City Conversation #59: When Vancouver city staff pit low barrier housing against schools and parks, a community comes together hoping not everyone loses
1. High density at a subway station makes perfect city planning sense, to increase ridership on the subways. If not there, where?
2. Supportive housing must be dispersed throughout the city, including Kits where I live. People who for many reasons, fall through the cracks, need our compassion not our fears.
3. The shadow on the park argument is a cover for no not “them”. Actually too much direct sun is bad for little kids. Ergo… sunscreen.
Certainly more professional social worker or psychologist inputs might find the right mix of residents in this building.
Argue that point & you may get a workable solution that Eby may accept.
Still sticking to my #1 and #2 however.
The Coalition’s vehemence is not helpful and does smell of NIMBY. Sorry, but the label is being used for a reason. And Eby will likely overrule Council if they reject it, for this reason.
I support this project for three reasons:
1. High density at a subway station makes perfect city planning sense, to increase ridership on the subways. If not there, where?
2. Supportive housing must be dispersed throughout the city, including Kits where I live. People who for many reasons, fall through the cracks, need our compassion not our fears.
3. The shadow on the park argument is a cover for no not “them”. Actually too much direct sun is bad for little kids. Ergo… sunscreen.
You’re probably right about #2 Brian.
Certainly more professional social worker or psychologist inputs might find the right mix of residents in this building.
Argue that point & you may get a workable solution that Eby may accept.
Still sticking to my #1 and #2 however.
The Coalition’s vehemence is not helpful and does smell of NIMBY. Sorry, but the label is being used for a reason. And Eby will likely overrule Council if they reject it, for this reason.