Have we lost the city we love?

Last week we shared news about Bill 44, newly proposed provincial housing legislation brought before the legislature by NDP Premier David Eby and Housing minister Ravi Kahlon. If it passes, the bill will transfer all land use planning authority from BC municipalities to the Province, and remove public hearings related to housing from every municipality. At the same time, the bill’s measures will wipe out two other nuisances that impede developers: heritage designation protections and on-site parking.

Over the course of the last week, two more provincial proposals, Bills 46 (development financing) and 47 (transit-oriented development) have been debated and could also become legislation as early as the end of this month.

The bills are, according to CityHallWatch (CHW) editor Randal Helten, “moving quickly through the legislation process in Victoria and if passed will dramatically change many aspects of life in Vancouver, and all municipalities across the province — not only the look and feel of our communities, towns, and cities — but also taxes, and the very roots of local democratic processes.” The online political watchdog says the Province’s strategy is to keep “the public out of the discussion while in effect largely clearing the government and public out of the way to allow the real estate, finance, and development industry unbridled access to land for construction.”

Retired Vancouver architect Brian Palmquist notes in a recent CHW post , that if Bill 47 proceeds, housing developers would automatically be permitted to construct eight-to-20-storey towers within prescribed distances from public transit stations (bus exchanges, Subway/SkyTrain stations).

The next several days will decide the future of cities and towns in British Columbia for decades to come—unless the BC NDP withdraws or postpones the bills, says Palmquist.

As the Daily Hive’s Kenneth Chan summed it up: “High-density, transit-oriented development will be the law of the land in British Columbia.”

Elizabeth Murphy of the West Point Grey Neighbourhood Association writes that all three provincial bills should be withdrawn because municipalities are better placed to plan their own communities than is the government in Victoria. Murphy makes her case in the Nov. 16 issue of Business in Vancouver.

On Nov. 17, the provincial NDP introduced a plan for “small scale” projects, once again, going over the heads of municipalities and with zero public input.

The extensive densification being forced upon most municipalities could mean that residents may see large increases in their property tax bills because single-family detached homes could be taxed at the rate of a multi-unit townhouse. According to BC Assessment rules, properties are taxed not on their current use, but on their “highest and best use.”

(Clause 19(8) of the BC Assessment Act includes information on how some homeowners who have lived in their homes for more than 10 years can apply to have their properties assessed at less than market value — provided the owner qualifies, and the property has potential for development for a more valuable use than its current use. However, this exclusion is not a guarantee. 

In her Nov. 10 story, Vancouver Sun reporter Katie DeRosa explains how this could play out.

Who are Premier Eby’s Advisors?

After a Freedom of Information request by CHW to the Province that took five months for a reply, we now know the panel of “experts” who advised the Premier on the “naughty” municipalities who will now have to follow the Housing Supply Act. They are as follows:

External Experts
Daniel Oleksiuk (Abundant Housing) *OBO Owen Brady
Thomas Davidoff (UBC)
Cassandra Smith (UDI)
Carmina Tupe (CHBA BC)
Peter Waldkirch (Abundant Housing)
Tamara and Jaida (Small Housing BC) *ODO Akua Shatz
Alex Hemmingway (CCPA)
Andrew Ramlo (Rennie)
Jens Von Bergman (Mountain Math)
Ron Rapp (HAVAN) *not original MO list

We encourage everyone to write or drop into Premier David Eby’s office at 2909 West Broadway as soon as possible. UKRA disagrees with the way the provincial housing plan is unfolding. We find it extremely one-sided and undemocratic in its process. And nowhere in the proposed legislation is there a promise of housing affordability. Flooding Vancouver with new supply does not mean the price of housing will come down. See this story by retired Vancouver planner Arny Wise.

Finally, in a recent letter to the Vancouver Sun, Michael Seelig, professor emeritus, school of community and regional planning at UBC, says that “If we use only statistics to do our planning and try to use the same template for every area — that is, increase the density of single family lots sixfold — we run the risk of losing the magic of Vancouver.”

We will continue to update you on this issue as more changes are coming.

Main Photo: The provincial legislature, The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.