830 replies to this topic

[PPPdev]

Stop making Friends references at Aryze you'll only encourage them

 

You haven't seen our neon Pivot sing at Ross Terrace have you hahahaha

[zoomer]

I’m surprised the TC published that letter as it was a pretty weak argument without a clear factual basis. A better argument would have been the significant carbon emissions that will be required to build this in the first place, instead of refitting an existing building. Depending on the type of building, many studies estimate it takes anywhere from 50 to over 100 years for a highly energy efficient building to make up this deficit. Half of a building’s carbon footprint comes from embodied carbon (construction process) and the other half from its ongoing operation. Now if this was built (theoretically speaking) it could still make environmental sense in the long run.

All that being said, it’s still not the reason why I oppose this proposal - but no need to rehash that.

I do wonder though with the increased focus on embodied carbon if we will see further reduction or elimination of parking requirements, or an acceptance of above ground parking podiums. If you’re on Vancouver or Victoria city council and profess concern for the environment how can you insist on year long (or longer!) excavations for new buildings?

[Mike K.]

How can that council insist on taking international flights, some of them annually? Or criss cross the country on jet planes for city business, or living in single family dwellings? Or having pets? Or buying new clothes?

[zoomer]

Maybe all city councillors should live in tents in city parks. That would reduce their carbon footprint.

[Mike K.]

Indeed.

[spanky123]

I did but just because he said it doesn't mean his point is any less wrong. The moon landing is fake, don't believe anybody that tells you its real. Same argument 

 

The Bullitt Centre is cool, not super attractive but scaling it to 53m would be weird AF haha!

 

I think this is why folks are concerned that the Mayor is suggesting public hearings should be done away with. There would be no incentive for the developer to listen to the community or solicit any feedback if they felt they had enough votes on council to force their project through.

[Mike K.]

Hold on, Mayor Helps wants to do away with public hearings?

[PPPdev]

You guys should really read the DAPR report...EVERYBODY wants to do away with Public Hearings except the public.

[Jackerbie]

Hold on, Mayor Helps wants to do away with public hearings?

 

There's some discussion on it in the Council thread: https://vibrantvicto...ssion/?p=597852

 

Context: Helps published her thoughts on reforms to help deliver more housing in Victoria. Blog post here: https://lisahelpsvic...hree-big-ideas/

 

tl:dr, one of the three "big ideas" is to waive public hearing for applications that are consistent with the OCP (this is already permitted by the Local Government Act, and was in fact done by Langford last year at the beginning of the pandemic)

[spanky123]

tl:dr, one of the three "big ideas" is to waive public hearing for applications that are consistent with the OCP (this is already permitted by the Local Government Act, and was in fact done by Langford last year at the beginning of the pandemic)

 

So all the City does (as they did with the firehall) is amend the OCP and voila no public hearing required!

[Jackerbie]

So all the City does (as they did with the firehall) is amend the OCP and voila no public hearing required!

The OCP is in itself a bylaw and would require a public hearing to amend

[PPPdev]

The point is 8000 people were consulted on the OCP, thousands more on neighbourbood plans. Why should 8 neighbours have veto power over each and every rezoning. There are broader city interests that are being held back because of an archaic process

[rmpeers]

The point is 8000 people were consulted on the OCP, thousands more on neighbourbood plans. Why should 8 neighbours have veto power over each and every rezoning. There are broader city interests that are being held back because of an archaic process

To state the obvious, the people most affected should be consulted. I get why this wouldn't make sense from tour perspective, but it's pretty self-evident.

[rjag]

The point is 8000 people were consulted on the OCP, thousands more on neighbourbood plans. Why should 8 neighbours have veto power over each and every rezoning. There are broader city interests that are being held back because of an archaic process

Because of exactly this comment that’s why.

[Vicrazy]

The point is 8000 people were consulted on the OCP, thousands more on neighbourbood plans. Why should 8 neighbours have veto power over each and every rezoning. There are broader city interests that are being held back because of an archaic process

Gee a developer wanting free reign. I’m shocked  

[rmpeers]

Gee a developer wanting free reign. I’m shocked

Is this all just Helps' final payback for developers' support?

[PPPdev]

Your statements indicate that neighbouring homeowners opposing housing don’t seem to have anything vested in the outcome either? A supply constricted market is benefiting only those who have homes appreciating. Instead of taking the easy punch line of ‘developer greed’, look at broader city goals. Landowners are seeing 80% gains in property values over the same time period a developer might see 15-20%. Your blame is misplaced

[spanky123]

Folks oppose projects for a variety of reasons. I am sure that some people don't want change and some think their property values will appreciate but there are lots of other reasons as well. Personally I object to having my property taxes increase because developers don't contribute to the required CAC or land lift funds. Langford seemed to be able to offset property tax increases for a decade thanks to development but despite record levels in Victoria, our taxes are increasing faster than inflation and reserves are being raided to balance budgets. I also object to green space and community benefit commitments not being kept with areas quickly being blocked off as soon as the project is finished or projects not being completed at all. I also object to City assets being sold without a full and complete competitive process or assets being purchased under the same terms. We argue that $90 per BSF is a great deal when we purchase but $35 is as good as it gets when we sell. 

[spanky123]

Your statements indicate that neighbouring homeowners opposing housing don’t seem to have anything vested in the outcome either? A supply constricted market is benefiting only those who have homes appreciating. Instead of taking the easy punch line of ‘developer greed’, look at broader city goals. Landowners are seeing 80% gains in property values over the same time period a developer might see 15-20%. Your blame is misplaced

 

How can that be, you guys argue all of the time that increasing density has no impact on land values and thus there is never any land lift owing to the City :-)

[rjag]

Your statements indicate that neighbouring homeowners opposing housing don’t seem to have anything vested in the outcome either? A supply constricted market is benefiting only those who have homes appreciating. Instead of taking the easy punch line of ‘developer greed’, look at broader city goals. Landowners are seeing 80% gains in property values over the same time period a developer might see 15-20%. Your blame is misplaced

 

Sorry bub, I know the industry as well. In my 25 years in business I developed large commercial warehousing, several apartment buildings, 2 new streets and quite a few houses. Resident input is the leash around the developers neck to ensure reasonable outcomes. As a Lawyer once said to me, a fair compromise is when all parties walk away a little bit pi$$ed off.

 

Heck in the same context, why have Jury trials for breaking the law? the cops should have enough experience to just catch them and immediately send them to prison for the prescribed time... oh right...the reason we have a trial is to prove beyond a shadow of doubt the guilt or innocence of the accused. 

 

The same applies to developers, they dont have the interest of the community as the core of their business, they are a business. Likewise the developer and City has to work within parameters, building codes, zoning etc. Even before the proposal goes to public hearings there is a level of horse trading and compromises made to accommodate concerns, objections etc from the City. Then any rezoning may involve input from the community at large. How many projects have had to go back to the drawing board because of design, density, height or parking concerns etc. No 2 projects are the same and no 2 locations are the same otherwise we'd end up with Stalinesque square boxes. 

 

This isnt a 1 size fits all solution and what Ms Helps proposes and apparently you are in favor of is a 'father knows best' scenario. 'Children should be seen but not heard' scenario. 

 

And thats exactly why neighbourhood associations were born, to counter those attitudes. 

 

A person buys their principal residence to live in, whether it appreciates in value or not. Most people this is their only source of wealth and they want to protect it. If you are a good community neighbour you will gain support and allies, then they work in your favour. If you arent then they will be your worst nightmare