31 responses so far ↓

• 1 jesse // Sep 29, 2010 at 11:55 pm

  If there are uncertainties surrounding the “green” technologies, can’t the City underwrite this or have provided some other warranty mechanism?

  The City should have been well aware of potential bidders’ reservations. If the uncertainties of the construction technology is a deal-breaker I’d think a modification of the tender addressing these NPOs’ concerns would be reasonable. I still can’t help thinking there is something else going on here. A massive wave of no-bids (not even low-balls!) based solely on some potential maintenance issues doesn’t smell right. Now the City wants to go it alone when a competitive tender process fails? That should be setting off alarm bells.

• 2 michael geller // Sep 30, 2010 at 12:38 am

  I hate to keep dwelling on this, but I think the city will make a bad situation worse by ignoring the messages coming from the province and try to ‘go it alone’ with the Portland Hotel Society.

  I would like to make it clear that I am not normally opposed to mixing market and non-market housing. As the federal government’s Special Coordinator for the Phase One redevelopment of the South Shore of False Creek, I helped the city achieve its one third low income, one third mid income and one third higher income social mix. As Program Manager-Social Housing for CMHC I oversaw the development of thousands of social housing units, many of which were integrated with market developments. As the President of the SFU Community Trust I helped create a social mix by including both housing for students in smaller ‘suites within suites’ and non-market faculty and staff housing at UniverCity.

  However, in this particular situation, I think the time has come for the city to admit that it might be better to accommodate lower income households on the immediately adjacent City-owned sites , and allow some or all of these 126 social housing units and 126 market rental units to be sold as more affordable ownership units.

  Priority could be given to those seeking ‘workforce’ housing in the city including firefighters, police officers, school teachers, etc. To differentiate this housing from the market condominiums, the land could be leased, rather than sold.

  Over time, as the city’s financial position improves, some units could be bought back and used social housing, if so desired.

  I reiterate this suggestion since it would help the city recoup its costs, and maybe even make a small profit, rather than incur over $60 million in subsidies, some of which are being used to subsidize high income people to move into the market units.

  According to the staff report that was considered by council last April, the city could make up to $60 million+ by selling the units. That’s a $120 million+ swing between renting and selling.

  City staff feared that selling these units would negatively impact the sale of the market units. I would suggest the opposite is true. If the Portland Hotel Society, (which I understand to be the preferred bidder, and which has an admirable track record dealing with the hard-to-house in the DTES) is the selected operator, many potential buyers of the condominium units could be deterred from buying. We are starting to hear this message from many real estate experts and urban commentators. In other words, this type of social housing could reduce the value of the market units.

  Another reason why I am so concerned in this instance is that mixing the very rich with the very poor usually does not create a good community. This is very hard to do successfully. I would note that former city alderman Libby Davies (whose judgment and compassion I have often admired) and housing advocate Jim Green supported this view when consideration was being given to housing the very rich and very poor together at Bayshore in Coal Harbour. In the end, politicians from all political parties agreed that a ‘payment in lieu’ was a preferable approach for some of the units, and the Performing Arts Lodge was approved for the balance. This ended up as an award winning solution.

  Another reason for selling the units would be to reduce the city’s potential losses on this development. I do not pretend to know all the numbers, but I do know that the city was counting on getting the balance of the $193 million land payment to pay for the cost of the extensive infrastructure and community amenities. While we don’t talk about it, I have been advised by city staff that most, if not all of the city works have gone over budget. The land payment from Millennium was to cover these costs. Now it appears this payment may not be made.

  In addition, the city has lent Millennium the money to complete the project. I am advised that the city is not likely to get all of this loan repaid from the proceeds of the sales. The only question is how much are we going to lose. By selling the social housing and market rental units the city to could help reduce potential losses.

  (If it is politically impossible for this council to sell the social housing units, then at least sell the rental units. Why should we as taxpayers be subsidizing people to live in them? And we are, since the proposed rents, even at $1600 a month and more, are not sufficient to cover the costs and a nominal return on equity.)

  Furthermore, Millennium is having some difficulty renting its 129 market rental units. That’s right. Millennium has rental units that are only 35% leased to date. And the city still hasn’t rented all of its units at 1 Kingsway after 9 months. Why bring more market rental units to market, especially when no one appears to want to manage them.

  Some will say that my comments should be ignored since they are just politically motivated. They are not. Rather they are based on four decades experience in the development of market and non-market housing across Canada. They are based on what I think is common sense, rather than political ideology. As I said on the Bill Good Show, I think this Vision Council is often well intentioned, and it has accomplished many good things. But it has made a number of mistakes, and continuing to try and keep these expensive and inappropriately designed units as social housing and market rental housing could be a very damaging and costly mistake.

  I therefore urge the City administration and Council to not ‘go it alone’. Please reconsider your April decision in light of the current situation. And if someone tells you that you can’t go back on a pledge you made five years ago to the International Olympic Committee, tell them that the situation has changed. There are some urgent housing needs in the city, and this is the most prudent course of action. I am confident that they will understand.

  In summary, in time the Olympic Village will be a wonderful community. But it needs some wise decisions over the coming months, to help this to happen. Let’s start by reconsidering the future of these units.

• 3 Roger Kemble // Sep 30, 2010 at 4:29 am

  “. . . South Shore of False Creek, I helped the city achieve its one third low income, one third mid income and one third higher income social mix.” A very enlightened project of a different era. Congrats on your part Michael.

  FCS demonstrates that market and social can live close together happily.

  However some FCS occupants have become successful and maybe it is time for them to make space for their impecunious neighbours: but we have been thru that already haven’t we!

  As for OV . . .
  http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemble/4.down.town/athletes.village/athletes.village.html

  . . . it’s a damn shame its come to this.

  Although an over exuberant belief in green building may exacerbate costs, and I believe that to be true as well as being nonsense, maybe it is time to seriously look at affordable housing in the context of fractional reserve banking for that is where the problem lies.

  I know, I know a red herring but that is where our housing dilemma lies and the sooner we begin to climb that mountain the better.

  The notion OV is . . . errrr . . . too posh for social offends me.

• 4 Roger Kemble // Sep 30, 2010 at 6:13 am

  PS . . . “In summary, in time the Olympic Village will be a wonderful community. But it needs some wise decisions over the coming months, to help this to happen. Let’s start by reconsidering the future of these units.”

  Michael, you sound as though you have all the solutions up you your sleeve. Social mix is not the problem and I will refrain from accusing the marketers of using that as an excuse.

  The fact is OV is exemplary urbanism I would be proud to live in if I had the where-with-all.

  Unfortunately it has come on the market at a very bad time that will NOT ameliorate anytime soon and if you were worth your salt that would be your counsel.

• 5 Frances Bula // Sep 30, 2010 at 6:33 am

  @ jesse. As I understand it, the city did offer to provide a big reserve fund (as that question arose during the bidding process) that non-profits could use in case of any unusual issues surrounding the maintenance of any new and unfamiliar systems. I agree with you that there is something extremely odd about this process, with so many groups choosing not to bid.

• 6 Wendy // Sep 30, 2010 at 6:44 am

  Michael,

  Thanks for the helpful explanation and analysis. Further question for you since you’ve seen more of the numbers. Would there be a business case on both sides for the city to sell the buildings as market-rental apartments to an owner-operator?

  Given STIR has had some troubles, and these buildings are complete and available, making them permanent market rental housing might be another option. City might not make a $60 M profit, but maybe breaking even would be enough politically with the guarantee that these would always be rental units.

  Maybe a professional apartment manager/owner could fill up the units faster. Getting people into that village is what is needed for the condo sales and the retailers.

• 7 Roger Kemble // Sep 30, 2010 at 7:05 am

  Let us not ignore, there are many local housing NGO managers who’s salaries, essentially, depend on maintaining the status quo . . .

• 8 michael geller // Sep 30, 2010 at 8:02 am

  Wendy, I do not pretend to know all the numbers. However, based on what the staff have publicly reported, the cost of the social housing and rental units on a per square foot basis is much higher than what can be supported by market rental housing. Furthermore, the size of many of the units is more suited to a condominium than a rental unit.

  This information was presented to city staff late last year by some very knowledgeable people, but it was not shared with Council in the April Council Report.

  In other words, if the city was to sell the units in bulk to an investor, I doubt it could recover all its costs if the purchaser had to guarantee that they would remain as rental in perpetuity. Furthermore, the city would get nothing for the land component related to these units. This money is really needed to pay for all the site improvements.

  I know this seems hard to believe, but it demonstrates just how costly these units are. Why? Because of the building form, some exterior materials, green features, and cost overruns associated with having to meet a very important deadline.

  So converting all the units to market rental may be the worst of all possible solutions.

  I note in todays well written Vancouver Sun piece by Doug Ward that Andrea Reimer and the Mayor don’t understand why the province rejected the managements bids. That is because the matter is much more complex than either of them appreciate. I don’t pretend to fully understand the situation, and it used to be my job to manage such agreements while at CMHC. But this project is very unusual, and potentially a major liability for an operator without government guarantees.

  Let me conclude by saying I am disturbed by the CBC’s Rick Cluff and others referring to the project as a ‘white elephant’. It isn’t. While the community design may not be everyone’s cup of tea, as Roger and others have pointed out, it is a new form of urbanism, and will one day be a very desirable place to live.

  But there are some serious financial challenges facing the city, and I just wish decisions could be based on fiscal responsibility and common sense, rather than political ideology. I would also like the decision makers to have a better understanding of the real situation. Listening to the Mayor on the radio this morning, and reading Andrea’s comments, I do not believe this is the case at present. I hope they will seek opinions from other real estate and housing experts before ‘going it alone’ especially with the Portland Hotel Society (no disrespect Liz and Mark, but in reviewing your stated objectives and very successful track record, this really isn’t your kind of project. Furthermore, your involvement could send the wrong message to potential condominium purchasers in terms of who will be living in the units.)

• 9 Roger Kemble // Sep 30, 2010 at 8:22 am

  Michael, I bow to your superior experience but there is a solution that may well turn out to be fact . . .

  Accept Millenium is insolvent: on other projects in addition to OV.

  Undertake a fire sale at prevailing going rates.

  There is no light at the end of this tunnel and the sooner the city gets out from under the easier it will be.

  It will take a bath but that will probably be the least expensive scenario when it all shakes out.

• 10 Chris Keam // Sep 30, 2010 at 8:43 am

  Make it rent to own and the thousands and thousands of people who can afford a monthly payment but don’t have a down payment would clamor to move in. Plus, they’d probably be willing to accept the higher price in a ‘down’ market. What are the roadblocks to that scenario?

• 11 Roger Kemble // Sep 30, 2010 at 9:13 am

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D22TlYA8F2E&feature=player_embedded#!

• 12 IanS // Sep 30, 2010 at 9:16 am

  I don’t know how “rent to own” would work in the context of the specific project, but, generally speaking, “rent to own” structures have some significant drawbacks.

  Firstly, there is the issue of title. Who has title during the rent to own period? Typically, with a mortgage, the owner is on title and gets a little more equity with each payment. Rent to own doesn’t really work like that, which leads to issues such as exigibility (what if you want to sell, after renting to own for five years?).

  Secondly, there are significant costs associated with maintaining the property. Do you work that into the rental amount? If not, who pays for it? If so, how does that factor into the “ownership” interest of the rent to own process?

  If you want to go down that route, I would think an incentive along the lines of an interest free loan to make the down payment would be more effective, though that has its own challenges.

• 13 Wendy // Sep 30, 2010 at 9:29 am

  Thanks Michael for the detailed response. That’s what I was afraid of (the cost per unit is so high that there is no way to sell a building as a rental apartment and recover enough of the costs to build the structure in the first place).

  I agree that one day it will be a great neighbourhood and community. It will have everything, it just needs more time.

• 14 MB // Sep 30, 2010 at 9:50 am

  Thank you Michael for your insight.

  I’ve always thought that Council’s past and present social and rental housing objectives could have been met much more equitably on land just outside of the Millennium site. Land at the periphery of the waterfront site never had the incumberances of the Olympic construction deadlines and the watery financial footing of a private developer associated with the site, yet is still close enough to all the amenities False Creek and Fairview / Mount Pleasant has to offer.

  The huge debt the city of Vancouver has taken responsibility for to meet Olympic objectives is now complicated ever more by the social and rental housing issues. But the upper nine-figure debt is the real landslide hanging over the head of every Vancouverite who pays taxes and depends on city services.

  I would remind those outside the city who would delight in Vancouver defaulting on loans exceeding a half billion dollars that it’s your loss as well as ours. Senior governments may well have to bail out the city in the worst case scenario. New York City was prepared to declare bancruptcy in the 70s after the US federal government rejected a bailout. They came to their senses once they realized the national economic ramifications of a big city going broke. In Vancouver the situation was driven by a Metro, provincial and federal desire to host the Olympics. That was not Vancouver’s lone effort, therefore the resulting economic ramifications must eventually lead to a multi-level response.

  I would also venture to say that the energy alternatives and conservation measures built in to the project design will benefit the residents over the long run, though they did increase the cost per unit. I don’t have the numbers, but I suggest they weren’t as significant a factor as other costs. Things like efficient district heating systems tapping waste heat streams (like sewers) will lower the operating costs borne permanently by residents and help lower emissions from buildings, something that is becoming increasingly important as this century progresses.

  All too often operating cost savings — which can be far more significant over time — are drowned out by the immediate fixation on capital costs. This is why I have little patience with those who pass off serious “green” building features as a light case of technophilia.

• 15 Dave // Sep 30, 2010 at 10:03 am

  @MB

  Well put!
  the achilles heel is that Millenium may well deafult on the $75 Million loan.
  Then what????

  The $49 Million indeminity Meggs is talking about are more Dollars to be insured and who will be paying for that?

  An then we have Portland Housing Society and the issues around that organization and seemingly the wish of some councillors to have them operate the units.

  http://archive.vancourier.com/issues03/093103/news/093103nn1.html

  This smells and the stench is getting worse by the day!

• 16 Roger Kemble // Sep 30, 2010 at 10:20 am

  @ MB . . .

  “I would remind those outside the city who would delight in Vancouver defaulting on loans exceeding a half billion dollars that it’s your loss as well as ours.”

  A ha . . . and fear not Sir . . . that is my point . . . .

• 17 Morven // Sep 30, 2010 at 10:40 am

  We do not need to know the details (nor should we for valid commercial reasons) but we need to be reassured that the city and their independent financial advisers, have looked at all the risks and scenarios not just the politically attractive ones.

  And yes, anything that undermined Vancouver would be fatal to the present provincial government’s economic outlook.
  -30-

• 18 MB // Sep 30, 2010 at 11:51 am

  @ Morven 17

  The economic recovery, if one can call it that, looks now like it’s still on shaky ground. One little spike in the price in a big commodity like oil could tip the financial firms that barely survived the Great Recession of ’09 over the edge.

  It ain’t over yet, and I don’t really believe the city’s financial advisors have their eye trained far enough out into the sea of the international economy.

  One cannot take Sam’s decree about the “low risk” of selling luxury waterfront condos in Vancouver to the bank.

• 19 ThinkOutsideABox // Sep 30, 2010 at 12:05 pm

  @Roger, @Dave

  Millenium doesn’t default, they just get more giveaways from the city.

  Council has allowed them the rezoning of land at the corner of Davie and Bidwell to build another condo tower with a partial STIR/rental component in which the bonus density awarded surpasses the floor space of the rental units.

  All that’s left is for Brent Toderian to rubber stamp the development permit.

• 20 Sean Bickerton // Sep 30, 2010 at 12:32 pm

  @MB – no more, apparently, than we can take to the bank Gregor’s ’08 decree that he had saved the project.

  It was his decision to violate the city’s Charter by borrowing a 1/2 Billion dollars without a referendum that has landed us where we are today, and apparently he now thinks the answer is to have the city’s taxpayers take on even more debt.

  To paraphrase Sam Rayburn, $100,000,000 here and a $100,000,000 there, and pretty soon we’re talking about real money …

• 21 Tom // Sep 30, 2010 at 12:48 pm

  Regardless of the expertise of many at city hall, I think its time to call for outside help, and let the people of Vancouver decide what to do.

  We now have a council horribly mismanaging this situation, all the while blaming the previous council (at least the NPA component of said council).

  Its time to admit that none of the people on council are experts in real estate (that should be obvious), and none of the staff at city hall, Madame Ballum included, have any experience in dealing with this level of real estate issue.

  So hire an expert, or several, completely immune from political and social pressures to come up with recommendations and let Vancouverites vote on what to do.

  Its our money and I’m tired of subsequent councils f–king this up. Its time that the people decide, those holding the keys have shown they aren’t competent to do so any longer.

• 22 JamieLee // Sep 30, 2010 at 12:59 pm

  I can’t believe what you have said Michael Geller. The Portland is a good organization and please don’t forget that they have another mandate besides housing the hard-to-house. They have enriched the community fabric of the DTES for over two decades. They also operate successful business operations which I believe is a testament of bringing together the affluent and less affluent in our society.

  I can’t believe that you would write that somehow if the Portland was involved that they would scare away those who are wealthy.

  I am getting sick and tired of the belief that this City is for the exclusive use of the rich.

  The late and very popular Councillor Harry Rankin fought against this City becoming solely an executive-class City and no disrespect Michael but your comments are inflammatory.

  On a political level, I like voting for a mix of Councillors including the various party candidates but if the NPA and its candidates who often post on blogs go on record opposing affordable housing at the Village all of you can expect to go down in flames.

  Targeting lower-income citizens saying they they are the cause of all the City’s woes is truly disrespectful.

• 23 toc tik // Sep 30, 2010 at 1:23 pm

  Michael, thank you for laying out a reasoned, logical path out of this mess.

  I too would like to put politics aside on this matter & request the current Council heed Michael’s advice which is key to protecting the City’s financial position & to making this project a success in a new way.

  I have not had Michael’s long & impressive career in helping to provide mixed tenancy housing throughout our province for many years but, I was a member of the False Creek Planning Committee of City Council in 1973 to 74 which planned the successful 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 South False Creek project & set the 20% social housing policy for North False Creek & other major developments in the City. As such & in my architectural practice I have also had considerable housing development experience. In the process I have seen the good & the bad.

  Michael’s advice is good, please take it.

  –a repost from City Caucus.

• 24 Dave // Sep 30, 2010 at 1:25 pm

  @JamieLee

  The social housing aspect (ie: the low income earner component) isn’t the issue, it’s the mismanagement of the entire project and the unrealisitic political expectations placed on it by the previous COPE/Vision council and the current one.

  With $46 Million on the table, you would think more than 3 of the original 22 interested parties would have submitted bids and some very experienced organizations would have come to the table but the fact is they haven’t. That speaks volumes by itself.

  In addition, there are many questions that remain unresolved about the PHS. If they were qualified to operate the project, I suspect they would have been chosen.

  There are so many questions that remain unaswered and some sweetheart deal guaranteed by the City to an operator of last resort is more than worrisome.

  Even worse is the mayor’s statement that he wants to get them filled ASAP. Well Duh Don’t we all , but a short term politically expediant fix is not going to solve the long term issue of how best to proceed.

  What’s really sad is that those that really need housing are being used as pawns by Councillors because of deals made by the very people who exacerbated the situation.

  Indeed the roosters (err chickens) have come home to roost!

• 25 Bill McCreery // Sep 30, 2010 at 1:29 pm

  For what it’s worth for those who care I tried using toc tik to see how it felt. Don’t like it & hopefully this post will delete it.

• 26 michael geller // Sep 30, 2010 at 11:46 pm

  Jamie Lee, I do not oppose social housing in South East False Creek. But I do oppose it on this site, since I am advised that many of the units are costing over $500,000 and they are too expensive to operate. I propose that twice as many units be built for the same money on adjacent city owned lands.

  None of us know just how much money the city could lose on this project, but I have reason to believe we could lose the $173 million still owing on the land, and an 8 or 9 figure portion of the outstanding loan. This is serious money. Especially when the city does not have funds to help Entre Nous Femmes and other coops and non-profits that are in living in leaky buildings that are desperately in need of funds to remain livable.

  So Jamie Lee, it is not a simple matter. And as for the Portland Hotel Society, the reason some condominium buyers would be concerned with their involvement in the project is set out on a number of websites, for instance….

  Program Description: Portland Hotel Society
  Non profit housing society that provides supportive living space for the hardest ‘hard to house ‘ people in the DTES with no other options. Also provides a housing service and advocacy.

  Mission/General Description of Portland Hotel Society:

  Promote, develop and maintain supportive affordable housing for adult individuals who are hard to house and at risk of homelessness due to their physical and/or mental health, behaviour, substance dependencies, and forensic history.

  The society designed the goals and objectives of the property to reflect the overall mandate of the Portland Hotel Society. Their mission was to promote development, advocacy and the implementation of creative services for individuals living with concurrent disorders.

  The Portland Hotel Society is committed to promoting development, advocacy and implementation of creative services for individuals living with substance misuse difficulties.

  It may be a wonderful organization, but many people being asked to pay over a $ 1 million for a new condominium will be concerned that this is the organization picked by the city to select the residents to live next door.

• 27 Roger Kemble // Oct 1, 2010 at 9:11 am

  @ Michael . . .

  OV buildings designated social are stand alone.

  Am I right?

  Therefore when I shell out my hard earned, justly deserved, billions to live in water front luxury, close to my yacht, lest my crew bugger off with it in the night, in the greenest city in the whole wide world: replete with world class, paradisiacal views of mountains thru designated view cones, which I am told by one exalted retired planner, is a heart felt gift to the citizens of said knighted city etc., at least until the next planning department approved developer rampage. Said views are, sin embargo, despite thu big hearted planner, a gift paid for by said exalted citizens . . .

  And since the untidy hoi polio is conveniently separated in stand alone, sound and smell proof, concrete I will not have to suffer proximity to a stinking teen age cow with umpteen kids sucking off her over extended, etiolated udders in public . . .

  So, ladies and gentlemen, if indeed I am right, then let the sales commence . . . and God be with us all (even the stinkies) . . .

• 28 JamieLee // Oct 1, 2010 at 9:40 am

  Well Michael, I dis-agree with you. Average to lower income citizens have the right to live there. Just because Olympic Village is marketed as a luxury waterfront property does not mean all others are exclude save for the wealthy.

  In case you don’t know Michael more affluent people also have social problems in life. Are we now going to exclude those who may offend others based on how they look, act or smell?

  I am sorry that we are in this Olympic mess. But let us not forget that the public paid for the Olympics and it will be the public deciding whether the less affluent receive what they were promised.

  The public will have a say in what they want this City to look like and I suspect if this is the attitude of NPA candidates there will be another shut out of the NPA. This would be too bad because I think some NPA candidates are good choices including you Michael but I can promise you if this is an NPA stand there are going to be rocky times ahead.

• 29 Roger Kemble // Oct 2, 2010 at 8:12 am

  @ Michael 2 . . .

  False Creek South and Granville Island: a ha those were heady days.

  “ I would like to make it clear that I am not normally opposed to mixing market and non-market housing. (you shouldn’t be, it is still working very well at FCS). As the federal government’s Special Co-ordinator for the Phase One redevelopment of the South Shore of False Creek, I helped the city achieve its one third low income, one third mid income and one third higher income social mix.”

  I had a little to do with both: I did Creek House, (Sandbars) on Granville Island, which was little more than replacing the exterior metal siding, paint job and clearing the interior ready for tenant configuration.

  I wrote copious articles on FCS and GI for Canadian Architect and other publications and hobnobbed with the all participants.

  I had a beautiful lady friend who bought in on FCS waterfront: very well designed I must say (her unit too), especially for over nights. Oh and by the way many of the unwashed lived close by and we danced with all of them (I understand their rents were reasonable: I owned on Kits Point) in Leg-in-Boot Square on many a warm, sunny evening.

  Of course I couldn’t resist sounding off at the many public meetings and all the fun stuff.

  King Ganong was CMHC’s go to person at the time. Where did you fit in?

  Cameron Gray was the city’s real estate manager: FCS is a suburb on the waterfront, Cameron said to me, pejoratively, in 1985!

  I remember meeting a very cordial, smiling young Michael at various functions but I do not remember you as a guiding light for any development. You were in Vancouver for a very brief time, as I recall, then off you went to bigger things.

  This aversion to social mix is new to the city, Michael. What were your responsibilities at FCS ?

• 30 Chris Keam // Oct 2, 2010 at 5:31 pm

  Suggested solution:

  Take the luxury condos off the market. Rich folk don’t want to mix with the working majority fine. Their loss. OV seems like it’s going to be a great neighbourhood in the fullness of time.

  Have all levels of government work together to house Olympic athletes in the swanky condos for free or low rent. Make them available to disabled veterans too. This would take some of the considerable financial pressure off Canadian Olympians and Forces personnel and give them the option of training in a region that has the best conditions for year round training, and all the necessary amenities for winter sports events, or in the case of soldiers, access to facilities such as G.F. Strong. In exchange, have the both groups work with the young people living in the social housing section of the Village to provide role models for the benefits of commitment, sacrifice, and goal-setting.

• 31 Chris Keam // Oct 2, 2010 at 10:18 pm

  Saw a comment on the Georgia Straight’s story on OV suggesting the vacant condos go to seniors on fixed incomes. An even better suggestion than mine.