It seem absurd to sacrifice public input for mere expediency. And “the people” only provide input. Elected officials still decide: democracy, Judy, remember? Reminds me of Ben Franklin’s “Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety are not deserving of either liberty or safety.”
I agree, Richard. There are so many other places to save time and money. Getting rid of the pesky public is the bureaucratic solution. More in a future CC. Was going to be my last one but as happens, events of the day (council meeting next week) bumped the other
How do you send Brian Palmquist writings that have gone to Vancouver City Council, AG's Office and the Cullen Commission? ron.bruce@1stknowledgebank.com
Have you ever seen the 2030 plans for Vancouver, Brian, because that is exactly what this is making me think of...sustainable development. BCCIC, if you want to look it up. Sorry, I am "sending links illiterate". They do not care what we think. I am so sorry, because you are someone who cares so much. Thank you for that.
Rob Shaw has suggested that with the $10b surplus the BC NDP has mysteriously found in its books, Eby is planning to buy his way into into a quick election, and it's hard not to agree with that.
But lower floors with limited footage, and no views, for lower incomes, seem both stigmatizing and almost totalitarian.
How can children grow up in these conditions? Looked down upon by people in their same building?
Towers with these lower floors, and the higher floors at market value, are now presented as the only viable solution by developers, and have pushed previous social housing models provided by non-profits and cooperatives, out of consideration.
Laura, thanks for your comments. As to why only one model for creating affordable housing remains, I believe it's largely because senior levels of government have eliminated (feds) or dramatically reduced (province) their contributions. Rentals and Co-ops have both needed some degree of subsidy to work, and that's mostly gone now. The remaining 70-on-top-30-on-the-bottom model simply inflates land values because of the 70-on-top, so things get continually worse. I have written about some solutions we could try, as have Patrick Condon, Michael Geller and others. Stay tuned for more.
The voice of the people should always be heard otherwise democracy gets slowly eroded and it seems we are on that path. Mr Sim may have to be spoken with by many voices so he can shift things in housing where people are homed rather than housed
Should people be permitted to refuse housing to people who need it?
Absolutely not, but the only options on offer by government at the moment have been shown up as abject failures. We can do better. Stay tuned
It seem absurd to sacrifice public input for mere expediency. And “the people” only provide input. Elected officials still decide: democracy, Judy, remember? Reminds me of Ben Franklin’s “Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety are not deserving of either liberty or safety.”
I agree, Richard. There are so many other places to save time and money. Getting rid of the pesky public is the bureaucratic solution. More in a future CC. Was going to be my last one but as happens, events of the day (council meeting next week) bumped the other
How do you send Brian Palmquist writings that have gone to Vancouver City Council, AG's Office and the Cullen Commission? ron.bruce@1stknowledgebank.com
If you want to send me stuff use bpalmquist@shaw.ca
Have you ever seen the 2030 plans for Vancouver, Brian, because that is exactly what this is making me think of...sustainable development. BCCIC, if you want to look it up. Sorry, I am "sending links illiterate". They do not care what we think. I am so sorry, because you are someone who cares so much. Thank you for that.
I agree with your last sentence, noting the high-rise bias of staff and Council is the least sustainable option for homes
Eby is going the way of Ontario.
Rob Shaw has suggested that with the $10b surplus the BC NDP has mysteriously found in its books, Eby is planning to buy his way into into a quick election, and it's hard not to agree with that.
(https://biv.com/article/2022/12/rob-shaw-why-bc-ndp-should-consider-early-election)
But lower floors with limited footage, and no views, for lower incomes, seem both stigmatizing and almost totalitarian.
How can children grow up in these conditions? Looked down upon by people in their same building?
Towers with these lower floors, and the higher floors at market value, are now presented as the only viable solution by developers, and have pushed previous social housing models provided by non-profits and cooperatives, out of consideration.
Why?
Laura, thanks for your comments. As to why only one model for creating affordable housing remains, I believe it's largely because senior levels of government have eliminated (feds) or dramatically reduced (province) their contributions. Rentals and Co-ops have both needed some degree of subsidy to work, and that's mostly gone now. The remaining 70-on-top-30-on-the-bottom model simply inflates land values because of the 70-on-top, so things get continually worse. I have written about some solutions we could try, as have Patrick Condon, Michael Geller and others. Stay tuned for more.
The voice of the people should always be heard otherwise democracy gets slowly eroded and it seems we are on that path. Mr Sim may have to be spoken with by many voices so he can shift things in housing where people are homed rather than housed