re: LOWER LYNN TOWN CENTRE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING
Including 3 25-storey condo buildings at Fern and Mountain Highway.
We attended an open house/workshop about this proposed development on June 27, and quite frankly were shocked by what we heard and saw. We are not NIMBYs, nor are we axiomatically opposed to change, and understand that neighbourhoods and communities must always evolve. However, what is being proposed is not an evolution but an "extreme makeover" - and not in a good way!
If you're not aware of what is being planned for the District of North Vancouver for the next 20 years, I strongly urge you to look at this document, available through the District's website:
Following are some questions I have:
- Who is the developer who has purchased the land east of Mtn Hwy that is already cleared?
- Why is it presumed that we MUST grow, and increase the population of the North Shore?
- What is the earthquake risk for tall towers built on alluvial land?
- Is there sufficient capacity in remaining elementary and secondary schools, into the future, for the anticipated increase in population?
- How will this development NOT have deletorious effects on the delicate riparian environment of Lynn Creek?
- What will happen to the fire hall currently located on Mtn Hwy?
- Who pays for the infrastructure costs of water, sewage, etc
Traffic concerns:
- What is the plan for traffic diverted to Main St and Keith Rd during the Lower Road redevelopment, while there is heavy construction work going on at the same time?
- We understand that Keith Rd will be extended to access/exit the Trans Can Hwy, taking the highway traffic off Mtn Hwy & Fern, and will be widened to 4 lanes; also, that the current 2-lane bridge over Lynn Creek will be widened to 4 lanes; how will that work when those 2 east-bound lanes have to merge into one, to accommodate the proposed bike lane on Keith Rd (west of the Winter Club)?
- How will access be facilitated to/from the Seymour area?
- What is the route of the new on/off ramp from the Trans Can to Brooksbank?
Keith Lynn property:
- What is planned for the land currently occupied by the now-closed Keith Lynn Alternative School?
- Are the lots south of that property, on the north side of Mtn Hwy, being bought up or expropriated for redevelopment?
- Is there any possibility of higher density residential development on this property?
A further question: what is the position of the first nations who own housing directly adjacent to this proposal?
If you have concerns about any aspects of this "development", please attend the next public info event, Sat July 14 at Seylynn Hall on Mtn Hwy, 9am - noon.
111 comments:
This is what DNV staff is working on now. Ruining our community, while current infrastructure fails.
What kind of brain power does it take to see that this is the wrong place for development. There is already gridlock traffic.
Nobody is going to be able to mooove. Just wait until the first accident on the Second Narrows Bridge. Traffic gridlock on North Shore complete!
This is our district-wide OCP in action. Isn't it wonderful?
Couns. Mike Little fell asleep at the regular meeting of DNV council tonight.
No he didn't.
What is wrong with you? Why would you leave the council meeting early, so you could go home and make up a bold faced lie about one of the council members?
He admitted it.
View the council clip as soon as it is available. Nobody has to make anything up. There is enough truth.
"There is enough truth."
Lol, you have very sketchy standards.
I did not fall asleep during the meeting. At one point I fumbled a statement I was trying to make and tried to excuse it by saying that I was not well rested.
That is a far cry from your statement that I "fell asleep" in the meeting.
I'm not adjusting to the heat well. I don't have Air Conditioning, and due to safety concerns around my young children, I can't open the windows wider than an inch. It was 26 degrees in my room at midnight last night.
I'll adjust,
ml
Question #1
Who is the developer who has purchased the land east of Mtn Hwy that is already cleared? Seylynn North Shore Properties
Question #2
Why is it presumed that we MUST grow, and increase the population of the North Shore? It has not been presumed, there has been a 2 year consultation project on the Official Community Plan including a planned growth rate of around 1% over the next 20 years. This is a very low growth rate compared to the region at ~5%. Without some growth we will remain a car-centric neighborhood that our children will never be able to afford to live in.
Question #3
What is the earthquake risk for tall towers built on alluvial land? Liquifaction is always a concern in areas with a sedimentary base, the Seylynn project will be built to meet or exceed the building code requirements for seismic standards.
The Spring Edition of The North Shore Report wrote:
"The most notable development land sale was the purchase of Seylynn Village in North Vancouver by
Seylynn (North Shore) Properties Corp. The 5.5-acre mixed-use development site sold for $43 million in December 2011. The development will deliver up to 700 residential units and 40,000 sf of commercial space to the market in multiple phases."
When did "up to 700 units" get changed into 3000 units (6000+ people)? Is DNV really going along with this? And why?
Question #4
Is there sufficient capacity in remaining elementary and secondary schools, into the future, for the anticipated increase in population? Yes, Lynnmour and Brooksbank are well under capacity, but even if there were enough children to warrant an expansion, the School Board still owns Maplewood elementary school and could reopen it to public use in another eight years. There is no high school in the immediate area. Windsor and Seycove have lots of space available.
Question #5
How will this development NOT have deleterious effects on the delicate riparian environment of Lynn Creek? The developments will meet or exceed the current environmental regulations including the 5 meter from top of bank exclusion zone.
Question #6
What will happen to the fire hall currently located on Mtn Hwy? Nothing yet, but the District has been reviewing the location because most of its service area overlaps the City of North Van directly to the West. It would be preferable to move the Hall east of the highway interchange to give better service to the Berkley corridor and move a chunk of its 4 minute response area out of the city.
Question #7
Who pays for the infrastructure costs of water, sewage, etc? Developers pay for upgrades to the roads, sewer, water and sidewalk upgrades. They also contribute to a fund to improve parks in the area, and public art.
Question #8
What is the plan for traffic diverted to Main St and Keith Rd during the Lower Road redevelopment, while there is heavy construction work going on at the same time? Yes the Low Road project is a concern, which is why the council decided to keep the extra lane on Keith road through the construction. The Fern street site is large enough to accommodate construction vehicles on site rather than spilling over onto the street. DNV will need to police this and lay heavy fines for lane closures.
I believe District planning involves a dart board and darts. Sensitive riparian areas are fresh targets. Look at what they are doing to the MacKay Creek wetland in order to please the tennis rackets at Grant Connell -
Tennis court proposal meets opposition: Activist says expansion could impact wildlife
http://www.nsnews.com/story.html?id=6881022
Question #9
We understand that Keith Rd will be extended to access/exit the Trans Can Hwy, taking the highway traffic off Mtn Hwy & Fern, and will be widened to 4 lanes; also, that the current 2-lane bridge over Lynn Creek will be widened to 4 lanes; how will that work when those 2 east-bound lanes have to merge into one, to accommodate the proposed bike lane on Keith Rd (west of the Winter Club)? The Council has decided not to drop the driving lane in exchange for a bike lane. They will revisit it after the Low Level road project is complete. Much of the eastbound traffic turns North onto Mountain or South onto Brooksbank, the extra lane will still help to get them out of the way.
Question #10
How will access be facilitated to/from the Seymour area?
The existing access along Main, a widened access at Fern, and the existing highway access.
Question #11
What is the route of the new on/off ramp from the Trans Can to Brooksbank? I've seen the maps that they had at the public meeting, but I don't have an electronic copy. The proposal is for the Eastbound highway traffic to exit as they do now, but at the Fern intersection they will make a harder right turn and go around the project to the North and drive directly onto Keith.
It appears that the DNV is ripe with answers. However, why do we need highrises in this area? Only the developers benefit. We all suffer, both in livability and taxes.
Question #12
What is planned for the land currently occupied by the now-closed Keith Lynn Alternative School? The School Board will be considering its lands plan over the summer and will probably send the Keith Lynn land to a design charrette or outside RFP process. In either case they need to decide if they are going to sell it or not first.
Question #13
Are the lots south of that property, on the north side of Mtn Hwy, being bought up or expropriated for redevelopment? Expropriated no, but there are some developers buying properties and obtaining options for sale on other properties.
Question #14
Is there any possibility of higher density residential development on this property? I'm assuming you mean the properties south of the Fern Development. Possibility, yes, but the current zoning south of the project is still largely single family and will need to go through full public hearing processes before any changes take place. The OCP contemplates a mixture of densities including towers from Fern down to Main street, but those densities are unlikely to be zoned without a proper Town Centre plan in place.
Question #15
What is the position of the first nations who own housing directly adjacent to this proposal? I'm not aware of any public comments by the Squamish on this project.
It's incredibly impressive that the DNV is accurately fielding these questions...under anonymous?
Note that the council clip for last night's meeting is not available. The clerk's office says it is ready at noon.
Just checked the dnv.org and the clip from last night's meeting is not available. Why not?
wq
Even though the municipalities have generous salaries, the unfortunate fact is that the majority of talent is of low quality.
I checked on council clips for ml having to be awoken and could not see it
The council clip for Monday's meeting is not broken down for specific areas as it usually is.
One has to view the entire meeting. And perhaps not have the time to find the relevant part of the clip.
Somebody will do it. It is in the longboarding discussion. I know what I saw.
I viewed the longboarding session and did not see Mike Little asleep. At one point he was looking down at his phone, and texting, I believe.
Show us the link.
Find it (ml sleeping), put it up on the blog as a link if it's there.
http://204.239.10.176/wowza/flowplayer/council/council.html?start=9777&end=12695&filename=20120709
Check out 19:00
Ok I went to 19:00, he wasn't asleep.
So are you retracting your accusation WQ?
Maybe he was just a little tired.
Sorry I brought this up. There are much more important issues.
Sometimes I wonder if it is better that council is sleeping?
At least when material and information is being presented that at times is inaccurate or council lacks the expertise to comprehend they will at the very least have a valid excuse. Sorry I was sleeping, must have missed that.
The time has come for the formation of citizens committees and the amalgamation of the district and city.
It appears to me that staff is wagging the council.
I would like to know who "Concerned Citizen of Lower Lynn" is. It's as though s/he's only just awoken from a five-year snooze and discovered that something is going to change! Anything could be better than what is there now. This project has been in the works for years and frankly, I'd just as soon they get on with it. The whole matter of access and egress over and around the Fern Street overpass is totally inadequate and with the Highway Interchange Committee finally meeting, perhaps improvements to east-west access can tie in with whatever they'll be doing to Fern Street as this project gets underway.
As for the answers provided to Concerned Citizen, yes, they do seem to come from someone with inside knowledge, and I'm glad that concerns and spurious comments have been addressed.
Change is inevitable and if you will only accept status quo, then you may as well cash in your chips now, because, in case you don't know it, you're changing too. Please do not interpret this as me saying that any change is good, because it's not. Having said that, it's my opinion that this is a well-designed project, that may well go through a few design changes before the DP is issued. However, at the end of the day, I think it will benefit the community by providing a mix of housing that is not available now and will help to keep a couple of elementary schools supplied with students.
Not to be forgotten is the multi-million dollars in amenity fund contributions that will be put towards community improvements that would not otherwise be affordable for the District. Residents in Lower Lynn should put their thinking caps on as to what they would like to see come to their community as a result of these dollars....for starters, a new community centre perhaps? Improvements to the sports field? The park? What could the school use? The Boys & Girls Club next to it. Get creative, folks.
You are an ineffective spin doctor. All we will get is more traffic and pollution.
And YOU are not a pragmatist!
Griffin- The Seylynn project changed ownership, and the Texas Sidestep between the new developer and DNV begins anew-
http://youtu.be/NJG75FJkjr8
I know that, but when they bought the property, they also bought/got the development permit and revisiting that is not an easy thing. I was not able to attend the June 27th meeting so I'm not exactly sure what changes they propose. Maybe the Youtube link above will shed some light.
The last thing I heard was that things were at a standstill because the owner of the convenience store property refused to take the Hynes offer and the new developer says the project cannot proceed without that piece of land.
At some point, it is almost a certainty that the development will proceed despite some local opposition. There was an extensive process over two years ago, and the time for speaking up in opposition is long past, unless of course the new owner proposes something radically different.
"When did 'up to 700 units' get changed into 3000 units (6000+ people)? Is DNV really going along with this? And why?"
The Seylynn project is approved for approximately 700 units. This is an approximation because the Developer committed a bunch of money to subsidized housing and the District hasn't decided whether any or all of those units will be on this site or another nearby site.
The 3000 units refers to the entire lower lynn area from Keith Rd. down to Main, and it includes all of the development for a 20 year period in that area.
Approved! What?
Since when was it approved? Perhaps a consent agenda item?
It was not approved by the people who live in the district.
Check out Leslie's letter in today's NSN.
Wow, is everyone in the DNV asleep at the wheel like the group here? No wonder politics in this community is such a joke.
Leslies letter is ridiculous. All of her questions could have been easily answered had she spent a little time researching the issues that concerned her. This is not difficult stuff, folks, and you don't need to be a District employee to find the answers. Many of her questions are building code related and others are addressed by the zoning by-law. This letter does nothing but illustrate how lazy people have become. Why is it anyone's responsibility to spoon feed this information? This letter is a perfect example of how intellectually lazy people have become.
Anon 6:40
You are the intellectual idiot. She and her family are taxpayers in the DNV and have not been provided this information.
You are the mental midget.
I agree 8:30. Where was the notification of 3 highrises in Lower Lynn? Was it mentioned in the District Diatribe? Was it advertised in the NSN? It certainly was not.
6:40 you are the CRETIN
For Gawd's sake, the Seylynn development has been in the public knowledge for at least three years, with highrises, mid-rises and low-income housing all out there for everyone to comment on. There have been public meetings and other information made widely available, with plenty of opportunities to make your views known. I personally attended one at Parkgate CC and I know there were others. If you've just now woken up and discovered that something is happening there, you haven't been paying attention.
Before his marital troubles, Stephen Hynes purchased every single piece of property except the convenience store. Subsequently, the homes were all rented and fell into disrepair for the most part. Some became vacant, squatters moved in and some fires resulted. In the interests of safety, the new owners gave everyone notice to vacate and all the buildings were razed.
Absolutely nothing has been done behind closed doors here, folks!
Didn't you notice????
One more thing. After due process, Hynes did receive his development permit which would only have been issued after extensive public meetings and consultations. Anon 8:30 has absolutely no right to complain, nor do any of the others who were obviously not paying attention to what was going on in their community. Unfortunately it happens all the time! Wake up folks!
You are the person who should wake up.
I attended many of the OCP process meetings. Many people at the roundtables did not agree with this densification. Our voices were not heard, nor were they reported.
Mayor Walton stated that over 3000 people participated in this process. Some stats say over 4000. The same people were at the meetings, were they counted as a different person each time?
Why didn't this go to referendum on the November ballot? This would have been open transparent governance and would probably have encouraged more than a meagre 21 per cent to get out and vote in the last municipal election.
There are about 55,000 registered voters in the DNV. A mere 3 or 4 thousand does not constitute democracy.
Also, since the OCP was approved unanimously by DNV Council there are at least 4 or 5 consent agenda items approved at every regular meeting of council.
It is just a bunch of numbers and no civic addresses are attached to the agenda.
Although it is a little better lately.
Since this outragous plan is going forward, one must ask: How much do the taxpayers know?
The tax payers won't know a thing (as evidenced on this blog), if they're too lazy to pay attention to what's being discussed in the council chambers. These discussions are all advertised (as required by law). Anyone who is just waking up to this development now should be ashamed of themselves for their lack of attention to civic matters. As I said earlier, Leslie's letter is a perfect example of how intellectually lazy people have become. The ridiculous name calling that followed, confirms it.
People, see those announcements with nicely drawn maps in virtually every issue of the local newspapers? Those are the announcements for public hearings or early public input meetings. If you want to be aware of what's going on, start reading those announcements. Better yet, attend the meetings! Attending an OCP process meeting has nothing to do with development proposals coming to council, so start learning and understanding the processes involved in building a project. There's rate too many uninformed people out there who are railing against the developments who clearly don't understand the process. Learn the process and participate. And for Gods sake, get your asses off your computers and participate in the process if it bothers you so much!
Idiotic rant.
What if the local papers are not delivered? Which is the case.
Error: "Attending an OCP process meeting has nothing to do with development proposals coming to council..."
It has everything to do with it, and you, sir/madam are in error.
When is the last time you ran for public office in the District? 9:18
Or perhaps you're one of the people who works for the DNV and makes over $200,000.00 a year and we pay your salary.
Sorry to disappoint, but I don't work for the DNV. Nor have I ever run for public office - my ego isn't that big. But I do take the time to educate myself about the process and find it ridiculous that people are only now waking up to a project that has been in the public eye for years.
And again, your attending the OCP process meetings has no real bearing on the actual development proposals that come for review. The OCP process attempts to define future development. The development proposals that follow are guided by the OCP, to a degree. As we all know, the applicants often veer away from that guide. The public hearing or development information sessions are project specific, while the OCP is broad brush strokes for the community as a whole. Two different animals altogether. If you don't understand the distinction, I'm afraid you need to go sit down with someone at the planning desk and have them explain it to you. That's what they're paid to do. And believe it or not, they're usually really nice and helpful.
The planning staff at DNV hall has been increased. Why? When our current infrastructure is not being looked after?
I go back to the OCP and why was it not taken to referendum?
And the building of market condos and market housing does not help the problems associated with homelessness and "keeping our seniors and kids in our municipality."
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a shortage of market housing in the District of North Vancouver.
As the late great DNV Councillor Ernie Crist used to say: "The whole world doesn't have to move to the District of North Vancouver at the expense of the people who live here now."
So what are the answers, Wendy? Since you're the expert in all things, how are we to make affordable housing and keep our children and seniors on the North Shore? It's clear that you think even the experts are idiots, so please give us the answers. Our ears are open!
Finally Wendy "outed" herself at 10:32. I suspected she was responsible for many of the anonymous comments here just for the tone and position taken by the author. She is against all development, especially that which will create more traffic on Lynn Valley Road and I guess some of the people who will move into Seylynn will shop at the Mall. Perhaps she should move to Spuzzum!
Answers: DNV advertise meeting agendas in local papers. All agendas must use civic addresses; the District Dialogue should advertise all meetings. One might miss it throughout the end of the paper.
The Seylynn Development required an OCP amendment, a rezoning, and development permits. All of those decisions were heavily debated in public and reported in the newspaper at the time two years ago.
Since those approvals were put into place the proposal has been sold to a new owner, and there has been a reconsideration of the alignment of the road. The owner and planners would like to move the fern street connection north around the property creating a direct route onto Keith road rather than the hard turn at Mountain. These issues have been brought forward to the community associations, the highway interchange committee, and have been advretised in a few public information meetings, but there has been no formal adoption of this proposal.
Remember the OCP was passed unanimously by council with a participation rate of maximum 4000 with a registered voter number of 55,000.
The only people who want all these highrises frequent District Hall.
Actually, the people who want the high rises are the ones who can't afford a single-family detached home. But don't let other people's needs get in the way of your NIMBYism.
Since when does building market condos possibly help the people who want any other type of housing?
And by the way, AGAIN, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a shortage of market housing in the District of North Vancouver
Sorry Wendy, but repeating the same phrase over and over does not make it true. Once again, since you seem to think you have all the answers, tell us what should be done. Since everyone who disagrees with you is an 'idiot', tell us how we are to keep young families and seniors in their community. Come on Wendy, we're all waiting.
By eliminating single family residences systematically you are pushing up high-end market condos. They are ruining the livability in the DNV. Traffic and pollution. If I were a young mother I certainly would not want my children living in filth.
That is why they are moving out of North Van.
Stop the development and they will stay. And why on earth do these developers make so much money at our expense?
My solution is to simply not entertain developers who do not have at least 20% of the units requested as low-rental units.
If all municipalities decided to be more rigourous in their dealings with developers, they would have to lower their profit margin.
And we the residents would be the beneficiaries of this loss of political coercion.
Start educating yourselves about sprawl vs. density. Start with a couple of basic articles from the Suzuki Foundation and if you want to learn more, explore the resources in the bibliographies. Wendy is very good at expressing her opinion, but her opinion isn't really grounded in fact. Take responsibility for your community folks and start asking yourselves the hard questions, starting with, "is our community sustainable as it is?".
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2003/driven_sprawlfacts.pdf
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2003/Understanding_Sprawl.pdf
Suzuki sold his scruples long ago to the corporate machine that keeps him oiled. If preventing urban sprawl is supposed to save farmland, why is our provincial government so busy hacking away at the ALR for Ports Authority projects, whence all our poisoned food will come from Communist China?
Get with the program and realize there is far more to the whole story than trying to be green and sustainable in a corporate run world. The rich are getting richer, and the poor, poorer. To believe otherwise is to play the dupe.
There is obviously no point in trying to reason with Wendy because she refuses to entertain an opinion that is contrary to her own.
Anon 10:34am (likely Wendy) makes some spurious claims. First of all nobody is systematicaly eliminating single family residences. Neighbourhoods go through transition when a community grows. Consider all the small homes that used to exist in the City behind what is now Chapters. Why did they disappear? It's the same with the neighbourhood where Seylynn is being proposed.
Condos don't produce filth. What a stupid comment. Many people who choose to live in higher-density communities do not need a car, or don't drive one as often because of easy access to public transit. Living in a community that is not served well by public transit and I can think of a few in NVD, almost forces families to have two cars that are required for many day to day activities.
People are not moving from North Vancouver because condos are being built, but rather because the community is still primarily one of single-family homes on large lots that are simply beyond the reach of many younger families these days. Building higher-density homes that require less land, and therefore cost less, allows younger people to stay in the community, so this statement is also obviously ridiculous.
Builders don't control the cost of land, which is a huge component in determining the final cost. And property values remain high on the North Shore because people want to live here. So using a limited amount of land to provide housing for more people in selected areas simply makes sense.
To require builders to designate 20% of their units as low income housing would make the rest of them so expensive that it would almost defeat the purpose of multi-family. Your "solution" is unworkable, and is actually a form of social engineering called Communism which has failed miserably in other parts of the world.
Ernie Crist was a throw-back to another era, and obviously you don't get it either.
We're talking municipal development issues, not your paranoid nightmares. If you choose not to learn about urban development and the pros and cons of the directions we can go, that's your option. However, when these choices affect all of us and future generations, your paranoid rantings don't really do much to solve the issues at hand. I offered up the Suzuki articles to introduce you to some of the issues that we all need to consider. They don't have all the answers but are a good place to begin the discussion. Have you even read them? Or are you one of those people who hides behind the anonymity of the forum and does nothing but criticize everything put before you? Rather than subject us to your negative, uninformative rants, why not step up to the plate and offer some solutions? If you disagree with the articles I provided links to, offer us some constructive criticism of the articles with your reasons why you disagree. All you're doing now is trolling and acting like a child.
Oops, Griffin snuck in before my reply. My post at 3:29:00 PM was in replay to 2:56:00 PM.
Don't worry about it...I realized that.
G.
Big guns came out to monitor and try to change opinion on this little blog.
They did not succeed.
Stack 'em and pack 'em
UN's Agenda 21 and Metro Vancouver's membership in the ICLEI. We are screwed!
I guess the last three posters (8:16PM, 8:36PM & 9:39AM) are more interested in childish quips than having any sort of real discussion about the issue. Too bad John isn't here to actually moderate the discussion on his blog. I'm wondering if the last three posters can actually contribute anything to the discussion. HAve they read the articles posted regarding sprawl? Do they understand them? Given the tone of their posts, they disagree with what those articles say but can they discuss why? Come on folks, I don't care if you disagree or agree, just make the effort to intelligently participate in the conversation!
It really doesn't matter what our opinion is if we oppose the Seylynn "sardines in a can" Project. The powers that be are not listening to us anyhow. As for sprawl and density, we have plenty of land to spread out and live in single family housing. What we do not have is the infrastructure to carry the numbers of people on the North Shore with the proposed Seylynn towers and apartments over stores on Marine Drive and other projects like it, and throughout the Sea to Sky projects going on up to Squamish. It is only common sense.
Council, at one moment the developer is wagging your tail and in another moment staff is wagging your tail. When their tail isn’t being wagged it’s between their legs.
Anon Monday, July 16, 2012 8:49:00 PM, please read the articles posted about sprawl so that you can begin to understand why your logic is flawed. The proposed development will be utilizing existing infrastructure and likely upgrade some of the existing infrastructure. Much cheaper than all new infrastructure that is need when the community sprawls beyond its boundaries. Additionally, apartments over stores is exactly what we need! If we're ever going to reduce our dependence on cars, we need to design our cities so that people can live close to where they work.
If you want to spread more very expensive single family homes out over very expensive, undeveloped land (with no existing roads, power, sewer, police, firefighting, etc) how are you going to pay for that? IYour idea of development is going to cost us all in the form of higher taxes to pay for all that infrastructure as well as through our collective loss of public land (who do you think owns all this land you seem to think we can build on?).
The Urban Sprawl Debate: Myyths, Realities and Hidden Agendas
http://cip-icu.ca/_CMS/Files/PC41411.pdf
"Why, might we ask, is so little attention paid to the increasing rates of land consumption among non-residential uses? Is it because these uses provide play space for the well-to-do, or generate substantial tax revenues for cash-starved local governments?"
Exactly! The only gains are short-term, the long-term problems are exactly that -- long-term.
Anon 8:44 am is bang on. Putting new residential buildings along, or close to, existing bus lines is exactly what should be done. It's relatively easy for Translink to increase frequency of buses along existing routes, but in new areas, they will never provide service without knowing the demand. So in the unlikely event that a new subdivision is carved out, it will take forever to provide bus service. FYI, there is NO bus service for those living on Riverside Drive north of the Parkway, NONE, and those homes have been there for 30 years or more! And since the District has adopted a policy of not cutting trees to create new building lots, there isn't as much land to build on as some people claim.
The single-family home on its own lot is always going to be the thing that people aspire to, but it is increasingly out of reach for many, especially first-time buyers. People who refuse to accept that well-placed and well-designed, multi-family housing is good are not thinking logically.
Preach, preach, preach.
No kidding.
Anon 6:12 PM can you contribute anything to the discussion other than childish remarks? How about expressing why you feel the way you do?
Yes, it does sound like the flak I get from my kids when I behave like a parent!
S/he probably has nothing intelligent to say or is too lazy to actually consider the points being put forward in the discussion.
Frustrating, but probably not worth fussing about.
The Seylynn development proposal really is water under the bridge. I voiced concerns about it two years ago because of gridlock problems,access, and environmental concerns. But, at the end of the day the real issue is Community driven planning vs. developer driven planning. The question is how has this particuliar development(or any other)proposal been driven? One could argue the public meetings were held, the Lower Lynn C.A. showed up, and it was favoured. Notwithstanding the president of the LLCA was in favour and had a vested personal interest in this development. But, who is showing up to the public process? The developer sure the heck is, some people who were against did, but virtually none of the majority of registered DNV voters did or ever do. Does this make the development right? Is this community (and surrounding neighbourhoods: Lynn Valley. Seymour, etc.) really being served with true representation? Is it similiar to low turnout for the OCP process or the Highrise tower at Parkagate? I think so. The story definitely goes round and round and history continues to repeat itself. How do you change it? I wish I had the answer. All I know is I would feel better myself and for the community if at least 51% of the DNV electorate showed up to discuss these things. And if they did and the decision was to have 80 story towers at every street corner then at least democracy would have been served and I might sleep a little better. Of course we all know this would not be the outcome. As it is right now someone else pulls the purse strings
Yes John,
And we taxpayers only have one wallet. The matter of community-driven planning as opposed to developer-driven planning is the crux of this so-called democratic process.
The district-wide OCP was not approved democratically by the residents of our municipality.
And now we are stuck with it until the next municipal election when the citizens of the DNV may vote these capitalists out.
Well folks, this is the system we have in place. Every citizen has the choice to participate, or not. There really isn't much you can do about it other than force the entire voting population to attend public hearings. Is that democratic? The politics of coercion is not democracy, I think.
As for voting out the 'capitalists' your NDP slip is showing. We don't all work for unions but do our best to contribute to our communities, so ease up on the partisan rhetoric.
Quit the pontification.
Since when do you know more than we do?
Show us how much you know by discussing the issues rather than sniping. Come on, show us that you have the intelligence to discuss, rather than taunt. I dare you.
John and others,
If the community was really against these developments they would show up in droves to community meetings, etc. The fact that they don't indicates that they are not that fussed about them, or don't care enough to inform themselves. Can you not get that through your thick skulls?
Developers do not control District Hall. In many, many instances, resident opposition has resulted in development proposals being withdrawn or voted down.
It's not rocket science...if you're opposed to a particular development, don't count on your neighbour to show up and protest...because he may be counting on you!
Mr. Griffin,
Thank you for the lovely compliment and the righteous attitude. Have a little respect. Not that fussed? Hmmm.. your right for sure that they don't inform themselves which I believe is the problem.
John, how do you know they aren't informing themselves? Could it be that the majority is informed and agrees with the direction that development is going? Why assume that your fellow citizenry is uninformed? To many in our community, it is the people clinging to no growth who are uninformed.
I can only know by the fact that I talk politics frequently with many average everyday folk and most of them know diddly about the issues of local politics and don't want to know because they think it's not important. I believe it is the most important level of politics. They may pay attention to Provincial and Federal, but that's about all. A 21% turnout vat the polls realy is what tells the story.
Well, John, I do not have a righteous attitude, but I am a realist. I "talk politics frequently with many average everday folk" and they don't necessarily agree with you. Some think that densification is good while some think it's bad. Me? I'm in the middle and think that it's good, in the right location. Seylynn is not going to impact anybody's view and it's close to transit, ergo, the location is fairly good. Stephen Hynes is a man of vision and included many innovative ideas in his original Seylynn design that would have reduced residents' reliance on the automobile. What remains to be seen is if the new owners follow through on those concepts.
And I think Council is also working closely with the developer to ensure that much of what is wrong with the current road configuration gets fixed in the process.
As for low voter turnout, to my mind, there are a couple of reasons. One, people "aren't that fussed" by what's going on and don't see the need to throw everyone out and start again. On the other hand, people may not vote because they don't have faith in the process, or the people running for office. Take your pick!
Lovely last two sentences Griffin.
Do you have a solution?
Well, I think if the District had put their money where there mouths are regarding Our Vision"...to be among the most
sustainable communities in the world..."they might have set an example with this Seylynn Village and insisted it be a 'no car Village'. If the 'location is so good' and the 'real estate is so prime' then people would still buy in and we would have hundreds of fewer cars congesting the roads and polluting the air in the community.
ANON 12:32, I'm not sure what you mean by "lovely". For the majority of non-voters, I do think it's fact. As for a solution, in some countries, it's mandatory for citizens to vote, and there are penalties for not doing so. So do we use the stick or the carrot? Even though I prefer some sort of incentive, I'm not sure that it would be as effective as some sort of deterrent. Ideas?
How about getting a receipt that proves you voted which can be used as some sort of tax credit?
That works if you're a property owner, but what if you're not? Do you get something to give your landlord that reduces your rent by say $20 the month after an election and he in turn can claim it back on HIS taxes? Dunno.
Dunno either. An incentive like this would be much more simple on a Fed./Prov. level. Hard to imagine the District ever offering a credit incentive with their cash strapped status. If some sort of incentive to vote could be figured out it should also be an informed vote and not just an X by any ol' name.
Are there any DNV/CNV elected oficials or staff viewing this discussion that might have a suggestion?
ml?
Forget the idea of a credit. That would just make everyone feel more entitled than they already do. Voting is a civic responsibility, so why not levy a fine on anyone who doesn't vote? Now that might be an incentive.
I haven't seen any evidence that there is a problem.
The District is a beautiful place to live, the traffic isn't too bad and is generally avoidable except for peak volumes, the taxes are high, but I don't want to see any rec centres closed or libraries shuttered. The salaries seem high, but I'd be more concerned if the community was poorly run AND we were paying good wages. The natural setting has been well maintained and the outdoor recreation opportunites are fantastic.
Its a pretty great place to live, so the current system is performing fairly well.
I still have a ridiculous wish list for our community.
1) I would like to see a public Great Lawn area in Braemar Park
2) I would like to be allowed to put my garbage out the night before during the winter when no bears would be impacted
3) I would like the vegetation around one of the beaches (probably Cates) to be cut back so we can safely have beach fires again
4) I would like to have an outdoor public pool that becomes an outdoor rink (Kirkstone Park?)
I live in one of the complexes near Capilano University and currently have a spectacular view spanning from the Ironworkers over to what use to be called Harbour Centre downtown then peek-a-boo to English Bay. Are you telling me my view will not be obstructed?
Post a Comment