27 replies to this topic

[Barra]

I'm running for Victoria City Council www.pietavandyke.com

I am an experienced candidate who knows how City Hall works and is in touch with local issues.

Before I ran for Council in 1987, the city was facing a serious development challenge in the form of the (then) Eaton Centre. Prior to the election I had worked with a coalition of citizens – the Save Our City Coalition – that was concerned about a multitude of issues ranging form the loss of heritage buildings, blank streetscapes, and negative economic impact on nearby businesses. We worked effectively as a non-partisan group and were successful in pressuring the City to require a number of modifications to the proposal. Heritage shop fronts were retained, shops faced the street, and the economic impact has been positive.

I was successful in that election and was privileged to work with an effective council that left any political affiliation at the door and worked for the betterment of all citizens. During that term we opened the Victoria Conference Centre and developed plans for hosting the Commonwealth Games. In my portfolio – Parks and Recreation – we transferred responsibility of Thetis Park to the CRD, naturalized the meadows in Beacon Hill Park, started planning for the Fairfield New Horizons Centre, and established the Vic West skate park.

I have served on the city’s Advisory Planning Commission prior to 1987 and again from 2004-07. During the latter period I represented the APC on the Steering Committee for developing the new Downtown Plan.

My community involvement has been extensive, starting with a stint on Victoria Labour Council and organizing hearings for the Peoples’ Food Commission. As a Board member and Chairperson for the James Bay Community Project I helped to save the organization in 1984 when the province abolished its enabling legislation, and again in 2002 when serous funding cuts resulted in a crisis of confidence in the community. I am pleased that the Project is now financially stable and continues to provide needed services for seniors, families and youth.
My desire to run for Council was piqued by my frustration as an Advisory Planning Commission member when I saw Council neglecting to take seriously the recommendations of staff and its advisory committee on matters such as density bonusing. Downtown and neighbourhood developments have been approved with little or no consideration for established land use or planning principles. There seems to be no vision for our built environment.

While Council has done a commendable job with the Mayor’s Task Force on Homelessness and Mental Health, it has dropped the ball on maintaining its existing stock of rental housing. An anti-demolition by-law was referred to staff and left to linger for close to a year. Rental apartments are being converted to strata units at a rapid pace. The city’s Affordable Housing Fund sits virtually unused. There are no policies or procedures for accessing the money, which could be used for upgrading and retention of rental housing. We also need to address the barriers that developers have identified that are driving up the cost of construction in the city.

The social and economic impact of homelessness and drug addiction is of crisis proportions. The Coalition to End Homelessness will go some way to alleviating these problems, but the city is hampered by a limited social mandate and no budget for this purpose. We need to continue to push the province to amalgamate police forces, establish a Community Court and provided needed drug rehabilitation, housing, and welfare reform.

I pledge to retain parkland. While it would be great to have the art gallery and children’s museum downtown, we should not have to sacrifice parkland and greens pace. All appropriate sites should be considered.

We need an integrated transit system that includes highway development, light rail (to the western communities and over the Malahat), busways and bike paths.

We need to continue funding recreation programs for seniors and youth as well as for young families and we need to retain access currently available for low income residents.

Victoria is a great tourist destination, but Victoria needs to take responsibility for the impact of increased traffic by providing sufficient, accessible coach parking and mitigating the impact of traffic and pollution, esp. related to cruise ships.

Victoria is a very special place that people around the world come to visit. Lets ensure that it retains its charm and character and is a safe affordable place for those who live and do business here.

More information – www.pietavandyke.com

[Caramia]

That skate park might seem like not such a big deal, but anyone who was part of the skater scene at the time will remember a time when not only was it against the rules to skate anywhere, but that skating was considered to be some kind of delinquency and being "caught" skating could result in the cops confiscating and in some cases even breaking your board in front of you.

The battle for a skate park was a really big deal in my life back then.

[Concerned Citizens]

CCC

Welcome back, Pieta.

I read your letter of concern recently published in Focus. You mentioned the property across Belleville Street from the bowling green and Cridge Park, the former Crystal Court.

Could you please elaborate on your personal position on this site, in terms of height, density, etc.? I believe that the current zoning allows for it to go six storeys high. The various proposals before Council have all been considerably higher than existing zoning allows, in other words, they want a 'variance.'

Mary Doody Jones wrote a letter to the T-C recently suggesting that the current zoning is too generous. She doesn't want whatever is built to go higher than the existing 2 storeys ... That seems unrealistic to me.

Some of my brothers and sisters own the Queen Victoria next door. I do not know their current feelings on the issue. I no longer have shares in the company. They have sight concerns that are legitimate.

I think most of those concerns could be addressed with a pyramidal design that slopes down from the east end of the property (maximum height: nine storeys) to three or four at the western end.

That would still allow for retention of most of the Queen Victoria's views of Douglas Street and downtown, the Empress and the harbour, I would think, and allow more late afternoon sunlight to hit the bowling green.

- Gregory Hartnell, President
Concerned Citizens' Coalition

CCC

[ted - 3 - dots]

CCC

Welcome back, Pieta.

I read your letter of concern recently published in Focus. You mentioned the property across Belleville Street from the bowling green and Cridge Park, the former Crystal Court.


CCC

----- Hey Greg

I think I met Petra ,
back in the day's when I used to do radio programs.

If it's the same person ,,, ?????

I'd be interested in hearing what she has to say,
all these years later ...

( I'll gab a copy of Focus ) and check it out .


-------- Petra ---------

are you same person I interviewed @

live , "On-Air" ...!

( all those years ago ...? )

ted...

[Barra]

Hi, Ted - I tried to send you a private email, but see that you don't accept them. I was on Victoria Council from 1987-90 and did interviews at that time, so you may have interviewed me, but since I don't know your name or the station that you worked for, I can't tell you for sure.
Have a look at my website www.pietavandyke.com to see where I stand - there is a 'contact' link on there and you can email me directly, if you want to discuss issues.

[Barra]

Could you please elaborate on your personal position on this site, in terms of height, density, etc.? I believe that the current zoning allows for it to go six storeys high. The various proposals before Council have all been considerably higher than existing zoning allows, in other words, they want a 'variance.'

Hi, Greg -
I'd be happy to consider any development within the current zoning.
The James Bay Neighbourhood Assoc. has just received Westbank's latest proposal, which is at a density of 1:3.25, so has come down quite a bit. This version is for a 12 storey and a 9 storey tower. I realize that this will have a negative impact on the hotel, however. I dont' know if they'd come down as far as one 12 storey tower, but I'd be OK with that.....

[Caramia]

Just as an aside.. there is a discussion thread for the Crystalview here
Feel free to answer Pieta's questions and to ask your own about this issue of her, but be aware that we are reserving this thread as Pieta's soapbox, so anyone who gets too far away from that will have their posts moved to the appropriate discussion thread.

[G-Man]

Question to the candidate:

Why should neighbourhood plans be sacrosanct? Especially as they age.

Shouldn't we just want to build the best project for the city as a whole?

[Barra]

We have land use plans that are unique to each neighbourhood because each neighbourhood is different. Some - like Downtown - are primarily commercial and only in the past few years has finally started to include residential. There are challenges around that such as how to make it attractive to live there while there are activities that may be incompatible - late night drinking establishments and social service facilities for example. Downtown urban areas lend themselves to lesser setbacks and often have less greenspace. Residential neighbourhoods are faced with challenges such as the loss of family housing. James Bay has lost family housing over the years due to demand for denser condominium type housing. Surveys of residents show that this neighbourhood (and most of the others) want to encourage housing types that are suitable for a diverse population.
There can be tensions between what is best for the city and what is best for residents. The cruise ship terminal is good for the city. James Bay residents don't oppose it being there, but we are trying hard to mitigate the transportation impacts that result. A hotel might be good for the city, but if it displaces low income residents, it may not be the right thing for the neighbourhood.
Due to the level of consultation that is involved in developing a neighbourhood plan, there is a lot invested in them - both by the city and the residents. They should be updated on a regular basis, but the Planning Department can't seem to figure out how to do this.

[ted - 3 - dots]

[quote name='Barra']Hi, Ted - I tried to send you a private email, but see that you don't accept them.

>>>>> I'll try to fix that ...!
everybody should be able to write off line & off topic ...! <<<<<

I was on Victoria Council from 1987-90 and did interviews at that time, so you may have interviewed me,


>>>>> cool and yes you did ,
I think Greg was there , & Mr Jamison too ...? >>>>>


and I liked what you said .


----------- hey , I see your stuff posted below , and your website

Please look at this thread started a week or so ago ...!

http://www.vibrantvi...read.php?t=3110


( any idea's ...? )

ted...

[Mike K.]

A hotel might be good for the city, but if it displaces low income residents, it may not be the right thing for the neighbourhood.

Recently an affordable motel (Shamrock?) was gutted to make way for higher-end townhomes. What is your position on this development?

Several years ago Quadra Pacific Properties proposed three "legacy rental buildings," as the proponent called them, in James Bay at a time when rental developments were not being built and continue to be extremely scarce to this day. The proponent publicly stated that he wished to provide the housing as a legacy to the city and did not expect to make a return on his investment for a lengthy amount of time. The community opposed this development even though all three buildings were to be built on existing surface parking lots, and cited the "affordability" of the rental units as a deterrent (all three buildings were to be similar in height to Quadra Pacific's existing rental highrises built in the 1960's). At the time, it was clear that renters in existing properties owned by Quadra Pacific were interested in moving up, and would have vacated more affordable space in older buildings. What was your position on these proposed rental buildings?

[Barra]

I feel that the Shamrock Motel was underutilizing the site. Not particularly attractive, either.

The current developer originally came to the neighbourhood with a proposal for a 9 storey curtain-wall residential building on the site. Residents felt that both the height and design detracted from the heritage cottage to the west and the heritage designated South Park School. The developer then invited JBNA reps and a city council member to meet with him to figure out what would be acceptable. He suggested townhouses and as a result we have the current project, which is designed to wrap around the corner and in height and scale is consistent with the buildings next to it. Seeing it come out of the ground, however, the site coverage and distance from adjacent buildings - esp the one to the west - is a lot less than I thought it would be.

I'm not familiar with the rental projects that you mentioned and would like to know more about them.

[Barra]

I didn't recognize the corporate name, but now I remember the discussion. When this was presented to the neighbourhood association, the meeting was packed with tenants who currently live in these buildings (Charter House on Michigan, and Douglas/Toronto Sts) who were unanimous in their opposition to the project. They did not share the owner's opinion of himself as a benevolent landlord. Such was the level of opposition that Council turned it down at Committee of the Whole.

Don't be fooled by developers saying that they can build rental units that will be "affordable". The cost of construction being what it is they can not make a profit. The development industry has already clearly spoken on this. They should not be expected to provide rental subsidies, nor should they be expected to take a loss.

[Mike K.]

Thank you for your response.

With respect to the towers, the proponent made it very clear that his company would not be seeing a profit for many, many years, hence why the developments were labeled as a legacy to Victoria at a time when rental developments were not financially viable for creditors seeking a short or medium term return.

Don't be fooled by developers saying that they can build rental units that will be "affordable". The cost of construction being what it is they can not make a profit. The development industry has already clearly spoken on this. They should not be expected to provide rental subsidies, nor should they be expected to take a loss.

If I recall correctly, they were not touted as affordable rentals, but rentals nonetheless. The argument was that higher-end rentals allow for upward mobility for residents who would otherwise continue to rent cheaper units. Today the price of rentals has increased in James Bay due to a lack of units and many are no longer affordable (i.e. a one-bedroom on the lowest floors of these towers can go for over $800/month and higher floors commend well in excess of $1000/month).

As for the motel, I'm curious why transient accommodation on that site was turned into medium-density, high-end housing with relatively no opposition while the Crystalview's change of use is so problematic. Do you support the proposd change at the Crystal Court site from a transient to residential use?

[Mike K.]

...just a quick "bump" post to revive this discussion.

[Sue Woods]

When this was presented to the neighbourhood association, the meeting was packed with tenants who currently live in these buildings (Charter House on Michigan, and Douglas/Toronto Sts) who were unanimous in their opposition to the project. They did not share the owner's opinion of himself as a benevolent landlord. Such was the level of opposition that Council turned it down at Committee of the Whole. Don't be fooled by developers saying that they can build rental units that will be "affordable". The cost of construction being what it is they can not make a profit. The development industry has already clearly spoken on this. They should not be expected to provide rental subsidies, nor should they be expected to take a loss.[/

Hi Pieta, I actually think we have a number of socially conscious (big picture) developers in Victoria who would step up to the plate if and when a community is ready to move forward with much needed rental development.
Thanks, Sue

[Rob Randall]

IThey did not share the owner's opinion of himself as a benevolent landlord. Such was the level of opposition that Council turned it down at Committee of the Whole.

I'm not sure I understand this. I don't know this developer personally (it was Quadra Pacific Properties and Associated Building Credits). I believe Geoff Stewart is in his nineties. Pieta claims he is not well liked for some reason. Listen, if Attila The Hun and Genghis Khan teamed up to build a market rental apartment building in Victoria I would have two concerns: where's the display suite and where do I sign the lease.

That housing would have been an asset to the people of Victoria. It wasn't classified as affordable, but neither were any of the market apartments in James Bay when they were built, but now they are. A new building run by a competent management company is better for renters in my opinion than condo suites rented out by absentee rookie owners.

Likewise, Castana could have had subsidized suites for seniors, but the Community Association and the developer hated each other so much this incredibly valuable amenity was shoved off the table out of spite. We have to get beyond this pettiness.

Don't be fooled by developers saying that they can build rental units that will be "affordable". The cost of construction being what it is they can not make a profit. The development industry has already clearly spoken on this. They should not be expected to provide rental subsidies, nor should they be expected to take a loss.

I talk to local architects and developers all the time. You're absolutely right, Sue. The solutions are out there. It takes financial and architectural creativity. It can be done.

[Mike K.]

That housing would have been an asset to the people of Victoria. It wasn't classified as affordable, but neither were any of the market apartments in James Bay when they were built, but now they are. A new building run by a competent management company is better for renters in my opinion than condo suites rented out by absentee rookie owners.

Excellent points.

And coincidentally in today's TC there is an article about council restricting demolition of existing rental properties for redevelopment over concerns about the low vacancy rate.

We literally had several hundred rental units proposed in James Bay that would have been completed either this year or last. Instead a community association appears to have derailed the proposal for no reason other than they did not feel the 90-year-old developer was benevolent enough of an individual? What the...?

And just to clarify, rentals in James Bay's rental towers are not necessarily affordable. As I wrote above, units on the lower floors can easily fetch over $800/month for a one bedroom!

[zoomer]

/\ The newspaper article you refer to, dicussion around it and politicians involved can be found in the Apartment vs Other Rentals thread under Urban Issues.

[Barra]

Excellent points.

And just to clarify, rentals in James Bay's rental towers are not necessarily affordable. As I wrote above, units on the lower floors can easily fetch over $800/month for a one bedroom!

I am in favour of supporting additional affordable rental units. As Mike indicates, many of the existing market rentals in James Bay are in the range of $800 - $1400/month. Hardly affordable, and I won't support building new rentals if that is what they are going to cost.