Always instructive to get the view from far away.

After being stung by four years of criticism about its giveaways to developers to create rental, Vision Vancouver politicians (oops, of course, I should say, “staff”) have decided to test a new model for building rental apartments.

The city will give four pieces of land to a consortium of non-profit housing groups and the B.C. Co-op Housing Federation to develop 350 units that the groups promise will offer a substantial number of units at below-market rents — some way below and others a little below.

They’ll be able to do that by saving money on 1. land 2. marketing 3. developer profit. But the plan is also to cross-subsidize within the 350 units by renting out the ones likely to get the highest price (on a piece of property in the River District development that faces the river — a gorgeous site; I’ve seen it) at market rates, leasing out some commercial space at the site on Kingsway for going-market rates, and then using that money as well to lower the rents on other units.

If it works, the Vision council is definitely planning to expand the concept. Thom Armstrong, from the co-op federation, says non-profits would likely consider putting in land too if it the model proves to work.

I just did the preliminary story on this. I’m waiting to hear from critics of various stripes if they see problems with this. I know the NPA will be concerned about the city dedicating so many of its land assets to housing. (To this, Councillor Geoff Meggs has pointed out that this is a return to the model of the 1970s, used in south False Creek.)

The model also looks to me like what the current thinkers in COPE wanted to introduce as a housing solution. But I await commentary on the details.

As many in the media have noticed, there’s been almost no discussion of social issues like health, education, the income gap, or housing in this election campaign.

LNG, yes. Rent supplements or welfare rates, no.

So here’s something that helps flesh out where the two major parties stand on housing and renter/landlord issues.

[Read more →]

You are going to be reading SO much about garbage in the next few years.

Why? Because Metro Vancouver, like many other metro regions, is trying to move to new ways of dealing with it: More recycling, reusing. Fewer landfills. Possibly more incinerators or other strategies for disposing of the last bits that can’t be recycled or re-used.

That means a lot of people who are making money from garbage disposal now or think they see ways to make money in the future are going to be scrapping (pun fully intended) with each other and with municipalities over who gets control of garbage. There’s dollars in that waste and everyone wants them.

One chapter of this battle for control unrolled yesterday out at the Metro Vancouver tower, where private operators came out to express concerns over the region’s proposal for a new “waste-flow management” system.

[Read more →]

As several other media outlets have reported in bits and pieces over the last couple of weeks, there has been some messy politics surrounding the anti-gentrification protests in the Downtown Eastside. My story here rounds these up, though it only skims the surface of this everything that’s going on.

In particular, it doesn’t begin to capture the eggshells that Vancity and the Vancouver Foundation appear to be walking on with respect to their funding of the Carnegie Community Action Project, an arm of the Carnegie Centre that’s been operating since as far back as I can remember and which has always been one of the main activism generators in the community.

Currently, Vancity and the foundation, among a few others, are funding CCAP in order to give them the resources to empower residents in the area, to make their voices heard, to do research on subjects of interest to those who live there, and to publicize those results. So when there was a perception that CCAP employees were directly involved in organizing the Pidgin protests, where police and the public have both noted the use of what could be called harassing behaviour, reporters started calling their funders.

Those funders, in turn, are carefully tiptoeing along the line between saying they are not against anyone’s right to demonstrate or to exercise free speech. But, they also say, they are only funding certain activities and not others. I can only assume, from the sometimes tentative wording and clarifications, that these two groups are getting it from two sides: One side demanding to know whether money is going to fund illegal protests; another side demanding to know if the organizations are in any way indicating that they will withdraw funding to groups that protest.

After all, isn’t one of the concrete examples of resident empowerment not protest on the street? Messy, messy.

[Read more →]

Doing anything about strategy during a campaign is excruciating. Hardly anyone wants to talk, unless they think they’ve got nothing to lose. Message box, yes. How we’re going to reach voters? Not so much.

So the NDP declined to comment in any way about their social media strategy, in case you’re wondering about the lopsidedness of this story. And the Liberals, while slightly more forthcoming, were still keeping cards close to their chests.

In spite of that, here’s my survey of what the parties are attempting and what the possibilities are that strategists see in using social media. As everyone drilled into my brain repeatedly, it’s not a billboard or a public-address system. It’s all about the conversation and the data that can be mined from those who participate.

[Read more →]

We never used to pay much attention to the city’s financial statements, except for a cursory brief on what the total budget was or some quirky expenditure. Now, it’s an annual event to see where the city is with the Olympic Village and the $750-million construction loan it took out to pay for it.

My story here and city’s financial statements here. (Look for Southeast False Creek. Appears in two different places.)

[Read more →]

While all of you have been merrily living your lives, some people in the city have been waiting for months for this city report to come out saying whether the Vancouver Art Gallery would get the Larwill Park site or not.

And the answer yesterday was … yes, sort of. My story here, plus my colleague Marsha Lederman’s here.

City report here.

And, btw, all the background and the prediction of how it would all go down from a couple of months ago in my Vancouver magazine article here.

The office-tower boom in Vancouver (and Burnaby, New West and Surrey) never ceases to produce chatter in the halls of the development/broker sector.

It was the topic again at the city’s recent real-estate forum, where several panelists speculated on the impact of all that space hitting the market.

Hmm, this is the second time I’ve seen this where Councillor George Affleck pitches an idea that the Vision council decides to adopt with no quibbling.

(Other one was New Year’s Eve celebrations)

It’s kind of a novel approach to political activisim — think up new things to do that fit with the governing party’s general ethos (parties, beer) and then get out in front of staff or anyone else to propose it.

Anyway, enough digressing. Here’s George’s motion for next week:

For Immediate Release
April 16th, 2013

A motion put forward by NPA Councillor George Affleck, on the regulatory changes needed to permit micro-breweries and distilleries on industrial land to sample products produced on-site, is expected to be unanimously passed at next Tuesday’s Council meeting.

“Current City of Vancouver regulations do not allow for brewery and distillery operations to offer customers samples and purchasing options. I’m asking staff to come back to Council with recommendations on how we can change that” says Affleck.

“This motion is intended to bring the City of Vancouver up to date with Provincial policy directives, and is aimed at giving local breweries and distilleries a greater chance to thrive while adding to the vibrancy of the city’s robust food scene.”

“I’ve already received a great deal of support from the Mayor’s office since submitting the motion and am confident it will receive unanimous support at the Council table.”

Councillor Affleck’s motion will be debated at the April 23rd, 2013 City Council meeting.