Sunday, February 15, 2015
DNV Councillor moves to review pace of development
Councillor Muri's 'Pace of Development' memo and recommendations will be on the agenda of Monday night's council meeting. She will be seeking support from council on the recommendations in the memo which address the pace of congestion, development, and density in the District. During the November 2014 municipal election these issues seemed to be forefront on the minds of the electorate. Councillor Muri is also seeking support from the entire community.
dnvcouncil@dnv.org
Link to agenda addendum Monday, Feb.16th DNV Council meeting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Kudos Muri! Must take a lot of intestinal fortitude! About time someone stood up to all the pro development council. Sorry, what was that you said Counc. Bassam,(paraphrased) 'There is no evidence that development and density is any way connected to the traffic problems we are having in North Vancouver'???
Bravo Lisa! It will be a very interesting meeting.
Councillor Muri.. you need to go one step further. We need a halt to development until the growth targets in the OCP have passed public plebiscite or referendum.
Once you have public acceptance of the growth targets, then you can discuss the plan to accommodate the growth. ( OCP ).
Since this was never a part of the OCP process, a plebiscite,ie public approval SPECIFICALLY on growth targets for DNV, is needed Councillor Muri.
One must remember that the entire OCP process was flawed from the get-go.
The last election was your plebiscite.
Apparently, a recently elected councillor doesnt agree with you Anon 8:22
...recently elected councillor doesnt agree with you Anon 8:22
That Councillor was one of very few to actually challenge the pro-development agenda:
Is the district managing growth appropriately?
No, District OCP is a sustainable 20 year vision, however multiple project starting all at once have created gridlock, regular traffic congestion, stress and endless detours, impacting our quality of life. We need a phased approach, and better co ordination with CNV, Metro , Port Metro to manage change responsibly.
Via NS News
The only thing 'sustainable' about sustainable development is sustained profits and sustained degredation of living conditions as every hamlet is forcibly urbanized in the name of the holy 'sustainable vision'.
Fine. But put it to the people clearly first. Do you WANT your neighbourhoods transformed by glass towers, infill, trafffic calming obstacles in order to absorb an optimum amount of profit generating growth or... do you want your neighbourhoods to resemble what you took a large mortgage out to buy into?
And while we are at it, what happens in 'sustainable development' once the new residents have filled the
towers and multifamily profit centres. Do we then plan for NEW growth over and over? It doesnt sound like a very 'sustainable' vision to me. It sounds a lot like SUSTAINABILITY SPRAWL.
Maybe some census data will quell your hysteria... I doubt it but hey, why not try.
2011 Community Profile - DNV Population
2006 82,562
2011 84,412
An increase of 1850 over the five year period or 370 new people per year. Which is an annual growth rate of ~0.4%
Since the last census data in 2011 the traffic pattern has gotten ugly, but the growth has actually decreased during that time. Since 2011, only ~98** units gros have been completed per year over the last four years in the District of North Vancouver (**From the Director of Planning at Council Meeting last night). Units that were demolished were not discounted so this is a conservative number. That means that over the last four years the growth per year was approximately 225 people per year based on 2.3 occupants per unit (Most of the units were small format with probably under 2 occupants per units so this is again a conservative number).
That means that the annual DNV growth rate over the last four years has dropped to ~0.26%.
"About time someone stood up to all the pro development council"
Pro-Development? A majority of this council has been together since 2005 and since that time they have had a growth rate of less than half of a percent per year and you have the temerity to call them 'Pro-Development'? All the evidence points to them being absolutely anti-development compared to the rest of the region.
So here it is IMHO, DNV growth is at such a low historical rate that it could not have been a significant factor in the traffic problems.
Anon. 8:45
I sincerely hope you are not trying to get a job as a spin doctor.
Anon 10:29 pm, can you point out where the spin is in the post made by anon 8:45pm? Are you calling this person a liar? Perhaps you should step up to the plate and show us how this person is wrong.
Anon. 9:49
I call 8:45 into question. I live in Lynn Valley and no matter what his numbers are for development rate in the district I know what I see and what I walk in and drive in almost every day.
So show us your numbers, Anon 7:08pm. Show us the statistics that match what you think you're seeing. While you're doing that, go around and see how many cars are parked in each driveway. How many longterm residents have multiple cars that are adding more to your traffic woes than any imagined influx of new residents? Blame the traffic on the people who already like in your community. You know the ones who have a car for each occupant over the age of 16.
I am anon 8:45.
I wrote that with all of the data included. I only provided interpretation (spin) when I suggested growth at 0.26% couldn't be a significant contributor to our current traffic woes.
Every morning, I go to work and as I am driving Eastbound on Highway 1 through the Cassiar Connector, I see a line up three lanes wide stretching as far as Willingdon and sometimes out to the Burnaby Lakes area. Those people are coming to the North Shore to work. Every afternoon that line up swings around to leave that North Shore and clogs up the works.
That is the single largest factor, by far, to our current traffic woes.
Solutions? Nothing short term. Long term? 1) Provide more housing opportunities that would be attractive to the service sector employees who are working and commuting here. 2) Improve cross highway traffic infrastructure so Lynn Valley and Seymour can be accessed without having to wait in Highway traffic.
Many of these service sector employees work for companies who are involved in all the construction taking place on the North Shore and it is only going to get worse as approved projects go under construction.
Anon 3:15pm, how can you possibly know this?!
You wan't to know who's generating the traffic? Residents of the North Shore who have to get in the car to drive two blocks to the store. Residents who feel it necessary to drive their high school children to and from school. Multiple car households are contributing to the traffic that you a railing against. Whatever happened to the single car (or even two car) household? Want to blame somebody for your traffic woes, North Vancouver? Look in the mirror!
I know this because I talk to these people. The Save-on cashiers do not live in Lynn Valley. They live over the Second Narrows Memorial Ironworkers' Bridge.
The people doing a piping project in my 64-unit condo complex all come from the valley every day to work.
I spoke to two cashiers at Park Royal this week and they both live in Coquitlam and drive to West Van to work.
To say that we North Vanites are the problem because we are providing gainful employment to many is unproductive.
It is the densification of our communities that is providing this employment, at the expense of our livability and democracy.
Wouldn't it be nice, Anon 4:56pm, if all those service workers that you deign to grace with your presence and questions could afford to live in the community in which they work? Wouldn't their being able to live in the community in which they work do a great deal in reducing the traffic to and from the North Shore? Wouldn't a diversity of housing stock help? You've identified a part of the problem, yet you seem resistant to do anything to solve it. Well, except for raising the drawbridge to keep people out; but we both know full well that that isn't going to happen.
Lovely spin anon 7:39
The very reason they cannot afford to live on the North Shore is because of the persistent densification which props up our desirability as a destination for rich people.
Slow down the development.
Right and the tops of these high-rises are very high end and for the rich.
So, tell, me anon 5:10pm, how affordable would the community be with no further development?
It's a great question Anon 6:51.
Answer is ... as affordable as it has always been.
It would top out what people were willing and able to pay for whatever environment and amenities exist.
When I bought my house in Lynn Valley... mortgage interest was 16 percent. Today it can be below 2 percent.
That affects PRICES but .. it also affects affordablity.
If you have 2 people working, you can buy what you want in Lynn Valley. You cant spend a lot on extraneous baubles.. neither did we... but you can buy a house because interest rates have NEVER been lower.
...and if you have a 10% - 25% down payment which, on the average LV house would be somewhere between $70,000 - $175,000 cash.
Good luck.
Have a look at the average price of a detached home and tell me how many people can afford that, even on the median incomes for the region? All those people who remember the good old days are forgetting that you can no longer get a house for less than $250,000!
Hi John,
Financial disclosures are in.
nb: I am not impressed with the DNV or CNV. Both used to post the financial disclosures on their main page, now you have to do the work to find it on your own on the Elections BC website.
DNV Disclosures
CNV Disclosures
And yes, before you bother asking...
Kerry Morris raised about $8,000 and spent over $70,000 of his own money. Ouch.
And yes... Onni donated $1000.00 through RPMG Holdings to George Pringles campaign so he would split the vote and get Darrell back in as Mayor. The DeCotiis family (Onni/Pinnacle) gave Mussatto $7,500.
Sorry George, I guess they wanted to see Darrell win.
Interesting that both Bill and Dorothy Bell spent exactly the same on their campaigns -- $4,446.33
Are self-funded campaigns a good thing? When a candidate ponies up to pay for their own campaign is that indicative of a disorganized or unpopular candidate? Is it safer for the community, ie no one is owed?
Why don't you start a new topic to continue the discussion with yourself, rather than hijack this one?
This topic is ten days old, and I don't have posting privileges.
So what? Ask John to post for you. Sidetracking a discussion is poor form.
Anon 11:41 Monday did ask John to post it. Still not posted four days later... Should I check back in next week?
Post a Comment