2177 replies to this topic

[lanforod]

Council could ask that 'allow public trail access' is a required amenity attached to a future project, perhaps?  With some legal wrangling/signage etc. which I'm sure is a big part of the reason Ecoasis did this to begin with, liability issues.

[GaryOak]

I do believe that this is a negotiating tactic.

[Mike K.]

That's going to turn real ugly, real fast.

 

The landowner has to volunteer an amenity contribution. It cannot be asked of them nor is it appropriate to coerce them into providing something, because legally speaking, that might be interpreted by a court as shady dealings.

[GaryOak]

How does it work when the city of Victoria asks for a setback or a mid block walkway.

[Victoria Watcher]

Maybe Langford can just pay for bulk access. Although as noted, the mountain has a perfectly good second access.

[Nparker]

...nor is it appropriate to coerce them into providing something...

It's become quite evident over the past few years that coercion is the new volunteerism.

[Mike K.]

How does it work when the city of Victoria asks for a setback or a mid block walkway.

A setback is within the zone, and a mid-block walkway has to be offered as an amenity. The City cannot force a developer to provide it. Usually, a developer will use something like a mid-block walkway to gain favour in exchange for height, density, etc.

But as we’ve seen, mid-block walkways are now getting closed early or are not opening to the public. Again, Victorians are focusing on the suburbs, when the same is happening in their own backyard.

In the Bear Mountain case, council and planning can start a conversation around opening up trail access, in exchange for something else. But most certainly not to hang that over a developer and intimate they won’t get approvals unless they open up trail access. That’s grounds for a lawsuit, I would imagine.

[Danma]

Ya, that's the thing, take the other route.

 

I'm well aware of the other route. However, considering those trails were all built by volunteers, I think there are far better ways to make that trail available for users that mitigate any issues with liability. Being jerks about it rarely works out for the long run, does it?

 

Edit: if it's purely an liability concern, could the land for that trail not be rented out to the CRD in exchange for the CRD to take over trail maintenance, so that the CRD will assume liability (which I assume it does for all of its parks and trails)

Edited by Danma, 30 May 2023 - 09:27 AM.

[GaryOak]

Maybe there's another big development coming along the way, and they've taken away trail access to then offer opening it back up as an amenity contribution. And as far as I'm aware, bear mountain residents aren't too happy about this move either as it makes it more difficult to bring friends and family out on hikes.

Edited by GaryOak, 30 May 2023 - 09:29 AM.

[lanforod]

That's going to turn real ugly, real fast.

 

The landowner has to volunteer an amenity contribution. It cannot be asked of them nor is it appropriate to coerce them into providing something, because legally speaking, that might be interpreted by a court as shady dealings.

 

Really? So... if the CoV demands x number of bike parking or public parking spaces for a project, thats actually not appropriate?

[Mike K.]

Yes, it’s generally disappointing for people affected by the closure of access and infrastructure, be it private or public.

Vancouver Street comes to mind.

[Mike K.]

Really? So... if the CoV demands x number of bike parking or public parking spaces for a project, thats actually not appropriate?

Whatever is in the zone is the benchmark. Usually a developer wants to provide more or less of something than the zone stipulates, so they offer something in exchange, and that’s typically in the form of a community amenity or a benefit to the City/taxpayer.

But the City cannot “ask” for it.

[lanforod]

I must be reading some council meeting summaries wrong or misunderstanding. From various posts here, I was under the impression the cities certainly do demand (let alone ask) certain amenities be included in order for a project to be approved.

[Mike K.]

When it comes to amenity contributions, they have to be offered. It’s easy to assume they are being asked for, but that’s not the actual verbiage that’s being used.

[GaryOak]

So they just talk around the subject and it's all about reading between the lines.

[Mike K.]

Sort of, but usually the developer is up front about what they are willing to provide, or if there is a municipal plan/policy in effect like the mid-block walkway policy, the developer will volunteer some land to support the policy/agenda.

[GaryOak]

Don't they have a plan to turn one of those gravel parking lots into a 20 story building or something?

[Victoria Watcher]

It’s private property and there is another way up. If you lived on Mt. Toimie you’d want people to use the road and paths not walk through your back yard.

So be it.

[LJ]

It's more of a pissing contest between the golf owner and the hotel owner than anything else, IMO.

[LJ]

Yeah but the goldstream entrance isn't accessible by bus.

You said you wanted to go for a hike, why do you need a bus?