522 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

...His concern, paraphrased, was that newly planted greenery would be genetically inferior to the site's existing flora.

Speciesist! All tree lives matter!

[Torrontes]

I've raised the point before: why would we assume vehicle traffic would increase at all? The site has an existing use, with ample surface parking for what, maybe 40 cars? If you look at the Google streetview images you'll see more than a dozen cars parked there in the 2011 image. Traffic has been coming and going for ages, is my point. The question is, how much additional traffic could a small redevelopment possibly produce, if any? They're not building a big shopping centre or an office complex with acres of parking. No gas station, no drive-thru fast food outlets...

 

Just examine existing neighbourhood residential projects of similar magnitude, format, & price range. Do they ever produce legitimate traffic issues? I'm not saying they never do, I'm just saying we don't need to speculate. We've got all sorts of real precedents to consider.

 

The underground parking garage access is off of Fort St..  There are a total of only 17 spaces (including a few visitor spaces) that can be accessed via Pentrelew Place. The majority of parking is underground, including for the townhouses.

 

So what's the traffic issue?

 

Suggestions that there will be traffic issues are completely unfounded, unless you consider bicycle traffic. If all the residents in this development ride bikes and use the bike storage lockers, it will be chaos!

[Mike K.]

Part two of this proposal's public hearing is scheduled for this Thursday at Victoria City Hall. The hearing begins at 7PM.

[Nparker]

Part two of this proposal's public hearing is scheduled for this Thursday at Victoria City Hall...

That gives me two days to sharpen my pitchfork 

[Torrontes]

Yes, the NIMBYs were there at the last session, but there was also a large contingent of supporters. I got the sense that the naysayers were somewhat dumbfounded by the level of support displayed by a wide variety of speakers.  

[Kapten Kapsell]

Given that the clear majority of speakers are in favour of the proposal, I am predicting that this one will pass.  The provisioning of affordable housing units in the nearby NVision proposal may even be enough sway Jeremy Loveday to vote in favour of this.

[Nparker]

...The provisioning of affordable housing units in the nearby NVision proposal may even be enough sway Jeremy Loveday to vote in favour of this.

Only if Ben gives the OK first.

[Mike K.]

Markedly smaller turn out at phase two of the public hearing.

[Kapten Kapsell]

The mayor has just adjourned for a short break due to the clapping following the last (anti-) speaker...

[Mike K.]

Six in favour so far, three in opposition.

[Mike K.]

Eight.

[Mike K.]

A speaker is saying overbuilding is exacerbating affordability.

She says supply is not a solution to housing affordability.

[Mike K.]

She now says we have a housing surplus.

[nagel]

Lolz the stupid...

[Nparker]

A speaker is saying overbuilding is exacerbating affordability. She says supply is not a solution to housing affordability.

How do people like this remember to breath?

[Nparker]

The level of crazy among the speakers is no where near that of the St. Andrew's school project. I see one NIMBY even came with a PowerPoint presentation - very cool if this was 1997.

[Mike K.]

A speaker is saying Abstract is "extracting public amenities for private profit," or something to that effect.

 

It has been lost on many individuals, I think, that the church property was always private. The church allowed the public to utilize its property as a green space, but it was not a public asset in the same sense a municipal green space would have been.

 

Another speaker is currently saying that upcoming housing supply is more than enough to accommodate demand.

[Mike K.]

Council tabled the decision for next Thursday.

[Nparker]

Council tabled the decision for next Thursday.

Is it any wonder it takes forever to get developments out of the ground in the CoV?

[Torrontes]

One week is not an unreasonable delay under the circumstances. If the councilors did not take some time to reflect on the views expressed at a lengthy public hearing, then they could be accused of having gone into the session with a preconceived notion of how they would vote. That's not good from a public perception perspective. Residents have a right to express their views, however absurd, and have them considered in the decision-making process, even if they are ultimately given no weight.

 

I use the analogy of a court. The parties invest significant time and resources in presenting their respective cases. Typically the court will hear the parties and then adjourn to consider the evidence presented and deliver its decision later. Decisions are sometimes rendered from the bench, but only where one of the parties has not made out its case, or there is a need for expediency (such as an injunction). That is not this situation.

 

I am all for speed in municipal decision-making, but not at any cost.