146 replies to this topic

[Barra]

Enhancing economic vitality sounds like a really good idea. I think the city should really be looking into that.

Of course its a good idea - and its a basic expectation for a municipal government to be looking after that. What they didn't explain, is that an Official Community Plan is a land use planning document.

They also didn't explain that there are differences in federal, provincial and municipal responsibility. Developing energy alternatives, for example, is outside of the city's responsibility. It is a provincial responsibility. Sure, the city should be energy efficient, just as every employer and household should be energy efficient. But it should not be a focus of the Official Community Plan.

[Bernard]

I thought the options were pretty lame.

I tried not to vote for anything that was sustainable, because I'd like to see, just once, something that everyone says is unsustainable actually not be able to sustain itself, to see if it can really happen.

12. Securing Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

I really don't understand that one, at least the first part. Hydro is renewable energy, how are we as a city supposed to secure it? Is it unsecure now, or is it likely to be in the future? Can we just sign a contract now to buy lots of it in the future?

Maybe the City wants to invest in non storage hydro projects? Or maybe they want CRD water to install turbines in the Sooke resevoir?

[piltdownman]

Did anyone go to the community forum yesterday or today? I went today and thought it was really informative.

They are really pushing these Community Circles, where you form a group, discus a topic and submit your groups opinions. A friend and I went to the workshop on how to host a Community Circle. While we both liked the idea, and found those running the workshop to be really nice, I disagreed with many of their suggestions. For example they suggest that your group votes on which of the narrow topics to discuss at the start of your meeting. For me it seems way more useful to pre-determine the topic so you can do at least a little research first. There was also alot of questions from people in the workshop on how and if they city will use peoples answers.

[piltdownman]

They also had a display about the "Downtown Core Area Plan" at todays Forum. I found it really 'scary'. First off ... and this is a minor annoyance ... is the area they showed on the map as the study area. The north Coast of James Bay, Rock Bay and North Park are included in the area, but not Vic West, Cook Street Village or even the Humbolt Valley East of Blanshard. My next big problem was some of their numbers. They expect 10k-15k additional people to live downtown within 20 years. 2006 census data for the four tracts that contain and exceed the study area only shows 17k people. Do they really expect the downtown population to almost double? I like the density, but don't think it will happen.
I also didn't like how Economic Vitality was the second to last item on their last poster. And in that section only the last bullet point said anything about strengthening our economy and the rest was status quo ante about being on the water and being the province capital.

[jklymak]

They also had a display about the "Downtown Core Area Plan" at todays Forum. I found it really 'scary'. First off ... and this is a minor annoyance ... is the area they showed on the map as the study area. The north Coast of James Bay, Rock Bay and North Park are included in the area, but not Vic West, Cook Street Village or even the Humbolt Valley East of Blanshard. My next big problem was some of their numbers. They expect 10k-15k additional people to live downtown within 20 years. 2006 census data for the four tracts that contain and exceed the study area only shows 17k people. Do they really expect the downtown population to almost double? I like the density, but don't think it will happen.

If they were including Harris Green it might happen. Is there really less than 20 k in HG/DT?

[G-Man]

In 2006, downtown including Harris Green had a pop of just 3100.

I would love to see 15 000 people living downtown but I think that the Nimbys would stop this from ever having. This would require a LOT of really tall buildings.

[jklymak]

^ Yeah you're right. Duh...

[piltdownman]

^^It's not even NIMBY's. My guess is the people that actually live downtown, myself included, in truth want greater density. The more people that live downtown the more vibrant it will become, and the more services there will be us. The problem is the people that don't live downtown or even in victoria proper that want victoria to stay a sleepy little town. The problem with this is these are the same people that say "between the parking and the homeless I don't want to go downtown anymore". So you have the future of the downtown core dictated by people that try to avoid it if they can. That's only my opinion though, I could be wrong.

[Dennis Carlsen]

I did go to the OCP forum yesterday. The downtown plan does include Harris Green which has capacity for a lot more people. Downtown development hasn't typically generated a lot of public opposition to density although it certainly has been an issue for the planning department and City Council. The issues have more more to do with height, the appropriate amount of density and the design of the projects. Hopefully the Downtown Plan will address this. If downtown is going to attract more density it needs to be done in the context of what else will be there to attract people downtown, otherwise you might as well buy a condo in Saanich.
I think it would have been helpful for people to have information regarding the limits of the OCP and what is within the scope of control within the city. This might have tempered some of the comments I read on the post it notes.

[gumgum]

It's time the city of Victoria thought of this issue more like a business. One of the key things we have going for it is the density. We need to build on that to increase infrastructure based income and services, such as retail. We need to give people from the outlying areas more of a reason to visit d/t because its competition is growing. Langford big box is big and is still growing, Uptown will wipe out another fraction of d/t shoppers. Other outlying malls are expanding.
A significant increase in residents d/t will attract more business and therefore attract more people outside of the core in. We need to build on our strengths here.
If our population stagnates, d/t may be doomed. We can't afford to continue at this pace.

More height makes the most sense here. I just wish Joe and Jane public would look beyond their knee-jerk reactions to height and understand the benefits.
Personally, I see anything new less than 20 stories a crime. (With exceptions of course.) I'm starting to think that even Olde Town could do with the odd 20 plus story building. (On an empty lot of course.)

And please nobody tell me that there is no market for this kind of scale. I have property values to back up my argument.

[Ms. B. Havin]

@gumgum, agree.

I think it would have been helpful for people to have information regarding the limits of the OCP and what is within the scope of control within the city. This might have tempered some of the comments I read on the post it notes.

@Dennis: Amen.

This is one of my biggest beefs right now: there's a "blue sky" mentality that's encouraged, without giving people enough information about what's actually within the realm of possibilities defined by the terms of reference.

Regional issues come up - food security, transportation, etc. - which are very fine concerns, but outside the scope of what the City can address.

Perhaps if people were more aware of the governance limitations, there would be more support for amalgamation, too.

And amen to what piltdownman said:

So you have the future of the downtown core dictated by people that try to avoid it if they can. That's only my opinion though, I could be wrong.

You're not wrong at all - you nailed it (and it has been nailed numerous times on this forum in the same terms).

[piltdownman]

This is one of my biggest beefs right now: there's a "blue sky" mentality that's encouraged, without giving people enough information about what's actually within the realm of possibilities defined by the terms of reference.

Regional issues come up - food security, transportation, etc. - which are very fine concerns, but outside the scope of what the City can address.

Perhaps if people were more aware of the governance limitations, there would be more support for amalgamation, too.

These are two of the problems I had with the OPC process. In the Community Circle workshop we were told "Imagine Your Perfect Victoria. What is That?". Which is nice, but only distracts from what is possible or even in the scope of the OCP.

Its really piqued my interest about the past OCPs (1965, 1977, 1986, and 1995) just to get an idea of what the scope was, as well as what there plan for the city was fifteen years ago.

[Bernard]

With an unguided pie in the sky consultation of the public the one result is so much noise that the plan can be drawn up in anyway you want.

My hope is that the future iterations of the OCP process make it clear that non municipal issues are not being considered for the OCP process.

[G-Man]

^ That is the point.

Hell we just did all this crap like 2 years ago for the new downtown plan, which I am unsure how it fits into this plan unless this is an end run around it because people were unhappy with the result.

We need more density, better fiscal planning and an actual plan to increase commenrce in the city.

[Baro]

Yep, I firmly believe all these consultations are just to placate the pet-issue obsessed into think they're being heard and to make the process seem democratic and open. They collect so much useless and conflicting information they are free to pick and choose what they want and justify it all as "listening to community imput". Then you have issues like the downtown plan when there is a vote and the city's choice is not picked, so they just ignore it and say community plans are only rough guidelines. A community plan is a rough guideline when it suits people, and an ironclad set of commandments from the holy alter of civic democracy when it suits others.

That's always been such a problem in Victoria. Way too many cooks in the kitchen and none of them have clear responsibilities or even an agreement on what we're cooking. You've got someone in in one corner saying we need a new energy-efficient stove before we even consider cooking something, someone else complaining the lettuce isn't organic, 100 tasteless amateurs giving their culinary opinions on dishes they've only read about online, and a crazy lady in the corner screaming that we shouldn't even be MAKING food anymore and should all forage in the forest. That is Victoria.

[gumgum]

Not to mention the person saying we should lock the kitchen up and never let anyone else in.

[piltdownman]

We need more density, better fiscal planning and an actual plan to increase commenrce in the city.

That's honestly the best plan for the OPC I have heard.

[Bernard]

In the early 1990s I was involved with CityPlan in Vancouver. The process they went through to engage the public was impressive. The starting of the whole process was an Ideas Fair. Everyone was given a chance to get a table to present their ideas no matter how crazy. The Ideas Fair also had cultural and social aspect to it. The city had a series of people telling their life stories and the history of the city.

The whole start to the CityPlan process was inspiring and engaging.

Form this start the city of Vancouver organized events in all of the neighbourhoods and actively engaged anyone and everyone.

Within the City of Vancouver staff, the CityPlan team took staff from all of their offices, not just planners.

To me it is what I would like to see out of a planning process.

[mat]

From the OCP website

At least 5,000 people will be engaged over the next 12 months as the OCP is updated and a new process for creating neighbourhood plans is established.

Compare that to the Johnson Street Bridge 2 week consultation (PDF) with a claimed 5195 surveys and over 9000 engaged/consulted. What did that cost financially?

What it cost politically was a 9000+ affirmed counter petition against the borrowing. Priorities?

If the goal is to seriously consult 5000 (at least) - that would seem to me a staff sit down with a Victoria voter/taxpayer to complete a comprehensive questionnaire, along with plenty of open space to receive comments. Then staff time is required to collate all the info, and present to council not only a precis and recommendations, with the raw data for evaluation.

True consultation (if that happens) of 5000 Victoria residents equals less than 5% of the municipal population. There is a low voter turnout - 27% - but maybe that should be the goal(?)

[Ms. B. Havin]

Since the organizers of this event intend to influence the Official Community Plan, I thought I'd post the following item here.

Is anyone planning to attend?

From Douglas Magazine:

Local Co-operatives Host City Hall Event to Rethink Economics

Apr 14, 2010
The event will take place at City Hall, #1 Centennial Square, Coast Salish Territories from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm. The event is held during Earth Week, in recognition that environmental efforts must include a rethinking of economics.

The intent of the event is twofold: to give people useful information about how the economy needs to adapt to current ecological realities and to provide input to the City of Victoria’s current official community plan review.

“The City has given the public an opportunity to guide high-level policy direction under the official community plan. The social, economic and ecological challenges we will face as a community require bold goals and new ideas, and we hope the audience will be inspired by the presenters and challenge the City to think big,” explains SIRCNet’s Nicole Chaland. (source)

Click thru for more details on who's presenting (and general idea of what), and when doors open, etc.