11779 replies to this topic

[m3m]

It's the way it is done.

So, basically it’s a tradition? I don’t see anything in the Community Charter that would prevent it from being done this way

[Victoria Watcher]

I think you are right. It can be done by staff likely.

But having public hearings and votes seems the right way to do it. When zoning is being changed.

[m3m]

Ya, for big projects definitely. Not sure it’s necessary for SFHs

[spanky123]

The plan to rezone all of Victoria to allow six-plexes and for City staff to make development decisions has passed council and will now proceed to a public hearing. Vote was 4:3 with Andrew, CTJ and Young against. Helps and Dubow did not attend the meeting. This is going to be hard to derail. Kudos to Stephen for pointing out that one of the main responsibilities of council was to make decisions on land use and not to pass that authority to staff. 

 

It was noted that Mayor Helps' father passed away earlier this week. As much as dislike the Mayor's decisions and actions, that does not extend to her personally or to her family. I am very sorry to hear of her loss and send my regrets.

 

Someone pointed out that this motion was to send the non-profit housing rezoning proposal forward and not the missing middle one. There wasn't any report attached to the agenda so I assumed that the discussion was on the missing middle but I may have been incorrect.

[A Girl is No one]

When I read it, it looked like it only had to do with non-profit. That’s had me confused for a while because the discussion here always talked about market housing. I mentioned it way back…

[Awaiting Juno]

Blanket up-zoning is lazy policy that falls to address the critical need: housing for owner occupiers and longer term residential tenancies. We'll wind up with luxury units built to serve as a place to park money for the wealthy elite, and still be left with a critical housing crisis and exceptionally high costs of living. What we need: a plan to streamline the development process and minimize costs, particularly for owner occupier and longer term residential tenancy projects. We need to increase our capacity to build housing (labour and material constraints). We need to remove the barriers to providing longer term residential tenancies (more competition, less risk, more affordable housing), and we need a strategy to halt asset price inflation. 

 

Much of what needs to be done falls well outside of the purview of city council - immigration, interest rates and financing are federal territory, while building codes and the residential tenancy act are provincial, and zoning is rightfully municipal.

 

Sadly - unfettered upzoning is likely to feed dysfunction rather than ease it - it's likely to result in even less supply of housing that is appropriate for those wanting to call Victoria home, those who are wanting to live here, work here and build there lives here. A six plex with the same total square footage  as a single family home doesn't work (part of the reason we don't see more duplexes is because there is no advantage to it - the size of the house is the same). Perhaps large portions of our communities need to be zoned for long-term residential use - meaning they have to be occupied more than 8 months of the year (residential minimums). Perhaps other parts need to be zoned to prohibit exorbitant rental rates - where there's a cap on the monthly rental that can be asked. Ultimately - price is a reflection of the long run potential of a property, and without some restraints we will only see land prices gallop further ahead.

Edited by Awaiting Juno, 29 January 2022 - 10:55 AM.

[Nparker]

...we need: a plan to streamline the development process and minimize costs...We need to increase our capacity to build housing (labour and material constraints)...Much of what needs to be done falls well outside of the purview of city council...

This.

[Harry]

Blanket up-zoning is lazy policy that falls to address the critical need: housing for owner occupiers and longer term residential tenancies. We'll wind up with luxury units built to serve as a place to park money for the wealthy elite, and still be left with a critical housing crisis and exceptionally high costs of living. What we need: a plan to streamline the development process and minimize costs, particularly for owner occupier and longer term residential tenancy projects. We need to increase our capacity to build housing (labour and material constraints). We need to remove the barriers to providing longer term residential tenancies (more competition, less risk, more affordable housing), and we need a strategy to halt asset price inflation. 

 

Much of what needs to be done falls well outside of the purview of city council - immigration, interest rates and financing are federal territory, while building codes and the residential tenancy act are provincial, and zoning is rightfully municipal.

 

Sadly - unfettered upzoning is likely to feed dysfunction rather than ease it - it's likely to result in even less supply of housing that is appropriate for those wanting to call Victoria home, those who are wanting to live here, work here and build there lives here. A six plex with the same total square footage  as a single family home doesn't work (part of the reason we don't see more duplexes is because there is no advantage to it - the size of the house is the same). Perhaps large portions of our communities need to be zoned for long-term residential use - meaning they have to be occupied more than 8 months of the year (residential minimums). Perhaps other parts need to be zoned to prohibit exorbitant rental rates - where there's a cap on the monthly rental that can be asked. Ultimately - price is a reflection of the long run potential of a property, and without some restraints we will only see land prices gallop further ahead.

Unfortunately given how a lot of things have gone with the council I expect a lot of things concerning this issue will be will be done to benefit friends of council and will be the driving force in any of the stuff coming down the pipes. We need to remember alot of the council members are looking to setup future employment after the next election so now is the time to set this stuff up.

[rjag]

Every time I hear Ben has spoken or Lisa has another great idea all I can think of is

 

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”
― Ronald Reagan

 

 

 

Has this council done anything to make the City better than it was a decade ago?

[On the Level]

Has this council done anything to make the City better than it was a decade ago?

 

For their chosen slice of the community, I suspect they believe they have.  Their agenda is to "level the playing field" to give the marginalized more supports.  That means taking away from others and making "bold" plans.  They know that "white people" or the middle/upper "class" will be negatively impacted, and they are OK with that.

 

I think their plans are over simplified and ideological in nature, but I know they don't think it through in the same way.

[Nparker]

Legends in their own minds.

[JimV]

Has this council done anything to make the City better than it was a decade ago?

Yes!  They’ve squeezed off Clover Point and made most of the city roads undriveable.  The oceans are beginning to recede already.  And they’ve rid us of those nasty, colonialist statues.  We all feel better about that.

[Harry]

For their chosen slice of the community, I suspect they believe they have.  Their agenda is to "level the playing field" to give the marginalized more supports.  That means taking away from others and making "bold" plans.  They know that "white people" or the middle/upper "class" will be negatively impacted, and they are OK with that.

 

I think their plans are over simplified and ideological in nature, but I know they don't think it through in the same way.

The plans are much simpler. Create a mess with in the city that grows to the point that upper government has to step in and fund the "fix". Do so by creating a centralized point of contention. The first was the court house. this was giving a taste of the provincial money to the council. Then the council took a run at it. First it was Topaz that blew up so it moved around a bit. The funding for the police was chipped away at and "grass roots Associations" suddenly popped up with city moneys being awarded to them.  Beacon hill park was closed up and the "people in need" were gathered in the city parks. The crime in and around the parks grew and council worked to hide it all while knowing what was going on. While this was all going on the Mayor and some council members were inviting people into the city with promises of free housing, free accommodation, and so on. Many members on the city council continued to publicly denounce the police and those who spoke against the council as well as doing very little to nothing for those who complained and asked for help in dealing with the problems coming from the mess. The city was and is being held hostage by the choices of this council. This city council has claimed to be working to feed and house the homeless in Victoria and create affordable housing when in truth they have been working towards getting provincial and federal funding for the new popup associations that catering to the needs as described and nurtured by the council of Victoria. This was admitted by a councilor recently. " why give up now (and give the police the funding they asked for) when we are so close to getting the funding from the Provence". Its a mess and we are going to be paying for the spent money with higher taxes and paying to correct the things that have already been done will also be paid for with higher taxes making the cost of living in Victoria go up. Weird spending like the Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps hires new chief of staff

that just happened to be the daughter of a local political figure.
 

Helps said that in total eight resumes came in, but that James was the only one interviewed.

“Her interview was excellent, and after that I thought there was no reason to interview someone else. I don’t like to interview for the sake of interviewing.”

The two-year contract will also include 20 per cent in costs for benefits, totalling closer to $108,000 all-in. The role could be extended another two years if the initial review goes well.

https://www.vicnews....chief-of-staff/
 

James will be paid $90,000 plus benefits for an estimated total compensation package of $108,000.

The position is to be funded through new assessment revenue and is directly tied to Helps’ term in office. It’s slated to end at the conclusion of her term.

There will be a job review built in for the 2021 budget.
 

Helps said she could do the job herself and not hiring an assistant would save the city $400,000 over the course of the term.

When she raised the idea this year of hiring a chief of staff — not an assistant — at a proposed salary of $130,000 a year, she ran into opposition from council colleagues who balked at the salary, ultimately whittling it down to $90,000 and benefits.

Helps said that might have contributed to the fact that only about eight candidates applied for the job.

James was the only applicant who was interviewed — a job done by a three-person panel comprising Helps, Coun. Sarah Potts and city manager Jocelyn Jenkyns.

“The interview with Alison went exceedingly well. She actually had some really good ideas for process improvements right there in the interview,” Helps said.

Helps received $104,000 in salary and filed expenses of $22,949 in 2017.

https://www.timescol...f-staff-4671016

 

This is just an example of the "ethical spending" going on in city hall. This council has don very little for the city but lots for councils supporters.

[Nparker]

.... The city was and is being held hostage by the choices of this council. ..

This!!! 

[spanky123]

This is just an example of the "ethical spending" going on in city hall. This council has don very little for the city but lots for councils supporters.

 

Of course James quietly left after the two years and she wasn't replaced. From what I could tell, it seemed like the majority of her effort went to completing her Phd at UVIC. We could continue to follow the bouncing ball ...

[spanky123]

Blanket up-zoning is lazy policy that falls to address the critical need: housing for owner occupiers and longer term residential tenancies. We'll wind up with luxury units built to serve as a place to park money for the wealthy elite, and still be left with a critical housing crisis and exceptionally high costs of living. What we need: a plan to streamline the development process and minimize costs, particularly for owner occupier and longer term residential tenancy projects. We need to increase our capacity to build housing (labour and material constraints). We need to remove the barriers to providing longer term residential tenancies (more competition, less risk, more affordable housing), and we need a strategy to halt asset price inflation. 

 

Lets lets assume my property is upzoned, what is the most likely outcome? Some developer purchases the property, razes the house and then build 6 affordable rental units or they build 6 luxury condos? After the property is upzoned can council control what type of units get built as long as they conform to the new zoning or is the plan simply to have City staff slow walk anything that doesn't meet the Mayor's 'standards'?

Edited by spanky123, 31 January 2022 - 07:44 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

That’s actually a good question. Regarding if the upzoning allows condos.

But I have said it here before, not many people will buy a “luxury” condo with zero parking.

And there is no room for parking if you turn a SFD lot into a 6-plex with large suites. Unless you can go up 4+ stories.

[Awaiting Juno]

Lets lets assume my property is upzoned, what is the most likely outcome? Some developer purchases the property, razes the house and then build 6 affordable rental units or they build 6 luxury condos? After the property is upzoned can council control what type of units get built as long as they conform to the new zoning or is the plan simply to have City staff slow walk anything that doesn't meet the Mayor's 'standards'?

 

They build whatever maximizes profits because the upzoning doesn't include a stipulation that they be "affordable" - rather it just says you can build 6 units. There's no conditions on whether or not any of the units are family appropriate in size (ie. 3 beds) - there may not even be a parking minimum (meaning on street parking). Knowing what has been built - when was the last time you saw a pragmatic, bare bones new build (that wasn't a habitat for humanity or BC housing build)? One that didn't have at the least quartz countertops? A small amount of restrictions on the blanket upzone might be really helpful in maintaining affordability - if the stipulation is the units can only be owner occupied OR rented at affordable rates (defined as a percentage of the 60th percentile of average local income for various sizes). Further, unless there's some lot coverage or size bump for allowing increased density, even a large lot in Victoria (more than 7,000sq ft), tops out in build size around 4500sq ft. That is 750sq/ft per unit - not overly generous by any length of the imagination. This policy is likely to feed speculation rather than dampen it - and will be a fairly large gift to local developers and the construction industry which appear to operating near capacity as is.

 

I would much rather see council focus on making the process of development better (permit times, inspections, etc.) while lobbying for changes at the provincial level to unleash existing supply that isn't on the market because of a dysfunctional residential tenancy act.

[Mike K.]

They build whatever maximizes profits because the upzoning doesn't include a stipulation that they be "affordable" - rather it just says you can build 6 units.

 

 

It's not quite like that.

 

The cost to develop is so high that developers build what will provide the greatest risk aversion through end-product, not what maximizes profits (that's a tired cliche).

 

You build what the market will absorb at the fastest speed it can be absorbed, with an investment into the project that ensures you actually do turn a profit. Everyone deserves to get paid for the work they do, but for developers and builders there is never a guarantee they will turn a profit because they do not control what is a volatile and constantly changing market, and building housing is expensive, complex, and very time-sensitive. Lots of variables are at play that can work against you, and turn what looked like a profitable pursuit into a financial drain.

[JimV]

So council just voted to hand over a $200,000 “reconciliation grant” to the local FNs.  And here I thought that once they removed JAM and tossed Cook in the ocean the issue was settled.

 

SA and GY voted against.  CTJ had seemingly recovered from the cool aid recently, but apparently she’s had a relapse.  I think she needs a long rest, perhaps starting in October.