This just out

Revised bylaw for structures for political expression
on public streets
A proposed bylaw for permitting and regulating structures on city streets for political expression has been redrafted and will come before City Council on April 19.
The bylaw includes a number of revisions to address concerns raised by the public and members of Council at its meeting April 7, 2011. The amended report and the accompanying proposed bylaw is designed to enable and facilitate the use of structures on city streets for the purpose of political expression, following direction as set out by the BC Court of Appeal.
Revisions in the proposed bylaw include:
Allowing for street structures for political expression to be permitted outside consulates which are conducting business in residential areas
The elimination of a $200 registration fee and $1000 refundable deposit
The removal of the requirement for a transportation plan
Modifying the need for a structure to have continuous attendance.
The provisions being proposed would legally enable opportunities to use structures on city streets for political expression. Staff have reviewed the relevant by-laws of many other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States including Victoria, Surrey, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and Washington D. C. None of their bylaws permit structures for the purpose of political expression on public streets. The proposed bylaw will be unprecedented in North America.

This just in from the Rize people

This Mount Pleasant site was previously identified by the city’s Mount Pleasant Community Plan (the result of three years of community consultation by the city with area residents) as one of two sites suitable for high rise and high density, partially due to its proximity to the busy Broadway corridor.
After extensive community input, including a March 20th community workshop where locals voiced strong opposition, Rize revised its rezoning application for the Kingsway and Broadway site and they showcased the changes yesterday.
 
The changes include:
 
·         Overall height reduced by 27%- from 26 storeys to 19 storeys
·         Low massing changes-height and form of massing at Broadway similar to Lee Building, masonry arcade similar to Lee Building added along Broadway, height reduced 1 story at Kingsway and 1 storey at Watson with setback penthouses added along Broadway.
·         Overall density reduced by 17%- before 6.44 FSR, now 5.33 FSR

[Read more →]

My tweets yesterday conveyed the confusion many of us were feeling as we listened to the complex explanations of how Olympic village losses are defined in accounting terms by city manager Penny Ballem.

I still can’t claim to understand all of it. One thing that was pretty clear was that there are two very different ways of looking at the world: the accountants’ way and the public’s way, as I noted also in my story today.

In the end, I felt as though the city manager and everyone at the city would have done all of us a huge favour if they had presented the information like this:

“Okay, people, in the financial statements next week, you will see that we are writing down $48 million on the Olympic village, i.e. subtracting that much from what we originally calculated as the value of the village overall. This is a kind of a technical number and I’ll try to take you through it. But you should understand that this is only one way of talking about the finances of the village. In the bigger picture and in many people’s eyes, the losses should also include the money we will likely never get for the land and it doesn’t include the whole separate issue of the social housing and it doesn’t include the money we spent on public infrastructure ($87 million) that we thought would be paid for by the land sale and now won’t be.”

I think we all could have grasped that and would have avoided some of the questions now arising.

There are still things we don’t know, like the assumptions that the city’s finance department people have made in order to determine what they think the village’s ultimate revenues and losses will be.

I am also still not sure that I understand the column of numbers that was presented on what will appear in the city’s financial statement. And, although I get that accounting is different from public perception, I’d really like to hear from people in the accounting world about whether the city’s calculations could have been done differently.

For the number wonks, I am going to post the information we were given that is going to be in the financial statement, some of which I am really not sure I understand.

Here goes, direct from the handout, with my comments *at the side:

[Read more →]

The story today in Gary Mason’s column, which I explore more in my story, is the real number for the losses at the Olympic village, why the assets from Millennium Development’s large real-estate empire didn’t cover that, and what the consequences are for us taxpayers.

I have to add here that I feel personally misled by what happened at the news conference on Friday, where the city aka city manager Penny Ballem explained the “$40-50 million write-down” the city would have to take on the village, which everyone understood to be the loss on the total amount of money owing on the village — both the $580 construction loan and the $180-million unpaid amount owing on the land.

I specifically asked, in fact, whether we could interpret the numbers to mean that, actually, the construction loan would end up getting paid off in full and that loss would only mean that the city wouldn’t get back the full amount it thought it was getting for the land. As you know, that’s what I wrote in my blog post.

That was the moment for someone, anyone, to say, “No, you’ve got it wrong. We’re actually unlikely to get anything for the land and the write-down is on the construction loan.”

But the answer I got was something like, “Well, that’s not the way we word it.” I responded along the lines of, “Well, that’s the way we in the media will write it” with the clear implication being, “If this is absolutely wrong, now is the time to say so.” That didn’t happen, so we all went on to explain to the public that the $50-million loss was on the total debt.

I can’t understand what the thinking was behind explaining things this way. Yes, I realize some among you will say, it’s perfectly understandable, that Vision Vancouver, Penny Ballem et all are just evil liars with a clear plan to dupe the media.

But how could they think this number wouldn’t be questioned, analyzed, poked and prodded to death and that it would become clear in very short order that, in fact, the land debt was not included in the total loss?

A huge mistake. Now it’s hard to have faith in the calculations that went into coming up with the $50 million loss number. We already don’t have a clue what kinds of assumptions are built into the calculations, so we were having to take it on trust that various items like accumulating interest, time to sell all the condos, the rental stream, and more were built it. On trust. Hmm, thinking about that one.

Some confusion is still swirling around the news the city released Friday about the assets it has recovered from Millennium Developments, the loss it has said it is likely to declare, and more. There’s too much information to digest all at once, but here is the city’s PowerPoint and here are the highlights as I see them.

– In financial statements to be issued April 21, the city will declare a $40-50 million write-down (exact number to be firmed up by then) of its Olympic village debt. That debt, as of April 1, was $579.5 million on the construction loan and $178.4 million owing on the land.

– As I read it, that means the city expects at this point to get back all the money it needs to pay off the loan that it borrowed from elsewhere (at 2.5 per cent interest) but will not get the full price it expected for the land.

– That $40-50 million is attempting to take into account everything likely to be paid out to the receiver, to be paid out in interest, to be paid out to fix deficiencies, but there are no firm numbers attached to any of those yet.

– It also takes into account the fact that the city has now taken over all Millennium assets that were originally pledged as security that are actually worth something, estimated at $56-70 million. It hasn’t bothered lining up to get money from three properties because they’re judged to be underwater — mortgaged for more than they’re worth: the Evelyn Drive property in West Vancouver, the numerous parts of the Hermitage development downtown that Millennium still owned, and a small Whistler condo.

– However, the city is now the proud owner of the Province building, some large blocks of assembled land in West Van and North Van, a property on Pender and some key properties in Burnaby, including the current FedEx site that has been rezoned for a residential tower. It also has a $5-million “mortgage” on the controversial Alexandra building in the West End. If the building makes enough of a profit to pay off its two other lenders first, the city will get that $5 million. Expect people who didn’t like the STIR program in the West End to be deeply suspicious about that.

[Read more →]

As I reported earlier this week, Metro Vancouver was preparing to ask the province to step in and order binding resolution for the standoff between the region and Coquitlam, the only municipality that has delivered a resounding no to the new Regional Growth Strategy.

To no one’s surprise, it voted this afternoon to do that.

REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY DELAYED BY SINGLE MUNICIPALITY’S NO VOTE

Despite approval by 23 of 24 involved local authorities, adoption of Metro Vancouver’s new Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) will be significantly delayed, the region’s Board of Directors noted today.

The City of Coquitlam has declined to approve the strategy, despite intensive efforts to accommodate its concerns, triggering a provincially-mandated dispute resolution process that could take months to complete.

“It is indeed unfortunate that, after many years of hard work, consultation and collaborative problem solving this important strategy is being held up,” said Board Chair Lois Jackson.  “Balancing local and regional responsibilities, controlling sprawl, focussing development – particularly employment – where it can be served by transit, preserving important agricultural lands and green spaces and ensuring the availability of industrial lands so critical to our economy, all of which the RGS does, is absolutely critical as we accommodate the next million people who will call Metro Vancouver home,” Chair Jackson said.

Metro Vancouver is required under provincial legislation to prepare a regional growth management strategy in collaboration with its member municipalities.  The legislation requires unanimous acceptance by all local authorities affected by the strategy, including neighbouring regional districts and Translink, and in the event unanimity is not reached, lays out a series of dispute resolution options.  The Metro Vancouver Board resolved to ask the provincial government to proceed to binding resolution in an effort to expedite the process.

“In a strategy of this nature it is inevitable that municipalities will identify concerns with some of its elements.  With every municipality but one, we have been able to work through the specifics and arrive at mutually agreeable solutions,” according to Metro Vancouver’s Regional Planning Committee Chair Derek Corrigan.  “In Coquitlam’s case, their objections seem far more directed at the intent of the legislation itself, rather than any particular components of the Regional Growth Strategy.  We have, at the regional level, bent over backwards in an effort to accommodate Coquitlam without success.  It is clear that only binding resolution will provide a solution.”

As I type this, speakers, councillors and staff are talking about a bylaw amendment that staff came up with to try to resolve the Falun Gong hut in front of the Chinese consulate situation.

My story from this morning’s Globe here and a stream of tweets emerging from the meeting, with staff explaining so far that this will in no way change people’s ability to protest in the city. Though it will prohibit Falun Gong from putting up any kind of structure in front of the consulate and it will require groups to come up with a $1,000 security deposit and $200 application fee to do so in zones where protest structures are permitted.

A lot of love letters to Vancouver this week, as the city launches its official birthday celebration today.

I have to admit that, much as I frequently feel grumpy about my city, I have woken up more than once and thought first thing in the morning, “I’m so glad that I didn’t grow up in Regina.”

Proud as I am of my Saskatchewan roots, I firmly believe Vancouver gave me a chance to sample many more futures for myself than I would have had back on the Prairies.

This is a city where people have come for generations in hope, sure that no matter how crummy things are for them when they arrive, life will surely get better. As Edward Glaeser writes in The Triumph of Cities (current bedtime reading), successful cities attract the poor in large numbers, because they offer the chance for escape that rural towns and smaller cities frequently can’t.

But, oh boy, there is so much that’s still annoying about this city, if I can be the fly in the ointment for just a moment on the day of our civic love-in.

Amid our beautiful setting, we produce some of the world’s ugliest housing. In a city that epitomizes international connection, as immigrants arrive and our residents take off to work in all parts of the world, we are populated with a noticeable contingent of scarily parochial residents and politicians. Our self-regard is off-putting. And there are too many people in significant positions here who think the city can survive on resource pillaging and consumption industries as the base of its economy.

So I wish us happy birthday, but, as I did in the years of difficult adolescence in our household, I look forward to the years when our civic brain fully matures.

Do you, like Andie McDowell, in sex, lies and videotape, lie awake at night worrying about where all the garbage will go?

I have to confess, I occasionally do. Every bag of trash that I fill seems like another straw on the planet’s back. (A sign that I’m a hopeless liberal, probably.)

So it was anxiety-reducing to talk to people who are garbage geeks about what the future holds. As it turns out, it holds a lot of wrangling about what the ultimate garbage solution is, as I explore in my Vancouver magazine story.

At the end, I don’t think there is one solution and neither does anyone, really. A lot can be recycled — but perhaps not as much as we think. Much of what we now consider to be recycling is just garbage delayed one step. It’s recycled once … and THEN thrown away.

Some can be burned. But not everything. That means that what we’re likely to see in the foreseeable future is considerable pushing and pulling to arrive at the ratios for each, with a lot of new technology and processes and thinking about different ways to change the familiar.

Plus a lot of thinking about what we as humans are ultimately capable of. Can we invent the perfect solution? Can we change our own behaviour? Which is more likely?

Local politics has been overshadowed for the last several months by two provincial leadership races and now a federal election. That’s been rough for the NPA, whose adherents, thanks to CityCaucus’s energetic attacks on Vision, had been getting some traction last summer and early fall in their efforts to show Vision Vancouver and Mayor Gregor Robertson as less than perfect. Now, it seems like all I talk to is political campaigners telling me they’ve got no energy to jump into the local scene because they’re wrung out from the leadership races or preoccupied with the federal campaign.

As you politics junkies know, the NPA nominating meeting is set for June 5 and any candidates who want to run under the NPA banner have to declare themselves by May 4, two days after the federal election. I understand the phone lines have been burning lately as the NPA exec tries to get the uncertain to make up their minds what they’re doing.

The trick for party members is to identify what they stand for that people besides their rock-solid base of 30,000 voters — who will never vote for any party they view as being even mildly left and who hate the bike lanes — are willing to come out to the polls for.

So far, the rumours about mayoral candidates have been about three possibles: big-time developer Rob Macdonald; councillor Suzanne Anton, of course; and one name that I’ve been hearing more about, Rick Peterson, an investment adviser who runs the Burgundy Club lunches popular among the plugged in, also a one-time candidate for the B.C. Liberals in the Vancouver-False Creek riding that Mary McNeil eventually nabbed.

For Macdonald, the challenge would be overcoming the perception that he’s the left-winger’s stereotype of what the NPA is (west-siders in bed with developers) and in developing a broader platform than he’s articulated so far (against the way the downtown bike lanes were done, against Vision’s management of the Olympic village).

For Anton, the challenge is how she differentiates herself from Vision Vancouver platforms, being the cycling, laneway-house, anti-plastic-bag advocate that she is. Most of her attacks on Vision, which frequently run parallel to CityCaucus commentaries, are about process rather than fundamental differences in goals.

Peterson has been the only one I’ve heard so far who articulates what might become a broad election issue: concern about the rising cost of living and doing business in Vancouver.

What any of those mayoral candidates need behind them as well is a team that has more than just business people and/or developers on it — again, because the NPA is stereotyped as the well-off west-siders’s party, it has to work doubly hard to counter that image. So it needs people from all parts of the city and needs people who have a strong background of community work.

A couple of months ago, the rumoured candidates I was hearing about did not fit that bill at all.

But it looks as though Francis Wong, well-known in Chinatown, is preparing to run. And Sean Bickerton, who ran last time and has been a big part of the anti-casino movement, is preparing to run again, if the notice of his important announcement about municipal politics to be made tomorrow is any indication.

I realize the conventional wisdom is that parties don’t get voted in as much as ruling parties get voted out. But I still think the NPA has to come up with something to vote for, not just against.

I’m waiting to see if anyone is going to try a Rob Ford, West Coast lite version, of “the gravy train stops here” with a focus on the economic and tax issues. Or if anyone in the NPA can come up with an identity for the party besides “We’re not Vision.”