Quote:
Originally Posted by Hourglass
if there were no attempts by city hall to alleviate the concerns of Jameson House residents, I could see the residents taking legal action, which would tie-up the development in litigation for years.
|
You have it completely backwards. Future commercial developments will be in danger of being tied-up in lengthy challenges if the city
does attempt to alleviate the concerns of Jameson House residents, which is why the recommendations of the staff report are so unwise.
Let me explain.
Currently, residents living in the CBD have absolutely no grounds on which to base a complaint regarding minimum tower separation, neither under the common law nor under current city policy. Under the common law, it is well established that one does not have a right to a view or access to sunshine. Current city policy is no less clear: within the CBD, commercial development takes precedent over residential development and the guidelines governing minimum tower separation outside the CBD do
not apply within the CBD. This policy of commercial supremacy within the CBD was adopted because the city recognized that the efficient maximization of job space within the CBD is essential to Vancouver’s future economic competitiveness.
Therefore, neither the developers nor the residents of Jameson House had a reasonable expectation that a commercial tower could not be built as close as 30 feet from their building. Indeed, as the staff report points out, there are already numerous examples of commercial/residential tower separations of 30 feet or less within the downtown core. Thus, the residents’ complaints regarding minimum tower separation can easily be dismissed out of hand and Credit Suisse’s project can proceed unhindered by such challenges, precisely as current policy intended.
This is why the recommendation of the staff report is not just bizarre but harmful. If accepted, it would not only frustrate current policy of efficient job space maximization in this particular case but could hinder many vital commercial developments in the future. For such a decision would hand those who choose to live in the CBD something they have never had before: it would create a clear precedent on which complaints against any future commercial project that comes in close proximity to residential property in the CBD could be based. Currently, such complaints have no foundation and can be swiftly dismissed. But armed with a precedent, residents in the CBD would now have a legitimate foundation on which to sustain complaints in the future. (“
If the city accommodated the residents of Jameson House, then why can’t the city accommodate me.”)
Thus, "alleviating the concerns" of Jameson House residents would almost certainly have the opposite effect as you claim: given the precedent it would create, it would increase the likelihood that similar commercial developments will be tied-up in challenges from this point on, thereby creating a threat to Vancouver’s vital economic interest in efficient job space maximization within its CBD, the very interest that current policy was wisely designed to protect.
Threaded Mode