34 responses so far ↓

• 1 Living in the West End // Jul 12, 2010 at 9:29 am

  If you are interested in why the Mayor reacted the way he did please watch the Council video (July 8th, Planning and Environment) for Items 5 & 6.

• 2 West Ender // Jul 12, 2010 at 10:10 am

  The concerns about the West End community and the implications about the STIR program specifically has brought together a large and growing number of residents across the community – renters and owners, from all political backgrounds and interests. Together these volunteers have spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours researching the issues, holding community information sessions, petitioning (over 7,000 residents) and surveying residents, and attending numerous meeting with City Council, staff and others. All of this intended to get serious dialogue and discussion going about their community.

  In 2008, the City election had the lowest turnout of voters (31%) since 1938 and concerns were raised about the indifference of the voting public to important local issues. Yet, when a articulate and informed group of residents dedicate themselves to improving the conditions in their neighbourhood through peaceful and inclusive means, they are accused of being “dogged” and using “guerilla tactics” and dismissed as engaging in “militant activism”.

• 3 mark // Jul 12, 2010 at 10:19 am

  “Sounding relaxed and natural”? Are you (insert expletive) kidding me? These are taxpayers and the people he is supposed to be serving that his is calling “fucking hacks”. Keep on shilling. No shame…

• 4 West Ender // Jul 12, 2010 at 10:39 am

  The Mayor and two councilors tried to dismiss the small group of speakers who waited patiently to voice their concerns about the Advisory Committee. Saying in accusatory tones that they are “owners” and political “hacks. While neither is true, I have yet to understand why ownership is considered a serious flaw since I expect the Mayor and many of his Vision team are indeed “owners”. And I have not been able to find anywhere on their website or in the disclosure statements that this should preclude anyone from holding office. Are we to assume that the Vision Councillors that own are unfit to represent the 52% of city residents that are renters?

  It’s time to put aside these discriminatory and bogus arguments and to actually listen and meaningfully engage the large and diverse group of residents that have voiced their concerns. If Vision wants to be truly innovative and consultative, they must stop seeing the residents of the West End as enemies and to appreciate that they are actively engaged in a healthy democratic process.

• 5 Rob McMahon // Jul 12, 2010 at 10:40 am

  I am a renter in the West End and am not thrilled with WEN. They seem to be stuck back in the pre-Expo era where Vancouver was a sleepy little town that wasn’t growing into a big city. We need to rental accomodations. Most of the older buildings are run down.

  It must be frustrating for someone as progressive as Gregor but. That said, he should know the microphone is always on.

  Vancouver only has one way to grow and that is up. Figuratively and literally.

• 6 Frances Bula // Jul 12, 2010 at 10:59 am

  @mark. Sorry, forgot there are people out there with no sense of humour or irony.

• 7 SeeMore // Jul 12, 2010 at 11:07 am

  Agreed with Mark on this.

  I’ve been reading your blog for quite sometime Frances. At times I’ve felt that you haven’t taken the stand that other blogs do in order to maintain some form of balance and clarity but excusing this vile act as fascinating is weak at best.

  We should all hold our public servants to the highest standard above all else. People such as these that slither into our system have to be cut them loose when they laugh in our faces and work hard to deny us our right to democracy under the guise of “knowing what’s best”.

  And for the media not to call a fanatic out – well, thats inexcusable. I suppose the truth is the apologists posing as media find a way to make light.

  Thank you for showing us your true colours and how bright they are on this warm summer day.

• 8 Mick // Jul 12, 2010 at 11:20 am

  The WEN people need to get on with it. When I told them I wasn’t going to sign their survey and gave them 5 or 6 good reasons why I wasn’t, they almost seemed stunned.

  When I told them that “filling out a survey to oppose tearing down Maxine’s” makes a mockery of the idea of a survey (rather than, you know, a petition), one guy got really upset with me. Never mind that I actually live a block away from the development.

• 9 Mick // Jul 12, 2010 at 11:22 am

  Oh, and the fact that they mayor uses the F word and sometimes gets irritated with the usual special interest groups is hardly a revelation…

• 10 Tessa // Jul 12, 2010 at 11:24 am

  Come to think of it, Frances, do you know what the West End Residents Association’s position is on this issue?

  @WestEnder, I didn’t realize being “dogged”, also known as hard working, was something people were “accused of.” You make it sound like being dogged is a horrible thing, so I guess we should all be lazy and not follow through on our beliefs then.

• 11 jesse // Jul 12, 2010 at 11:24 am

  Owners want scarcity and renters want oversupply? Some of those owners depend on new developments being built to pay the bills.

• 12 cfarber // Jul 12, 2010 at 11:24 am

  Well, Rob, I’m a renter too. We are building thousands of rental units already: we call them “condos” and they are on Craigslist all the time. What we don’t need is new buildings (rental or not) that exceed planned height and density, don’t have setbacks and are subsidized (through STIR) by a City that is going broke. The key to the West End’s livability is the green belts and setbacks. I hate to see those disappear with the Vision Council’s “spot rezoning” under STIR.

• 13 ThinkOutsideABox // Jul 12, 2010 at 12:15 pm

  @Mick,

  Except that this isn’t a usual special interest group. If you spend any time speaking with them as I have, you will discover many are/(were) Vision Vancouver supporters who worked to get them elected.

  What the mayor is proposing now is for an unelected committee picked by Vision Vancouver councillors to advise on West End spot rezonings before the public has a chance to review it. Surely any smalltown bumpkin can see the conflict of interest in that?

  To understand the who, what, why and how fundamentals of this “innovative” approach to the mayor’s West End advisory committee, it’s best to look to, and become familiar with “New Urbanist” Andres Duany as he is the author of the blueprint.

  Duany is an American former developer who evangelizes for the reinvigoration of failed American rustbelt suburbs.

  What that has to to do with the West End I haven’t got a clue, and for the reason that New Urbanism is not applicable to the West End, I am left asking how long till this solution falls under its own misdirection?

  I have read several of Duany’s quotes and find few if any thoughts of his experience in the American wasteland sprawl that relates to the West End circumstance, and so it troubles me that his is the solution proposed.

  Yet here goes Geoff Meggs on his blog making once again, an out of touch, incredibly obtuse association to justify this advisory panel’s creation:

  http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2010/07/03/developers-community-activists-have-polar-opposite-perspectives-on-city-consultation/#more-4057

  In regards to planning for the West End, the voices of the community from the city’s report of the May 12/13 community meetings are loud and clear:

  http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/westend/pdf/West%20End%20Memo%20to%20Council.pdf

  “There should not be any further site specific rezonings until a comprehensive plan is developed.

  The public should be more involved in the planning process.”

  No one exepected an “advisory” committee to be the “innovative” approach.

• 14 Frances Bula // Jul 12, 2010 at 1:33 pm

  @West Ender. To add to what Tessa says, why do you interpret my description as negative? I have frequently praised Randy and West End Neighbours, in my blog and in person, for their energy, persistence, unusual tactics, and so on. I don’t agree with some of the hyperbolic conclusions that people in the group occasionally leap to (I’m sure this will be seen as yet another example of my horrible bias, that I would question a single thing you have said or done), but I have been impressed with this group’s doggedness. Not an insult — a compliment, if you can wrap your mind around that.

• 15 Frances Bula // Jul 12, 2010 at 1:58 pm

  @ Tessa. I don’t know what WERA’s position is. Perhaps Brent could enlighten us if he is reading. I know that when STIR was being planned, Brent expressed strong concerns that the program would not create apartments being rented in the affordable range and I believe he also had concerns about what kind of community consultation there would be. But I believe that the West End Neighbours was formed because they thought WERA was too mild-mannered, not aggressive enough in being critical. An interesting case of a neighbourhood association coup d’etat of sorts. WEN’s adherents have also frequently made the case that they don’t think more rentals are needed and they don’t think there is a rental crisis any more or likely to be one soon, which is quite different from WERA. As an organization with more history, WERA has been through a few zero-vacancy crises and so have a longer view of history and are more inclined to support the idea that building more rental is good in the long term. But they want it to be the right kind of rental under the right kind of conditions.

• 16 Richard // Jul 12, 2010 at 2:53 pm

  The bottom line is that we need more housing in the region. The closure to downtown the housing is, the less likely people are to drive. In the West End around 40% of people walk to work. The more people living there means less traffic on the roads of Vancouver and the region. It also means less pressure to develop farm land and greenspace in the Valley.

  While no doubt there will be impacts of new towers in the West End, the concerns of some seem to be overblown. It does make sense to do a community vision before massive amounts of new development takes place but that doesn’t mean everything has to stop. One or two new buildings will not have that big of an impact.

  While the rental units are expensive, don’t forget that there is demand for more expensive rental units. Building new rental will help meet demand and reduce the pressure to convert existing low cost rentals to high cost rentals by kicking the residents out and renovating the units.

  STIR in hindsight may not look that great but remember when it was created development was at a standstill and no one was sure when it was going to get started again. The developers did take risk deciding to move forward given the uncertain financial and economic environment. Yes, it seems like they will do quite well now but the city should act in good faith recognizing the risk that the developers did take.

  That said, some changes such as a small reduction in height and some other improvements to address concerns might be in order.

• 17 Victor // Jul 12, 2010 at 3:24 pm

  Here is the WERA response to the Mayors West End Advisory Committee. Thank goodness for WEN who are standing up for our community.
  Thes 6 Directors who represent WERA certainly don’t!!

  July 8, 2010

  Mayor Robertson and City Councillors
  City of Vancouver

  Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors:

  Re: Motion B.4 – Mayor’s West End Community Advisory Committee

  WERA is writing to express its support for the West End Advisory Committee. As you may already be aware, WERA has held a number of community forums on visioning and other matters related to housing, development, affordability and livability.

  From our consultations with West End residents it has become apparent that there is a real concern with what many termed “Yaletown creep”. Most residents feel the diversity of and human scale of the built forms in the West End contribute significantly to the overall livability of the neighbourhood. An increase in high-rise developments would add to the “fortress” feeling often used to describe Yaletown.

  Furthermore, many residents are concerned that the development of new high-rises would result in the loss of housing affordability. Rising rents in the neighbourhood pose a real threat to the population diversity which is identified as a strong community value. Many residents raised concerns that increased density may not include provisions for affordability.

  We would appreciate receiving further information on how this committee will work and in what capacity it will advise the Mayor. We are pleased to see the members appointed will represent a diversity of interests and needs in the community.

  We hope this new committee will serve to have a closer connection to the community and improve neighbourhood consultation with respect to future development proposals in the West End.

  Sincerely,

  Brent Granby,
  President
  WERA

• 18 Booge // Jul 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm

  @Bula @mark. Damn Straight hiz honor was:

  “Sounding relaxed and natural”

  Did a few bc doobies washed down with smooth bc wine.

  Relaxes most us I dare say.

• 19 cfarber // Jul 12, 2010 at 3:39 pm

  To enlarge on Victor’s comments: as far as I can see…WERA has 6 members (all of whom are the directors). Maybe Brent Granby can confirm this. WEN on the other hand turned out 300 people to the Coast Plaza not long ago (November of 2009?). Who really represents the West End? I’ve also heard rumours that Granby may seek a Vision nominaton for Parks Board for the next election. If true, that would put his and WERA’s friendly letter to the Vision council in a new light.

• 20 Frances Bula // Jul 12, 2010 at 3:40 pm

  @ Booge. But it didn’t seem to relax anyone else, even though said doobies and wine were passed around council chambers at 4 p.m. and then again at 8. What’s wrong with those people?

• 21 A. G. Tsakumis // Jul 12, 2010 at 3:53 pm

  This is just too funny. Bula bumping for her pals once again, and she gets defensive, only to provide the pathetic excuse of “irony” and “humour.”

  Let’s do a fair retrospective: when Larry Campbell was caught telling the bus drivers’ union to fuck off, Bula’s direct quote was “well, I don’t know…how many people want their Mayor giving workers the finger…” When Sam Sullivan in ‘Citizen Sham’ was revealed to want to put his foot on opponents’ necks, Bula’s survey said, “Wow, that’s pretty telling isn’t it? VERY interesting….”

  But now, Gregor Robertson, in a most TELLING act: insults concerned residents: shows a breathtaking arrogance in dealing with citizens; disregards the process and ridicules the public who wants to be heard.

  And then Frances, you have the temerity to get exorcised, as you have in the recent past, about people challenging your obvious bias?

  Gregor was just sounding “relaxed”. Your post here is shameful example of the willful turn of the cheek by a like-minded reporter, who in the waning years of her career has “relaxed” perhaps too much.

  The Mayor’s comments were yet another example of how he lied during the last election and why you should be bothered by it.

  You sat next to me at the Planetarium when the following was said in response to a (planted) question about Sam’s over-the-top aggressiveness when dealing with opponents.

  “I though it was disgusting and showed how politics shouldn’t be practiced. You cannot ridicule your opponents or the people” A DIRECT quote from a speech Gregor gave at the Planetarium.

  “I will practice politics that is inclusive and respectful.” Another direct quote from the same speech mid-way through the campaign.

  You must have lost the furiously taken notes that I watched you take.

  Your blog is the repository of Vision propaganda, but to be ignoring the greater story here and simply fall on some nonsensical anlge about how relaxed the Mayor sounds, is painful.

  If you spent that much time over the course of your life inhaling thick pungent smoke, you’d be that stupid as well.

  “NPA hacks”??? Is wasn’t obvious that they weren’t. And nothing on the despicable comments by Heather Deal?

  Sweetheart, I hope they’re not blowing all their propaganda budget on Ross.

  At least you’re literate, but entirely capable as a shill.

• 22 George // Jul 12, 2010 at 5:32 pm

  I also found the comments made by Heather Deal to be troubling… democracy squared… I expect fair and equal treatment from my elected officials…
  Obviously Deal/Robertson/Vision feel otherwise….

• 23 Joe Just Joe // Jul 12, 2010 at 8:19 pm

  Somebody talk Carole Taylor into running for mayor. Please and thank you.

• 24 mary // Jul 12, 2010 at 8:52 pm

  It troubles me that this is still all about the West End. There’s Marpole facing two developments the scale of Woodward’s in a neighbourhood that is almost entirely single family; Marpole without a neighbourhood plan at all, Marpole trying to be a neighbourhood with the Canada Line and Oak Street and Granville/Pont d’Arthur Lang belching people, cars, buses and trucks in and out of it all day, with the waste transfer station and the bus barn on its flanks. While West End residents deserve respect and better planning ought to be happening all over the city, surely decisions about which neighbourhood gets attention should be based on criteria that include something more than activism. Activism is good and necessary, but I want to live in a city that recognizes that some neighbourhoods have a harder time organizing because of language and cultural barriers, and that they shouldn’t be sacrificed because they can’t get the big numbers out on short notice.

  It also troubles me that the answer to WEN’s activism is to create a committee. Has anyone out there evaluated how efective the City’s current committees are at moving any agenda forward? Committees are a way of silencing objections. Or muffling them by constraining their voices with bureacratic process.

  Maybe VISION will mature and learn how to govern well. Maybe they won’t be given the chance. Whichever it is, my hope is that we don’t sacrifice the liveability of our more vulnerable neighbourhoods in the meantime.

• 25 Sean // Jul 12, 2010 at 10:10 pm

  In what other Vancouver neighborhood is “owner” an insult?

• 26 Canuckistanian // Jul 13, 2010 at 4:13 am

  Wow the boy-scout robot is actually human…I like this side of Gregor.

  All those jumping on this to criticize him are quite likely hypocrites. Do any of you not use such language in private to deride those you deem ‘hacks’?

  His mistake? Getting caught.

• 27 michael geller // Jul 13, 2010 at 6:44 am

  Canuckistanian, you’re right. He is human, and this is best expressed in Pete McMartin’s July 13th column.

  http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mayor+Gregor+Robertson+this+mike/3269429/story.html

• 28 pd // Jul 13, 2010 at 7:36 am

  oh please – this isn’t about “Gregor being human ‘cuz he swears” – that is a non-issue for most everyone I’m sure.

  The REAL issue here is the absolute disdain for democratic process and the electorate. Community members dare to voice their concerns over a politically appointed “citizen’s” board – and they’re dismissed as partisan hacks?

  It’s a gross injustice to disregard legitimate concerns about neighbourhood planning especially given Vision’s cozy relationship with developers and abysmal track record with their “affordable rental c/o development” schemes at Woodward’s and Olympic Village. To further stigmatize opposition to their scheme as being classist/NIMBY/owner types shows reveals a party out of touch with the community.

  While I normally find his writing to be acerbic and overbearing – A. G. Tsakumis’ comment at 21 definitely hits the mark as to the myopic bias to this particular Vision advertorial provided by Ms Bula.

• 29 mark // Jul 13, 2010 at 8:25 am

  “Frances Bula // Jul 12, 2010 at 10:59 am

  @mark. Sorry, forgot there are people out there with no sense of humour or irony.”

  Not when he’s slagging the people who pay his salary. You’re kidding right? Talk about hacks.

• 30 Bill McCreery // Jul 13, 2010 at 6:29 pm

  @cfarber 12, Well said.

  Many condos are indeed rental housing & the number on Craig’s list daily makes one wonder how much of a rental shortage there is. Based on comments by the City’s rental housing point lady there is a clear bias against condo rentals.

  Affordability….. Average WE rents — $1.50 to $2.00 / SF. Announced STIR rents @ Maxine’s — $2.70.

  City of Vancouver [read taxpayers] giveaway to developers — $5.45M directly, PLUS giveaway in excessive profiteering — $26.5M to $34.1M spot rezoned profit less $3.1 to $5.3M existing zoning profit = $23.4M to $28.8M.

• 31 Stephanie // Jul 13, 2010 at 6:56 pm

  Sweet jaysus – clutch those pearls a little more tightly, people. Robertson thinks a couple of people who spoke to council are jerks, so that means he has nothing but disdain for democracy and the electorate? Will civilization survive?

  Tempest. Teapot. God almighty, this is a trivial city.

• 32 Tiktaalik // Jul 13, 2010 at 7:10 pm

  Is there a good source for comparing demographic data on neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis?

  Regarding the point of condos also being rental housing my feeling is that if one looked at a neighbourhood with a great deal of condos, such as Yaletown, one would find that the demographics and rental/owner mix would be significantly different than what currently exists in the West End. Is that what folks in the West End want?

• 33 Bill McCreery // Jul 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm

  @Mary 24, Yours is an extremely important perspective. But, the inaugral Marpole Residents meeting a couple of weeks back is a great start for Marpole residents making their voices heard.

  Incidently, another example of the City & Developers providing misleading & incomplete information is the Gateway proposal’s FSR which includes the ‘transit rights of way’. On the other hand the Proposed Site Plan clearly shows property lines separating these three legal entities. +/-35% to 40% of the ‘gross site’ area is presumably owned by Translink & the remaining 60% to 65% by the developer. These are 2 legal owners & 2 separate uses. To attempt to describe them as ‘rights of way’ is @ the least misleading. Therefore, the actual density for this proposal is from 6.85 FSR to 7.42 FSR.

  When taken together with the missing neighbourhood context information on the drawings, etc. it leads to a questioning of the reliability of the entire proposal & the process itself.

• 34 Frances Bula // Jul 13, 2010 at 9:23 pm

  @Tiktaalik. Statistics Canada can provide demographic data from the 2006 census right down to the postal code and census tract, if you know how to use those tools on the StatsCan site.

Leave a Comment