522 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

While I don't disagree that Council should deliberate on what they have heard, I can almost guarantee that at least 3 members of said group likely decided their vote before the the first speaker took to the microphone 2 weeks ago. 

[Torrontes]

That's the reality of Municipal decision making.

[aastra]

 

...but not at any cost.

 

This is where I can't help but remind people that in this case we're talking about a small-scale & high-quality lowrise apartment project on a rather exceptional site (no existing houses, apartments, or heritage buildings to be demolished, etc.) that fronts onto a major street. If we're inclined to frame our analysis of such a project in dramatic terms ("but not at any cost") then how on earth could we ever fully and properly evaluate something like a multi-billion dollar sewage project, or the demolition of a major historic building, or the JSB project, or a large low-barrier housing project, or any number of genuinely contentious and genuinely perilous endeavours? Proportionality has gone out the window with this one. The drama has been inflated to bizarre and absurd levels.

 

Even if you imagine the absolute worst-case scenario, you're still left with a small-scale & high-quality lowrise apartment project... that maybe was only 75% as attractive as the renderings? Is that what we're worried about? Seriously, what are the actual/legitimate risks that could possibly justify such a contentious and drawn-out process?

[aastra]

Imagine trying to apply this same standard to the Eaton's centre project. We wouldn't be halfway through the debates even now (maybe a good thing, but you get my point about coming to terms with the actual scale and the actual import of these controversies).

[Torrontes]

"I don't need to listen to your arguments Mr. aastra, I have already made up my mind that you are guilty." 

 

Yes, politicians are elected to make decisions, and shouldn't drag out the process, but residents have a right to air their views. That applies on minor variances and major projects. It's called democracy.

 

A week in the scheme of things is no big deal.

[Torrontes]

...and I say that as a strong supporter of the project.

[punk cannonballer]

Yes, politicians are elected to make decisions, and shouldn't drag out the process, but residents have a right to air their views. That applies on minor variances and major projects. It's called democracy.

 

They do, to an extent, but there's also process to be considered. If a project meets the land use designation within the OCP, for example, those decisions relating to use and density have already been through a public process. To go to public hearing on such projects isn't a statutory requirement, so it's a stretch to call it a 'right' in some cases. The NIMBY crowd tends to use the OCP as a wedge when a project doesn't fit it, but when one does they claim the right to nevertheless oppose it out of what can only be rightly called a sense of entitlement, or an ignorance of process, or both.

Edited by punk cannonballer, 27 April 2018 - 02:45 PM.

[PPPdev]

They do, to an extent, but there's also process to be considered. If a project meets the land use designation within the OCP, for example, those decisions relating to use and density have already been through a public process. To go to public hearing on such projects isn't a statutory requirement, so it's a stretch to call it a 'right' in some cases. The NIMBY crowd tends to use the OCP as a wedge when a project doesn't fit it, but when one does they claim the right to nevertheless oppose it out of what can only be rightly called a sense of entitlement, or an ignorance of process, or both.

 

OCP's are aspirational and do not mean entitlement whatsoever. Projects like this carry a statutory requirement for a public hearing under the Local Government Act. Zoning is the prescription so while I agree that the OCP adoption carried public feedback, it was never very prescriptive because if it were, the adoption process would have taken decades...

[Glen]

Great point of view aastra! Agree completely

[Mike K.]

Tonight is the big decision date at a special council session.

[Nparker]

Tonight is the big decision date at a special council session.

But the public hearing portion is over - correct? Any sense of how this one will go?*

 

*aside from the 3 members of Council we know will vote against it.

[Jackerbie]

According to a Facebook post by Cities for Everyone, their perception is that the first public hearing went well and the project will be approved. The page hasn't been updated since the second public hearing last week, so unsure what the mood was at that one. https://www.facebook...iesforeveryone/

[Kapten Kapsell]

But the public hearing portion is over - correct? Any sense of how this one will go?*

 

*aside from the 3 members of Council we know will vote against it.

The public hearing is officially closed and councillors are not allowed to receive further correspondence about the development.  The vote will take place tonight.

[Mike K.]

Livestream: https://pub-victoria...cf-10faf3c5d55a

[Nparker]

Livestream: https://pub-victoria...cf-10faf3c5d55a

I don't need to hear why the "triumvirate of tedium" is unable to support this project. I'll just tune in here for the results which I am sure will be forthcoming.

[Mike K.]

Mayor Helps is in support.

[Mike K.]

Councillor Madoff forgot about the BlueSky public hearing process when she mentioned that the only longer council session than the 1201 Fort Street public hearing sessions was for the Eaton Centre.

[aastra]

What about the Falls? Didn't that go two sessions?

[Citified.ca]

Victoria approves Bellewood Park condo dev on Rockland's Truth Centre site

https://victoria.cit...th-centre-site/

[Mike K.]

What about the Falls? Didn't that go two sessions?

 

BlueSky had three, didn't it?