One Resident’s Opinion

The following is reprinted with permission from the Grand Boulevard Ridgeway Residents Association:

 

One Resident’s Opinion

(A message to GBRRA residents who are unhappy with the city densification.)

I hear lots of complaints from city residents about what is happening to our city. For example, parking problems, traffic gridlock, replacement of rental units with pricy, high-rise condos, loss of green space, selling of school properties, massive future expenditures for hospital expansion, public transit and other costly infrastructure that will be required as a direct result of densification. Do you know who makes the decisions concerning these issues? It’s the Mayor and Council, that’s who. And do you know what percentage of the city residents voted at the last municipal election?  22%, that’s how many. Sadly, 78% of the residents found reasons to not bother to get out and vote.

So if you are really unhappy with the excessive densification and all that comes with it, you need to start thinking about what you, the residents, can do to change the decision-making at City Hall. You will have a chance on November 15th to elect at least four members of council who oppose what has been going on at City Hall for the past 6 years. If you don’t take action to make that change, then the high-rise condos will continue to rise, the traffic gridlocks will continue to grow and our quality of life will continue to deteriorate. 

If you look at the voting record of the present seven incumbents, six of whom have indicated they will seek re-election, it is quite easy to determine that there are only two councillors who have consistently voted against the excessive densification policies. So to make a change at City Hall, we need to re-elect those two along with at least two other like-minded candidates. As the election campaign gets underway, I encourage you all to make yourselves aware of the anti-densification candidates and do your part to end the control of city council by the developers, who make large political donations to finance the development-friendly council members in their election campaigns. The anti-development candidates will likewise need your encouragement and support. 

Only you can take back control of City Hall from the developers. Make sure you vote and encourage your friends, family, and neighbours to also vote. And remember, voting is the civic duty and responsibility of all of us. Collectively, you have the power in your vote to stop the excessive densification of our city.

Gerry Scott

.

Evi Mustel: West may be best but can cities retain their quality of life?

Article from The Province with Voices comment below.

Evi Mustel: West may be best but can cities retain their quality of life?.

 

Westerners love where they live and think the future of the Canadian economy lies in the West, not the East. But dig deeper into the data and you find there is a caveat to all this optimism. Westerners also think that there are major challenges that lie ahead for the West’s fast-growing cities,

Citing a host of issues that will only be solved by major public and private investment.

Mustel Group took this snapshot of the West’s urban residents for CityAge.org, an international network of city builders. Conducted in partnership with AskingCanadians, the poll shows that 86 per cent believe that Canada’s future economic growth will come primarily from the West.

Partly for this reason, 92 per cent of westerners believe that the quality of life is better in their cities than anywhere else. In addition to the economic benefits of living in the West, city dwellers think the size and density of their communities, the pace of life, friendliness of their cities, their access to recreation and nature and, in B.C., the weather (because it allows for more outdoor play) are key reasons for rating their quality of life as high.

But there is a sense all these positives can’t be taken for granted.

All western cities are facing unprecedented growth and the
No. 1 concern by residents is how newcomers will be accommodated. The poll found that the top concern for westerners is urban sprawl, loss of agricultural land and the densification of established neighbourhoods.

The urban West is also concerned about whether their communities can provide the needed infrastructure as their communities grow. In addition to the basics — water, sewer, etc. — there is concern that soft infrastructure such as parks, schools, hospitals and other essential foundations of a healthy city will not keep up with growing demand.

Westerners are worried about transportation infrastructure, and are already frustrated with their current systems, particularly in Vancouver and Calgary where congestion is among the worst in North America.

Other top-level concerns about growth are environmental impacts such as air quality and the increased cost of housing, despite planners and developers assuring the public that more housing will help control prices. There is a growing sense that our economies are not sufficiently diversified as the energy sector comes under increasing scrutiny and that neighbourhoods are becoming disconnected because of growing ethnic enclaves from high levels of immigration.

This snapshot — indicating a high level of contentment but a deep concern that we may not be prepared to deal with major challenges — is a good guide for our political leaders in the years ahead.

At the root of many of these concerns is a frustration that city residents are not being engaged, consulted and included in decision-making. Western communities typically do not receive high marks from residents for their community engagement initiatives.

While most really don’t want to see things change, they know change is inevitable and want to have a seat at the table and be included in the planning of their communities. It is time for communities to bring in professional expertise in community engagement, and not solely rely on planners to manage this process. The West can lead this new approach to urban planning.

Evi Mustel is president of
Mustel Group, a Vancouver-based market and opinion research company. Survey partner, AskingCanadians, is an online data-collection firm with access to a research
community of more than 600,000 Canadians.

Voices comment:  Residents in the City of North Vancouver have Councillor Bell, Bookham, Clark and Heywood to thank for the increased public engagement in the CityShaping process.  They supported the following motion by Councillor Bookham on February 24. The additional meetings were not supported by the Mayor and Councillors Buchanan and Keating.  We fear that perhaps they subscribe to the following theory of Roger Brooks:

“I’m begging you to just say, ‘Staff, make it happen.’ The second you go back out there and say ‘Public, what do you think? What should we change?’ all of a sudden, the whole thing is going to come apart,” he said. “You’re never going to get anywhere.”  (quote from the NS News)

The meetings were conducted by an excellent facilitator, Catherine Rockandel and provided valuable information to planning staff. 

Moved by Councillor Bookham, seconded by Councillor Clark 

WHEREAS the new Official Community Plan (OCP) will provide a blueprint

for sustainable growth in the City for the next thirty years; 

WHEREAS the proposed land use changes in the OCP call for increased 

heights and density throughout the City, will impact every citizen; 

AND WHEREAS traditional methods of public engagement, such as open 

houses, have had limited success in attracting citizen participation in the 

dialogue; 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT three separate town hall meetings be scheduled; 

one focused on the proposed land use changes for Central Lonsdale, 

including discussion of the Harry Jerome precinct; one focused on the land 

use changes for Lower Lonsdale; and, one focused on the proposal to 

allow a secondary suite and coach house on RS-1 lots; 

THAT residents in these areas be informed by mail of the proposed 

changes in their neighbourhoods and the opportunity to attend the town 

hall meetings; 

THAT the meetings be facilitated by an independent facilitator; 

THAT the format of the meetings maximize the opportunity for citizen input 

as opposed to staff presentation; 

AND THAT the meetings be videotaped for the benefit of those who are 

unable to attend, but would like to provide input in writing. 

Why Vancouver housing is unaffordable and what to do about it

Why Vancouver housing is unaffordable and what to do about it.

from The Vancouver Sun and quoting in part:

But Yang and his wife, who earn strong incomes in Los Angeles while bringing up their child, doubt they will ever be able to follow a dream to return to the West Coast Canadian metropolis.

“Vancouver’s become a city where no middle-class family will ever be able to afford purchasing a stand-alone house in the city. I find it sad that the only people who can afford the housing prices today are extremely rich, usually from offshore, and often able to buy in cash.”

Yang is far from alone in his dejection. University of B.C. geography professor David Ley has found great “private anguish” among Metro Vancouver’s ethnically diverse residents, especially young families, struggling to pursue decent housing.

.

 

Living in a Fool’s Paradise | Boom: A Journal of California

Living in a Fool’s Paradise | Boom: A Journal of California.

 

The City of North Van has the towers without the economic development.

Quoting in part:  The increasing economic power of downtown and the growth in construction of office towers in this era set off political battles over “Manhattanization.” The phrase conjures a nightmare vision of looming towers blocking the city’s sparkling light and beautiful views of the bay. It is red meat to San Franciscans, who hate to see their city compared to anywhere else, much less Manhattan.

.

If I Were Mayor …

Eight suggestions borrowed from Jak King worth contemplating

Jak's View of Vancouver v.3

There are, it seems to me, two types of municipal policies: the public policies (bike lanes, more parks, housing, support for arts, etc) that form the basis of most civic election campaigns; and then there is the question of how the City is run, the policies of governance.  I do have some definite ideas about public policy, but this article is about the second type — how this City is governed.

If I were Mayor with a majority on Council, there would be a lot of fundamental changes in governance policies, enough to ensure that we governed ourselves very differently, with much more transparency and far less politicization.  The difference between my ideas and those of the current Vision Vancouver Council will, I think, be obvious.

• Public “real time” display of all City expenditures.
• Immediate elimination of all Non Disclosure Agreements for City business; if it involves public money, then…

View original post 259 more words

OCP-submission to Council by Linda Heese

The following was sent by Linda Heese to CNV Council and Planning Staff with suggestions for change after the Public Meeting on June 18:

 

Draft OCP Public Meeting – June 18, 2014

.

 

Letter to Editor: Density Myth

Letter to Editor, NS News (not yet published)
Dear Editor:

As a person who has lived in the Lower Mainland for most of my 67 years, I am very concerned about the almost insane desire to “densify” almost very square space available until I really took the time to think about it.  When I did, I realized the whole “densify” is actually a myth for the following reasons:

•         If the majority of the new spaces are only going to be one or two bedrooms, then we need to ask if we are only going to have single people, couples or people who only want one child.
•         Are we going to be looking at a situation with 4 or 5 or more people living in one or two bedroom units (apparently that is happening in Woodcroft in North Vancouver) and if so we are not building communities we are building ghettos.
•         Where are all the thousands of people coming from that want to live in city with such a small selection of housing size?
•         Where will extended family members live in these one and two bedroom units?
•         If we are not building to accommodate families in houses or town houses then this population growth is very likely a onetime thing – how can it grow if there are no or very few children?
•         Traffic – everyone is concerned about traffic and when there are only 2 bridges and one Seabus there is a reason for concern.  No one believes that you can add the thousands of people on the North Shore without having massive issues with traffic and so far no Politian or developer has come up with any kind of resolution that makes sense.
•         Pollution – again more cars will create more pollution so let us see the politicians put their money where their mouths are and have air quality control devices set up on Marine Drive and Taylor Way, Marine Drive and Capilano Road, West 3^rd and Esplanade intersection of Lynn Valley Road and Mountain Highway and the Lower Road for a month or two.
•         Hospital – how irresponsible is it to plan huge increase in density with a 223 bed hospital?

Solutions – I think the only real solution is that people on the North Shore, whether it is West Vancouver or North Vancouver district or city need to get together to form an “anti-density” party for the next municipal election.  We certainly do not have to be on the same page in terms of political parties but we need to agree that it is time politicians are representing the people instead of special interest groups such as developers.  This group could then run candidates under a “community” umbrella and with enough people there could be a large cash flow that developer, union or other special interest groups would not have so much power.

There also needs to be a public meeting where all three levels of governments are present because the issues facing North Shore residents need complete representation.  It is time we have the opportunity to have dialogue about the issues which are going to have such a large impact such as immigration, proper road planning, a large and modern hospital that can deal with future growth.  We also need to know are we growing a community or just slabs of cement.

 

Sue Lakes Cook

 

Public meeting letter (Massey) and comment

The letter following our comment  was presented at the Public Meeting last night.  Voices comment:  

At the end of last night’s OCP  Public Meeting, it was a bit disconcerting to hear the remarks by Councillor Keating and the Mayor during the council wrap-up.

Regarding the proposed density increases for the East 3^rd area – which drew significant opposition from residents immediately to the north – Councillor Keating stated that he was originally not in favour of reviewing the OCP.   He also noted that 95% of the speakers came from the area that accounted for 7 or 8% or the land mass and implied the remainder of the City must be satisfied.  (We note that a great number of people chose not to stay to speak).

Mayor Mussatto stated: regarding the East 3rd area, we don’t have to have it finalized with the OCP.  As Councillor Keating pointed out, there’s no rush, we could have it as a special study area .  But in regard to the situation on East 1^st (where a residents’ group is lobbying for a big increase in allowable density), he added there is an argument to look at the proposal sooner rather than later and there are good reasons to look at higher density there. 

Given these comments, and Councillor Keating’s past record of supporting ad hoc amendments to city zoning instead of a long-term plan that gives residents some certainty, we wonder if we’re about to see an attempt to do an end run around the OCP planning process. We certainly hope not.

To Mayor and Council: presented at Public Meeting June 18:

To: Mayor and Council

Mayor and Council and OCP staff co-joined the possibility for residents on the south side of 500 Block East First and Second Streets being awarded compensation for loss of view and perceived loss of real estate value.

Mayor was sympathetic, stating “We will see what we can do.”

In June 2013 OCP placed the 500 Block East area under densification status without prior Survey or public participation.

Mayor and Council failed to provide notice to residents in the immediate area.

Dialogue did not flow from the community as a whole.

The 500 Block East group had no opposition. With the help of a real estate agent they solidified their position. 

Their delegation recently unveiled plans for an immediate massive restructuring of the entire block.

This situation need not have occurred.

Both OCP, Mayor and Council were in a position to prevent tension and anxiety within the community.

Their duty was to ensure participation by all the residents in the decision making process. 

Their negligence has led to the current tension and anxiety within the community.

Further, a decided bias has been noted:

Mayor Mussatto and Councillor Keating * attended a meeting of the 500 Block East group, voicing an anticipated favourable decision regarding density level.

At the following council meeting, not being provided with the density level anticipated, Councillor Keating’s (one councillor) expressed his disappointment, his consequent behaviour and remarks are significant – give them l.6

It is clear – the scales are not evenly balanced.

Ellison Massey

542 East First Street

*At public meeting reference to names was omitted, however this copy in its original form was sent to Mayor and Council

 

 

Barbara Yaffe: Metro development surging on

Barbara Yaffe: Metro development surging on.

Quoting in part:

Evidence clearly suggests municipal density policies are paying off for developers, and perhaps limiting further expansion of far-flung suburbs.

But the real question for Vancouverites is this: are all those new condo towers, megamalls and densified neighbourhoods making the region more livable?

.

.

Letter to Council re East 3rd St area

Another Letter to Council re 3rd St area proposed rezoning:

.

Dear Mayor, Council and Staff

Re: Proposed Surreptitious Change to City of North Van 600/700 block East 3rd Street Zoning 

As voters in the City of North Vancouver we are dismayed at Council’s proposed change to zoning in our block. 

We have lived and paid city taxes on our single family home at 634 East 4^th St for over 22 years. 

Due to a lack of consultation, we were never informed that six story towers were included for the area adjacent to our block in the draft OCP. The only materials we received were vague and mentioned adding potential for duplexes and laneway zoning along 3^rd Street. 

This is an example of extremely negligent consultation and poor planning in even considering putting 6 storey developments adjacent to single family residences with no transition. 

Allowing this development will result in a perpetual loss of sunlight on our neighbour’s property and be a visual blight for us and the neighbourhood and decrease our property values.  Gardens in the area will cease to prosper.  Traffic on 3^rd already makes 3^rd Street unusable for much of the day.  The lane between 3^rd and 4^thwill become a high volume avenue for hundreds of cars in an area where children play with chalk on the pavement, roller blade, learn to ride bikes, play ball hockey.

 This change in the OCP has no mandate from the voters and unless tested in the upcoming election has no democratic basis in the community. 

Unless there is retraction of this change or a delay until after the election we will no longer vote for any of the Council members responsible for putting this change forward. 

We and our neighbours on 600-700 Block East  4^th Street are also writing letters to the editor of the North Shore news and other online publications, donating money to groups raising this issue with voters and our neighbourhood will consider commencing legal action on the basis of inadequate consultation/process if this surreptitious rezoning proceeds. 

You will be hearing from us tonight.

 

Regards, Graham Parkinson

Graham Parkinson, P. Geo., P. Geoph., Senior Geoscientist,

flyer:

 3rd Street Housing