3483 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

...Density is a bad thing that adds stress to the community and will cause neighbourhood degradation; growth is not inherently good; Oak Bay will become overcrowded...

http://digital.times...noredirect=true

It appears as though at least some folks would like to put padlocks on the tweed curtain.

[aastra]

 

Density is a bad thing that adds stress to the community

 

Hmmm. So the current density of Oak Bay is bad? Stressful?

 

Oh, no, wait. I get it. The current density is just the right amount. But if the density gets any higher -- even by a little bit -- then it would be bad and stressful. Fair enough.

 

Hmmm. But in the past Oak Bay wasn't as dense as it is now. So if you had complained about density in Oak Bay back in 1960*, would you have been wrong? You just didn't realize that the right amount of density lay ahead in the future? Is that it?

 

If so, then how can we be sure we aren't wrong today? Maybe the right density is the density of ~25 years from now?

 

*need to go back a little further than 1960 because Oak Bay's population is pretty much the same today as it was back then

Edited by aastra, 03 June 2019 - 11:20 AM.

[Jackerbie]

^ Oak Bay's population peaked at 18,426 in 1971. It fell as low as 16,990 in 1981, and is now sitting at 18,094 as of the 2016.

[aastra]

Yeah, it's been basically holding steady for a long time with some minor ups and downs. I've talked about that before whenever folks in Oak Bay raise concerns about population density, population increase, etc. It's as if they're borrowing a concern from another municipality that has no relevance in their own.

 

Anyway, at some point in Oak Bay's history the population would have been significantly lower than today, but I don't know how far back you need to go to see it. Maybe to before 1950?

 

Edit: to the early 1950s, it would seem, according to www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca

 

Edited by aastra, 03 June 2019 - 11:17 AM.

[spanky123]

It appears as though at least some folks would like to put padlocks on the tweed curtain.

Just because they were there before others doesn’t mean that they should have any say over what happens in the future. Who ever came up with such a crazy idea!

Edited by spanky123, 03 June 2019 - 11:20 AM.

[aastra]

 

Just because they were there before others doesn’t mean that they should have any say over what happens in the future. Who ever came up with such a crazy idea!

 

Not the good people of Oak Bay in the 1950s, that's for sure. Oak Bay has been ruined since then.

[aastra]

 

It appears as though at least some folks would like to put padlocks on the tweed curtain.

 

To try to prevent Oak Bay from being what it has been for the past 50+ years? I'm as optimistic as the next guy, but something tells me that mission is doomed to failure.

[aastra]

 

To try to prevent Oak Bay from being what it has been for the past 50+ years?

 

From continuing to be what it has been, in other words.

[Nparker]

It seems not everyone is convinced that increased taxes lead to more affordable housing.

In contrast to previous surveys that have shown widespread support for new housing taxation, a new poll has found that 74 per cent of B.C. residents believe additional taxes, fees and regulatory red tape have made housing less affordable...

https://www.timescol...ents-1.23841497

 

[Victoria Watcher]

from the "the flogging will continue until morale improves" file:

 

 

A final decision won’t be made until June 27, but councillors sitting as committee of the whole have adopted Coun. Ben Isitt’s proposal to double the affordable-unit requirement to 20 per cent. The measure would apply to strata developments with 60 units or more.

 

“I think for a few years at least, we need to have a building boom of purpose-built rental housing. I’m personally not very interested in strata buildings where at most we’re going to see 10 per cent of the units being available to people who aren’t wealthy,” Isitt said.

 

“So for that reason, I think making a more stringent requirement for on-site affordability for the larger projects will either see applicants rise to that challenge, or we may see projects transition from strata to purpose-built rental.”

 

 

https://www.timescol...-say-1.23857034

 

why have we become a municipality that goes well out of our way to attract the "unwealthy"?  is that in our mission statement?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 15 June 2019 - 05:55 AM.

[Nparker]

 

I think making a more stringent requirement for on-site affordability for the larger projects will either see applicants rise to that challenge, or we may see projects transition from strata to purpose-built rental.

Or more likely, developers will take their proposals to less regulatory intrusive environments. Of course this concept is lost on ideologues.

[spanky123]

Or more likely, developers will take their proposals to less regulatory intrusive environments. Of course this concept is lost on ideologues.

 

Perhaps but if you own land in Victoria then you either wait or proceed under the best terms that you can negotiate.

 

If I recall from the COTW presentation, over the last 3 years 18 affordable rentals have been created and the City has averaged less than $1M a year in contributions to the affordable housing fund. This despite a boom in construction. The Mayor and development community have nobody to blame except themselves for the state that they now find themselves in. 

[Mattjvd]

Perhaps but if you own land in Victoria then you either wait or proceed under the best terms that you can negotiate.

If I recall from the COTW presentation, over the last 3 years 18 affordable rentals have been created and the City has averaged less than $1M a year in contributions to the affordable housing fund. This despite a boom in construction. The Mayor and development community have nobody to blame except themselves for the state that they now find themselves in.

That number is absolutely false. Pacifica's Wilson's Walk (2016) added 84 affordable units by itself.

[spanky123]

That number is absolutely false. Pacifica's Wilson's Walk (2016) added 84 affordable units by itself.

 

I am not referring to buildings that the Province purchases and has Pacifica or another agency manage,  I am referring to affordable housing units and contributions to the affordable housing fund which are provided by a developer in return for bonus density and/or rezoning.

Edited by spanky123, 15 June 2019 - 10:58 AM.

[Mattjvd]

I am not referring to buildings that the Province purchases and has Pacifica or another agency manage, I am referring to affordable housing units and contributions to the affordable housing fund which are provided by a developer in return for bonus density and/or rezoning.

Wilson's Walk is not owned by the Province. It's wholely owned and operated by Pacifica, the Province helps with subsidies

[Victoria Watcher]

well in any event it's not like some others where a developer builds.

[Mike K.]

Provincial monies typically fund the projects managed by agencies like Pacifica.

Milliken Developments is proposing a $1 million contribution to the housing fund: https://victoria.cit...eniors-complex/

[Victoria Watcher]

“We’re in the midst of a housing crisis and a development boom,” he said. “This policy seeks to make sure that the real estate development that is occurring works better for the many residents that are not able to currently afford that housing that’s being built.”

 

 

https://www.vicnews....housing-policy/

 

loveday is a terribly shallow thinker.  i know he can do slightly better if he just concentrates.

[sebberry]

So if the 20 units in a 60 unit building are 'affordable' (by what definition?) then the 40 remaining units are now more expensive to compensate for the development costs? Owners of affordable units will still find themselves paying strata fees at the same rate of the higher priced units too.  

 

I can see such buildings, if stratas, adopting more stringent bylaws to deal with the perception that lower income owners will be more problematic.  

[spanky123]

So if the 20 units in a 60 unit building are 'affordable' (by what definition?)   

 

The magical definition that Pacifica and other use when determining who gets housing.