3655 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

Comment: Voters won't miss Eby's threats to municipalities

 

Eby’s government is coming across as Vito Corleone, with an offer that certain municipalities cannot refuse.

 

https://www.timescol...alities-7108645

[Mike K.]

It was the media that called the big list the “naughty list,” when we don’t have the facts to know what the municipalities on that list are categorized as. Langford by no mean is “naughty.” Neither is View Royal.

[Sparky]

 

When Abstract first conceived of the project in 2018, the goal was to wrap new townhomes around the original house. Since then Abstract has acquired the lots on either side of the heritage building, and has suggested the original concept is no longer feasible.

 

 

I call BS on that statement. Firstly the lot is not big enough to "wrap" anything around the existing building. If you buy the properties on either side....then you should be able to wrap to your heart's content.

[dasmo]

It is a naught list. The unlawful order firstly, puts them on a list. That alone is a threat. Then outlines that those on the list will have special bureaucratic requirements to do extra homework just for Eby. Declaring that these municipalities must comply with their assigned probation officers demands. It has no clear indication of what happens if they do not. So Sid is doing the right thing. It’s way more important to stop this style of governance than to build an extra few luxury townhouses. Because that won’t solve affordability nor will it make them back off.

[Mike K.]

Don’t you think you’re a little over the top here?

Millions and millions of dollars have been wasted by developers who did everything a municipality asked for, then they were turned down. That’s far more egregious than the province asking for data from its own kids/constructs.

We can’t look at everything like an Orwellian conspiracy. We just need more housing, because the city is going through a population boom, like it did in the 60s, and in the 80s. Back then we accommodated new residents by building large and fast. Today societal entitlement and a me-first-and-me-only attitude makes it out like we’re victims of some unknown force, when it’s just normal life, going through normal ebbs and flows.

[dasmo]

Yes I do. But the order is over the top. Balance…. But I speak the truth. The only way to root out the fact that these orders are unlawful is to force them to force them.

You are coming up with the Strawman again. This is about the greater good. Of us and our communities. Immigrants and First Nations included. Do we get to decide OUR fate or does one puppet get to?

[dasmo]

Don’t worry Mike, development will still happen. As it allays has. This isn’t about that. They are using the housing crisis. They aren’t solving it.

[Nparker]

Duplicate post. Please delete.

Edited by Nparker, 07 June 2023 - 07:27 AM.

[Mike K.]

Calling out strawman all the time doesn’t work, really. It just looks like the other person has no retort so they make it personal.

I’m telling you, the development community is fed up with the double standards. Plenty of firms have gone under after wasting millions on proposals that went nowhere by no fault of their own.

My friend is $600k deep into his Saanich proposal right now. It’s money he may never see again. Him, and others like him, are complaining to the province and the province is listening, finally.

[Nparker]

Even a compassionate dictatorship is still a dictatorship.

[Victoria Watcher]

At least with Metchosin or Highlands you know where you stand. No rezonings, no multi-units.

[dasmo]

But you always start talking about things that I’m not talking about.
I built my house on protected land in a sensitive ecosystem. No problems. Got my building permit in two weeks. Of course I had to do a development permit.

The solution is never more totalitarianism.

[lanforod]

If the list wasn't to be a 'naughty list', then they didn't need to make a list at all. Especially since they basically took 80% of the larger municipalities in the province and stuck them on the list. Could have just made the order apply to all.

[dasmo]

Well not always but when I raise the straw flag. Like talking about the hypocrisy of not even mentioning supply and that they have doubled immigration targets during a housing crisis. And that that is telling it isn’t even mentioned. Then you say I am against all immigration and we should pull up the bridge. That’s a great example of a strawman argument. Sorry man but it just is.

[dasmo]

But I won’t call it out anymore. It’s get it’s irritating.

[Mike K.]

But you always start talking about things that I’m not talking about.
I built my house on protected land in a sensitive ecosystem. No problems. Got my building permit in two weeks. Of course I had to do a development permit.

The solution is never more totalitarianism.

Strawman argument. Not valid.

Your house isn’t a 50-unit apartment building requiring a rezoning and variance request to accommodate the OCP and the housing vision of your municipality.

[dasmo]

Strawman argument. Not valid.

Your house isn’t a 50-unit apartment building requiring a rezoning and variance request to accommodate the OCP and the housing vision of your municipality.

Haha. That isn't a Strawman. That was me telling you my experience with a difficult development with lots of rules in place. I did have to do the same work as a development. I just followed the rules. Go figure huh? Not that I wanted to. I just couldn't afford not to. 

 

OCPs are not a legal doc. They are also problematic. I believe I have mentioned long before how silly they are. IF that is the plan then rezone to that plan. Because that way the public can get involved, there can be debate and community involvement and contract established between the community and future development. That is the idea behind the rule of law. The idea of an OCP would be to start that process. Instead they never do and are now rewriting them to comply with the oligarch's think tanks new buzz concepts and because they aren't a legal doc they aren't for us, they are for them to excuse their actions. 

[Mike K.]

Developers are following to rules, and getting rejected.

That’s why the province is stepping in.

You can’t have an OCP and housing strategy asking developers to do A, they do A, and are rejected several years after trying to appease council.

That’s a complete breakdown of the system and what has created our “crisis.”

Your SFD not getting opposition is not the problem or the solution. You didn’t need a rezoning or variance, like municipalities mandate for developers to accommodate their OCPs.

I don’t think this conversation is on a level playing field. Lots of emotion in the absence of facts, and that leads us nowhere.

[Mike K.]

OCPs are not a legal doc. They are also problematic…

Problematic! That’s a favourite davonian term!

[Ismo07]

Developers are following to rules, and getting rejected.

That’s why the province is stepping in.

You can’t have an OCP and housing strategy asking developers to do A, they do A, and are rejected several years after trying to appease council.

That’s a complete breakdown of the system and what has created our “crisis.”

Your SFD not getting opposition is not the problem or the solution. You didn’t need a rezoning or variance, like municipalities mandate for developers to accommodate their OCPs.

I don’t think this conversation is on a level playing field. Lots of emotion in the absence of facts, and that leads us nowhere.

 

I wasn't under the impression that developers are being rejected cause they are following rules, I thought it was more about asking to bend more rules (where they are not getting the variances they need) or because council doesn't like the design.  Typically anyway...

 

Yeah the OCP is just a plan that is for the next 25-30 years but also will change as it goes.  Living document but just cause it's in the OCP doesn't mean the zoning automatically changes.  I'm not sure you can get out of going through the rezoning process.