255 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

Well if you increase supply there will be more total which should lower the entry cost into all rentals in the city. Anyways the developer tried but you cant blame them for trying to maintain a profit after the city changes the density on them.

[martini]

Well if you increase supply there will be more total which should lower the entry cost into all rentals in the city. Anyways the developer tried but you cant blame them for trying to maintain a profit after the city changes the density on them.

I can only speak for myself, but did not lay any blame on the developer in this case.

[LJ]

I'm with G-Man and Bernard on this. Build a bunch of new rental accommodation and you will see rent prices dropping everywhere. I don't know how you cannot equate that with building affordable housing.

In 2007 you had to search really hard to find a place to rent, they would take wait lists but if they didn't like you, your name never came up. When the crash hit all of a sudden there were places for rent all over and they were offering incentives to fill the place up. Build more rentals and the prices will come down. (MURBS anyone?)

[martini]

Is there something I'm missing here? Have I misunderstood the role of the nonprofit society that was originally involved in this development?

Having more rentals which leads to possible lower entry rates does not come even close to the subsidized/affordable rates. Those being solely based on your income.

That's what I am referring to. Subsidized. Meaning you have to have a maximum income to even qualify. Then you only pay 30% of your gross income.

That's completely different than a slightly lower market rent.

[Bernard]

Is there something I'm missing here? Have I misunderstood the role of the nonprofit society that was originally involved in this development?

Having more rentals which leads to possible lower entry rates does not come even close to the subsidized/affordable rates. Those being solely based on your income.

That's what I am referring to. Subsidized. Meaning you have to have a maximum income to even qualify. Then you only pay 30% of your gross income.

That's completely different than a slightly lower market rent.

I understand the difference, but when the market rents are too high, too many people need the subsidized housing and you end up with endless waiting lists.

More market rent units will lead to less demand for the subsidized housing and make it easier for those that need it to get it.

The extreme for subsidised housing I know of is in Whistler where last time I checked families with incomes of over $100K qualified to be able to get non-market housing.

[martini]

I understand the difference, but when the market rents are too high, too many people need the subsidized housing and you end up with endless waiting lists.

More market rent units will lead to less demand for the subsidized housing and make it easier for those that need it to get it.

The extreme for subsidised housing I know of is in Whistler where last time I checked families with incomes of over $100K qualified to be able to get non-market housing.

Yes, there are endless lists for subsidized. They are probably at least a 5 years wait or more.
That's because the Federal government stopped building subsidized units 20 years ago?
Also subsidized for the most part is only available to families or low income seniors/disability.

Your Whistler example is just beyond comprehension. That seems plain wrong to me.

Here's the income caps to qualify in B.C.
http://www.bchousing...me_requirements

[VicHockeyFan]

City to consider revamped towers

City to consider revamped towers

Proposed 12-storey buildings garner support on council

By Bill Cleverley, Times Colonist September 20, 2012 4:06 AM

Victoria councillors will consider today an updated proposal that would see two 12-storey residential-commercial towers built near Mayfair mall.

City staff are recommending against sending the plan to public hearing, though the proposal does have support on council.

The development - across Douglas Street from Mayfair Shopping Centre between Frances and Speed avenues - is a scaled-down version of an eight-and 14-storey development that Brian Martin first proposed to council in April.

Hmmmm....

[Mike K.]

Looks like we went from 8- & 14-storeys, to 9- & 9-storeys, and now 12- & 12-storeys.

[Nparker]

So this is the most dense proposal yet.

[Mike K.]

...according to the TC it's a "scaled down version."

How can that be?

[Robb]

Hi,

Does anyone know what this sentence means?

"City staff are recommending against sending the plan to public hearing, though the proposal does have support on council."

Does it mean that city staff are recommending against the plan and to stop it at this point? or does it mean that they feel it can go ahead without a public hearing?


Thanks,

Robb

[G-Man]

City staff are saying that council should not hold a public meeting and send the proposal back to the developer for revision.

[Robb]

On the agenda of the Governance & Priorities Committee meeting at 10am this morning.

Revised submission:

https://victoria.civ...ed Rezoning.pdf

https://victoria.civ...ning-part 2.pdf

Answered my own question... staff are still recommending the application be declined.


R.

[Nparker]

....staff are still recommending the application be declined...

The T-C headline is rather misleading then, is it not?

[Mike K.]

Yup.

[Holden West]

City staff are saying that council should not hold a public meeting and send the proposal back to the developer for revision.

Thankfully, staff have the ability to decline applications without sending them to Council. That way, elected officials aren't wasting time considering your crazy neighbour's plan for a five storey-high pirate mast. But there are cases where staff thinks something's a bad idea and recommends it be declined but Council likes it (and vice versa).

[G-Man]

There was one recently that planning turned down but was approved by Council. 834? Juliet? I forget which one...

[Nparker]

The latest on this proposal from the T-C:

Towers must meet conditions before public has say

I had to (once again) shake my head at Ms. Madoff's concerns:

"Care must be given to the development’s form and character because it could set the tone for future development in the area..."

Yes because we wouldn't want to disturb the lovely ambience of the local KFC outlet and Blue Ridge Inn. I am sorry but this woman really doesn't have a clue. She just parrots the same theme over and over.

[aastra]

I actually agree with her re: setting the tone for the future. Do it right from the beginning. You don't want another Harris Green situation or another Songhees situation, where you spend subsequent decades trying to counter the bad moves that were made at the beginning.

However, I suspect that Madoff and I do not agree about what the best tone would be. I'd like the buildings to be as high-quality as possible, and as varied as possible. Bland twin towers would not represent a great beginning, methinks.

[martini]

Because we can actually build cheaper projects in this area. This format of project doesn't work downtown.

Also the city is actively preventing the build out of Harris Green. I mean they have turned down two huge projects in the last few months. So it seems the city's plan is that nothing is built anywhere.

Well I'm beginning to wonder!

Victoria city does not appear attractive to developers.
It seems an exercise in extreme frustration.

The city purports one thing yet does another!
End homelessness...affordable housing...bla bla bla
How much proposed affordable housing has now been kiboshed by the city?
At least two or three projects now?

Why isn't council listening to it's own stakeholders...the community.
The community voted unanimously in favour of the project WITH affordable housing.
What's Thorton-Joe's responsibility as the neighbourhood liaison then?

Parking? Well there's no parking at the Mosaic.
Is parking more important than affordable housing?

City staff and council just consistently manage to flabbergast me.