I realize that most of your commentary here is based onthe CIty of Vancouver, but David Eby ssees it differently.
You wrie: “There will always be some degree of opposition to any changes to a community, even where they are contemplated in its OCP. Some municipal Councils might bow to that community NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) pressure."
I bet you that eby has never read or even looked at the ocps of most munis, and neither have the elected councilors of those very same munis. Most of these confontations are based on lobbyying and statement made by residents at publ8c hearings, which are in turns, based on misinterpretations and misund3rstandings of ocps.
The fact is, the ocps of many of the small ond midsized munis are overly general, and filled with policies that contradict one another. For example, land use designations often cosist of ONLY the following: sf res, mf res, mixed use, commercial, institutional, and industrial. And then there are a bunch of policy statements that "encourage" and "discourage" different uses. Meaningless!
So, at a pubic hearing, when a specific devel proposal is under consideration, and one member of the publixc says it is too big and tall, and the ocp does not support it, they are probanly correct.
Another says the project meets the ocp pol8cy that encouragesaffordable housing. Yhey are right too.
The councilors, and david eby, hrear what they want to hear.
It iss best for the province to stay out of municipal land use decisions. If council makes decisions that are contrary to the wishes of local residents, the will hear about it at election time.
Theprovince is not closer to the local people than the muni.
Not only should the province not be meddling in OCPs. When they say that a particular project complies with an OCP and should be approved by council, or does not comply with an OCP and should not be approved by council, I can almost guarantee that the province (ie: David Eby) did not read the OCP, and is simply parroting what some lobbyist said.
Do you know what the most commonly repeated trope is that I have heard about OCPs? "OCPs are not carved in stone. They are guides.". Councilors and mayors say this all the time.
Let me know if you want me to attend. I'd have to think long and hard about how i could enntice him to do sometin urbanicly progressive that seems socialistically democratic.
I realize that most of your commentary here is based onthe CIty of Vancouver, but David Eby ssees it differently.
You wrie: “There will always be some degree of opposition to any changes to a community, even where they are contemplated in its OCP. Some municipal Councils might bow to that community NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) pressure."
I bet you that eby has never read or even looked at the ocps of most munis, and neither have the elected councilors of those very same munis. Most of these confontations are based on lobbyying and statement made by residents at publ8c hearings, which are in turns, based on misinterpretations and misund3rstandings of ocps.
The fact is, the ocps of many of the small ond midsized munis are overly general, and filled with policies that contradict one another. For example, land use designations often cosist of ONLY the following: sf res, mf res, mixed use, commercial, institutional, and industrial. And then there are a bunch of policy statements that "encourage" and "discourage" different uses. Meaningless!
So, at a pubic hearing, when a specific devel proposal is under consideration, and one member of the publixc says it is too big and tall, and the ocp does not support it, they are probanly correct.
Another says the project meets the ocp pol8cy that encouragesaffordable housing. Yhey are right too.
The councilors, and david eby, hrear what they want to hear.
It iss best for the province to stay out of municipal land use decisions. If council makes decisions that are contrary to the wishes of local residents, the will hear about it at election time.
Theprovince is not closer to the local people than the muni.
Adam, I get your points. You are right, my comments are mostly about Vancouver. I certainly agree the province should not be meddling in OCPs. Cheers
Thanks Brian.
Not only should the province not be meddling in OCPs. When they say that a particular project complies with an OCP and should be approved by council, or does not comply with an OCP and should not be approved by council, I can almost guarantee that the province (ie: David Eby) did not read the OCP, and is simply parroting what some lobbyist said.
Do you know what the most commonly repeated trope is that I have heard about OCPs? "OCPs are not carved in stone. They are guides.". Councilors and mayors say this all the time.
I (and some others) may be meeting with Eby soon on this issue (affordability). Your thoughts are very helpful, thanks!
Let me know if you want me to attend. I'd have to think long and hard about how i could enntice him to do sometin urbanicly progressive that seems socialistically democratic.