Up until yesterday’s announcement, to qualify for the City of Langford’s award-winning Affordable Housing Policy, an applicant must have either been a resident of Langford for a minimum of 2 years, or a current employee working in Langford, with a preference given to current residents of Langford. Soon the number of eligible people may be increased four-fold, as a proposal to allow all Canadian Armed Forces personnel posted to
Greater Victoria (regardless of where they are serving) to be able to apply and be considered for housing under the program was announced last night.

Though not on the agenda prior to the meeting, the item was added at the beginning of last night’s Planning, Zoning, and Affordable Housing Committee meeting at Langford City Hall. Langford Planner Matthew Baldwin explained the rationale behind the proposal: “This is to recognize that any member of the armed forces is working for the residents of Langford.” Langford Councillors Lillian Szpak and Denise Blackwell expressed support for the proposal, with both of them indicating they had grown up living the life of a “military brat.”

The Langford Affordable Housing Program requires that “all new rezonings for ten or more single-family residential lots shall include small lot-small house affordable lots.” Every ten lots in a subdivision application generates one affordable house, rounded down: 10-19 lot subdivisions require one affordable home, a 20-29 lot subdivision requires two, and so on.

These houses are then sold, under strict eligibility and resale requirements, for half market value, to a maximum of $160,000 (plus GST and property transfer taxes). In addition to residency and employment requirements, an applicant must be able to provide a $5000 deposit and be credit-worthy enough to be successfully pre-approved for a mortgage, yet total family income may not exceed $60,000, no one in the household may own any real estate, and total household assets may not exceed $50,000. The tight eligibility rules carefully create a narrow band of who may apply, one that eliminates the poorest of the poor (who are generally not credit-worthy and who are unlikely to be able to come up with a deposit), yet also eliminating much of the middle class (whose family income would often be too high, especially in two income households). Once an affordable house is sold to an applicant, they cannot resell it for market value for twenty-five years.

Another eligibility requirement of the program is that you must live with at least one “eligible dependent,” defined as a child under 18 or a relative with a disability. The program had previously also required purchasers to be a couple in a long-term relationship, but that requirement was recently changed to allow single people with dependents to apply.

Subdivisions of nine lots or fewer, and multi-family developments such as condominiums, are required to provide $500 per lot (or per unit, as applicable) towards an “Affordable Housing Reserve Fund,” instead of an affordable home. This fund has been growing since inception of the program with no announcements yet about what the City of Langford’s long-term intentions for the fund are. The fact that condominiums don’t produce affordable housing units, and that such multi-family developments are expected by many to form the bulk of Langford’s future growth, raises interesting questions about whether the future of the program is in developers building affordable houses, or generating funds for other affordable housing initiatives.

The final decision on awarding an affordable home is made based on a points system that attempts to determine which applicant is in the greatest need.

The Planning, Zoning, and Affordable Housing Committee recommended acceptance of the proposal, meaning it will go before Langford Council for likely approval.

View the Langford affordable housing case study here, and refer to Langford’s official Affordable Housing Program webpage here.  To discuss affordability in the south Island region on the VibrantVictoria.ca discussion forum, click here.

Steven Hurdle is the author of Inside Langford, a blog covering politics and civic events in the municipality of Langford.

Copyright © 2009 by VibrantVictoria.ca.  All rights reserved.

Ms. Kramer’s land contains, in the words of her attorney, “the only garry oak meadow in the vicinity,” though local residents point out there is a second Garry Oak ecosystem on her property closer to Spencer’s Pond.  For years, local residents have volunteered to do “Broom Bashes” in that very meadow, attempting to make sure the scotch broom (an invasive species from Europe) doesn’t take over and damage the local ecosystem.  Another Broom Bash had been scheduled for today.  Those residents believed they were doing so with verbal permission given to them several years ago by Clara Kramer herself.

That’s not how the issue is seen by Langford Planner Matthew Baldwin, or a lawyer for Ms. Kramer, based on emails supplied by the local Broom Bashers.  Those emails caused a flurry of activity last night to cancel today’s event facing the threats of possible arrest by the Westshore RCMP.  In an email to the Broom Bashers, Mr. Baldwin wrote:

“…this email is to inform you that the area that you intend to work in has been designated as a environmentally sensitive Development Permit area for Potential Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity, pursuant to Sec. 919.1(1)(a) of the Local Government Act.  As such, no alteration of land may occur without first obtaining a Development Permit from the City of Langford.  Other areas of the property may be similarly designated as Riparian Areas and/or as floodplain. Also, do you have permission from the property owner to do this work? If so, perhaps you could provide us with a copy of that permission. This will be required as part of a Development Permit application. While we appreciate that invasive species pose a risk to native flora and fauna and we commend public initiative, we cannot allow local bylaw and established procedures to be sidestepped.  I would be happy to discuss issuance of a development permit for the work that you are proposing, provided that a plan describing the scope and manner of the work (as well as monitoring of the work) is provided by a qualified professional biologist.  It is important to ensure that sensitive ecosystems are not inadvertently disturbed or destroyed, even if the aim is to protect them by removing invasive species.”

David Houston, lawyer, for Ms. Kramer, also authored an email, received closely to the one from the City of Langford:

“Be advised that you have no permission from my client to enter onto her lands either on the day listed on the web or at all. We are forwarding a copy of this email to the westshore detachment of the RCMP advising them of our position with respect to you or others entering onto the Kramer lands.  We will be asking that anyone who enters onto these lands be arrested as a trespasser and charged accordingly.”

While Langford staffer Matthew Baldwin indicates that the broom removal parties should not continue without the advice of a professional biologist (and the suggestion seems to be the onus is on the public to retain the services of the biologist, as his email does not suggest the City of Langford intends to take on this responsibility), at least one biologist has already weighed in on the subject.  Biologist Adolf Ceska, who also critiqued the environmental assessment on nearby Spencer’s Pond, has warned that the last of the Garry Oak ecosystem (which includes other plants and wildflowers than the Garry Oaks themselves) is fast disappearing under the broom cover. He also noted this particular stand of Garry Oak is a rare deep-soil stand.

Local residents argue that doing nothing about the broom risks it not only taking over the Garry Oak meadow, but spreading to the properties of local landowners.  Does residents being barred from removing scotch broom mean that the property owner or the City of Langford intends to take on the responsibility, or will the area’s only Garry Oak meadow be fending for itself against invasive species?  That’s a topic that, as yet, no one seems to be addressing.

Steven Hurdle is the author of Inside Langford, a blog covering politics and civic events in the municipality of Langford.

Copyright © 2009 by VibrantVictoria.ca.  All rights reserved.

Veterans' Memorial Park in Langford, at Goldstream Avenue and Veterans' Memorial Parkway. Photo © by VibrantVictoria.ca.

Remembrance Day is a time to remember the horrors of war, and also a time to reflect on the freedoms that were secured for us in those times of strife. A total of 1.8 million Canadian soldiers served in the two world wars, and thousands more in more recent conflicts, so many of us have personal connections to them.

My great grandfather served in the military in the first World War, my grandfather in the second. As a child I heard stories about my Great Grandfather being decorated for valour for his role as an army medic in WWI in horrific battles such as Passchendaele , and my Grandfather being injured while working in the engine room of one of Canada’s two WWII aircraft carriers when a pipe burst in his face.  Knowing that they went through these horrors so that we could be free, I believe that we should do all we can to make the most of the freedom we have. In a very real sense, the ball is now in our court.

At the risk of asking a rhetorical question, what honours our veterans the most: Veterans’ Memorial Park in Langford, Save-On-Foods Memorial Arena in Victoria, or taking the freedom they secured for us and making our democracy all it can be? What kind of freedom was most on the mind of Canada’s soldiers, freedom of people to see major sporting and concert events at the “Memorial” arena or freedom from tyranny?

As voting participation declined at the provincial level, the Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform was commissioned to see if elections could be conducted better.  The (much maligned on other issues) Charlottetown Accord looked at senate reform to address voter concerns.  But at the local level, where the politicians are the closest to the voters, what has been done as voter participation has dropped below 30% in many municipal elections in the region?  The City of Victoria made a few tepid moves in that direction in 2008 (such as sending out voter cards as is done for provincial and federal elections), but most local governments don’t even seem to have the issue on their radar.  Where are the public hearings on how to improve voter participation?  Where are the local politicians asking local residents what kind of electoral reform they should be advocating for with the provincial government to address the problems of “block voting” that plague our current system?  Why do most municipalities not do something as simple as a sticker on the lapel of voters leaving the polls saying “I voted,” to remind others to do the same?  Instead, we generally get the opposite perspective, such as when Langford Mayor Stew Young indicated low voter turnout is the sign of a government doing a good job, as voters will come out when they’re angry.  I believe we should aspire to more than an election where voters are so deliriously happy that no one bothers to show up other than the candidates themselves.

Some claim democracy isn’t efficient enough, but it’s important to understand that it never was meant to be; it was meant to be just. The democratic process isn’t the most efficient, nor should it be, but it is the fairest to the largest number of people, the largest percentage of the time. I think anything we can do as citizens that works towards making our community, and our nation, more democratic honours the Canadians who served this country more profoundly than anything else ever could.

To discuss the issue of voter apathy, refer to VibrantVictoria.ca’s Voter apathy thread in the discussion forum.

Steven Hurdle is the author of Inside Langford, a blog covering politics and civic events in the municipality of Langford.

Copyright © 2009 by VibrantVictoria.ca.  All rights reserved.