11779 replies to this topic

[Stephen Andrew]

Here is the most recent supreme court opinion on the matter. Victoria was the defendant! https://www.canlii.o...&resultIndex=13.

The issue at stake here was down-zoning of land and the developer sued for damages due for work they had performed in anticipation that they would be able to realize the zoning that had been granted. Not an exact match to what we have now but I draw attention to the following comments:

122Contrary to my colleague’s assertion, a multitude of policy considerations make it clear that a municipality should be held liable for damages where its council acts in conflict with a contract entered into by a previous council. The issue in this case is whether the City breached an implied term of a development contract, but the question applies equally to all contracts entered into by the City. Most council decisions have financial implications which could be argued to indirectly fetter future councils.

126To summarize, it is sound policy to allow municipalities to enter complex, long-term development contracts which provide developers with a promise that existing zoning will continue for a period sufficient to allow for development. The power to contract with developers and provide enforceable guarantees in return for the provision of infrastructure and amenities is indispensable to the operation and growth of municipalities. This was recognized in First City, supra, where Craig J. found that an agreement between Durham and a developer was not contrary to public policy as, inter alia, “[t]he region had decided that as a matter of good planning, and for its own protection financially, that it was in the public interest” (p. 270).

This is not the same.

Again, please review the potion of the June 9 meeting where this was discussed.

Thank you

[Mike K.]

Is that not the Vic West marina in that court reference? Council did scrub the approval. That ended up costing taxpayers over a million bucks.

I see Twitter Housing is trying to explain away Kelowna’s MM reality of high housing costs and limited uptake, while land values rose for eligible properties.

The only solution to our crisis is more developable land. Victoria won’t be solving anything no matter how much it cuts up properties, if the current essence of Victoria is to be maintained. If the goal is to create central Paris from Tolmie Ave to Dallas Road then go for it, but be honest about it.

Missing middle will change the make-up and design of neighbourhoods. The housing will be for the wealthier individuals in our region or wealthier newcomers, like it is for walk-ups and row houses in every other city that has these forms of housing in the city centre. If Victorians are good with that, then again, go for it. But don’t tell people this change will deliver $500k townhomes in the most desirable neighbourhoods in BC.

[Victoria Watcher]

The LEFT always desires to make things the worst for everybody.

[JimV]

So, we still have a number of issues to unpack.

Yes, there are a lot of moving parts and extremely serious issues to consider.  The consultation time period available is totally inadequate.  Which is why council in its dying days should defer this idea and spend its last few months addressing more immediate and fixable problems.  Repaving some of Victoria’s increasingly ruinous roads would be a good start.

[Mike K.]

The LEFT always desires to make things the worst for everybody.

It certainly appears to be a social construct of downgrading society to low common denominators. That was communism, essentially.

[Mike K.]

Chatting with a lawyer friend today, he said the City might want to get legal advice on pushing this through as a last minute summertime one-day engagement with a bylaw construct that cannot accommodate an amendment due to timing.

Normally council engages to define sentiment and incorporate it into a bylaw. Due to time restrictions, there will be no opportunity to materially change the package that’s already before council save for small alterations. If this passes, and a group of citizens believes this was an agenda that failed to adequately inform and engage the public -and certainly the back-and-forth we’ve seen in recent weeks would appear to be a hasty pivot with councillors themselves concerned about timing - a class action is not out of the question.

[Nparker]

Again I ask the question, and perhaps Mr. Andrew can answer this, what is the urgency to get this issue finalized before the upcoming election?

[LJ]

And why ruin existing neighbourhoods? People moved into those neighbourhoods because they liked the "feel" of them.

 

Why are we protecting heritage buildings? Because people like them, they like the look of them, they like the feel of them.

 

If you are going to ruin neighbourhoods, why not tear down heritage buildings and build council flats there.

 

Purpose build townhomes and condo's in neighbourhoods that are under built or have old crappy housing whose time has come.

 

Improve transit up and down the Douglas corridor, and east west corridors, so people can easily get into downtown.

[dasmo]

Exactly. This type of housing is excellent in form and is needed. In new developments…. This is a strange cookie cutter plan that is being applied everywhere with little signs of success towards its main sell. Affordable homes…
Our report refers to Portland as an example. So I looked it up. Funny their missing middle plan looks identical to ours. And all the other missing middle rezoning plans happening in hundreds of cities it would appear. https://www.portland...housing_web.pdf
This is from 2016. How is Portland doing in terms of affordability and supply?

[Victoria Watcher]

Our report refers to Portland as an example. So I looked it up. Funny their missing middle plan looks identical to ours. And all the other missing middle rezoning plans happening in hundreds of cities it would appear. https://www.portland...housing_web.pdf
This is from 2016. How is Portland doing in terms of affordability and supply?

 

 

https://www.oregonli...in-a-month.html

 

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 12 June 2022 - 02:37 AM.

[Stephen Andrew]

Is that not the Vic West marina in that court reference? Council did scrub the approval. That ended up costing taxpayers over a million bucks.

I raised this very issue. They are not the analogous.

The Marina issue became a liability because the proponents provided benefit to the city based on the initial zoning.

That is not the case with a Missing Middle.

As we are informed and based on facts:

1. This is not up-zoning
2. Public amenities would likely not be sought. Should that occur and then the city restricted a specific development then, yes, there would be an issue. I suspect our city solicitor would offer advice before any action that brings liability.

So, I appreciate you raising this example, and hope this explanation clears that up.

Thank you

[Stephen Andrew]

Is that not the Vic West marina in that court reference? Council did scrub the approval. That ended up costing taxpayers over a million bucks.

I raised this very issue. They are not analogous.

The Marina issue became a liability because the proponents provided benefit to the city based on the initial zoning. The city then changed zoning.

That is not the case with a Missing Middle.

As we are informed and based on facts:

1. This is not up-zoning
2. Public amenities would likely not be sought. Should that occur and then the city restricted a specific development then, yes, there would be an issue. I suspect our city solicitor would offer advice before any action that brings liability.

So, I appreciate you raising this example, and hope this explanation clears that up.

Thank you

Edited by Stephen Andrew, 12 June 2022 - 06:58 AM.

[Mike K.]

Yes, it’s quite a different scenario.

[dasmo]

Can you explain up-zoning vs missing middle. That’s also a core piece of information.

[Victoria Watcher]

Will upzoning neighborhoods make homes more affordable?

 

Cities and states across the country are proposing new upzoning laws to combat the housing crisis. Will they work?

 

https://archive.curb...-gentrification

[Mike K.]

MMI is in effect “up-zoning,” but it’s being done here by permitting a new development form within an existing zone. So it’s adding density to zones permitting SFDs and duplexes, not changing the zones for those properties.

Reading Twitter this morning, I think we’ve lost track of what this was all about. It was about affordability at its beginning, and that was a laudable goal. Now it’s morphed into infusing higher densities into the most expensive and desirable neighbourhoods as a social construct. The people arguing for MMI can’t afford it any more, and we know that because they did not pull the trigger when MM units came onto the market in 2019, 2020 and 2021 at prices lower than they are going to be with this initiative in 2023 and beyond, and without historically low interest rates. This leaves us with only one primary scenario for its support, and it’s got to be political. We also have very creative dismissals of Kelowna’s scenario, but the proof is in the pudding there with a better plan that adequately engaged the public and ensured their primary concerns were incorporated into the bylaw.

We can’t do the latter here. It’s too late for changes if this council is to deliver this change.

[dasmo]

My read is it is up-zoning plus further design control given to the city.

This is from the report.

Establish zoning regulations, design guidelines and policy updates for missing middle housing forms city-wide

[dasmo]

So it’s not up-zoning. It’s keeping the zoning single family but allowing single family zoning to allow for more than single family and increasing the density of single family zoning.

Gotcha.

These are not the droids you’re looking for….

[dasmo]

start at the neighbourhood associations. If you want to be left alone and by extension you want your community left alone then the community association is the place to start. Voting blocks need to be formed.

[Mike K.]

It’s interesting, in that MM is tethered with the term “up”-zoning which implies more valuable zoning.

When the initiative started in 2019, you could buy a house in Victoria-proper for under a million on average. Now MMI is going to deliver townhomes for 2019/2020 SFD rates. If the issue started with unaffordable homes at SFD rates, what have we accomplished if the end product is housing at the same rates? It’s just more housing for the very wealthy, in highly desirable neighbourhoods.

I’ll keep screaming this until politicians react, that land is the driver of costs. Capping the region’s developable land is what has placed us on this trajectory and no matter what we do, if we wish to maintain Victoria's essence values will continue to climb. And I don’t think people want to make Victoria look like the central core of major cities, or support those changes if it means all of that new housing will be ultra expensive.