It truly feels like campaign season, as various NPA types, in co-ordination with Citycaucus.com, try to get the media going on putting the blame on the Vision administration for the Pandora Street house fire that killed three men just before Christmas. (They’re really working this thing as four or five news releases have gone out already. The latest one just out is appended below here.)

Rookie NPA candidate Jesse Johl even suggested that Vision Mayor Gregor Robertson might have wanted to look the other way on infractions at this house, because he’s so desperate to keep homelessness numbers down — an inference that more experienced campaigners steered judiciously around.

Perhaps there’s something I’m missing, but I have not seen anything yet in any news release that indicates that the city’s inspection department was operating any differently than it has for the past, oh, two decades. The department, in all the time I’ve known it, has been extremely reluctant to shut down any housing that seems to be providing accommodation to poor people, whether it’s grotty residential hotels, run-down three-story walk-ups, or illegal rooming houses. That means there are all kinds of buildings around town that have a list of warnings, ominous-sounding inspection reports and more on their files.

As you’ll all recall, an entire apartment building had to be evacuated three years ago (under then-mayor Sullivan’s administration) after the roof collapsed during a heavier-than-usual rainstorm — ironically, also on Pandora Street, only seven blocks to the west. The city had a huge file on that building, as its inspectors of various kinds prodded the landlords to make repairs. That case is still working through the courts as the former tenants try to get compensation. I was in that building while it was still being evacuated and it was a miracle no one was hurt. So did that happen because the city administration of the time also lacked the will to enforce existing bylaws?

Critics have plenty to go after the Vision council for on other issues, from the Olympic village to the botched rental-incentive program to the too-hastily-planned Hornby lane,and more. But this? At the moment, I don’t see any evidence that this has anything to do with the Vision administration one way or the other. Maybe Bill can explain this further.

[Read more →]

Okay, with this letter from architect Nigel Baldwin, a former Urban Design panel member, to city councillors, the langorous Christmas season is now officially over.

Mayor and Council, City of Vancouver

Marine Landing: End of Term Report

Three months ago various groups and individuals from the Marpole neighbourhood and the broader community, including me, appealed to Council to initiate a proper planning process for Marine Landing (formerly known as Marine Gateway).  I believed it essential that this work be completed before approving unjustified development projects which at close to 6 FSR and 350 feet are almost twice as dense and twice as high as anything built outside the central core of Vancouver, and twice as dense but four times as high as any new development proposed elsewhere in the Cambie Corridor Plan.

On December 15, I attended the Urban Design Panel workshop where progress was reviewed.  Noting that a class of UBC design students managed to prepare a vision for a sustainable future for the City as a whole during their fall term, I had high expectations for what our world-renowned planning department could produce for a single neighbourhood centre in the same period.  I came away very disappointed both with what was presented and with the constrained and conflicted review it received.  I left with the following impressions:

• That the City has missed an ideal opportunity to address the central issues affecting the neighbourhood.  It has failed to do the hard work necessary to generate and evaluate alternate forms of development, to come up with the most sustainable plan for the centre.  We are instead expected to accept uncritically the expedient solution − that is, the developers’ proposals changed only cosmetically in the last three months − and to be placated by faint hopes of future street beautification.
• That the Urban Design Panel, by allowing architect members with declared conflicts of interest to appear to dominate and/or suppress the critical discussion of built form, has lost its credibility as an independent commentator serving the public interest on Marine Landing issues.  Since the community can no longer rely on the only effective court of second opinion built into the City’s planning and review process, it has little choice but to work outside the system to get its message across to Council.
• That, given the vested interests in play, I heard a surprising amount of comment from Panel members critical of the broken process that has got us to the present impasse.  The glimmer of hope I took away is that the City might at last listen to this commentary, considering its sources, and finally lead us towards a better resolution for development at Marine Landing.
• [Read more →]

Twenty years ago, two city planners wrote a series of articles for the Vancouver Sun where they laid out what our region would look like in 2010 and what the region would be challenged by in those two decades.

Michael Seelig and Alan Artibise predicted that the Lower Mainland would grow by a million people, to 2.7 million. They said that, since Vancouver and Burnaby were mostly built out, most of that growth would go to the suburban areas. Surrey would become the largest municipality of the region, with 550,000 compared to Vancouver’s 450,000.

The two predicted that the region would have to cope with some formidable problems in order to deal with this new population. Encouraging denser housing was the only way to absorb that many people and to provide affordable housing — a key concern for almost every resident, they said. But that would be hard since most politicians preferred to give in to citizen lobby groups instead of doing the right thing.

As they wrote: “In the face of the enormous population pressures that our region will experience in the next decades, what, for example, has Vancouver’s City Council done? – Down-zoned the West End; continually delayed the rezoning of Downtown South; and regularly given in to local interest groups in refusing applications to increase densities.

Artibise and Seelig also bemoaned the love affair with the car. At the time, Vancouver had the lowest transit use of any major Canadian city, with only nine per cent of all trips in the region being done by transit. They urged more to create a robust transit system and they also encouraged the municipalities to consider promoting an overlooked option: the bicycle. Even then, they noted, 47,000 trips a day were being made by bicycle, 85 per cent of them commuting trips.

There’s lots more: Garbage was a major issue, as was air quality. And so is the fractured political system in the region. (Interestingly, they don’t even mention issues like homelessness, drug addiction, crime or some of the other factors that play a big part in our quality of life now.)

As we all know now, Seelig (who helped develop Granville Island) and Artibise (a UBC prof who moved on long ago to a plum job in St. Louis) were sort of right and sort of not.

The region didn’t grow by as much as expected. We’re only at 2.3 million.

Vancouver did absorb a lot of new people and it’s now at 630,000. The West End stayed downzoned and took little of that, but thousands of new people moved into Coal Harbour, North False Creek and various other pockets. Surrey did grow phenomenally, from 250,000 to 450,000, but not as much as they expected.

[Read more →]

Yes, I suddenly disappeared for a week. Baking, hunting down obscure gifts, knitting, and conducting my own private Alfred Hitchcock film festival took precedence briefly over other activities. Won’t happen again for a while (though next week could be a bit slow).

But here is one enduring piece that I didn’t manage to post before I stepped into the time tunnel: Mayor Gregor Robertson’s thoughts on his year.

For your reading pleasure. Doesn’t seem to me that there’s all that much new here, but interesting to see how local events get summarized and transmitted back to Washington. Note the section on the Olympic village further down.

US embassy cables: Vancouver Winter Olympics feel economic chill
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 December 2010 13.19 GMT
Thursday, 12 February 2009, 18:25
C O N F I D E N T I A L VANCOUVER 000031
STATE FOR DS/P/MECU, DS/DSS/DO, DS/IP/WHA
STATE FOR WHA/CAN
EO 12958 DECL: 2/11/2019
TAGS CA, PGOV, KOLY, ASEC, ECON
SUBJECT: VANCOUVER 2010 OLYMPICS FEELING THE ECONOMIC PINCH IN PREPARATIONS, SECURITY
CLASSIFIED BY: G. Kathleen Hill, Political/Economic Chief, US Consulate Vancouver, State. REASON: 1.4 (b), (d)
Summary
US diplomats discuss the financial strain the 2010 Winter Olympics put on its host city. It says there are signs the Vancouver security strategy is feeling the pinch of “economic and personnel shortages”, but the Canadians are “sensitive to the issues of sovereignty”. Key passages are highlighted in yellow
(U) Summary: The global economic crisis and modern demands of post 9/11 security are proving to be huge challenges for the organizers of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. The competition and special events venues are complete and already hosting test events, but the financial crisis surrounding the Olympic Village has consumed local politicians and media (and was probably the determining factor in the recent Vancouver Mayoral election).
Finances are also looming large over the Games’ security. Original estimates of C$175 million have now ballooned to a figure somewhere between C$400 million and C$1 billion. While the Province and the Government of Canada (GOC) continue to negotiate who pays what, other costs, in the form of police and military resources, are beginning to be born across the region.
The impact may reach far beyond the Games, with significant reductions in policing activity and investigations nationwide. Because of the economic downturn, the Vancouver Olympics Committee (VANOC) has already announced modest changes to save money, but is still promising to stage spectacular Games – within available financial resources. End Summary.
Ready to Compete, But Not to Sleep
2. (U) Vancouver is set to host the Winter Olympics in February 2010. Optimism over the event remains strong, as evidenced by the recent phase one ticket sales for Canadians only, which sold out completely in just a few hours and left many subscribers with only a small portion of requested tickets.
However the global economic crisis is creating headaches not envisioned when the city bid and won the right to host the Games. Controversies abound over the “true” costs of the Games.
The Olympics were used by Vancouver and British Columbia to jump start planned but expensive infrastructure projects such as the C$600 million upgrade of the Sea-to-Sky Highway between Vancouver and Whistler and the new C$2 billion Canada Line rapid transit system. Critics like to lump these costs in with the more direct Olympics costs, emphasizing an overwhelming burden placed on the BC and Canadian taxpayer.
3. (U) Amidst the criticism, VANOC has shown remarkable financial astuteness, beginning serious revisions of the Games’ operating budget in spring 2008, well before the serious specter of a global financial crisis became evident.
All competition venues, one of the main areas of responsibility for VANOC, are completed or will be completed on time and within budget. VANOC recently announced a revision to the budget, increasing the final price tag on operating the Games by C$127 million to a total of C$1.76 billion.
According to VANOC’s Executive Vice President, David Guscott, the Organizing Committee has obtained enough corporate sponsorship and ticket and souvenir sales to bring it within sight of this budget, lacking only about C$30 million to reach its goal. But it has had to make sacrifices to keep on target, such as decreasing hiring and making changes in operational plans, including eliminating a nightly medal awards ceremony in downtown Whistler that has that community’s residents feeling betrayed.
Despite the financial challenges, VANOC’s revenue from ticket sales and corporate sponsorship remains on target and the organization appears weQ placed to meet its obligations.
4. (U) The same cannot be said for the C$700 million-plus Olympic Village, a key element of the Games and a major responsibility of the City of Vancouver. The Village is being developed by a private corporation on prime waterfront land provided by the city. It’s slated to become a mixed use residential/commercial area after the Games with high, middle and low-income housing.
The developer ran into problems in September, when more than C$100 million in cost overruns threatened to stop the project. Then Mayor Sam Sullivan and the City Council held a series of closed door meetings where they developed a plan for the city to provide guarantees so a loan could be obtained to cover the increases.
The secretiveness of the financial arrangements became a major factor in the December city elections, which saw Sullivan’s coalition lose the mayoral seat and all but one city council position. In addition, the controversy caused the city manager, a senior deputy and the chief financial officer to lose their jobs.
In December, just after the elections, the primary financial backer of the project, U.S. company Fortress Investment Group, announced it would not deliver the final C$458 million in capital to complete the project due to financial losses from the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The new mayor, Gregor Robertson, found himself in the same hot seat, dealing with the possible collapse of the project.
In the end, he sought, and was granted, special provincial legislative authority for the city to seek loans to cover completion of the project. Olympic critics have had a field day with the problems, promoting stories of taxpayer losses in the billions, and a combination of substantive factors led Moody’s and Standard & Poor to place the City of Vancouver on credit-watch status.
Real estate analysts have been more optimistic, asserting that the city could make a considerable profit on the deal down the road and highlighting the fact that it is the last undeveloped piece of waterfront property in downtown and very desirable. The city paid only C$50 million for the land through its Property Endowment Fund, a longterm investment fund estimated to be worth almost C$3 billion.
Even if the development makes only half of the originally estimated profit, the fund could cover the immediate loss without affecting the city operation’s budget and, as a longterm investment, it could still be a win for the city. VANOC’s Guscott was confident the city would meet its part of the deal, presenting a completed, functioning Village on time. In VANOC’s view the project has been caught in an unfortunate cross between municipal elections and the downturn in the economy, with the financial problems severely overblown.
Security – But at What Price?
5. (U) Perhaps the biggest loss will be taken by the province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada (GOC) which will bear the brunt of cost overruns in the security of the games. The Integrated Security Unit (ISU) was set up to manage the Games’ security. It is headed by the RCMP, with representative from all major police, intelligence and defense entities.
Original estimates on Olympics security were in the C$175 million range. But now no one is willing to give a number. The provincial Finance Minister, Colin Hansen, will only say it’s somewhere between C$400 million and C$1 billion. Hansen admits he was surprised at the estimates coming out of Ottawa for overall security.
A special committee was established early on to determine B.C.’s and the GOC’s shares of incremental costs above basic policing. The ballooning nature of the security structure and programs has left the committee bogged down in “endless line-by-line micro-analysis,” according to Hansen.
Consequently the Province offered up a final, comprehensive plan on who pays what which is in Ottawa for approval. Realistically, as the ISU tests and refines its plans, the costs continue to be fluid and the final numbers will not be known until after the Games are completed. BC originally estimated its overall Games’ costs, including infrastructure, venues and security, at approximately C$600 million.
Minister Hansen announced on February 9 that the new security numbers will force the province well over that mark. With 2009 a provincial election year in BC, the cost of Games’ security is becoming a major issue for the ruling BC Liberals, who are hoping a reasonable agreement with the GOC will soften the financial blow.
6. (C) Beyond monetary costs, the Olympics are beginning to create critical resource costs. Law enforcement representatives working at the U.S. Consulate in Vancouver are reporting that more and more of their contacts are being pulled to work on Olympics security issues.
A DEA agent was told by one of his RCMP counterparts that by September all regional drug agents could be working on Olympics, with no investigations ongoing until March 2010. Already the RCMP has all but stopped marijuana-related investigations. RCMP is also undergoing severe belt tightening with new, stricter enforcement of overtime rules. To highlight the Canadian constraints, an RCMP officer told us that the Italians put 30,000 Carabinieri in Turin for the 2006 Winter Games and the RCMP has less than 30,000 officers in all of Canada.
Big Business, But no Room at the Inn
7. (U) The 2010 Olympics are presenting significant financial opportunities for area residents and businesses. In addition to the massive infrastructure and construction projects, VANOC is procuring millions of dollars in services and support for the Games. And Canadians are not the only recipients of these contracts. U.S. firms have managed to win several major contracts thus far to provide everything from tents and portable toilets to tickeQprinting, dining services and flags for the games.
8. (U) One big concern for many in the tourist industry, and for those of us working the Games for the USG, is the question of accommodations. The International Olympics Committee requires a host city to provide between 20,000 and 25,000 rooms for just the Olympic “family” alone (sponsors, officials, etc).
This leaves little room for the spectators who come to watch the Games and the visiting dignitaries. IOC rules give only five rooms to the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) for official delegations from participating countries.
If delegations, and their support and security, are more than five people, it is incumbent on the delegation to find its own additional accommodations. Consulate General Vancouver has already secured accommodations for the agencies participating in the Olympics Coordination Office and the Joint Operations Center but would like to make an urgent plea for notification as soon as possible of the composition of the official delegations to the Opening and Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games.
(The Paralympics are much smaller and accommodations will be more readily available.) Accommodations are scarce to non-existent now and the sooner we know the make-up of delegations, the more likely we will be able to provide suitable rooms within reasonable distance of the major venues.
9. (SBU) Comment: It should be noted that in every meeting we have with Olympics officials the first question is “Who is heading your Opening Ceremonies delegation?” Although the official invitation comes from the NOC, in this case the U.S. Olympic Committee, to the VIP, most Canadians involved are hoping that President Obama and his family will attend the Games. The President is immensely popular in Canada and given the Games’ proximity to the U.S. there are high expectations that the President and his family will make an appearance.
10. (C) Proximity is also on our minds as we look at overall Olympic security. With the Olympics being held within 30 miles of the U.S. border there are already numerous areas where security is a shared responsibility, such as our pre-existing shared responsibilities over airspace through Northcom.
The Canadians are doing an excellent job in developing their security strategy, but we are starting to see some small signs that they are feeling the pinch of economic and personnel shortages. They are sensitive to the issues of sovereignty and we have been reminded repeatedly that they are responsible for the overall security of the Games. Our Olympics Coordination Office and Olympics Security Coordinator are working very closely with VANOC and the ISU and closely monitoring developments with an eye toward any possible further assistance we can provide should the needs arise.
End Comment.
CHICOLA

There is a lot to complain about on the civic scene — just read this blog for the complete list! — but one thing that we should appreciate is the way the city (over several administrations) and the province (over Rich Coleman’s last four years) have worked together to tackle homelessness here.

Thanks to the Vision Vancouver council initiative and the province’s funding, 500 people slept inside the past two winters, along with this one. That took half the people off the street and out of the parks who normally sleep there.

Thanks to the city’s willingness under the previous Sam Sullivan administration to put up land for social housing and this admin to keep pushing for the money, with Coleman’s efforts to get the money from Treasury Board, 1,575 units will be coming onstream in the next three years — a project opening every three or four months — targeted to those who need housing the most.

Every municipality is struggling with tax increases right now.

They all got hit by big jumps in their wage bills, as the four-per-cent increase (negotiated by unions, but usually also given to the non-union staff) hit, while their businesses and residents are still in the throes of the recession. Plus they’re getting less in interest on their reserves, also thanks to the recession.

Interestingly, though, I couldn’t find anyone but West Vancouver even considering a zero per cent increase — and that’s likely only because West Van has the highest taxes by far of anywhere in the region. Instead, many mayors said that a zero increase generally just means you pay more later on.

Richard Walton, in the District of North Van, said that there’s a tendency sometimes for politicians to talk about a zero-, one- or two-per-cent increase “to make the public happy.” But, he said, that kind of increase — less than inflation or the actual cost of services — inevitably means having to skimp on maintaining infrastrucutre. And, inevitably, that maintenance has to be done, sometimes at a higher cost, later on.

So most increases I could find came in around 2.5 – 3.5 per cent. That makes Vancouver’s tax increase look pretty good, at only 2.2 per cent. Until, as I note in my Globe story, you look at what the real increase will be when the tax shift from business to residential goes through. Then it will be 4.2 per cent for homeowners.

By the way, one oddity I discovered while doing the research for my Globe story. Although Vancouver businesses are taxed at a higher rate than those in Surrey, homeowners in Vancouver are actually taxed less.

Numbers nerds who wish to follow the links and track down the mill rates (the rate per $1,000 of assessed value) will discover that Vancouver’s mill rate in 2010 was $2.14 per $1,000, while Surrey’s is $2.46. That means a million-dollar house in Vancouver would pay $2,014 in city taxes, while one in Surrey would be $2,460.

Live and learn. Who knew the limo business was going green? I didn’t, til a little report popped up on the city’s website this week, aimed at encouraging same.

The latest report is out putting forward Vancouver planners’ best efforts to identify some new spots for tall buildings in the downtown peninsula.

Aiming for a 700-foot building in the central business district is not too surprising, nor is the 500-foot spot for the Toyota Pattison block on Burrard. (Though the developers’ current plan is for 550 — we’ll have to see who wins on that one. I note the careful comment that, although going over 500 is not supported by staff, “it is recognized that the ultimate height will be determined by council.”)

But new to me and likely many is the idea of having a pair of 425-foot towers flanking the north end of the Granville Bridge, packing even more people into the Downtown South. Although many people in the West End mistakenly believe that they live in the densest neighbourhood in Vancouver, in fact, the Downtown South is much denser already and about to become even more so.

According to the 72 people who filled out comment forms, the new heights are supported by more than half. That seems like rather a small number to be deciding the fate of the Vancouver skyline, though apparently 500 people did attend the open houses and the other 428 weren’t enough moved by strong opinion to fill out a form.

In the same report, the city also defines the new view cones that will be protected from generally the Olympic village area over to the North Shore mountains. I’m interested in what people think of these view zones. It looks to me as though the bottom yellow line has been set fairly high up, which means that there will be room to put some taller towers in the Northeast False Creek area without running afoul of the view boundary.

I’m also a bit surprised that new viewcone H1 (you should look at it just for the unintentional hilarity of having the giant Myfanwy Macleod sparrow appearing to be trying to peer at the camera) doesn’t go further west, so that all of the Grouse Mountain peak is protected, while its eastern portion is already blocked by the community centre roof.