Talking Points to Power

City Conversation #64: Some thoughts to inform your 8th & Arbutus presentation

Jul 12, 2022

July 12, 2022—There are still 150 speakers lined up to talk to this proposed rezoning, which continues in two days. For those who are opposed, I offer some speaking points for your consideration, edited from my own remarks to Council—repetition helps

The community came together again and again to rally against this proposal—but is that enough?

Opposition from the science:

Science says this congregate low barrier housing proposal is a bad idea.
There is no independently peer-reviewed science supporting successful outcomes for this many folks with this many issues in this form of housing. Independently peer-reviewed science is an important concept here—it means data-based and objective rather than self-reported or subjective. By now there should be much independently peer-reviewed science (hereafter just science), but the provincial government shut down the funding of research in this area. In fact, the provincial government demanded that Dr. Julian Somers of Simon Fraser University destroy 17 years of such scientific data as soon as they cut his funding. Dr. Somers will speak later in the queue about his findings as they relate to this proposal.
The science that does exist supports a more distributed approach—fewer folks in each of many more facilities, with many more supports—an approach with real hope for improving the lives of all affected and better integrating with the neighbourhood. Unfortunately not part of this Mayor’s, most of Council and provincial government thinking, which has created the current problems.
Science says distributed housing is a good idea, which this is not.

Opposition from the Data

Brian Palmquist’s Homes for Whom database, which includes spot rezoning data suppressed by city staff, shows that the city has already completed spot rezoning of more than 11,000 rental homes that have not yet been built, plus over 20,000 rental homes that are in the current approvals queue, plus at least 12,000 rental homes contemplated in projects like Senakw’ and the Jericho Lands. That’s 43,000 rental homes, of which a small percentage could be distributed homes for the folks currently slotted into 8th and Arbutus—distributed housing is what is recommended by Dr. Julian Somers’s 17 years of research.

Opposition about the Detailed Architectural Design

The 129 proposed single occupancy metal prefab rooms are completely inflexible, can never be converted to couples or families. The architect and proponent have suggested that couples and families can occupy adjacent units, but there will be no communication except via a public hallway. These units cannot ever be adapted to house couples or families together.

Opposition about the Congregate Housing Planning Concept

One of the few permanent projects in the city anywhere close to the size of this project and with similar resident composition is the Marguerite Ford project, 147 homes in a high-rise format opened in 2013 near Olympic Village. Vancouver Police Department data about 911 calls to the area of this project shows that as compared to the average of calls in the two years preceding its opening, 911 calls increased 1700% in the two years from its opening. Various non-scientific folks, including the provincial Minister for Housing, David Eby, have assured Council and residents that after a settling in period all will return to normal. This does not explain why it is that eight years after its opening, this area still receives 1500% more 911 calls than it did before the project opened.

Another comparison supporters of this project, including Minister Eby, make is to the Sanford Apartments at Fir & 7th Avenue in Vancouver. It’s half the size of this proposal (62 homes versus 129) in a slightly shorter high-rise than this proposal and not too far east of it, so on paper a good comparison, especially as it is operated by the same folks as proposed for this project, MPA. When questioned, MPA confirmed they have never operated a project of this size or composition. The Sanford Apartments apparently allow some degree of drug use on site, but MPA and others have been unwilling to describe what’s actually permitted there—a curious hesitancy in itself. The fact that Minister Eby has specifically referred to this project in his don’t worry letter to Mayor and Council is confusing and unhelpful—a classic apples to oranges comparison.
Data around policing says this congregate housing as conceived will endanger its occupants and neighbours;

Opposition about a lack of substance

The applicants continue to decline to confirm what staffing and services will be offered at this proposed facility—it could be as few as two people, services could be few or many. Staff say these details are to be determined after the rezoning, by which time it will be too late for any community input.
The so-called research submissions from the nominated operator, MPA, as well as from BCHMC and city staff are narratives, self-reported outcomes and hopes, not supported by any data or science. Science supporting their approach has yet to be tabled at this committee hearing.

Perhaps this time we can make a Difference

Earlier speakers in the queue have detected a change in tone by some Councillors. Whereas the spot rezoning at Granville and Broadway felt like a decision already made, the more recent Broadway Plan deliberations were influenced by the 200+ members of the public who spoke, although the result was still a 7-4 vote in favour of that bad plan.

The applicant’s team includes six or more folks and there were just as many staff fielding questions from Council. Councillors’ questions were more focused than I have seen at earlier public hearings, and Councillors seemed annoyed when that many staff and applicant reps stonewalled on important issues like research supporting this form of housing (none offered) and the programming and staffing of this facility (apparently only coming at the development permit stage).

Calls to Action

It’s not too late now to speak to Council about this spot rezoning—you can sign up as long as the public hearing continues! There are already 270 speakers in the queue, of whom 120 have spoke so far. That 270 is 70 more than for the Broadway Plan, 100 more than for the False Creek South proposals sent back to staff by Council last last year. This momentum is important!
You can also email Mayor and Council with your thoughts right up until they finish deliberations—earlier would be better. They have received more than 1,200 written submissions opposing the proposal so far, plus a 1,400+ petition against, and I believe these are having an effect. BUT there have been close to 500 submissions supporting the proposal, and proponents are very experienced at mobilizing support. Don’t take anything for granted.

It’s always best to offer your own reasons for supporting or opposing this project—be as brief or expansive as you wish. But try not to fall into the trap of copy/pasting the thoughts of others—doing so diminishes the power of your message.

Vancouver’s civic election is October 15th of this year. Lots more damage can be done to our city before that date—and it will continue, and worsen, unless TEAM for a Livable Vancouver elects a majority (6 of 10) City Councillors—less than 6 and not much will change. If you are concerned that what you’ve just read is an example of what’s wrong with our city, and want to bring back its livability, join TEAM and work with us to restore Vancouver as a place we can all afford to call home.

Today’s question: Are you in favour of this spot rezoning?

City Conversations

Discussion about this post