I can’t predict who will be in power after the election – but I can say confidentially that, no matter who, they all intend consult, collaborate and have a conversation with us:
COPE:
COPE will adhere to an open, honest and transparent process of consultation in all areas of governance. This will be achieved by actively listening to and gaining an understanding of what is important to local communities, not politically connected developers.
Greens:
Create a culture of collaboration instead of partisanship on City Council.
NPA:
-
Direct City Hall administration to become open and accessible;
-
Make our Mayor more accessible to the public through weekly sessions to listen to concerns and initiate consultation on solutions.
Vision:
Improve consultation and foster an Engaged City
Especially when it comes to planning and neighbourhood change, all the parties want to make sure eveyone is at the table so that through a process of community consultation and collaboration, we can collectively come up with creative solutions.
.
Well, almost everyone.
.
If one went by the rhetoric at all-candidates meetings, both from the candidates and the crowds, there is one group who many would like to see taken out of the room, especially the backroom. It’s the people who take the risk to finance, design, build and market the housing that, with the exception of those of us who build their own homes, we all live in.
.
The developers.
.
The general disdain is quite remarkable, given developers’ essential role in the process, including those who build non-market housing. No developers, no housing – at least in our market-based economy. And with the exception of COPE, I didn’t hear any suggestion that those who wish to control City Hall also wish to control the housing market to the extent implied by their rhetoric.
.
Most remarkable of all were the comments from the least likely candidate to make them. Here’s the CBC interview with the NPA mayoral candidate, Kirk LaPointe:
.
.
Of course, there’s the compulsory commitment at 3.20:
“(Revitalizing CityPlan) means bringing in genuine consultation with the entire community”
But it’s preceded by:
“I will not meet developers as mayor.”
.
Really? What does that mean? In private as well as public? No opportunities for developers to sound out city policy? No get-to-know-you introductions to major investors? No ability to show up at those weekly public sessions?
.
Isn’t it, arguably, the mayor’s job to meet with the people who shape the city, from community leaders to those who actually build the community’s dwellings and workplaces? While Kirk LaPointe uttered a soundbite that could come back to bite him big time in the event he’s elected, the general disdain evident in the remarks of most candidates, irresistibly using Vision’s coziness with the key developers as a point of attack, is disingenuous and cynical – at least if they’re at all realistic about governing. None of them, including COPE, is going to bring in policies that would lead to a shutdown of the construction and development industry in this town.
.
So there’s the question: Are developers to be part of the conversation? Will you collaborate with them? Do you think they have creative solutions you would welcome?.
.
And would you meet with them?
All I have to say is read my lips: no new taxes…
Maybe just not meet with developers before they’ve met with the Planning Department. That would be a refreshing change from recent years.
I want plentiful, affordable, beautiful housing. Housing for all! I don’t know how to accomplish this and I assure you, the voter, that if I’m elected I will never speak to anyone that does!
So yesterday’s group of the less fortunate were seniors sitting on multimillion dollar homes (I wonder how many are deferring their taxes) and today’s misfortunate group is Developers? Maybe someone can set up a charity.
Is it parody week on Pricetags?
Yes, Gordon; I thought the same thing the first time I heard LaPointe make the statement that he would not talk to developers. Really? There must have been discussion with them since many developers are on the list of donors for the NPA party, at least as many as those supporting Vision. And, how is affordable housing, which the NPA says it intends to provide in the city, going to be built without talking to the developers who will build it? And, if the NPA is going to move the city forward and not backward, how is the city going to develop without conversations and agreements with developers? LaPointe is lying to the voters who feel disenfranchised, promising what he cannot deliver, and hoping that they are not intelligent enough to see through his vagueness and lack of honest commitment to them.
As far as I can see, LaPointe is trying to undo the politicized and very ad hoc development process introduced by Vision. Frankly, I’d welcome that. A revitalized – and streamlined, IMO – CityPlan process with more specific outcomes and maybe early starts on worthy and supportable projects is not a bad philosophy. Ignoring community plans and doing what you damn well want in the name of whatever you want is not a worthy political philosophy. Yet that is just what we’ve had for 6 years.
Frank, a return to the old City Plan is backwards step by the NPA. Vision took bold, needed steps to advance the city and not bog it down in costly and endless argument. Confident, determined leadership is what cities need even though change can be a 4-letter word with the public. Advancement does not happen without change.
+1
We can only presume that Susan did not read Scot Hein’s (chief planner) revealing, well, not really because everyone strongly suspected, comment on the Grandview Woodlands debacle and how Vision just rams it all through with hubris.
You have to understand Eric, Susan got her private road running outside her house, courtesy of other taxpayers. She doesn’t really care what happens to your neighbourhood, or to mine. Though you can be sure if someone proposed dumping a tower across the street from her she’d be out marching with placards to denounce it,
I read what Scot had to say; I interpreted his comments differently from you.
Does “Susan Smith” actually live on PGR? That would be very interesting to know, given the discussions here.
Frank, my experience is that any projects I was involved with had a huge amount of public consultation. Of note is Oakridge, which went on for over 10 years with about 3 major proposal changes. Lots of public consultation and probably more in the last two council terms. Also, the project got dramatically better at each stage. At the end of this, all the naysayers creeped out of the woodwork and council had to extend speaker input for about 3 evenings. Same for the separated downtown bikelanes. Huge amount of public consultation and the staff and even councillors bent over backwards to address concerns raised by businesses along the routes. In the end, we get a great result where no business would document any losses. I suspect that most businesses are now better off. Drivers should be happier since they now park closer to their destination than pre-bike lane and trip times are mostly unchanged. Sure there were some slip-ups, but for the most part there was a huge amount of public consultation and projects were altered for the better as a result.
What happens when you hold a public neighbourhood meeting and the only people that bother to show up are the developers keen to build in the neighbourhood?
I’ve been to a neighbourhood plan implementation meeting that was so sparsely attended that regular citizens were just barely a majority.
Yes, Tiktaalik,
Unfortunately, “regular citizens” tend not to choose to get involved until after the consultation process is offered by the City and after the changes have been implemented. The public is often apathetic, but after the changes have been voted on, announced or begun, then the public rears its head and screams “foul!” Hardly fair for the public to complain when they have waited so long to weigh in.
Luckily you and I don’t have to agree, Susan. And I certainly don’t agree with your party anymore, even though I was fooled by them twice. Change is indeed necessary.
Curious Frank, who are you supporting if you don’t mind me asking
A mix of different people and parties, best ones I could find, no majority. I’m beginning to hope that this election begins to end slate voting at the municipal level.
cool thanks. I wish there was a few more choices for mayor
The disdain for developers has been borne out of Vision’s cozy and conflicted relationship with them. It has nothing to do with not wanting the city to effectively partner with them. In six years, Vision has done absolutely zero with developers on affordable housing. Vancouver has only become more expensive in that time and remains the most expensive city to buy or rent in Canada. How does Vision keep fooling people into thinking that they are the party of affordability when they have done nothing about it in six years? It baffles me that people buy into that misnomer.