General Vancouver Updates

[GenWhy?]

The TransLink DCC jump from 2020 to 2021 for apartments was quite silly, but the $9 increase for 2022 was reasonable. Really want SH homes to get charged per a zones basis rather than blanket across the Metro; however my rate would be higher than the current $3k.

[cov]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Don't you have some fried chicken to line up for somewhere?

Eby (and the BC NDP) need to stay in their lane which means not getting involved in municipal zoning. Of course looking at yesterday's Translink announcement you can see exactly why they're meddling: to feed that bottomless pit. They'll try and squeeze more money from developers to pay for Translink. It's not really clear how those fees will help at all with affordability (along with their planned annual gorging on property tax increases).

BC housing minister should stay in his lane. Well said! With this level of critical thinking skills sooner or later you are gonna graduate from high school. Don't give up, it's never too late to make mama proud.

While I enjoy fried chicken It's too many calories, plus I hate lining up for food I am asian tho, if that's your pathetic attempt at making a racial reference. Just can't help but make a fool of yourself huh... How can somebody be this socially inept? Were you bullied as child? speaking out of genuine compassion here. Mental health should play a greater part in our healthcare system.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I've avoiding this Hearing to avoid depression... what's your gut feel on council's reaction?

My gut has been all over the place on this one. It doesn't help that Kirby-Yung has voted against it at every possible step, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that she decides its fate.

There hasn't been much for questions, aside from Hardwick tossing softballs at every opposition speaker. Of the few that were asked; Fry has hinted he might support due to the lack of displacement, Wiebe has sounded a little critical, and Swanson has gone both ways.

The provincial support, and the overall letter count (now 584 support - 387 against) will probably have some that were leaning against thinking twice.

It's also possible one or two councillors might claim they haven't reviewed the speakers tapes from the previous nights in order to get out of voting.

[cov]

just watching tonight's hearing, everyone is clearly tired of the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 except for the NPAs. my gut says 6-5 pass along the usual NPA/everyone else split. Initially I had a feeling that Carr might be a no, but after watching her disinterest I have a feeling that she might be forced to vote yes.

On the nimby, side team/abc/NPA will fill their entire ballot, so no one will vote for Carr. On the pro-housing side, people will be wary to vote for anyone who voted against this very sensible housing project. Basically if she votes against this no one will vote for her. I think she's very aware of this. It's just a business decision.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Aaaaand they're adjourning to May 10th. Good grief.

[officedweller]

Dunbar at 39th

From Wesgroup twitter April 19th:


https://twitter.com/wesgroup


https://wesgroup.ca/dunbar/360-model/

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Aaaaand they're adjourning to May 10th. Good grief.

You spoke too soon. Councillor De Genova almost derailed it, but with 2 minutes left before they automatically adjourned, they voted to extend to hear the remaining speakers, not sure when they'll come back to vote on it though.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Aaaaand they're adjourning to May 10th. Good grief.

You would think that they have proposed the Empire State Building!

Again, 39 floors… directly on top of a subway station…

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by cov

just watching tonight's hearing, everyone is clearly tired of the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 except for the NPAs. my gut says 6-5 pass along the usual NPA/everyone else split. Initially I had a feeling that Carr might be a no, but after watching her disinterest I have a feeling that she might be forced to vote yes.

On the nimby, side team/abc/NPA will fill their entire ballot, so no one will vote for Carr. On the pro-housing side, people will be wary to vote for anyone who voted against this very sensible housing project. Basically if she votes against this no one will vote for her. I think she's very aware of this. It's just a business decision.

In the meeting I was watching neither the ABC nor the NPA candidates said much of anything, which makes sense as Councillor Dominato wasn't there for a portion of the night, and Bligh had a leave of absence.

That said, both De Genova and Dominato have a pretty solid record of voting for projects at public hearings. Hardwick was certainly opposed though.

[cov]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

In the meeting I was watching neither the ABC nor the NPA candidates said much of anything, which makes sense as Councillor Dominato wasn't there for a portion of the night, and Bligh had a leave of absence.

That said, both De Genova and Dominato have a pretty solid record of voting for projects at public hearings. Hardwick was certainly opposed though.

I'm pretty confident Genova is on the no side given that she wants to deprive Carr of her vote. Carr knows that without her vote the project is far more likely to fail so if she's on the no side there is no need to speed up the process in order to fit her vote in.

It's possible that Dominato and Bligh vote yes on the project, but I think ABC will be voting as a block just to bolster their new party. Based on what Yung said, my gut feeling is that they will all say "we need more housing but no".

[Migrant_Coconut]

Maybe, maybe not - Dominato's been a consistent Yes over the past few years. I'd be more curious about how Fry and Wiebe lean. Without them, there's no chance of six votes.

Ah well, I guess we find out Tuesday.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Aaaaand they're adjourning to May 10th. Good grief.

🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 cowards every one of them.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 cowards every one of them.

Not sure I follow? They delayed to another night because there are still speakers wanting to be heard. If they don't follow procedure, and hear them all, there's a possibility that the vote could be challenged in court. That would delay the whole thing.

[logan5]

I vote no. Should 100% office sitting on a subway station.

[logan5]

It’s ridiculous all the red tape a project like this has to go through. Do the right thing and rezone all RS properties to row house townhouse. Far easier process for the city and far cheaper housing for the consumer. These politicians are clearly being controlled by developers.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

It’s ridiculous all the red tape a project like this has to go through. Do the right thing and rezone all RS properties to row house townhouse. Far easier process for the city and far cheaper housing for the consumer. These politicians are clearly being controlled by developers.

I wish!

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by logan5

It’s ridiculous all the red tape a project like this has to go through. Do the right thing and rezone all RS properties to row house townhouse. Far easier process for the city and far cheaper housing for the consumer. These politicians are clearly being controlled by developers.

I agree our base zoning should allow for far higher density, but what is the logic here? Politicians are controlled by developers, because they make development way harder than it needs to be? If anything, Politicians are controlled by NIMBYs

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Not sure I follow? They delayed to another night because there are still speakers wanting to be heard. If they don't follow procedure, and hear them all, there's a possibility that the vote could be challenged in court. That would delay the whole thing.

Migrant_Coconut jumped the 🞵🞵🞵, and WarrenC12 must have overlooked my post.


Despite almost being narrowly derailed by Councillor De Genova, council voted at 9:58pm to extend the meeting to hear the remaining (three) speakers. Only Councillor Hardwick voted against that motion, though De Genova abstained.

Council will return on Tuesday, April 26th for debate and decision.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Migrant_Coconut jumped the 🞵🞵🞵, and WarrenC12 must have overlooked my post.


Despite almost being narrowly derailed by Councillor De Genova, council voted at 9:58pm to extend the meeting to hear the remaining (three) speakers. Only Councillor Hardwick voted against that motion, though De Genova abstained.

Council will return on Tuesday, April 26th for debate and decision.

Thanks for clarifying. I think Migrant Coconut heard the mayor say the meeting would continue in May (as did I) and gave up at that point. Councillor Boyle suggested extending to finish hearing speakers, and Councillor De Genova tried to change the date where Council would then debate to May, rather than April 26 (which will be a full Council meeting). She didn't explain why, and there wasn't a seconder, so they were able to wrap the speakers list up, and decide in 4 days time. If the decision was delayed until May, Councillor Carr would be absent. We'll see if that would have been a good thing when they meet next week!

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Thanks for clarifying. I think Migrant Coconut heard the mayor say the meeting would continue in May (as did I) and gave up at that point. Councillor Boyle suggested extending to finish hearing speakers, and Councillor De Genova tried to change the date where Council would then debate to May, rather than April 26 (which will be a full Council meeting). She didn't explain why, and there wasn't a seconder, so they were able to wrap the speakers list up, and decide in 4 days time. If the decision was delayed until May, Councillor Carr would be absent. We'll see if that would have been a good thing when they meet next week!

I was following along in a little online chat group, and suffice to say, there was much cursing to be had when that amendment came up, and even more in relief after the extension passed.