Hard to keep up with all the major thingies getting approved by council these days.

Oakridge was Friday, where it was fascinating to see two very different views come out among councillors among what it all means. For the Visionistas, this is the exciting new future. For the opposition (NPA, Green), this redevelopment is a sad sign of the tumultuous change the city is going through and the fears it spurs about what will happen to the old Vancouver.

I can’t help thinking this is how the election is going to play out, as the city increasingly diverges between the newcomers quite happy to buy into the towers and townhouses and dense new development going up and those who are entrenched in the single-family neighbourhoods that they hope will never change. (That can be long-time residents, but also brand-new ones who’ve spent a fortune to buy into an increasingly rare commodity — the single-family neighbourhood — and are determined to fight to the death to keep it untouched.)

In case you couldn’t follow everything Coun. Raymond Louie just said in moving approval of Oakridge, he added these conditions:

THAT staff ensure there is space set aside within the kitchen of the community centre for the exclusive use of seniors and that a joint use agreement between the seniors and the Park Board is in place to ensure certainty of access  for seniors to community centre facilities.

THAT staff be directed to work with SUCCESS and use resources and relationships specific to  both the City and SUCCESS  to identify locations for the provision of additional social services to benefit residents in the Oakridge area.

THAT staff continue to engage with Vancouver Coastal Health, TransLink and Vancouver School Board in an ongoing effort to ensure their plans take into account population growth anticipated in the Oakridge development.

THAT staff ensure an enhanced construction schedule and mitigation plan is provided to address concerns of seniors and location residents prior to the first Development Permit.

 

THAT staff examine measures to maximize occupancy of residential units in Oakridge and report back on a regular basis on the success of the measures.

THAT both the City and the applicant provide a single point of contact to answer questions from  the local community and seniors regarding construction, phasing, occupancy, and community amenities.

 

Click here to Reply or Forward

So the mayor has hired one of the province’s best-known (and presumably not cheap) lawyers to file a response to the lawsuit recently initiated by Cedar Party leader Glen Chernen over the HootSuite lease. (See previous blog post for the lawsuit.)

Joe Arvay didn’t just set out a defence. This we’re-fighting-back lawsuit is also asking for special costs, calling Chernen’s legal action “reprehensible” and  “an abuse of this Court’s process for rank political ends.” No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Here’s the document.

HOOTSUITE ROBERTSON RESPONSE

We all think we know the Canada Line inside out and we take it for granted. But it turns out others don’t.

This American organization asked me to write about it, which made me realize, as I was doing my research, how preoccupied we had been with other parts of the story during the years it was being debated and built: the crazy back and forth votes, the massive disruption on Cambie Street, the torquing of the region’s transit planning because of the Olympics, and more.

In the end, none of us looked that closely at the public-private partnership and the details of how it worked. This time, I got to and learned some new things from Jane Bird, the lawyer who oversaw it (now in London overseeing renos of Canada House), and a Toronto prof who has looked closely at P3s in Canada and whether they really save all the money that proponents like to claim they do. (Seems like we do P3s in a very cautious, Canadian way, if I’m reading his paper right.)

Here’s the series I did, most of which also appeared in Atlantic Cities.

Matti (the Toronto prof) sent me this additional note after it was published. (Warning: Only transit nerds may understand/enjoy this.)

[Read more →]

This poll out today from Insights West, with mayoral approval ratings, city ratings on handling of various issues (Vancouver’s disapproval over growth and development is at 42 per cent), and biggest areas of concern.

I’m struck by the low number of undecideds in Vancouver and Surrey. Usually it’s higher than that in polling taken at this early date. Often people don’t even know who the mayor IS until a few weeks before the election.

News just in that former GWAC president Jak King, who’s been very vocal about opposition to city plans for the neighbourhood, is stepping down from a run for the neighbourhood council again in a year where it appears (from his email below) that groups not in entire agreement with his opposition have mobilized to run. A reminder to all of us that democracy gets very messy. (AGM is today, by the way, at 1)

[Read more →]

Ten years ago, I spent a couple of months in Kabul stationed at the Canadian base. In those early days, I had what seems now like unthinkable freedom to roam around town.

One of my favourite stories I did there was about International Women’s Day, which included going to the local stadium where a lot of excited young girls were holding a small sports day. I wonder where they are now.

This is what it was like then

Bula, Frances

 09 Mar 2004: A12.

There is a lot of meat to pick over in the city’s Downtown Eastside plan, even though lots and lots of details are still missing.

Last week, we got the quick overview: $1-billion to go into the area overall over the next 30 years, diversity of housing, protection of community businesses and services aimed at low-income people, gradual increase of more market ownership and rental housing etc etc.

In my second go-round, one aspect I looked at was the amount of money going into housing: $800 million overall, and, from the $300-million in fees charged for new developments, $250 million to housing.

Vision’s critics on the left keep making the point that Vision has done nothing to create affordable housing, because they don’t like the incentives given to developers for rental projects that are then rented out at market rates. But those on the right (and even some insiders at city hall) are uncomfortable with the kind of money that Vision has thrown into housing — far more than any previous council, when you look what proportion of developer fees have gone into the housing fund and the money spent on buying hotels (Ramadas on Kingsway and Hastings), providing upgrading money for properties leased by BC Housing (the Biltmore), and land given over to non-profits to develop affordable housing projects ($22-million for the four sites currently being developed under the auspices of the B.C. Co-op Housing Federation).

The NPA and city manager Judy Rogers always resisted having the city get too financially involved in providing housing, saying the solution was to keep putting pressure on the provincial and federal governments. Vision has departed from that, which is a good thing or bad thing, depending on your point of view.

[Read more →]

So I guess this means no run for mayor, for sure 🙂

The Vancouver Police Board is pleased to announce that it has granted a request from Chief Constable Jim Chu to extend his contract until August 2017.

Jim Chu became Chief in August 2007 when he signed a five year contract. In 2010, it was extended by the Police Board to August 2015. It will now run to August 2017. 

“Chief Jim Chu’s leadership has contributed immensely to Vancouver’s progress towards the goal of becoming the safest major city in North America, including a record low homicide rate,” said Mayor Gregor Robertson, Chair of the Vancouver Police Board.

“His ongoing service will support the VPD and its officers in continuing their strong record of crime reduction, and I look forward to continuing our work together to make Vancouver an even safer community in which to visit, work, live and raise a family.”

“I am proud and honoured to be Chief and I would like to thank the Police Board for their support of myself and the entire VPD,” said Chief Chu.

 

Jenables and Kirk — two people I’ve never met except through pixels, so this will be exciting — have called for a get-together of all of us blog lurkers so that we can insult each other to our faces.

Or perhaps not.

At any rate, we/they have suggested we convene at the Elephant and Castle in the Marine Building downtown at 6 p.m. Friday, Feb. 28. I will be there. So will they. We hope a few of you will too.