3578 replies to this topic

[todd]

Thanks truckers....

or that was a csis/cia plot to you make you so annoyed at the truckers that you want to take the coronavirus vaccine out of spite

[dasmo]

or that was a csis/cia plot to you make you so annoyed at the truckers that you want to take the coronavirus vaccine out of spite

I'm sure many did.

Edited by dasmo, 07 June 2023 - 01:29 PM.

[todd]

Everyone forgets about the reverse psychology troll.

[Mike K.]

Ok. The Order in Council is not a law. It isn’t even outlined anywhere as anything but a document outlining government actions. So them using it like it has any legal force is a lie. But if we comply it sets precedence. We have laws for a reason. They require a democratic process to be enacted.

It’s not meant to be a law. Broken laws lead to jail or punishment. That’s not what this is about.

This is to help make some councils feel less pressure when approving projects in the face of CALUCs and threats of political ramifications from entrenched community groups, and in the case of places like Oak Bay, more pressure to comply with their own rules that they themselves have created and have pledged to respect, but time and time again, do not.

[Nparker]

Why does the focus of this egregious overreach by the province keep coming back to Oak Bay? 

[Mike K.]

Because the NDP control Oak Bay federally and provincially. It was singled out, because if it hadn’t been, nothing the NDP did in this regard would be taken seriously. Their own riding is ground zero for no housing action and empty promises.

I’m telling you, council rejecting the 14-unit Quest project is what galvanized this agenda. The NDP cannot be pro-housing if its epicentre of politics is #1 for rejecting proposals based off its own, community-created OCP and housing strategy.

[Victoria Watcher]

View Royal council rejects mayor's motion for development pause

Councillors say they didn’t want a target on their backs as the province considers mandating construction of new housing


https://www.timescol...t-pause-7113780




Council were tied 3-3 on the motion, which meant it failed. Councillors Lemon, Allison MacKenzie and John Rogers voted against it, while Tobias, Don Brown and Ron Mattson supported the motion. Coun. Damian Kowalewich was away.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 June 2023 - 05:27 PM.

[dasmo]

Media reports did not tell the whole story or explore the shortcomings of this proposal, specifically, affordability, blasting, environmental sustainability, massing and scale, precedent, and traffic and pedestrian safety.
This has left the impression that Oak Bay council is insensitive to the housing crisis, which is simply not true. Affordable housing: These condos were not affordable for lower-, fixed-, middle- or family-income buyers, in our view.

The developer estimated that with construction costs exceeding $1,000 a square foot, the smallest units, at 750 square feet, would be well over $800,000 when they reached the market. Larger units would exceed $1 million.

https://www.timescol...-crisis-5212815

[dasmo]

View Royal council rejects mayor's motion for development pause

Councillors say they didn’t want a target on their backs as the province considers mandating construction of new housing


https://www.timescol...t-pause-7113780




Council were tied 3-3 on the motion, which meant it failed. Councillors Lemon, Allison MacKenzie and John Rogers voted against it, while Tobias, Don Brown and Ron Mattson supported the motion. Coun. Damian Kowalewich was away.

Cowards

[Victoria Watcher]

View Royal councillors narrowly rejected a motion from their mayor for a six-month moratorium on new developments, saying they didn’t want a target on their backs for the province to impose new housing initiatives.

 

“I want responsible developments and that’s our duty as councillors,” said Coun. Geri Lemon. “But I don’t want to tickle the elephant, either.”

 

[Mike K.]

Media reports did not tell the whole story or explore the shortcomings of this proposal, specifically, affordability, blasting, environmental sustainability, massing and scale, precedent, and traffic and pedestrian safety.
This has left the impression that Oak Bay council is insensitive to the housing crisis, which is simply not true. Affordable housing: These condos were not affordable for lower-, fixed-, middle- or family-income buyers, in our view.

The developer estimated that with construction costs exceeding $1,000 a square foot, the smallest units, at 750 square feet, would be well over $800,000 when they reached the market. Larger units would exceed $1 million.

https://www.timescol...-crisis-5212815

Oak Bay is throwing gasoline on the fire right now. They’re making this so, so much worse for themselves.

The proposal was before council for nine years. Over that time, costs only rose. And if affordability was the true concern, council would have rejected the 14 units and pressed for 50. Instead, they also killed the United Church proposal which had called for below-market rentals as part of a purpose-built rental development that began with 96 units but kept getting whittled down until it was finally killed.

[Nparker]

...if affordability was the true concern, council would have rejected the 14 units and pressed for 50...

If affordability was the province's true concern, then Oak Bay wouldn't be on their hit list at all.

[dasmo]

We can agree that affordability is no one’s concern

[todd]

Oak Bay is throwing gasoline on the fire right now. They’re making this so, so much worse for themselves.

The proposal was before council for nine years. Over that time, costs only rose. And if affordability was the true concern, council would have rejected the 14 units and pressed for 50. Instead, they also killed the United Church proposal which had called for below-market rentals as part of a purpose-built rental development that began with 96 units but kept getting whittled down until it was finally killed.

I’m not a blasting expert so can you please explain why the blasting portion of the Quest proposal is sensible and safe? Keeping in mind that Victoria recently approved a project that caused the neighbouring property to collapse.

[dasmo]

Oak Bay is throwing gasoline on the fire right now. They’re making this so, so much worse for themselves.

The proposal was before council for nine years. Over that time, costs only rose. And if affordability was the true concern, council would have rejected the 14 units and pressed for 50. Instead, they also killed the United Church proposal which had called for below-market rentals as part of a purpose-built rental development that began with 96 units but kept getting whittled down until it was finally killed.

For this application, the planning timetable of allegedly nine years is not the fault of the municipality. The developer withdrew one application and submitted another application in 2017 that was not approved by council. If an application is not approved, the developer can reapply in six months from the date of a council decision.

The developer, in this case, waited five years to resubmit the application. While residents and neighbourhoods have some concerns about the developer's plans, they are not opposed to development on this lot; they want better alternatives for housing without excessive scale and massing.

[lanforod]

Because the NDP control Oak Bay federally and provincially. It was singled out, because if it hadn’t been, nothing the NDP did in this regard would be taken seriously. Their own riding is ground zero for no housing action and empty promises.

I’m telling you, council rejecting the 14-unit Quest project is what galvanized this agenda. The NDP cannot be pro-housing if its epicentre of politics is #1 for rejecting proposals based off its own, community-created OCP and housing strategy.

Somehow, I fully expect Oak Bay would be either Liberal or Conservative if it were it’s own federal riding.

[todd]

Somehow, I fully expect Oak Bay would be either Liberal or Conservative if it were it’s own federal riding.

What about the Tea Party?

[Mike K.]

…they want better alternatives for housing without excessive scale and massing.

It’s a 14-unit building of four-storeys, that would have gone between two four-storey, larger density buildings.

If you believe Oak Bay is done, and should remain as is, it’s ok to say it. But let’s not pretend this proposal was overwhelming.

[dasmo]

I actually think it’s a nice looking proposal. I posted that for clarity on the 9 years….
It’s also not going to make a dent on housing affordability. 14 million dollar condos? Probably sold as AirBnB rentals? Nope. But it’s a nice looking proposal. It will get built. Don’t worry.

[Mike K.]

Why does it have to be affordable?

Oak Bay rejected outright an affordable housing proposal from a church. If they want affordability, they are not approving it either. The cost of the Quest condos is a red herring. Whatever excuses can be thrown at the board, will be.