Jump to content

      



























Photo

City of Victoria | 2018-2022 | Mayor and council general discussion


  • Please log in to reply
11779 replies to this topic

#10181 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,960 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 09:07 AM

If Alto wants Helps’ support for a mayoral campaign, then she will likely vote in-step with the mayor from now on outside of votes already going against the mayor.

 

The Mayor usually doesn't call votes she won't win unless she wants to cast others in a bad light on an issue.


  • Nparker and Victoria Watcher like this

#10182 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 393 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 09:18 AM

Sure.

 

1. Instead of consultation and dialogue, the Mayor is trying to ram this through, which she admits.

2. Public will have no say into redevelopment which directly impacts them. 

3. City staff will make decisions without oversight or accountability. Potential for abuse as we have seen in other areas.

4. Property prices will increase and not decrease as claimed.

5. Visitor and guest parking will evaporate as streets become parking lots for multiplexes will little onsite parking.

 

Every measure this Mayor and council have implemented to make housing more affordable has made it less so. No reason to trust them now.

 

Thanks for this, if you'll entertain me, some counter-thoughts:

 

1. How well has consultation served getting enough housing built? The Opening Doors report by the BC Gov and Federal Gov cited community opposition as a key limiter in housing supply & affordability. What would you suggest as a policy tweak?

 

2. Kind of connected to item #1 but how much "say" is reasonable? The current system is essentially a system of 'veto' which has resulted in a lot of people experiencing significant housing insecurity and displacement. How much should we value the voices of future residents? What would you suggest as a policy tweak?

 

3. Can you cite some examples of this, specifically how the City staff will abuse housing reform to enable housing diversity?

 

4. Do you have any evidence to support that broad zoning reform will increase pricing? There is plenty of evidence that multi-unit housing sells for much less then single family housing so it would seem the status quo of housing scarcity is proving to increase housing prices.

 

5. Do you have any evidence to support this? James Bay has 300% more density than Gonzales yet only has 30% more traffic volumes so City traffic counts (and peer city research) show that density does not increase traffic at a linear rate.

 

Thanks for your points!



#10183 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 82,943 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 09:33 AM

Compare Victoria to Langford. Per-capita, Langford blows Victoria out of the water in every housing category, annually.

Can’t Victoria just be more like Langford and allow more housing to be built, period, instead of introducing blanket zoning changes that are designed with obstacles (the City says this new housing must be geared towards ultra-low-to-moderate income earners at a rate of 50% of the new density; built to Step Code X). That’s likely going to lead to the same scenario we saw with garden suites that the City once promoted as a gentle density solution to housing affordability. I mean, that was about five years ago, only, and has a near-zero uptake rate among the 7,000 properties the City concluded met the land requirements.
  • Nparker and Awaiting Juno like this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#10184 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,960 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 09:53 AM

^ To my earlier point, who checks that new housing is living up to its affordability commitments or that people are being vetted as low income?  



#10185 Awaiting Juno

Awaiting Juno
  • Member
  • 1,506 posts
  • LocationVictoria, BC

Posted 06 December 2021 - 10:35 AM

Compare Victoria to Langford. Per-capita, Langford blows Victoria out of the water in every housing category, annually.

Can’t Victoria just be more like Langford and allow more housing to be built, period, instead of introducing blanket zoning changes that are designed with obstacles (the City says this new housing must be geared towards ultra-low-to-moderate income earners at a rate of 50% of the new density; built to Step Code X). That’s likely going to lead to the same scenario we saw with garden suites that the City once promoted as a gentle density solution to housing affordability. I mean, that was about five years ago, only, and has a near-zero uptake rate among the 7,000 properties the City concluded met the land requirements.

 

^^ We need to look at the process and make the process something people want to engage in. Right now - with respect to suites - I think there's a lot of hesitation to provide supply because of the restrictions of the Residential Tenancy Act. It takes one bad tenant to cause a person to really question whether or not they want to supply residential rentals at all. We should be making providing supply that is compatible in our community as easy as possible. We need to look at how long it takes for a project to go from finished plans to building permit. Absent doing a good job with respect to providing supply (at all levels of the market) - we will get more ghettos. We will continue to see the middle getting hollowed out - where either a person is battling poverty or is very well off in order to call Victoria home. 

 

The missing middle approach though: it's misguided at best and harmful at worse. It demands *the highest standards* while also demanding that those units go to those who can least afford *the highest standards*. What we need: basic housing that meets needs adequately and does not pose a health or safety risk. Let those who want (and can afford) the highest standards, pay for them. I agree with Mike, the end result is likely to be a freeze out.


  • LJ, Midnightly and Teardrop like this

#10186 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 393 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 10:40 AM

^ To my earlier point, who checks that new housing is living up to its affordability commitments or that people are being vetted as low income?  

 

Let's assume that the affordability criteria and building performance are removed as the City's own land economist consultant said that it wasn't viable. Is the policy now more supportable?



#10187 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 82,943 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 10:48 AM

This might also be a way for large land assemblies to occur, where up-zoned properties force people to sell due to taxation, but there’s no business case for a four-plex so the buyer is a developer that will eventually build a high density building on multiple four-plex lots.

I don’t know why Victoria and Victorians have to be so antagonistic towards Langford. They are delivering significant volumes of housing, annually, but they are vilified for it non-stop by the same people championing efforts to deliver more housing. Square that.

Here’s one example of this attitude: https://twitter.com/...7648335872?s=21

Have these people never seen the parking lots along the downtown “waterfront?” I mean, Jesus Christ you guys. Look inward for a moment.

This is a sincere question: Could Victoria not be learning something from the Langford approach? Or maybe the upzoning is a silent acknowledgement that the Langford approach is the way to go, but the route has to be convoluted via upzoning and eventual land assemblies to not outright admit it?

I don’t know what is going on but the urbanists need to chill a little, and acknowledge Victoria has a very costly and time-consuming relationship with the provision of new housing and every measure it takes to build more housing still underperforms what its own neighbours are doing.
  • Matt R. and Awaiting Juno like this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#10188 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,003 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 10:52 AM

I know Helps wants to put this through before she rides off into the sunset, but do all the others, that want re-election? 

 

Seems like a bad time to do it, so close to the election.  Better to do it in 2023, and then if the effects are not as negative as some fear, they will have a good election run in 2026 too.

 

Isn't every single CA going to oppose it, at the very least based on all their respective OCPs?

 

But more importantly, why are all these councilors still with us? Can't they get better jobs?


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 December 2021 - 10:53 AM.

  • Nparker likes this

#10189 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 82,943 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 10:52 AM

Let's assume that the affordability criteria and building performance are removed as the City's own land economist consultant said that it wasn't viable. Is the policy now more supportable?

By removing that politicians can’t score the socio-economic and environmental points they are really chasing here.

Only in Victoria could a program to deliver more housing get tripped up by the very constructs of this new housing program, and no new housing is built. Which then leads rise to blaming the developers, while the politicians can claim they took big steps to solve the housing crisis.
  • Midnightly and Awaiting Juno like this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#10190 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 393 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 10:54 AM

This might also be a way for large land assemblies to occur, where up-zoned properties force people to sell due to taxation, but there’s no business case for a four-plex so the buyer is a developer that will eventually build a high density building on multiple four-plex lots.

I don’t know why Victoria and Victorians have to be so antagonistic towards Langford. They are delivering significant volumes of housing, annually, but they are vilified for it non-stop by the same people championing efforts to deliver more housing. Square that.

Here’s one example of this attitude: https://twitter.com/...7648335872?s=21

Have these people never seen the parking lots along the downtown “waterfront?” I mean, Jesus Christ you guys. Look inward for a moment.

This is a sincere question: Could Victoria not be learning something from the Langford approach? Or maybe the upzoning is a silent acknowledgement that the Langford approach is the way to go, but the route has to be convoluted via upzoning and eventual land assemblies to not outright admit it?

I don’t know what is going on but the urbanists need to chill a little, and acknowledge Victoria has a very costly and time-consuming relationship with the provision of new housing and every measure it takes to build more housing still underperforms what its own neighbours are doing.

 

 

Fair comments Mike...even in the urban planner / urbanist circles, we have for so long focused on Jane Jacobs (JJ) as who we should emulate for grass-roots urbanism and to abstain from anything related to Robert Moses, the villain. But now, the JJ approach has paved the way for grass-roots widespread progressive NIMBYism that has resulted in a housing emergency.

 

Many are now writing how we need to be a blend between Robert Moses (professional evidenced based decision-making) and Jane Jacobs (people first urbanism).

 

So, like you say, the balance is somewhere the middle but right now, it is way to hard to build housing and we don't have to go full Langford but we can certainly learn from their approach.


  • Mike K. and Awaiting Juno like this

#10191 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,003 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 11:00 AM

Fair comments Mike...even in the urban planner / urbanist circles, we have for so long focused on Jane Jacobs (JJ) as who we should emulate for grass-roots urbanism and to abstain from anything related to Robert Moses, the villain. But now, the JJ approach has paved the way for grass-roots widespread progressive NIMBYism that has resulted in a housing emergency.

 

Is there any thriving urban areas in Canada/North America/the world that is not in a "housing emergency/crisis"?  

 

Maybe this crisis is just the new norm.  We need to reset the meter.

 

Last time we all checked, home ownership rates remain the same as they were 50 years ago.  Poverty and hunger is in check.  More people than ever live alone in their own place.  Unemployment is still very low.  Low interest rates.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 December 2021 - 11:02 AM.

  • Awaiting Juno likes this

#10192 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 82,943 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 11:08 AM

I’m a Daniel Burnham fan. He envisioned one of the greatest urban areas in the world, in my opinion, with parks and civic centres featuring prominently throughout the city.

We have a very unhealthy, very damaging and counterproductive relationship with each other in the CRD. Victoria urbanists hate and gnaw their teeth at Langford and the West Shore, and have constructed this ‘all things unbearable’ image of the place that is unfairly critical of every move made there, even if it benefits the entire CRD (think Costco). It’s very damaging to the region as a whole and instead of working collectively to solve regional issues the dialogue is negative, condescending and tribalistic. How do we solve our problems with this approach?

And we’re such a tiny region, too. Langford is like a pocket neighbourbood of what would otherwise be a typical Western city, but we treat it as a faraway suburb like Mission is to Vancouver or Oshawa to Toronto. This mentality negatively impacts the West Shore from the way we disburse transit resources to how businesses situate their offices.
  • Awaiting Juno likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#10193 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,221 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 11:15 AM

I know Helps wants to put this through before she rides off into the sunset

Vampires burn in the sunlight, do they not?

...more importantly, why are all these councilors still with us? Can't they get better jobs?

Look at nearly half of CoV council - would you hire them?


  • mbjj likes this

#10194 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,221 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 11:17 AM

Is there any thriving urban areas in Canada/North America/the world that is not in a "housing emergency/crisis"?  ...

I am sure aastra can dig up dozens of articles documenting that the housing "crisis" has been with us 50+ years.



#10195 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,221 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 11:18 AM

...And we’re such a tiny region, too...This mentality negatively impacts the West Shore from the way we disburse transit resources to how businesses situate their offices.

Our region is over-governed and under-served.


  • grantpalin, Midnightly, Awaiting Juno and 2 others like this

#10196 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 393 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 11:22 AM

I am sure aastra can dig up dozens of articles documenting that the housing "crisis" has been with us 50+ years.

 

Does that absolve us of action today? Should we not undertake any zoning reform even though there is plenty of peer-reviewed research of the negative effects of exclusive single-family zoning?



#10197 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,221 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 11:24 AM

Does that absolve us of action today? ...

I did not say that, but the narrative that we are suddenly in a housing crisis like never before is entirely false.



#10198 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,003 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 11:34 AM

Does that absolve us of action today? Should we not undertake any zoning reform even though there is plenty of peer-reviewed research of the negative effects of exclusive single-family zoning?


If single family housing is so negative then why do most of us desire it?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 December 2021 - 11:36 AM.

  • Awaiting Juno, Freedom57 and Teardrop like this

#10199 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 393 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 11:40 AM

If single family housing is so negative then why do most of us desire it?

 

There is nothing wrong with SF housing and nobody is talking about banning it. It's about re-introducing housing choice back into all neighbourhoods like cities used to, yes even Victoria. Diverse housing was allowed in all Victoria's neighbourhoods until April 1982 when we undertook a mass downzoning.

 

Plexes, Townhouses, and Apartments can co-exist with single family housing and that is a portion of what this policy is about.



#10200 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,003 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 11:45 AM

Does that absolve us of action today? Should we not undertake any zoning reform even though there is plenty of peer-reviewed research of the negative effects of exclusive single-family zoning?

 

Where has this type of "zoning reform" been beneficial to all/most groups?



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users