Posted 04 April 2017 - 09:06 PM
Hey, that's my idea!
Except that my idea is a 2.5M population city north of Vancouver. I've already named it.
Hey, that is some seriously rugged country you are building on. Also Metro Vancouver manages their watershed lands (Capilano, Seymour, Coquitlam) in a way that makes the ALR look like rampant, unchecked, free for all development.
Posted 04 April 2017 - 09:09 PM
Hey, that is some seriously rugged country you are building on.
Hey, I left the Squamish/Whistler coast intact.
We've got chainsaws. And my new city of 2.5M comes with a gift for old Vancouver. We will purify your liquid waste into drinkable water again for you, no charge (well, we are charging you the land we take). You no longer need a watershed.
Posted 14 April 2017 - 08:47 PM
What is the purpose of that city, VHF? We can just put those 2.5 million right in Vancouver, no need for a new city. Vancouver isn't near finished yet.
Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:10 PM
Richmond to cap new farm houses at 11,000 sq. ft., but allow exceptions for 'cultural and inter-generational family needs'
So it's raced-based, the decision on exceptions? Because it seems to me a white third-generation Canadian might have a rougher time getting an exemption than a new South Asian immigrant.
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...4085020?cmp=rss
Posted 25 April 2017 - 08:39 PM
So it's raced-based, the decision on exceptions? Because it seems to me a white third-generation Canadian might have a rougher time getting an exemption than a new South Asian immigrant.
what about Irish Catholics? or Italian Catholics?
Posted 28 April 2017 - 07:47 PM
There was an article on the news tonight about several berry/fruit orchards in the interior that the Mexican consulate has banned from hiring Mexican TFW's.
Substandard living conditions for the most part. Funny coincidence, the farm owners were South Asian. Remember when they used to be the berry pickers?
Posted 18 December 2018 - 09:47 AM
So this whole issue came back again this year, and it was a big election issue. The new Council adopted a bylaw amendment last night (well, this morning, technically) setting a maximum house size of 400 sq. m, or 4,305 sq. ft.
Posted 18 December 2018 - 10:04 AM
So this whole issue came back again this year, and it was a big election issue. The new Council adopted a bylaw amendment last night (well, this morning, technically) setting a maximum house size of 400 sq. m, or 4,305 sq. ft.
Which council? 4300ft isnt that big, heck thats a 4 bed/bath home with a media room and a triple car garage.
Posted 18 December 2018 - 10:06 AM
Which council? 4300ft isnt that big, heck thats a 4 bed/bath home with a media room and a triple car garage.
City Council. We're not as restrictive as Delta, which has a 300 sq. m limit I believe (3,230 sq. ft.). Also, garage is not included in the calculation, so throw another bedroom into that equation 
Posted 18 December 2018 - 10:07 AM
Which council? 4300ft isnt that big, heck thats a 4 bed/bath home with a media room and a triple car garage.
Is that supposed to be sarcasm?
Posted 18 December 2018 - 10:13 AM
Is that supposed to be sarcasm?
Is that a question that you need answered?
I asked which council? Was it Richmond or another one? I also made a statement that 4300ft isnt that big. There are lots of people out there that for cultural reasons have multiple generations residing under the same roof....4300ft is not big
Posted 18 December 2018 - 01:20 PM
Is that a question that you need answered?
I asked which council? Was it Richmond or another one? I also made a statement that 4300ft isnt that big. There are lots of people out there that for cultural reasons have multiple generations residing under the same roof....4300ft is not big
4300 square feet is nearly twice the size of the median Single Family Home (which is around 2400 sq ft), so yeah, I had to ask if you were being sarcastic when you claimed 4,300 sq ft wasn't that big. Thanks for clarifying.
Posted 18 December 2018 - 01:36 PM
4300 square feet is nearly twice the size of the median Single Family Home (which is around 2400 sq ft), so yeah, I had to ask if you were being sarcastic when you claimed 4,300 sq ft wasn't that big. Thanks for clarifying.
My house is 2,900 ft, 1,600 on the main and 1,300 down. It feels big now that the kids have flown the coop and its probably average for North OB. It doesnt take much to design a 5,000ft house especially if you plan on extended family to live with you as they do in many cultures
Grand Master ✔
Posted 18 December 2018 - 02:33 PM
Sound like you could comfortably fit three families in that! Are you saying that ALR should allow apartment buildings or something? I think if it's ALR it's ALR. As it stands they are putting a stop to the mega rich taking advantage and building mansions on them because it's easier or whatever. So this makes sense if ALR makes sense. So really what you are saying is that ALR doesn't make sense....
Posted 18 December 2018 - 02:56 PM
Sound like you could comfortably fit three families in that! Are you saying that ALR should allow apartment buildings or something? I think if it's ALR it's ALR. As it stands they are putting a stop to the mega rich taking advantage and building mansions on them because it's easier or whatever. So this makes sense if ALR makes sense. So really what you are saying is that ALR doesn't make sense....
OMG thats good! Always trust a progressive to find fault in anything that challenges the party line.
This is not and never should be a 1 size fits all rule like they have brought in. Its a typical response to use a flamethrower to get the spider.
Where did I say the ALR doesnt make sense? Ever heard of a wealthy farmer? Lots of them here on the peninsula and in Cowichan etc. And as for the size of the house I live in....this is not Cuba or NK where the party decides where I live and how much space I am allocated within....thats ludicrous.
Gotta love how government has to intervene to tell a farmer how big his house can be....I get that some properties were being bought and massive homes were built in an attempt to circumvent taxes etc...but if the land is being farmed and the home is large with a 4 car garage and a swimming pool...whats the problem? If the farms not being farmed then different story, but the size of the house should have zip to do with what is grown or not grown on the land.
I'm sorry I even commented on the 4300 ft restriction....it must be like the Poinsettia for some folks
Grand Master ✔
Posted 18 December 2018 - 03:29 PM
Posted 18 December 2018 - 03:37 PM
Sorry I upset you so but you were talking multi family dwelling in reference to the size. A wealthy farmer can build a super amazing house still. Can they not have a separate pool house and a 60 car garage etc all as out buildings?
Non-farm outbuildings are counted towards the maximum 400 sq. m, and must be located within a restricted "home plate" area. Anything not related to farming - so tennis courts, pools, auto courts, etc - must be located within the home plate as well. I took a second look at the bylaw amendment and it overrides the general provisions and includes all garages within the allowable 400 sq. m.
Posted 18 December 2018 - 04:05 PM
OMG thats good! Always trust a progressive to find fault in anything that challenges the party line.
This is not and never should be a 1 size fits all rule like they have brought in. Its a typical response to use a flamethrower to get the spider.
Where did I say the ALR doesnt make sense? Ever heard of a wealthy farmer? Lots of them here on the peninsula and in Cowichan etc. And as for the size of the house I live in....this is not Cuba or NK where the party decides where I live and how much space I am allocated within....thats ludicrous.
Gotta love how government has to intervene to tell a farmer how big his house can be....I get that some properties were being bought and massive homes were built in an attempt to circumvent taxes etc...but if the land is being farmed and the home is large with a 4 car garage and a swimming pool...whats the problem? If the farms not being farmed then different story, but the size of the house should have zip to do with what is grown or not grown on the land.
I'm sorry I even commented on the 4300 ft restriction....it must be like the Poinsettia for some folks
It has nothing to do with protecting ALR land. A 4300 sq ft house could occupy less of a footprint then a 2500 sq ft rancher if it was on two floors.
This is an attack on success and wealth pure and simple.
Posted 18 December 2018 - 05:50 PM
What about the land near Chilliwack where the new brewery is under construction? Too late do do do anything but that land must have all been farmland at one point.
The $200-million Molson Coors brewery, on a 14.5-hectare parcel beside the Trans-Canada Highway, will be the company’s largest brewery in Western Canada.
Posted 18 December 2018 - 06:50 PM
It has nothing to do with protecting ALR land. A 4300 sq ft house could occupy less of a footprint then a 2500 sq ft rancher if it was on two floors.
This is an attack on success and wealth pure and simple.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board 3.4.6
Licensed to: Citified Media Inc. All materials © Copyright Citified Media Inc. All rights reserved.
STAY CONNECTED TO VIBRANTVICTORIA
WHAT'S HAPPENING ON CITIFIED VICTORIA
