Vancouver Civic Election 2018

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by bluefox

Yep, he is, but as CanSpice said, he isn't running again. His arrogance and obstinacy does have its limits -- even he saw the writing on the wall this cycle.

The guy is sanctimonious and extremely self-righteous, a dangerous combination for any elected official. His response to an email I wrote him about that flag-raising was to call me uneducated and tell me to P off.

Thrilled to see the back of him.

Sanctimonious and self-righteous, that's Vision Vancouver in a nutshell. They were only kept electorally viable by a deluded bike lobby that seemed to think bike lanes were more important than actually being able to afford to live in Vancouver.

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As in literally "p*ss off?" I kinda wish he were running, just to watch him crash and burn.

It was mind-boggling. He said anyone who was critical of the decision to raise the flag simply didn't understand the "vital importance" of Vancouver's relations with China - and then tried to make some weird equivalence with "well, we celebrate national days for other countries too".

I appreciated that he responded, but in that case, in hindsight, if I was just going to end up being patronized, I'd rather he hadn't at all.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Sanctimonious and self-righteous, that's Vision Vancouver in a nutshell. They were only kept electorally viable by a deluded bike lobby that seemed to think bike lanes were more important than actually being able to afford to live in Vancouver.

Ahhh yes, the all powerful bike lobby. Somehow a minority of people (since bike lanes are always so empty), yet able to elect governments with majority votes. How do they do it?!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by bluefox

It was mind-boggling. He said anyone who was critical of the decision to raise the flag simply didn't understand the "vital importance" of Vancouver's relations with China - and then tried to make some weird equivalence with "well, we celebrate national days for other countries too".

I appreciated that he responded, but in that case, in hindsight, if I was just going to end up being patronized, I'd rather he hadn't at all.

How does he not see the vast difference between "cordial relations with China" and "kissing the CCP's ass?" Does he think that every Mainlander is one of the insane PRC trolls? I really do wish the bananas would take some time to educate themselves.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ahhh yes, the all powerful bike lobby. Somehow a minority of people (since bike lanes are always so empty), yet able to elect governments with majority votes. How do they do it?!

It helps that the only other relevant party at the time represented the NIMBY crowd. It was a choice between bikes/empty parks/condos or the status quo.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ahhh yes, the all powerful bike lobby. Somehow a minority of people (since bike lanes are always so empty), yet able to elect governments with majority votes. How do they do it?!

All power to the bike lobby!

[whatnext]

Turns out Peter Wall was the money behind all those mysterious Hector Bremner billboards. So Bremner is exposed as just another developer shill. He should really just throw in the towel at this point.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...-paid-for-billboards-supporting-mayoral/

Funny that none of the Vancouver based media outlets have that story...

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Turns out Peter Wall was the money behind all those mysterious Hector Bremner billboards. So Bremner is exposed as just another developer shill. He should really just throw in the towel at this point.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/b...-paid-for-billboards-supporting-mayoral/

Funny that none of the Vancouver based media outlets have that story...

Can't read the article without a membership. Post it?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Crtl-A and Ctrl-C.

Vancouver developer’s money paid for billboards supporting mayoral candidate

One of Vancouver’s most prominent developers anonymously bankrolled a massive billboard campaign for a mayoral candidate whose platform focuses on building more housing.

Candidate Hector Bremner says he did not know anything about the billboards, which cost $85,000 and feature a photo of him and a play on his campaign slogan. A previously unknown group called Vancouverites for Affordable Housing was listed on the ads as the sponsor, but it was unclear who paid.

Mr. Bremner said he has lodged no complaint about it. "If someone wants to say nice things about me, why would I complain?” he said on Friday.

A lawyer for Peter Wall, the developer behind some of the city’s most prominent buildings, said on Friday that $85,000 from Mr. Wall was used to pay for the billboards. Mr. Wall was a long-time backer of Mayor Gregor Robertson’s Vision Vancouver party. Housing is a hot-button issue in the lead-up to the vote next month, and a debate rages over whether to allow developers to build more density.

The mystery surrounding who paid for the advertisements has highlighted the ability of third parties to use unfettered resources.

This election is the first after provincial changes to limit fundraising and campaign expenditures. Although the new rules ban corporate and union donations and cap the amount of money candidates and third parties can spend during an election period, there are few rules for third parties before the formal campaign starts on Saturday.

As of Saturday, the maximum that any one group can spend on a campaign for Vancouver’s mayor and council is $10,508. Third parties will also have to register with Elections BC, disclose donors and report campaign spending.
These billboards went up well before Sept. 22. And while third parties are not allowed to discuss their advertising with specific candidates during the election period, there are no restrictions beforehand, said Andrew Watson, a spokesman for Elections BC.

Mr. Wall acknowledged on Friday that he gave money to his lawyer to support Mr. Bremner in some way, but said he did not know exactly what the money was spent on.

“It’s possible,” he said in an interview when asked if his money was used to pay for the billboard. “I really don’t know because I don’t look after it."

Mr. Wall’s lawyer, David Gruber of the law firm Bennett Jones, confirmed that “Peter Wall did supply the money that was used to pay for the billboards … and subway posters.”

He also said the money was supplied after the billboard campaign had been decided on as a strategy.

Mr. Bremner says neither he nor anyone on his campaign planned the billboards with the sponsor. “As far as I can tell, there was no co-ordination on our side.”

Mark Marissen, a veteran strategist who has been closely involved in Mr. Bremner’s campaign, did not respond to a Globe and Mail interview request on Friday, but he has said he knew nothing about who paid for the billboards.

Mr. Bremner said he has not complained to Elections BC because it’s not a violation of the campaign-finance law. “We looked at the act and they’re allowed to do that. "

He also said he has no idea how the billboard designers got a picture of him that appears to be a reversed version of a photo of him on his Facebook site.

However, both he and Mr. Gruber emphasized that the current campaign-financing law allows a third party to spend whatever it wants before the formal Sept. 22 to Oct. 20 campaign period.

And nothing in the law requires the third party to register with Elections BC or detail its contributions and spending before Sept. 22.

About a dozen groups are registered as third parties for the civic elections, but Vancouverites for Affordable Housing is not among them.

“It is my understanding of the legislation and regulations that no registration is required,” Mr. Gruber said.

There would be a legal problem if there was any kind of co-ordination between Mr. Bremner’s campaign and any third party, but Mr. Gruber said he “didn’t personally have any communications [with the campaign].”

Still, anybody who actually watched the debate would've known this. Homelessness? Transportation? Crime? "More housing."

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Still, anybody who actually watched the debate would've known this. Homelessness? Transportation? Crime? "More housing."

I love all the connections getting exposed in this story.

Hector Bremner used to work for Rich Coleman, who was one of Christy Clark's staunchest lieutenants. Clark is now at the law firm that represents the developer that paid for the pro-Bremner billboards using the third-party donation loophole. Total coincidence. Meanwhile, Bremner's campaign manager is Mark Marissen, Christy's ex-husband and perennial BC Liberal operative.

Hector might have been able to shake this off if he'd owned it during that debate the other day but instead he chose to play dumb and deflect.

This is the very same shady back-scratching behaviour that got the Liberals punted from office and at least we can say that they did it enough in 16 years that it's easier for the average Joe to smell the stench.

Either way, those billboards technically had to come down yesterday as we are officially 28 days from electing a new mayor and council. So I hope for their sake it was $85,000 well spent because, if word on the street is any indication, this appears to have torpedoed Bremner's campaign.

I know lots of folks that were considering a vote for him because of his housing platform, but now that it's clearly business-as-usual, and YES has been revealed as the new BC Liberal farm team, Hector is a non-starter.

And if you really break it down, he is the closest thing we have to another Gregor Robertson in this race – a suave, smooth-talking guy who promises a lot but probably would end up disappointing us upon reflection. I think that's why for all the effort his camp has put in to try to break him out and make him look like his own man, voters are seeing through it.

[whatnext]

Bluefox, very well said. It’s time for a new approach we don’t need another pretty face whose strings are pulled by developers.

You have to wonder why Wall bothered. He’s still trying to flog the last of his units at Shannon Mews, it should be painfully obvious to him the issue isn’t supply.

[a very long weekend]

^ supply is indeed the issue. The current planning regime makes those units ultra expensive - expensive land, expensive construction techniques, mandatory parking, setbacks, amenity contributions, etc. A different planning regime that allowed widespread (read: citywide) construction of multistory, multifamily woodframe, without setbacks or parking requirements - that would bring the cost of land and construction down, and right the ship.

The fact that ultra expensive aren't selling actually shows that supply is precisely the issue: when affordability is the problem, and demand is high, the fact that high end units aren't moving shows that the planning department's market distortion program is not creating a supply of product to meet demand. A system that structurally requires all shops to sell Louis Vuitton handbags when people can only afford a regular knapsack.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

^ supply is indeed the issue. The current planning regime makes those units ultra expensive - expensive land, expensive construction techniques, mandatory parking, setbacks, amenity contributions, etc. A different planning regime that allowed widespread (read: citywide) construction of multistory, multifamily woodframe, without setbacks or parking requirements - that would bring the cost of land and construction down, and right the ship.

The fact that ultra expensive aren't selling actually shows that supply is precisely the issue: when affordability is the problem, and demand is high, the fact that high end units aren't moving shows that the planning department's market distortion program is not creating a supply of product to meet demand. A system that structurally requires all shops to sell Louis Vuitton handbags when people can only afford a regular knapsack.

Sorry, not buying that. Unless you completely shut off the tap of offshore money, it will never be affordable no many how many zoning changes get rammed through Council.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

^ supply is indeed the issue. The current planning regime makes those units ultra expensive - expensive land, expensive construction techniques, mandatory parking, setbacks, amenity contributions, etc. A different planning regime that allowed widespread (read: citywide) construction of multistory, multifamily woodframe, without setbacks or parking requirements - that would bring the cost of land and construction down, and right the ship.

The fact that ultra expensive aren't selling actually shows that supply is precisely the issue: when affordability is the problem, and demand is high, the fact that high end units aren't moving shows that the planning department's market distortion program is not creating a supply of product to meet demand. A system that structurally requires all shops to sell Louis Vuitton handbags when people can only afford a regular knapsack.

From both a construction cost analysis POV and a land cost and zoning POV, this couldn't be more true - especially for rental buildings of all stripes. One of the biggest issues for new rental is that land and construction is limited, zoning is limited, and most buildings require a rezoning process (also in limited areas with major restrictions).

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

From both a construction cost analysis POV and a land cost and zoning POV, this couldn't be more true - especially for rental buildings of all stripes. One of the biggest issues for new rental is that land and construction is limited, zoning is limited, and most buildings require a rezoning process (also in limited areas with major restrictions).

Zoning, density, and bureaucracy in general is a huge part of our housing problems.

Political debate revolving around our housing crisis rarely brings up the issues with the development department itself.

Government regulations and development charges have driven up house prices in Metro Vancouver to the tune of $644,000 per new house, according to a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute.

The report shows that in Vancouver, after factoring in a profit for the developer, close to half of the price of a new detached home is due to government fees and regulations.

The report, released Tuesday, found the cost of barriers to housing supply in Canadian municipalities — such as zoning regulations, development charges and limits on housing development — are highest in B.C., with the Vancouver census metropolitan area leading the pack, followed by Abbotsford and Victoria.

“Vancouver is, by far, the most restrictive region in Canada,” said Benjamin Dachis, associate director of research at C.D. Howe, who co-authored the report with Vincent Thivierge. “It’s so restrictive it’s on par with some of the worst performers in the world like in New York and some cities in the U.K. and Australia.”

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...ions-driving-up-home-prices-in-vancouver.

Can you imagine the additional costs for a duplex? In addition, it already takes 12-18 months for a permit for a single family home. Can you guess how long it will take now that everyone is allowed to build a duplex. The current system already cannot keep up with requests and we're putting more workload ontop of it.

permit application processing times, which range from about three months in the Township of Langley to 12 to 18 months in Vancouver for single-family homes.

You'd think the biggest city would benefit from economies of scale and have a kickass development department. You'd also think that with a housing crisis developments would be fast tracked. Instead, we have one of the slowest development departments in the world where everything is delayed and anyone wanting to build housing has to deal with a bureaucratic nightmare.

[Changing City]

[QUOTE=misher;8324802]Government regulations and development charges have driven up house prices in Metro Vancouver to the tune of $644,000 per new house, according to a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute.[QUOTE]

I appreciate it fits your version of reality, but as has been noted here several times the C D Howe report that comes from is total BS. Average new homes in Metro Vancouver do not pay government fees and charges averaging $644,000.

[GenWhy?]

I don't even think we've paid that much for a multi-family building...

[misher]

[QUOTE=Changing City;8324904][QUOTE=misher;8324802]Government regulations and development charges have driven up house prices in Metro Vancouver to the tune of $644,000 per new house, according to a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute.

I appreciate it fits your version of reality, but as has been noted here several times the C D Howe report that comes from is total BS. Average new homes in Metro Vancouver do not pay government fees and charges averaging $644,000.

Seemed high to me too. I can see it happening if you have to cut a tree down/move it around and other issues though. Maybe if you average it out and consider that you have some very expensive houses in the West side? At the very least we can agree its a couple $100,000.

[GenWhy?]

Maybe $600k+ in soft costs? I'm not sure how a newly elected council and mayor can / will make building new SF homes on existing SF home lots "more affordable". Why would they? I'm looking at a single-lot multifamily proforma right now where our soft costs total is just over $1 million (architecture, code, construction and development management, city fees, etc.). Why would anyone in their right mind buy a lot for $1.2 million, then bulldoze the house, then pay $600k+ in "fees" plus hard costs to build their home plus 2 secondary suites... then complain and demand civic or provincial action that "homes" are too expensive but they will build and buy anyway..

[GenWhy?]

City fees and charges are like $200k for that rental project, FYI. CACs are more but I'm not calculating that in this, for it's an example.

Our CACs would be about $70/sf additional net, which would be about $500k. So I have no idea where this $600k for a SF home comes from.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

City fees and charges are like $200k for that rental project, FYI. CACs are more but I'm not calculating that in this, for it's an example.

Our CACs would be about $70/sf additional net, which would be about $500k. So I have no idea where this $600k for a SF home comes from.

For my own curiosity, was this per a unit? Is this market or affordable? How many units? What fsr was allowed by zoning and what additional fsr did you get?