Will they listen no more forever?*

City Conversation #93: The Vancouver and provincial governments take aim at their citizens’ fundamental rights to be heard.

December 1st 2022—As a new Council begins to govern in an environment where barely 1/3 of Vancouverites voted in the recent election, majority ABC Vancouver is being asked to consider an anti-democratic, defeated motion from the previous Council, now reintroduced, together with aggressive signalling from the province’s new premier that he is determined to eliminate British Columbians’ right to be heard at public hearings involving (for now) housing. Messaging has been muddied. Many are not being fooled.

A record number of Vancouverites spoke overwhelmingly against a project in Kitsilano proposed for the hardest to house. The previous Council nonetheless supported it. Next week Council will consider a motion to do away with public hearings for similar proposals in future, which pleases the province.

“Forever seems like a long time, Dad,” said my son as he read my headline. “Is the situation really that dire?”

“Yes,” I responded, “I and many others think it is just that. Although Vancouver’s new ABC Council is styled as centre-right, while the provincial government is usually described as centre-left, there is a real concern they will come together on the elimination of public hearings for projects involving housing, eliminating the annoyance of listening to citizens who may object to projects of a type or size they did not believe were contemplated by their community’s Official Community Plan (OCP).” He gave me a blank look so I continued.

“Until now, whenever a spot rezoning was contemplated—Vancouver’s last Council approved 247 of them (out of 247 applications) over four years—there would be a public hearing at which members of the public could voice their opinions prior to Council voting yea or nay. The majority of spot rezonings are approved with little or no public comments. But starting with the proposed rezoning of much of False Creek South and continuing with projects that presupposed the Broadway Plan before it was approved, more and more citizens came forward at public hearings to object—more than 200 for each of False Creek, 1477 West Broadway and 2086-2098 West 8th Ave, to name a few of the more controversial. In fact, there were more than 200 speakers at the meeting at which the Broadway Plan was approved—with the large majority of speakers opposed to the Broadway Plan. The Broadway Plan is now the de facto OCP for 485 blocks of Vancouver.”

“So we have an environment where many are opposed, yet rezonings are approved.”

He interjected, “So if Council approves projects the community clearly opposes, what does it matter whether or not there are public hearings?”

“Democracy is a precious thing that is under attack at all levels in virtually all currently democratic countries,” I answered. “The Economist magazine reports that the number of democracies has declined in the past several years, and more are under threat all the time.” He nodded hesitantly so I continued.

“Our new premier, David Eby, seems to believe that communities are responsible for virtually all housing issues—affordability, homelessness, support for those with mental health and addiction issues—you name it! He’s proposing (but has not yet introduced legislation) that public hearings be dispensed with where a community’s OCP permits housing. He’s also proposing to overrule at his discretion Councils that fail to approve housing projects that appear to him to be OCP compliant—so elected Councils as well as their citizens may be ignored at the premier’s whim.” He thought about that for a moment.

“So how does Vancouver fit in with this no-public-hearing environment?”

“An amended version of a motion defeated by the last Council is proposed for reconsideration at next Tuesday’s (December 6) Council meeting. It appears innocuous enough that it might just slip by a largely novice Council.”

“How so?” he asked.

“It proposes two basic changes:

1. That 100% social housing projects up to 12 storeys in multiple residential areas be approved as a group, in principle, after one final public hearing—going forward there will be no more public hearings for high-rise social housing projects;

2. That 100% social housing projects in all other residential areas be approved as a group, in principle, after one final public hearing—here there is no height limit, simply a provision for additional height and density. Again, no future public hearings required.

There are other bits but when you think through them, they amount to #1 and #2 above.”

He looked quizzical. “You’ve been rabbiting on about affordable housing forever, so what’s wrong with these proposals?”

“Two key things,” I answered. “Firstly, the height and the hardest-to-house-but-with-no-onsite-support project at 2086-2098 West 8th Ave caused major community concern, being located adjacent to an elementary school and a toddler’s park. Under this motion, there would be no public hearing. Staff and applicants would be able to do future deals with virtually no public oversight or input.”

“I guess that’s a concern,” he chimed in, “but what about other social housing projects for singles, couples and families—all these folks also need housing.”

“I agree with you,” I responded. “However, the city has defined social housing as only 30% affordable—the other 70% can be whatever the market wants, be it high priced strata or market rental. So that 12-storey tower in Item #1 above may only have three or four storeys of so-called affordable housing. But the community, including its schools, parks and other services, gets to accommodate all 12 storeys.”

He frowned. “Is that actually happening?”

“Yes,” I replied. “There are several projects like that under way in Vancouver. Just last week I read about an approved Burnaby high-rise with a separate entry for the at-the-bottom social housing units, the so-called poor door. Could be coming soon to many neighbourhoods throughout the city.”

“Is there a solution to this mess?” he asked hopefully.

“As for this motion, you can write to Council or sign up to speak at the Council meeting where Motion B.2 will be considered.”

“There are several solutions to the slow pace of project approval other than disenfranchising citizens—I’ve written about several options in my City Conversations. I’ll be discussing with you and writing about more of them in forthcoming City Conversations.” 

---

*With apologies to Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce nation, who said as he surrendered to the US Army in 1877, “I will fight no more forever.”

---

Today’s question: Do you favour eliminating public hearings for rezonings involving housing?

I read and respond to all comments made below. If you enjoyed this post, consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at

 

Brian Palmquist is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired for the moment, still teaching and writing, so not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 40+ year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” and working the first 88 City Conversations into a book about how we’ve come to where we are.