30 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

If this isn't stopped by the electorate NOW, every one who ever complains about the high cost of housing and the high cost of living in Victoria fully deserves it.

I agree 100% Mike. I implore the city of Victoria voters to think long and hard about the future of their city and if they really believe the type of government we have had for the past 3 years is sustainable in the long-run.

[VicHockeyFan]

While I am not in support of the Dean Team the key is that the market does not build supportive housing. This is VERY different from affordable housing. We need both. The city should be allowing developments and using the DCC's to build supportive housing so that people can move from being on the street to paying market rents.

Why should the City be doing this? Oak Bay doesn't do this. The Highlands don't do this. Langford, Colwood, Metchosin, Esquimalt and all the other municipalities don't do this. Why does Victoria need to do this?

[G-Man]

It would be a win win if they were allowing high density development IMO.

[Mike K.]

Why should the City be doing this? Oak Bay doesn't do this. The Highlands don't do this. Langford, Colwood, Metchosin, Esquimalt and all the other municipalities don't do this. Why does Victoria need to do this?

That.

[Baro]

I just worry that the city doesn't have the experience to run projects like this. I have no ideological problem with the city or government building and running housing, so long as it's done efficiently. It's a service the private market doesn't provide well enough, but is directly owning the housing the best strategy? There are some fairly well established housing agencies that have successfully run affordable housing through grants and charity, why not just give them money?

If the city or CRD as a whole could demonstrate that they can provide affordable housing and manage them more efficiently than other methods that would be fine. If some huge government group could use economies of scale to build mass produced affordable housing I'd be all over it, but I just have serious doubts anyone associated with the Dean city-hall can do ANYTHING efficiently let alone effectively.

[R0ark]

Getting back to the incompetence:

I've been trying to think of all the tax-payer money this council has lost to settlements and lawyers fees.

Like the $600,000 we had to pay to Roger's Chocolates for denying them the right to change their own property.

And then there was all the legal wrangling over the homeless sleeping in the parks: http://www.nanaimoin...amping-in-parks

How much cash was burned in lawyers fees rather than going towards dealing with the situation?

The last one I could think of was using the alternate approval process rather than going straight to a referendum for an issue as contentious as the Johnson Street bridge. How much money did the council blow by shortcutting prudence and due diligence? $500K? $1 million?

With one day to go till election day I have the sinking feeling that we're going to be stuck with the Dean team again. When are the pitchforks and torches going to come out? When the costs of the Johnson Street bridge replacement start rolling in at 150% of their $77 million estimate? When they start breaking ground for the $1.2 billion dollar sewage and $1+ billion dollar monorail to Uptown?

[G-Man]

City of Victoria is not building the LRT or the sewage treatment. They may support it but to compare those items to the JSB is a stretch IMO.

[Bernard]

The City budget calls for a 1% increase in salaries in the next several years - problem is the settlement with CUPE 50 was for 2% per year. How does this get reconciled?

[Barrett r Blackwood]

Edited by Mod

[ZGsta]

And then there was all the legal wrangling over the homeless sleeping in the parks: http://www.nanaimoin...amping-in-parks

How much cash was burned in lawyers fees rather than going towards dealing with the situation?

I don't get this. What was the city supposed to do? David Johnston was going to be his usual psychotic self over this and managed to have enough legal support to bring all these court challenges forward.
The courts were the ones being idiots about this. I don't see how the city was just supposed to "deal with the situation" other than the way it all went down anyways?

Just arrest DAJ (which ended up happening of course anyways) and kick his cult followers out of the parks? That was going to result in the court challenges anyways.

How do you propose the issue gets resolved without the legal wrangling?

[Rob Randall]

There are some fairly well established housing agencies that have successfully run affordable housing through grants and charity, why not just give them money?

This supportive housing is run by Cool Aid, not the City.

No, I don't prefer the homeless sleeping on the streets. That doesn't mean I should support poorly thought out solutions made for the wrong reasons. Peoples livelihoods and lives suffer because of the warehousing approach. Do I have the solution? Not likely but I know that taxpayers, whether property or income tax payers should not be handling the burden of monies wasted on this approach.

Agreed, "warehousing" can multiply problems. Problem is, nobody wants shopping cart guy and his chicken-dance girlfriend as neighbours so these folk tend to end up in a building with like-minded people. Remember, we're talking about the hardest to house, the roughest of the rough, not your garden variety welfare mom or kindly old alcoholic.

Remember, a lot of people with issues are being integrated into regular market housing. You just don't hear about them. The Travellers Inn situation, on the other hand, is very high profile.

I don't get this. What was the city supposed to do? David Johnston was going to be his usual psychotic self over this and managed to have enough legal support to bring all these court challenges forward.
The courts were the ones being idiots about this. I don't see how the city was just supposed to "deal with the situation" other than the way it all went down anyways?

Just arrest DAJ (which ended up happening of course anyways) and kick his cult followers out of the parks? That was going to result in the court challenges anyways.

How do you propose the issue gets resolved without the legal wrangling?

Yeah, that was a mess. I don't know how you could prevent or untangle that without the lawyers getting involved.

Like the $600,000 we had to pay to Roger's Chocolates for denying them the right to change their own property.

This has been well discussed elsewhere so I will simply say 'agreed'.

So here's a rough timeline:

Citizens told Mayor Alan Lowe homelessness was out of control and it needed to be dealt with. Now. And not just the temporarily down-on-their-luck, people demanded action on the most problematic.

Lowe formed the homelessness task force, which became the Coalition. Experts gather to find the most cost-effective ways of ending homelessness, not just managing it.

Then Fortin is elected. The Inns come up for sale. A rare instance of cooperation from various governmental and NGOs make a deal happen.

A significant number of problematic people are taken off the streets. Some integrate back into society, some fail and are back on the street. The TI people need more supervision than most homeless. Basically, they need a mom 24-7 until they are able to learn basic life skills.

So there's a broad spectrum. One person needs a bit of an income or rent subsidy until a reliable job comes around. Another person needs to be locked away forever and medicated. There's no single magic bullet.

Do I believe in market housing playing a bigger role. Damn right.

Do I believe in building more high-density market accommodations? Yes, and I have the supporters and enemies to prove it.

Do I think the TI purchase was an act of "incompetence"? No, it was the best deal possible to get supportive housing units.