylaw too? When do you think your personal obsession with the politician's goes too far?
Don't care how many cars people own as they can only drive one at a time. It is a storage issue and not a congestion issue. Last time I looked it was a free country so if somebody has 3 cars in their driveway but one driver in the house then good for them.
The elderly do stop driving when they give up their licenses which eventually happens sooner or later. Go talk to the old timers having coffee in LV mall. No licenses.
Council, hold the line on high density zoning. Don't need more population.
We are noticing that many of our friends and family young adults 16 - 30 are not opting for car ownership. Lots aren't even bothering to get a license until their 20's. The majority are using transit and the Modo, car2go, zipcar for those infrequent times they really need a car. So don't really agree that the youth of driving age necessarily are adding significantly to the car population beyond that experienced in past years.
Given the make-up of Canada and North America, we are a car culture. There are too many places that transit can't or won't go. Using Modo or car2go becomes pricier than owning a car, if you want to go camping or somewhere outside the MetroVancouver area for a weekend or more.
The freedom of the open road eventually beckons, and like the dream of owning a single family dwelling with property, it is a purely North American one. Why should we deny our children what we have enjoyed?
What may work in Europe does not work in North America. Let's call this "sustainable development" for what it really is: A sham!
How exactly is sustainable development a sham?
Building for high density multi-family condos without the proper infrastructure in place, creating traffic jams. It is not "sustainable"
What you described is poor municipal planning and has nothing to do with sustainable development as a concept. Sustainable development requires that all those things be addressed. Now if you want to talk shams, let's chat about urban sprawl.
Sustainable development requires that the demand for affordable single family homes and the economic concept of utils also be included. Forcing people to live in dense communities against their will is also not sustainable. Forcing people to ride in cramped, infirmaries called subway cars and/or buses also against their will is similarly not sustainable. Provided that people are willing to pay ALL the real (not imagined) costs of a single family home and a private automobile, then they have the right to those privileges. Many municipal planners including transportation planners are far left socialists who want to force people into dense communities and force them to rely on public transit, not because there is a demand for such things or because they are sustainable, but because the planners and their elected officials want control over people's lives. How better to do it than with cameras etc at every corner of a dense urban area, and on every bus or subway car along with machines that scan their identity cards every time they walk across a street, enter a building or pay their fare on public transit. What is Translink's COMPASS card if not a 24/7 way to monitor the movement of people?
You lose all credibility once you label people 'socialists' and slip into the paranoid conspiracy theories. I see serious discussions about housing are impossible on this blog.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the label socialist. It is just another legitimate political category. But there is something wrong when transportation planners ignore the reality that bike lanes and buses CANNOT substitute for a private passenger car when making multiple stops on one trip or driving from the North Shore to central Surrey to work.Plus the issue of monitoring people through cameras in cities, through smart meters and through cards like COMPASS is a legitimate privacy issue evolving in law. In addition, some of us do not care to listen to our upstairs neighbors carrying on bizarre behaviour day & night such as playing basketball with marbles or stomping around in ski boots, and do not want to be interrupted by some lunatic riding the bus off her meds. There is nothing paranoid about these things. In fact, there was a time, when we were the ones considered normal because we insisted on the right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment in our homes and cars!
If you can afford a SFH, knock yourself out. But don't close the community to people who don't have that ability. A healthy community has a mix of housing types available to all who wish to live there.
For "all who wish to live there"... That is the problem, there are probably tens of millions of people in the world who wish to live here. To sort out who gets to live in a place, the world has devised a simple system. You must convince someone to leave by buying them out, convince them to share their house by renting at a rate that both parties are satisfied with, or in some circumstances the municipality will allow the building of more units for sale or rent.
If we opened the flood gate and removed the restrictions on unit counts and floor space ratios, we would see neighborhood densities rise in a fashion that was only limited by the availability of trades or until the population density overwhelmed services and made the community undesirable enough to limit growth.
We as a community do not have a responsibility to build for the world, but I do think we should be building for our own needs. We need a variety of housing to meet our aging population, and need some more rental to allow people to move through the housing spectrum, but we do not need scores of housing.
Stop saying "we". You can only speak for yourself. What you feel you need may not be in sync with what the community wants and needs.
Ahem 7:05.
Didn't you mean 'what WE of the community wants and needs'?
Ahem 7:05.
Didn't you mean 'what WE of the community want and need'?
Nope. I can only speak for myself. I don't presume to speak for the community. I wasn't elected to any office that gives me that right.
Anyone who thinks that holding elected office means a person speaks for others does not understand who puts people into those positions.
So, what gives you the right to speak for anyone other than yourself?
Anon 10:30. The obligation to represent community interests are not a matter of debate. They are listed in the Community Charter and reprinted on this thread at Anon Oct. 7 12:17.
To Anon 6:14. Agree entirely with Anon 6:57. Able adults of working age that "wish to live here" have no entitlement to be provided with housing through municipal resources.
No, it shouldn't be handed to them, but they should be able to rent or purchase housing that fits their economic position. That means that there needs to be a variety housing types allowed to be built, not just single family homes on oversized lots.
There is a variety of free market and rental housing available now. Therefore, assuming that the key words in the post are "that fits their economic position".
There is no entitlement for able adults to live where they "wish". In life everything isn't handed out on a silver platter. In a location of premium real estate values it is unrealistic to think that you have a right to have accommodation provided that "fits your economic position". All of our children grew up in NV and all of them live elsewhere as NV doesn't fit their economic positions. Sometimes you must start at an entry level and then earn those things that you wish.
Not sure where the notion that the right to adequate housing where ever someone lives is not a right. Indeed it is a right which was memorialized by the Quebec Court of Appeal which wrote that housing, even more than employment, is a basic need of every individual in our society. in Desroches v. Quebec (Comm des droits de la personne) (1997), 30 C.H.R.R. D/345 (Que. CA). Until the Supreme Court of Canada says otherwise, housing is a right. And no protestations that a Quebec decision does not apply in BC. A well thought out Court of Appeal decision in Quebec by a learned group of career judges will always hold dominion over some hackneyed BC solitary judge with questionable credentials from Thompson Rivers U while taking a short sojourn from private practice to interfere with the proper evolution of Canadian law.
A municipal council has no authority to override a provincial court of appeal no matter that the electorate may not like the court decision.
We all have the right, under the Canadian Charter, to live wherever we want in Canada. And our municipalities have the responsibility to provide adequate housing. If CNV and DNV are unable to meet that responsibility then all the more reasons to amalgamate ALL 22 municipalities in Metro Vancouver into one city so that the amalgamated city can provide affordable housing for all in need.
Thank you anon 3:54pm for adding some clarity to this discussion.
1. A BC decision is precedent. A decision from another province may or may not be accepted in BC as persuasive. Don't know where you got the notion that a Quebec Court of Appeal decision binds BC. It does not.
2. The Charter permits freedom of movement for Canadian citizens and permanent residents to have freedom of movement and reside in any Province, S. 6 (2) (a). The permission to reside in any province does not compel a municipality to provide housing for anyone wanting to live there.
3. Our "municipalities have the responsibility to provide adequate housing". I take you mean that a municipality must provide adequate housing for every person that "wishes" to live there. This is not found as an obligation of municipalities under the Community Charter. It doesn't exist.
Three strikes you're out. You're dreaming.
I always stand corrected. So please, show us the BC court precedent that says a Canadian has no right to housing. Please show us :-)
There is no "permission" to reside anywhere. It is freedom of movement. No municipality gives permission to people to live there despite slugs like DNV Councillor Roger Bassam who believes people that do not live up to his standard for economic means should be exported elsewhere, put on the buses and exported across the Second Narrow Bridge so that he need not provide for them. That is what the Nazi's did but by train.
Yea, three strikes you are out. Just like Mathew Bond telling seniors to give up their drivers' licenses so he can get around the North Shore easier by car and bike. What's next, DNV and CNV Council putting those they consider less desirable - the homeless, the Muslims, the Jews, the LBGTQ population, the disabled etc on to the ice flows? Or maybe just shooting them in the head outside city hall and burying them on marked graves on Fromme Mountain, the grave digging done by the NSMBA and paid by grants.
My God, where did you learn compassion and the concept of a just society? Engineering school at Simon Fraser University, or punching out people with your dad while collecting debts?
Go take your pills its just a blog.
Your first sentence is an old chestnut dragged out by the desperate. It is not necessary to prove a negative. It would be up to you to find a BC precedent that orders that municipalities must provide housing for all that "wish" to live there. Of course there isn't such an order so your shaky position collapses.
However, I like your nutty idea as I would love my children to be able to force the municipality to provide them housing. How nice to have them close by. So as long as we are dreaming I'm joining up with you. We will need some criteria so lets start with all folks that were born in North Vancouver and have parents still paying taxes here. They have a right to be housed in North Vancouver in accordance with "their economic position" whatever that means. Sounds great.
As I pointed out (and you agree), the Charter permits freedom of movement. I interpret that to mean that all Canadians should also be given cars in accordance with their economic position so they can move freely. Lets get on it!
The municipality is under no obligation to provide housing, but I do think they are morally obliged to provide the appropriate zoning which will allow the market to provide a variety of housing types that are within the reach of people of varying socio-economic levels. Remember, we're not talking about a neighbourhood but a community. Communities include a variety of building uses and types which aren't limited to single family homes (SFH). If your neighbourhood is solidly SFH removed from town centres and transportation corridors, chances are it'll probably remain solidly SFH in make up. That suburban model requires you to drive everywhere, even a litre of milk. Seems wasteful but if that's your cup of tea, all the power to you. Personally, I like to walk and ride my bike which means I like to live close to the amenities that I use (My car remains parked more than it's used, so one less car on the road to keep you from getting to work). So my quality of life improves in denser, busier areas. It's not for everyone but it is appealing to a segment of the population. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to live in a SFH and the market provides for those people with various forms of multifamily housing closer to the town centres. I'd like to see more emphasis on the smaller, missing middle development rather than the towers. Personally, I think we can achieve more with row houses, large lot subdivision and duplexes than towers. But that might just be me.
In addition to what I said at 9:45am, the market will provide an amount of housing but the Feds have stopped subsidizing rental housing. So, who's to provide it? Do we leave it completely to the private sector or must we look to the Province and municipalities to become developer and landlord?
I go back to what I posted earlier. With respect to the provision of social infrastructure one must think beyond the very restrictive borders of one municipality and across the entire region. Metro Vancouver is a regional municipal government with considerable land holdings. If the DNV refuses to provide social housing, then I am fine with Metro Vancouver using its land in the DNV for such housing. Tracts of land in the Seymour and off Lillolet Road come to mind. Metro could also purchase land in the DNV and work with partners to build social housing. I can see Metro, First Nations etc developing tracts of land along Dollarton Highway in Deep Cove, building north right up to the Seymour Golf Club.
CMHC
CMHC....hmm
Reminiscent of the discovery decades ago that not all the land next to the Lynn River was a park. In fact, I think, only 325 acres were actually in Lynn Canyon park and housing was slated for the riverside all the way down to the mouth of the river.
There was a great uproar then, as there should have been, as it came as a great surprise to the populace who had thought it was all parkland. Housing plans were cancelled.
Maybe it's time to consider what might be the future of these lands locked by CMHC, what we use them for today and what would be the overall effect of new 'town centre' style high rises ( affordable don't you know) should the land use plan be altered to call for that.
maybe that was 25 acres. ANyone remember ?
There are areas throughout the district that are PRO (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) and are not Dedicated Park. Some areas are actually zoned for development or have a lot plan map and it would only take a simple vote of council to approve development on them. Most do not have appropriate zoning, so they would require three readings at council, public advertising on site and to all the neighbors, plus newspaper advertising. If it is dedicated Park, then it can only be changed via public referendum, or the alternate approval process which can be stopped with a petition.
The NSMBA President, Vice President and Director of Advocacy met with representatives from the CMHC's Vancouver regional office this morning.
The CMHC acknowledges that they did not conduct sufficient consultation with user groups and neigbouring land managers before posting the updated signage.
In summary:
The CMHC is committed to dialogue and is currently conducting bi-lateral meetings with multiple stakeholders in order to gather information.
The CMHC wants to develop a short term solution to address issues related to signage and to develop a medium term solution for the trails on their lands.
The CMHC was very receptive to the NSMBA and inquired in detail about how the association works with the other land managers.
The NSMBA looks forward to the finalization of the CMHC's medium term plan, and urges the Corporation to include therein provisions for access to the trail network by mountain bikers and other recreational users.
It looks like the DNV to rezoning up to 120 acres of CMHC land for residential development, at least according to Dave Stuart, Chief Administrative Officer, in an interview with CKNW.
http://www.cknw.com/2016/10/26/questions-loom-around-mount-seymour-trail-closures/
"It looks like the DNV to rezoning up to 120 acres of CMHC land for residential development, at least according to Dave Stuart, Chief Administrative Officer, in an interview with CKNW."
That is not what the article says at all. Next time read the article before posting please. The DNV fought against the CMHC and has given no indication it plans to develop Cove and Mountain Forest.
CMHC and Province reopen recreation access to Seymour trails
The DNV is in great need of land for social infrastructure including family-friendly Co-ops and seniors' housing. Municipal hall has committed to doing something but has stated it wants support of senior levels of government.
What better support than CMHC lands being used to meet the CMHC's objective of providing affordable housing for all Canadians than CHMC putting in 20 acres of its 644 acres for social infrastructure?
Who would actually fight against the CMHC's objective?
Just wait a moment, I'm sure they'll pipe up (if not here, in council chambers).
"Who would actually fight against the CMHC's objective?"
The neighbors, environmentalists, tax payers, and mountain bikers (just to warm you up). The CMHC lands are not near rapid transit, employment lands, schools (Dorothy Lynas is nearby, but it is packed with a waitlist). You would have to cut new roads, and the land is very steep, hence the mountain biking excitement. The area that isn't too steep, The Blair Rifle, is subject to competing land claims from both the Squamish and Tsleil Waututh, and has unexploded ordinance buried under it from when it was a WW2 artillery range. So it is easy to say, we need land and there it is, but that doesn't make it a) cost effective to build on it, b) environmentally sustainable, and c) supported by the community around it.
Sell it to developers for more sprawl and use the proceeeds to put subsidized housing close to the town centres, services and transit where it belongs. Better yet, stop sprawling, shut down the NIMBY's and start building near the town centres anyways.
How about a bridge connecting Mount Seymour Parkway with Port Moody, and Belcarra?
The neighbors would not like it. But the neighbors did not like the plans for Edgemont Village, Lions Gate and Lynn Valley Town Center and they got the DU LOL.
Growth is not good. Do not densify. The pressure on N.V. services and amenities is already too much. The trails, parks, playgrounds, traffic congestion, LGH wait time, available doctors, street parking, mall parking, transit, rec centres all packed. Quality of life is deteriorating. The IMBY that keeps insisting on more density is out to lunch. No thanks.
7:29 ... you wrote:
"The neighbors would not like it. But the neighbors did not like the plans for Edgemont Village, Lions Gate and Lynn Valley Town Center and they got the DU LOL"
Could you please explain what a 'DU LOL' means?
Quality of life is not deteriorating, it has never been higher. You are looking through rose-colored glasses when you consider the past, but I would much rather be living here and now, rather than thirty years ago.
John Sharpe is an absentee owner of this blog.
CMHC Lands
Edgemont Development
New Delbrook RecCenter delays
Gun Incident at Seycove
Property Crime in Seymour
BC Election NDP named their candidate for Lonsdale
Tons of topics, this one is a month old.
To Anon 2:08. Each to his own. As it happens I was living here 30 years ago. I hiked and slept in the forest above Mountain Hwy all day long without seeing another soul. I recall one morning watching the sun rise over Mt. Seymour and a doe and fawn silently walked right by my sleeping site.
You could go to Lynn Canyon and stand at 30 foot sometimes by yourself or just with a few other visitors. No tour buses pouring out hundreds of visitors and a full parking lot.
Local doctors would take you as a patient.
Easy parking at LV mall. Same with parking and shopping on Lonsdale.
Rush hour only lasted an hour. It didn't begin at 2 pm with Hwy 1 backed up to Westview.
And so on.
No, my glasses are quite clear. The quality of life is deteriorating with densification. No thanks to more of the same.
I've lived here for forty years, mostly in Seymour, and I remember all of the things you mentioned, but I also remember crappy restaurants, crappy grocers, crappy roads, crappy schools, crappy entertainment (movie theatre was Dolphin on Hastings or Park Royal), swimmers itch at Cates Park, power outages, and terrible traffic. Yes, traffic is bad right now, but I don't know how people have forgotten what is was like when Cassiar and Hastings, Westview, and Lonsdale were all traffic lights. It was line ups for miles at anytime of day. Violent crime was a problem with all the drunkin' brawling in Lower Lonsdale, litter, smog, and roaming dogs were all a part of my childhood.
I do not gauge quality of life based on how alone I can be in the woods. 30 foot is way more fun with 50 spectators than by yourself.
Ok then 10:29... For those that like that sort of thing, looks like Metrotown is your ticket.
But building Metrotown over here on the North Shore is just stupid when one already exists just across the bridge. GO for it.
As for me, I like midweek in the fall as my time to visit the Canyon. I DISLIKE the weekend tourist buses and would be happier if they had never arrived.
You can't raise the drawbridge. People are here and want to move here and recreate here. Nothing you can do about it but plan wisely for it. What's wisely? Stop the sprawl and build up. Build up does not necessarily mean towers. It can mean up zone from single family to duplex. It means garden apartments and other types of mid-level density. You're no longer living in a village. Actually, North Van hasn't been a village for decades. Time to grow in a sustainable way using physical infrastructure that is already in place.
To Anon 10:29. Maybe things were terrible over in Seymour but Lynn Valley, Lonsdale, and Delbrook/Capilano were far more liveable than you describe.
I guess you haven't been here long enough to recall the Cedar V Theatre in Lynn Valley, the Odeon Theatre on Lonsdale, the Tomahawk Drive-In Theatre on Pemberton Ave, and the Odeon Theatre at 14th and Marine in W. Van.
Yes, the roads were single lane because that's all we needed. Fewer cars.
Restaurants were basic good food and not overpriced yuppie stuff.
The removal of the lights at Hastings, Lonsdale and Westview are fine but now traffic is backed up after 2pm everyday. In the 60 - 70's just morning and evening rush but nothing like the daily gridlock we have now.
Our kids went to the schools and they were great. Ours are university grads with more than one degree.
Good produce, meat and staples always available at the local supermarkets.
I do concede that there was crime mainly in the form of drunken brawls in Lower Lonsdale particularly around the Olympic and St. Alice beer parlours but other than that nothing like the widespread hard drug criminal under-culture that we have today.
Smog? Yes, the retirement of the old wood, coal, and oil burning furnaces as well as the phasing out of the beehive burners has benefited air quality for the whole city - but not specific to just N. Van so not relevant.
Obviously we grew up in two different N. Vans. I like mine better and miss it.
No more density please. Don't care if it is vertical or horizontal.
Thank you.
"Time to grow in a sustainable way using physical infrastructure that is already in place. "
Now that's a pretty interesting comment. In what way can 'growth' be infinitely sustained? Please enlighten me.
At some point, you have built, overbuilt and then permanently degraded the lovely place you once had and inevitably, no matter what dogma you choose to choke down be it 'sprawl' or 'infill' or 'mixed use towers', you will reach a point where more is not at all better and further growth is no longer beneficial, but destructive of even your much loved 'sustainable' dream. We disagree on what constitutes that point.
People who just live here and aren't at all indoctrinated, know that we have reached that point now. Others, like yourself, believe what they've been taught and think growth can go on forever, if we could just crowd everyone in enough.
Infinite growth is not an option, 8:55. Time you figured that out.
Never said anything about infinite growth, so don't put words in my mouth. However, rather than sprawl, we can infill within existing boundaries using the existing roads, sewer, power and other infrastructure in place. You want to stop growth. How exactly do you do that?
Yes well, don't you understand, 10:06, that what you just said 'You want to stop growth. How exactly do you do that?'...I mean mathematically that is the DEFINITION of infinite. ie. Any size you pick, it grows beyond. How is that different that saying you can never stop growth? Ok, you COULD have diminishing growth that will converge and not be infinite, and maybe that's what you are talking about here?
When, in your scheme, is enough enough? Is there such a point and if so, what does that look like?
I am saying that enough is now. You are saying what? That there will be enough LATER? or that there can never be a point where you say there is ENOUGH density, population, waste disposal, ene?gy demand, housing, etc. etc.
So yea.. you did say infinite growth, you just don't seem to recognize it.
A rose by any other name.
Thank you 12:07. I'm Anon 6:06. Quality of life was superior prior to densification of NV City, Squamish, Garibaldi, and growth on Bowen. Just was.
Anon 10:06 asks, "How exactly do you do that?" (Stop growth). The answer is quite simple. The population of W. Van is about 1500 people less than 20 years ago. NV Dist is almost at no growth as well. It is accomplished by City Hall throttling subdivision approvals, building permits that increase lot density and zoning density amendments. It can be accomplished by voting in no growth candidates or by municipal referendum asking if residents want more density and then following through.
Anon 10:06 is right in that you can't stop those that commute through or come here to recreate but you can, at least, protect the quality of life in your neighbourhood through local government.
And yes, our resources such as water, sewage and waste disposal, transit, traffic flow, and government services are finite. As they are used up or require expansion they will soar in cost (take a look at your water bill from 20 years ago for an example, mine is up 1000%) as will your taxes just to satisfy a diminished quality of life. No thanks to more density.
"Ok then 10:29... For those that like that sort of thing, looks like Metrotown is your ticket."
Haha, yes because I have supported the low growth that we have had for 20 years, I must want massive growth. Your logic is sound.
Density is like taxes. You accept the least amount you need to in order to achieve your deliverables. In Seylynn's case, this has meant some towers to get some revitalization, some transit improvements, some cash for walkability improvements through Seylynn, some cash for Keith Road bridge expansion from 2 lanes to 5 lanes, some new rental, some variety in housing forms, some improvements to Bridgman Park, some cash for a new pedestrian bridge over Lynn Creek, 700 more tax paying properties, and some subsidized housing for a time. I am not arguing that all of these things are worth it, but the bridge, the street scape improvements and housing options are all a positive in my books. What did we give up for it? we will probably get 700 more vehicles commuting around our region, some out of character towers, and more apartment dwellers who are more dependent on public amenity space such as parks, community gardens, rec space etc.
Time will tell but I think it is a good trade that has made our community more liveable. Do I want to do it a hundred times, with a hundred towers? No.
I think we should celebrate the anniversary of this post. It has been the newest post for 35 days. Here's to another 35 days with no new posts!!
TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Oh. Never mind.
How is growth defined? DNV Municipal Hall claims population is up only 1% per year over 10 years, but ignores that the same municipal hall issued building permits for over 10,000 residential housing units in the same period, representing a 25% growth rate in the number of residences! The DNV claims low growth and the CNV claims its growth are people that rely on public transit. Really? Then why do ICBC records show a 30% increase in private automobile ownership over the past 8 years on the North Shore and a stunning 60% increase in the past 20 years in an area with no material transportation improvements for 30-50 years?
"Time will tell but I think it is a good trade that has made our community more liveable. Do I want to do it a hundred times, with a hundred towers? No."
Famous last words from the former residents of what is now Metrotown.
I mean if the tradeoffs for 2 towers are good then surely 20 towers will be 10 times as good! Your children will get free housing, the market will become affordable on coffee shop employment, the planet will be SAVED I say!!
To Anon 1:08. Population growth is defined as an increase in the population of a defined area over a specified time frame. W. Van's has declined. NVD is marginal. NVC is substantial. Outlying communities that impact on the Shore is also very substantial. Bowen, Sunshine Coast, Lion's Bay, Squamish, Garibaldi, Whistler all up.
Let's tell it like it really is, the Manager of Planning and Planning Director bend over to developers and punish staff if they dare attempt to push back or make too many "asks". That why we get development with little give back to the community for the basic needs like sidewalks, street upgrades and green space.
Proof, please anon 7:28am.
Post a Comment