BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[jollyburger]

New transit oriented development rules won't impact Lower Lonsdale much

According to a city staff report, there are 40 properties within the 200-metre radius of Lonsdale Quay and 80 within the 400-metre radius. But the report adds, there aren’t likely to be many new developments that will benefit from the provincial rules “as many of the parcels have been recently developed with new buildings.”

All of the residential-zone lands within the 200-metre radius currently have a maximum density of 3.6. And as of late April, there were no in-stream applications within the Lonsdale Quay Exchange transit oriented area.

Mayor Linda Buchanan said council still has a vision for Lower Lonsdale, including extending the Shipyards district westward, planning for the eventual redevelopment of the ICBC head office and trying to deliver affordable housing. The transit oriented area development rules shouldn’t derail those plans, but it does make things more complicated, she indicated.

“Probably this is [legislation] that’s not necessarily as impactful to us, given the context of this particular neighbourhood and the amount of redevelopment that’s happened in the last 10 to 15 years,” she said.

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/ne...e-much-8897403

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

This should be good for a laugh.

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/we...-rules-8896924

So, West Van has decided to fuck around. I'm a little excited to see what the province will make them find out.

[goodcitywhenfinished]

So, have the BC Conservative Party committed to keeping or repealing any of the recent reforms like TOD or Bill 44?

My only concern about a conservative government would be they cancel a lot of these huge reforms

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

So, West Van has decided to fuck around. I'm a little excited to see what the province will make them find out.

All of West Van to be designated a TOA.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by goodcitywhenfinished

So, have the BC Conservative Party committed to keeping or repealing any of the recent reforms like TOD or Bill 44?

My only concern about a conservative government would be they cancel a lot of these huge reforms

Rustad and Banman voted against Bill 44 (which isn't surprising, they're in opposition) but Bill 47 (the TOA portion) passed unanimously.

However, John Rustad has said he'll roll back all of the housing policies the BC NDP has put into place.

[jollyburger]

"I think that's part of the problem, here," says City of Coquitlam City Manager Raul Allueva. "People learned about it at different times, the engagement was very haphazard, and it really wasn't meaningful and collaborative consultation. I think you'd probably find that across the board. The Province had people under non-disclosure agreements and, quite frankly, nobody really got the full picture. They might involve a staff member here, a staff member there, but when the legislation dropped, it was a complete shock, in terms of the depth of it, the scope, and the lack of supporting regulation."

"I don't fault the intent [behind the legislation]," Allueva added. "I feel that our city has been progressive in terms of developing housing for a decade and we've been pushing housing out at a level that is as high as any municipality, but we've been highly impacted by this because, like everybody else, we have to fit under this structure that the Province has set. It would've been nice to have more engagement and consultation, which would have allowed us to not always have to be on the backfoot trying to figure something out. It would've absolutely been more helpful."

Again, this would not be much of a problem were it not for the deadlines that were set alongside each legislation announcement, which resulted in local governments having the deadlines before they had the policy guidance they needed to do the work to meet those deadlines.

"They drop the legislation and then there's deadlines, but the legislation really doesn't specifically have regulations or policies attached to them. Those followed months later, so you can see what happens: they drop three bills, there's deadlines attached to them, but we don't have regulations, and they drop the regulations months later, but the deadline is already moving, then there's policy material that gets dropped months after that, then another bill gets dropped — Bill 16 [regarding inclusionary zoning, which was dropped in April]."

Allueva says that Bill 46, pertaining to DCCs, ACCs, and CACs, has been the most challenging to implement and that this has forced the City to reset its expectations on these projects and how to fund them.

Allueva recognizes that housing is one of the biggest issues of our time, but believes that the Province could have handled all of this differently. Instead, the work will now result in City projects being delayed, which impacts the residents of Coquitlam.

"We've just had a metal rod put into our spokes. Cities are having to rebuild and develop new systems, almost like rebuilding a plane as we're flying it. It's pretty chaotic."

https://storeys.com/coquitlam-planni...g-legislation/

[BaddieB]

So much complaining. I can't believe we pay these people to complain about having to do their their jobs. "Whah whah I have to work" then quit if you don't like having to do what you signed up for. Otherwise you are lazy. It's a crisis, let's treat it like one.

I'll give props to Coquitlam for at least upzoning some SFH before these laws. Can't say the same for Burnaby though.

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

https://storeys.com/coquitlam-planni...g-legislation/

Counterpoint: municipalities wouldn't have had to "rebuild and develop new systems" and deal with a "pretty chaotic" change if they had proactively allowed for more supply, specifically more missing middle.

It's like they still don't understand the only reason the province is mandating targets and overriding zoning around transit is precisely because municipalities have had a systemic shortfall and, in almost every case, done nothing about that.

Housing shouldn't be subject to the amount of "consultation" it's been subject to over the years. That's the real problem.

[chowhou]

https://www.nsnews.com/in-the-commun...-rules-9065182

North Vancouver District opts for restrictive reading of provincial housing rules
Property owners will be able to build up to three units on single-family lots

Property owners in the District of North Vancouver hoping to add density to their lots in accordance with new provincial rules will have relatively limited options going forward.

At a meeting on June 3, council voted 4-3 in favour of a policy option presented by staff that would allow suites and coach houses on most single-family lots in the district, but would not rezone for additional units as outlined in the provincial legislation.

In a separate but related discussion at the same meeting, council voted unanimously to accept a staff report on minimum height and density that must be accepted for residential developments near designated “transit-oriented areas” at Phibbs Exchange and the Capilano University bus loop.

After a heated discussion in district chambers, Couns. Jordan Back, Catherine Pope and Jim Hanson dissented in the vote, saying that the route preferred by the rest of council didn’t align with the intention of the new rules.

Before the vote, staff presented three different options as legal readings of the legislation, which comes into effect June 30. Option A would only allow secondary suites and coach houses in addition to a principal dwelling on a single-family property.

Option B, the least restrictive option, would allow for what the province is calling small-scale multi-family residential (SSMUH). Up to six units could be built on current single-family lots, including in areas deemed by staff where providing municipal services could be a challenge.

Option C, the choice recommended by staff, was presented as a hybrid approach, where SSMUH options could be built where service upgrades to accommodate more density is considered feasible, but only the three units available in option A where providing services is a challenge.

In all of the scenarios, a maximum of three units could be built on lots subject to wildfire and flood hazards. There are also other exemptions for lots larger than 4,050 square metres and with heritage value, which combined account for around 72 single-family zoned properties, according to a staff report.

More fucking around, can't wait to hopefully see more finding out.

[bardak]

So far of all the SSMU bylaws I've seen only Burnaby's seems to be implementing it in good faith. All other I have seen are pulling the DNV/west Van loophole idea or just updating the current zoning rules to allow 4 units without providing and changes to FAR, setbacks, ect. The Delta is a bit of a mystery since their SSMU bylaw is the latter just changing the allowable number of units on the existing zoning but their OCP is supposed to be done at the end of the month with an updated SSMU zoning.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by bardak

So far of all the SSMU bylaws I've seen only Burnaby's seems to be implementing it in good faith. All other I have seen are pulling the DNV/west Van loophole idea or just updating the current zoning rules to allow 4 units without providing and changes to FAR, setbacks, ect. The Delta is a bit of a mystery since their SSMU bylaw is the latter just changing the allowable number of units on the existing zoning but their OCP is supposed to be done at the end of the month with an updated SSMU zoning.

Burnaby's SSMUH proposal is generally pretty good (even very good dare I say) except for the ACC/DCC fees which are astronomical and make it so that even their decently high FSR (2-ish) isn't quite enough to make these units profitable. Burnaby's decades of low property taxes and general philosophy of passing the buck on infrastructure to newcomers is likely to make their policy a bit of a wasted effort.

[BaddieB]

Hoping the Federal government does something about all the taxes and fees on new builds. Lots of talk but little action.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Hoping the Federal government does something about all the taxes and fees on new builds. Lots of talk but little action.

Which taxes & fees does the Federal government place on housing that you're speaking of? GST?

Edit:

There's a reason for those fees and taxes, they're not there just for fun.

[Changing City]

Housing targets for the second set of priority communities announced in April 2024 have been determined, driving tens of thousands more homes to be built in areas with the greatest needs. The following are the five-year targets:

Central Saanich – 588 units
Chilliwack – 4,594 units
City of North Vancouver – 3,320 units
Esquimalt – 754 units
Kelowna – 8,774 units
Maple Ridge – 3,954 units
Nanaimo – 4,703 units
Sidney – 468 units
Surrey – 27,256 units
White Rock – 1,067 units

BC Government press release

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by mcj

Which taxes & fees does the Federal government place on housing that you're speaking of? GST?

Edit:

There's a reason for those fees and taxes, they're not there just for fun.

The Federal Government doesn't impose the fees themselves but has the power to reduce them. Metro Vancouver's own mismanagement, with overpriced treatment plants billions over budget, is making them up fees on apartments by $14k.

And many of the fees are to offset existing property taxes, not to cover the costs of new developments solely. It allows cities to offer great amenities at rock bottom property taxes, not cover the basics. Burnaby has billions in extra funds from developments earmarked for projects that I would describe as being nice, or "for fun", but not essential.

As I said, charge the fees, but allow a property tax holiday for these developments for several years to make up for it.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

The Federal Government doesn't impose the fees themselves but has the power to reduce them. Metro Vancouver's own mismanagement, with overpriced treatment plants billions over budget, is making them up fees on apartments by $14k.

And many of the fees are to offset existing property taxes, not to cover the costs of new developments solely. It allows cities to offer great amenities at rock bottom property taxes, not cover the basics. Burnaby has billions in extra funds from developments earmarked for projects that I would describe as being nice, or "for fun", but not essential.

As I said, charge the fees, but allow a property tax holiday for these developments for several years to make up for it.

Property taxes in Burnaby mostly pay for services like the RCMP, street cleaning and repairs, water supply, sewers, parks and the fire service. Why should existing residents in Burnaby subsidize people who buy new homes rather than the new owners paying their fair share of the collective costs of the City's services?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Property taxes in Burnaby mostly pay for services like the RCMP, street cleaning and repairs, water supply, sewers, parks and the fire service. Why should existing residents in Burnaby subsidize people who buy new homes rather than the new owners paying their fair share of the collective costs of the City's services?

Because developer fees are being used to pay for things like water supply, sewers, and parks, that's why. Why should new residents in Burnaby subsidize people who already live in Burnaby rather than having everyone pay their fair share of the collective costs of the city's services?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Because developer fees are being used to pay for things like water supply, sewers, and parks, that's why. Why should new residents in Burnaby subsidize people who already live in Burnaby rather than having everyone pay their fair share of the collective costs of the city's services?

Those things are all capital costs, which are also partly paid by property taxes, as you should know. Developers fees are only paying some of the costs of providing additional or improved facilities, not all of them.

There's obviously a debate to be had about how much is reasonable for developers to pay, but the idea of home owners not paying for the services they use because the developer paid a fee to the city is just ridiculous.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Property taxes in Burnaby mostly pay for services like the RCMP, street cleaning and repairs, water supply, sewers, parks and the fire service. Why should existing residents in Burnaby subsidize people who buy new homes rather than the new owners paying their fair share of the collective costs of the City's services?

As I'm saying, new home buyers are covering the cost of all new big ticket projects the city is planning. For Burnaby's new city hall, at around $400M, it's not being paid for at around say 2/3 property taxes and 1/3 development charges. Instead, it's being paid 100% via development charges. New RCMP HQ, same thing, a building all the city will benefit from is being paid for by a small minority of the tax base. If Burnaby had no growth they'd still need money to renovate or rebuild it. That's not exactly a "fair share". And keep in mind, every new development will see a new influx of property taxes being paid. New home buyers have to pay high development charges, that go to pay for almost all the city's new projects, and then have to keep paying property taxes on top of that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

As I'm saying, new home buyers are covering the cost of all new big ticket projects the city is planning. For Burnaby's new city hall, at around $400M, it's not being paid for at around say 2/3 property taxes and 1/3 development charges. Instead, it's being paid 100% via development charges. New RCMP HQ, same thing, a building all the city will benefit from is being paid for by a small minority of the tax base. If Burnaby had no growth they'd still need money to renovate or rebuild it. That's not exactly a "fair share". And keep in mind, every new development will see a new influx of property taxes being paid. New home buyers have to pay high development charges, that go to pay for almost all the city's new projects, and then have to keep paying property taxes on top of that.

Isn't the city using money it already collected from previous developments in the past? By your logic the owners of any units that paid into the Density Bonus fund since 1997 (about a third of Burnaby's homes) shouldn't have to pay property taxes either. It's not new owners in the future who will pay most of the cost of a new City Hall, or the RCMP building.