1984 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

At the same time, [Shellie Gudgeon] added, “I’m elected to represent the neighbourhood (and) the neighbourhood is opposed.”

It's very important that when it comes time to vote, Gudgeon takes into account what is best for the entire Victoria community. Yes, the mayor gave her the North Park liason appointment (which is never permanent and rotates among Councillors). However, she mustn't vote no based mainly on local NP vocal opposition. It may be that the average James Bay resident, for example, approves this project. I could imagine a James Bayer saying, "We have Trendwest, Shoal Point etc. etc., we're pulling our weight, it's time for North Park to step up and absorb their fair share of density."

[tedward]

^ Well she is appointed as the rep for NP by council. She is not elected by the residents of NP as their rep.

What on earth does that have to do with anything? These residents are her constituents whether they voted for her or not. The attitude here seems to be that these people should have no say in a large development that most directly affects them?!?!

This is early going and to simply write-off these people as NIMBY types is a little premature.

It's very important that when it comes time to vote, Gudgeon takes into account what is best for the entire Victoria community.

But she seems to have done that. She took into account the concerns of her constituents and said this deal needs to be improved to address some of their concerns. I must be missing where she vowed to oppose this development at all costs and said this must not happen.

Sorry, but I think it is totally reasonable to send the project back to the developer for some adjustments or at least consultation with local residents at this stage.

[G-Man]

^ I don't disagree that there should be consultation at all and there needs to be "to and fro" but if you think that the CA is going to approve anything short of two storey townhouses on the whole block I think you are incorrect. Discussion should result in reasonable compromise and I do not think that this will happen. I am happy to be wrong. As I said at the beginning I think the design needs tweaks as well.

[tedward]

^ Exactly! Which is why slamming a city councilor for this vote, on this request, at this time, seems unreasonable to me. It appears to be a knee-jerk reaction every bit as unreasonable as the NIMBY's.

Maybe it is time for a new acronym to describe these anti-NIMBY's? Something about developers always being right, bigger always being better and neighbours opinions being considered inadmissable...

[VicHockeyFan]

Maybe it is time for a new acronym to describe these anti-NIMBY's? Something about developers always being right, bigger always being better and neighbours opinions being considered inadmissable...

The difficulty with neighbours' views is that they have a very strong knowledge of what is there NOW. But they have very little experience with change, or vision for when a certain type of change is good. Councillors have seen development changes that improve an area. But direct neighbours fear that, it's unknown. Councillors use their knowledge of other situations to say to themselves, and to neighbours, "hey, this will actually be good, I saw the same type of proposal meet resistance in XX situation, and it turned out well."

Let's face it, almost every development turns out to be better than what was there before, so it's sometimes hard to fathom why there is always so much resistance. See: Eatons Centre fiasco.

[Mike K.]

^ Exactly! Which is why slamming a city councilor for this vote, on this request, at this time, seems unreasonable to me. It appears to be a knee-jerk reaction every bit as unreasonable as the NIMBY's.

Maybe it is time for a new acronym to describe these anti-NIMBY's? Something about developers always being right, bigger always being better and neighbours opinions being considered inadmissable...

But who is to say the individuals in the NA are not anti-development, NIMBY types who want nothing to do with higher density that other neighbourhoods are accommodating?

NA's are not always representative of the neighbourhood in which they operate and purportedly represent. They are representative of a very select group of individuals who oftentimes develop agendas that fly in the face of what residents as whole may support (think James Bay Neighbourhood Association and the fiascos they've been involved with). Any "rogues" on a NA can have their volunteer lives made much harder if they choose not to fall in line with the status quo.

Blind support of a NA's stance on an issue is not the way to go for an elected official that represents the entire city, not just one tiny neighbourhood and it's very select group of representatives. Councillors should know better. Otherwise we elect councillors who are then appointed to a select neighbourhood, and all of a sudden that one councillor is no longer interested in the opinions of the entire electorate? That's nonsense.

[Hotel Mike]

^
Basically what the ward system is all about Mike. And why we don't want it.

[tedward]

Blind support of a NA's stance on an issue is not the way to go for an elected official that represents the entire city...

OK, Mike, time to back it up a bit and go back to the beginning because you have missed something crucial here.

If you are trying to characterize Gudgeon's stance as "blind support" then you did not read what she said. This has been the point I have been trying to make all this time.

As I read the report she likes the proposal and believes it can happen but in order to represent her constituents she voted "no" at this time in order to bring the developer and the RA to the table to see if they could hash it out.

Her support of the RA position seems to be anything but blind and I appreciate a councilor who tries to work to balance all interests including the neighbours, the developers and "the entire city".

[Mike K.]

Good idea, let's back up and read the following quote once again:

At the same time, [Gudgeon] added, “I’m elected to represent the neighbourhood (and) the neighbourhood is opposed.”

It is abundantly clear that C. Gudgeon believes that because she was elected as the councillor liaison for North Park, she is bound by the opinions of and only the opinions of North Park residents via-a-vis the neighboughood association. As HotelMike says, she appears to be operating as though Victoria has a ward system.

But as we know, Councillor Gudgeon was not elected to represent North Park, she was elected to represent Victorians. She was appointed to represent North Park before council. A statement like "I’m elected to represent the neighbourhood (and) the neighbourhood is opposed, [therefore I will vote against the project]" is blind support any way you slice it.

Now don't get me wrong I believe this project does need to be tweaked and it could be improved but let's stop pretending the first-time councillor did not position herself as a spokesperson for one neighbourhood prepared to vote however her neighbhourhood wants her to vote.

[VicHockeyFan]

But as we know, Councillor Gudgeon was not elected to represent North Park, she was elected to represent Victorians. She was appointed to represent North Park before council. A statement like "I’m elected to represent the neighbourhood (and) the neighbourhood is opposed, [therefore I will vote against the project]" is blind support any way you slice it.

In her defence, she attends every meeting, and you can't help but get friendly with the folks on the NA, and indeed you begin to see it their way, even if you try not to be biased, that's just the way it is.

[Mike K.]

That may very well be, but all I'm asking is we debate the issue for what it is. If she is prepared to vote how the NA wants her to vote, fine, that's her decision.

But that doesn't mean that if she chooses to align her votes with the NA because she believes she was elected to do so and not elected to represent the community at-large (on this particular issue), that her constituents and supporters from other neighbourhoods who disagree with her aligning her vote with one neighbourhood should be immediately degraded to the status of anti-NIMBY or what have you.

[tedward]

Mike, do you have some sort of personal vendetta against this councilor? I ask because it is quite clear from the article in question that she supports the project in general and yet you seem convinced she is nothing more than a mouthpiece of a neighbourhood association when clearly that is not the truth.

[Mike K.]

Nope, not at all. I'm just pointing out that despite your assertion to the contrary, she very clearly stated that she believes she has been elected to represent North Park and has chosen to vote on behalf of the NA and not the electorate. Her words, not mine.

[Rob Randall]

Nope, not at all. I'm just pointing out that despite your assertion to the contrary, she very clearly stated that she believes she has been elected to represent North Park and has chosen to vote on behalf of the NA and not the electorate. Her words, not mine.

Or, giving her the benefit of the doubt, the article was edited to seem that way.

Then Tedward says:

but in order to represent her constituents she voted "no"

Again, what do her constituents in James Bay think of this proposal? See the problem?

[tedward]

Again, what do her constituents in James Bay think of this proposal? See the problem?

No problem at all because you and Mike are all taking her way too literally and demonstrating a sickening insistence on reading things into her actions.

She has NOT stated that whatever the neighbours want they should get.

She has NOT stated that ONLY these residents are her constituents.

As one of her constituents in James Bay I appreciate her efforts to work towards the best development possible. I also appreciate that the VERY FIRST GROUP OF PEOPLE who should be consulted are the immediate neighbours of a project.

What some people seem to forget is that these developers, like all others, are asking for exemptions and exceptions to the rules in order to build something not allowed under the current rules. It should not be up to the neighbours to prove harm or negative effects from such if granted but rather the developer should be demonstrating why such exemptions and exceptions are appropriate. These people may be NIMBY's and they may not. Either way they deserve a hearing and that is what she voted for.

No wonder more good people don't run for city council when this sort of attack based on conjecture and ideology is what passes for civic discourse.

[Mike K.]

Tedward says: "She has NOT stated that whatever the neighbours want they should get. She has NOT stated that ONLY these residents are her constituents."

But Councillor Gudgeon said: “I’m elected to represent the neighbourhood (and) the neighbourhood is opposed.”

Anyways, this is getting ridiculous. She said what she said, it's right there for everyone to read. If you feel that what she said is not in fact what she said take it up with Victoria News. I'm going to side with whatever was written in the paper and base my opinions off of that. You, of course, are free to interpret and re-interpret things however you wish but you're not doing anyone any favours by calling those who disagree with you as sickening, anti-NIMBY, or whatever.

What some people seem to forget is that these developers, like all others, are asking for exemptions and exceptions to the rules in order to build something not allowed under the current rules.

Have you considered that the current rules may be far too constrictive and curtail meaningful investment throughout parts of our community? The rezoning process is seen by some as breaking the rules and pushing the limits, while others see it as a meaningful review of realistic expectations given the present-day economic climate and market demand. In some circles it is even believed that cities purposefully down-zone properties to then demand amenities and cash in return for actually meaningful variances or rezonings. As they say, there are two sides to every coin...

[VicHockeyFan]

Popped in to see the Mayor on this topic last week. So.... he essentially said that they have to weigh the plan for increased density here, and the will of the whole City, against that of the adjacent neighbours. Of course, he did not say what side he was on, but he hinted. He agreed with us that the urban farm could be gone in an instant if the landowner finds a use for it, it's simply leased land.

He also said come out to support, as all they usually hear are opponents.

[VicHockeyFan]

From NPNA last meeting minutes:

Several of NPNAʼs key arguments were based on planning documents. Without consultation with NPNA, the North Park Local Area Plan was changed to conform to the Official Community Plan (OCP) for Downtown. The St. Andrews site was re-allocated as part of the Downtown neighbourhood.

NPNA had not been informed of this change. As a result of this minor adjustment, NPNA has no say on the development proposal, including the Mason St. side, which is within the North Park boundary.

[G-Man]

What? You mean the massive public process that involved a huge amount of advertising and occurred like two years ago? They missed that?

Now the city is not completely off the hook, shouldn't Coun. Gudgeon maybe have let them know when they were first discussing it. Also it used to be common practice among the various community Land Use Committees that if a property was on a border that both would get input into the design so unless the DRA has gotten really hard-nosed they will work with the NPNA.

[Rob Randall]

Several of NPNAʼs key arguments were based on planning documents. Without consultation with NPNA, the North Park Local Area Plan was changed to conform to the Official Community Plan (OCP) for Downtown.

This needs further explanation as all associations were extensively consulted for the development of the new OCP.