Jump to content

      












Photo

South Island Prosperity Partnership (SIPP) initiatives and issues


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#101 Taco

Taco
  • Member
  • 574 posts

Posted 23 January 2022 - 10:30 AM

SIPP is in a good spot right now as nobody wants to poo poo the idea of economic recovery.

 

SIPP ran a good conference, they deserve credit for it. Whether it was worth $100K is open to debate but they had a variety of sessions and the speakers and panels were generally good calibre.  Aside from a bunch of meetings and sessions I am not sure how much practical came out of the event as SIPP themselves isn't really in a position to implement anything. As I have said all long, they do great power point's and you can add zoom meetings to that list.

Spanky, I think you've nailed it.

 

Surely the purpose of SIPP is not, "Lonely? Can't make a decision? Well, let's have a meeting!"

 

Good meetings and good speakers are not, we'd hope, the planned outcome. If they are, then $190,000 buys a lot of food, or fills a few potholes. 



#102 Taco

Taco
  • Member
  • 574 posts

Posted 23 January 2022 - 10:35 AM

Are these claims contrary to each other, or complementary?:

 

Current elected city leadership is viewed to be effective, bold and consensus-oriented. ...But the overall impression is that leadership is disjointed and the ambition not fully calibrated.

deeply conflicted loyalties? necessary political double-speak? one sentence to thank the hand that feeds, one to bite?

 

One of the tragic ironies of SIPP is that they're not really fans of capitalism... but everyone needs a job, right?


  • Victoria Watcher likes this

#103 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 31,877 posts

Posted 23 January 2022 - 10:54 AM

...Current elected city leadership is viewed to be effective, bold and consensus-oriented...

No sane person could possibly believe this.


  • A Girl is No one and Barrrister like this

#104 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 31,526 posts

Posted 23 January 2022 - 11:03 AM

https://southislandp...ity.ca/members/

 

screenshot-southislandprosperity.ca-2022.01.23-14_02_23.png

 

Three municipalities absent from this partnership.

 

 



#105 Taco

Taco
  • Member
  • 574 posts

Posted 23 January 2022 - 02:54 PM

It should read “current elected regional leadership,” or “municipal leadership.” City leadership implies the City of Victoria. Esquimalt is a township, Saanich and Oak Bay are districts. The cities of Colwood and Langford (Langford not a part of SIPP) are typically removed from the “city” narrative and referred to as a suburban market or just as West Shore.

Right now civic leadership is at odds all across the region. You have Saanich backing away from amalgamation, you have unions concerned over Victoria’s handling of HR in light of dangers to workers, Oak Bay is unhappy with Victoria over Richmond Street and Mayor Helps’ assertion the Oak Bay Lodge should have been temporary housing, and Esquimalt is unhappy over policing costs stemming from a shared force with Victoria.

View Royal meanwhile doesn’t want any other jurisdiction to get a casino and Langford is facing major political pressures that could change how it develops post-2022, and Sooke is moving full steam ahead on becoming the next Langford, with business closely watching.

We need a little more meat from SIPP so guys like me can align with what we’re seeing down on the ground, and hearing from the people calling the shots. Because the last thing we need is another CMHC scenario where the information coming out of what is viewed as a credible, sincere and well connected resource is at total odds with the real-world scenario.

Mike:

What action have you been able to take as a result of a SIPP initiative?

What have been the results of that action?

 

I've been aware of SIPP since it was first pitched and, if it ever had one, it's mandate has been... opaque? mercurial? academic? conceptual?

 

There are (at least one) good people there and I'd love to hear that they've made an impact and what it was/is.



#106 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 69,389 posts

Posted 23 January 2022 - 08:00 PM

I don’t think there is anything to quantify at-present.

They have mentioned in PowerPoint presentations that their outputs may not have an economic or practical impact for a decade or more, or at least that’s how I interpreted one of their presentations to a local council. So when you spread the goal posts that far, claims of success are eventually difficult to separate from the fruits of competing investments.

There are social media comments from one SIPP employee that appear counter to the grain, like personal opinions about the cost of real-estate and rental vacancies. There are also comments from that person about a local media organization that in my opinion pass beyond the threshold of what you’d expect to hear from a representative of an economic lobby group.

Is the consensus among SIPP’s board that housing prices should fall? That stricter rent controls be implemented? That might go against the interests of property owners, who tend to be the people driving the economic engines of the region, and yet the personal comments of the individual make you wonder if they’re rooting for the region being extremely desirable, or not.

I guess what I’m getting at is you don’t see that level of discourse among Tourism Victoria employees, knowing that an economic development job requires ally-building and not alienation even if one’s personal opinions are counter to those of the organization.

I really don’t know what role SIPP plays. Their big investment was turned down, and the mayor of Victoria was the politician in Ottawa who thought she’d be taking home a funded project.

And the biggest question is why is only one of the two main economic nodes a member. Why is Langford opposed to SIPP?

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


 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users