New BC Political Discussion - POST BC Election 2017

[CanSpice]

The B.C. government has introduced legislation to ban union and corporate political donations, including political donations from outside of British Columbia. They're also proposing capping annual donations at $1200, and capping donations for "cash for access" fundraisers to $100 per person.

[whatnext]

So it turns out the BC Liberals buried a report they got a year ago indicating that the River Rock casino may have been involved in money laundering.

...The report (full redacted copy below), which is more than 400 pages long, focuses on the River Rock casino in Richmond, where it’s believed several wealthy players may have been laundering money.

“Reasonable grounds to suspect Money Laundering activity through the use of unsourced funds has been confirmed by the Service Providers and BCLC through the EDD processes. Interviews have confirmed that players are indeed wealthy non-residents or business persons with interests both in Vancouver and China, coming to Vancouver to gamble,” reads the report....

http://www.news1130.com/2017/09/22/attorney-general-money-laundering-casinos/

[whatnext]

New polling shows John Horgan the second most popular Premier in Canada:
http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-...ular-premier-in-canada-according-to-poll

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by whatnext

New polling shows John Horgan the second most popular Premier in Canada:
http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-...ular-premier-in-canada-according-to-poll

Adding to that:

B.C.'s new premier is enjoying a political honeymoon with voters, according to a poll by the Angus Reid Institute.

John Horgan's approval rating of 48 percent eclipses every other premier in the country with the exception of Saskatchewan's Brad Wall, who posted a 49 percent approval rating.

Ranking third, at 36 percent, are Manitoba's Brian Pallister and New Brunswick's Brian Gallant. Next, at 35 percent, are Quebec's Philippe Couillard and Nova Scotia's Stephen McNeil.

...

The Angus Reid Institute also polled B.C. residents on electoral reform, finding that 65 percent supported distributing seats proportionally rather than through a first-past-the post system.

When it came to Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and B.C. Hydro's Site C dam projects, 47 percent and 45 percent respondents said they "should go ahead as planned", respectively.

Among B.C. Liberal voters, 70 percent supported the pipeline project and the Site C dam going ahead as planned.

Only 37 percent of B.C. NDP and 38 percent of B.C. Green voters agreed with that sentiment; 49 percent of B.C. NDP and B.C. Green voters thought the pipeline should be cancelled, with 13 percent saying they were unsure.

Support for the pipeline was strongest among those 55 years old and over and among men; women and those from 18 to 34 years of age were more likely to be opposed to the Kinder Morgan project.

When it comes to the Site C dam, 48 percent of NDP voters and 33 percent of B.C. Green voters think it should be cancelled. Eighteen percent of New Democrats and 28 percent of B.C. Greens were in the "don't know/can't say" category.

[whatnext]

I wonder how opinion on Site C will change now that it's been exposed to have been overbudget from Day One.

B.C. Hydro was nine per cent over budget and already dipping into contingency funds from day one on the main construction contract at Site C, according to the uncensored version of a report to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The troubles continue to the present day, with the $1.8 billion main civil works contract having run through three quarters of its contingency budget with only one quarter of the work being done...

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-b-c-hydros-site-c-promises-ring-hollow

[WarrenC12]

Ya this Site C thing is looking like a beast. Billions to cancel it, or keep building and go Billions over the initial estimate. Tough call, and it's all based on estimates, so easily skewed if you have a bias.

[Waders]

Well, I won't read too much on poll about how popular a political person is. Opinion can change quickly.

Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver calls B.C. premier a 'hypocrite' for NDP insider hires

[logicbomb]

The full quote by Horgan:

"Housing is a critical component of many people's equity and their retirement prospects, and we want to make sure we don't adversely affect the marketplace."

It's funny because I just heard rumors that the NDP have been recieving donations from developers. The party was 2 mil in the red in May but is seemingly flowing with money now to hire insiders for absurd salaries. Some local clerks for MLAs are getting 70k per year.

This party is as toxic as the BC Libs and it's a shame that Weaver also seems crooked.

I was never expecting a market correction but I was hopeful the NDP would tackle the isssue of dirty/illegal money and practices in the real estate market. What a bunch of lying hypocrites...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

It's funny because I just heard rumors that the NDP have been recieving donations from developers. The party was 2 mil in the red in May but is seemingly flowing with money now to hire insiders for absurd salaries. Some local clerks for MLAs are getting 70k per year.

This party is as toxic as the BC Libs and it's a shame that Weaver also seems crooked.

I was never expecting a market correction but I was hopeful the NDP would tackle the isssue of dirty/illegal money and practices in the real estate market. What a bunch of lying hypocrites...

Weaver may be sanctimonious and full of himself but not crooked.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

It's funny because I just heard rumors that the NDP have been recieving donations from developers. The party was 2 mil in the red in May but is seemingly flowing with money now to hire insiders for absurd salaries. Some local clerks for MLAs are getting 70k per year.

This party is as toxic as the BC Libs and it's a shame that Weaver also seems crooked.

I was never expecting a market correction but I was hopeful the NDP would tackle the isssue of dirty/illegal money and practices in the real estate market. What a bunch of lying hypocrites...

what source does that come from?

[whatnext]

Surprised nobody posted about this. NDP commits to a mail-in referendum on electoral reform by next November. Simple majority will be needed to pass:

The stage is being set for a referendum to determine whether British Columbia will use a form of proportional representation to elect its provincial politicians in time for the next election in 2021.
Under legislation introduced Wednesday, the referendum would be held next fall in a mail-in ballot. The proposal would need the support of 50 per cent, plus one, of those who vote in order to be successful....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-sets-stage-for-2018-referendum-on-electoral-reform-1.3619853

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

what source does that come from?

Party insider. Most of the debt was incurred when the NDP grossly mismanaged their campaign funds in 2013.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

It's funny because I just heard rumors that the NDP have been recieving donations from developers. The party was 2 mil in the red in May but is seemingly flowing with money now to hire insiders for absurd salaries. Some local clerks for MLAs are getting 70k per year.

This party is as toxic as the BC Libs and it's a shame that Weaver also seems crooked.

I was never expecting a market correction but I was hopeful the NDP would tackle the isssue of dirty/illegal money and practices in the real estate market. What a bunch of lying hypocrites...

This rumour sounds too good to be true for Libs wanting to change the dialogue over corruption. However, when I first heard the quote it referenced about not wanting to "adversely affect the marketplace" I started regretting my vote for the NDP. Their actions so far support the idea that only the poor will be helped and the middle class can go on working their butts off only to be screwed over by the market. Not that voting for the Libs would have been any better, much worse in fact. Looks like I will be voting Green in the future.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Please stop pretending that the province could or would overrule CoV council on residential zoning. It's political suicide even if possible, as you've been told before.

well, legally, obviously the province could do it. that's not a question at all.

more pertinently, sure, it may seem crazy, but it's not. housing affordability is the number one issue almost everywhere, and the number one reason that housing is so costly is because of zoning and regulation. the politicians and homeowners have been able to con a surprising number of people into thinking that it's greedy developers, off-shore investors, trust fund types, and software engineers who are driving prices up. but anybody looking at the problem seriously knows that the policy tools exist to make housing more affordable without an increase in taxation: provincial level legislation on as-of-right to, say, five stories, in high demand lower mainland SFD districts could see thousands of new units built and, consequently, lower prices across the region.

the beautiful thing about it for the government is that you don't have lose more than a seat or two, you can concentrate tens of thousands of units in just two or three provincial electoral districts.

why not?

[Pinion]

Because the number one reason housing is so expensive is NOT zoning, it's Chinese money laundering.

You have it backwards. Politicians and media have been conning people into thinking it ISN'T Chinese money laundering, and offensively attacking anyone who does call it for what it is as racist. The truth is so blatantly obvious now that the racist thing doesn't stick anymore, but it doesn't stop some unscrupulous people from trying - especially since they're personally making a shit ton of money from it.

Vancouver's housing affordability crisis is NOT like other cities. It's much, much worse than anywhere in the anglosphere at least. There's no economy here to back up the insane prices, and the insane prices extend all the way to the end of the suburbs. I'm getting out of here as soon as possible because when the crash happens it's gonna be really ugly. Really scary things are happening to the economy and society on a fundamental level and you'd have to be wilfully blind to not see it if you live here - which, in your defence, you don't.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Because the number one reason housing is so expensive is NOT zoning, it's Chinese money laundering.

You have it backwards. Politicians and media have been conning people into thinking it ISN'T Chinese money laundering, and offensively attacking anyone who does call it for what it is as racist. The truth is so blatantly obvious now that the racist thing doesn't stick anymore, but it doesn't stop some unscrupulous people from trying - especially since they're personally making a shit ton of money from it.

Vancouver's housing affordability crisis is NOT like other cities. It's much, much worse than anywhere in the anglosphere at least. There's no economy here to back up the insane prices, and the insane prices extend all the way to the end of the suburbs. I'm getting out of here as soon as possible because when the crash happens it's gonna be really ugly. Really scary things are happening to the economy and society on a fundamental level and you'd have to be wilfully blind to not see it if you live here - which, in your defence, you don't.

This. Obviously being on this forum I like seeing urban development happen, but honestly at this point I can't get excited when I see those project proposals anymore. It's just another example of a whole bunch of condos which will be too expensive for most locals to buy and represent more off-shore money flowing in.

Again, though I believe in urbanity, it kind of saddens me to see all the people running for Meggs's council seat in Vancouver showing their proposals to densify the single-family home areas. Because it's not natural. If it wasn't for Chinese money, Vancouver wouldn't look even close to what it looks like now. You hear so many people saying that we just need to stop fighting densification and we'll get rid of the problem. But it won't - supply isn't our problem, it's the completely insatiable demand. This is the dominant conclusion in academic literature, by the way. Again, I'm all for densification but when it's warranted. What we may be moving towards is a situation where we seriously reduce housing sizes in the blind pursuit of affordability when in reality it ends up being just so more foreigners can buy property.

So many people here argue against highway expansion because of induced demand and the fact that we "can't build our way out of congestion." If that's true for highways, why wouldn't it be true for our real estate?

To your point Pinion, I'm in Winnipeg for school but I wanna go back to Vancouver as soon as possible. But so much could change in these 2 years and honestly I could see a point where the city just becomes fundamentally and irreparably broken.

[Pinion]

Yeah it has definitely hurt my ability to enjoy new developments too. I used to think of the never-ending building boom as a sign of a thriving city, and am still impressed by good quality developments and planning. But after watching all my friends and high school classmates leave, and observing every employer I've worked for looking for ANY warm body who can afford it here, new towers just seem like a disease spreading.

My current employer is looking for over 50 new hires, not because the economy is good, but because no one can afford to live anywhere near their job on "normal" Vancouver wages. They'd have to offer at least $10 more per hour to entice people to commute from Surrey and beyond.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Yeah it has definitely hurt my ability to enjoy new developments too. I used to think of the never-ending building boom as a sign of a thriving city, and am still impressed by good quality developments and planning. But after watching all my friends and high school classmates leave, and observing every employer I've worked for looking for ANY warm body who can afford it here, new towers just seem like a disease spreading.

My current employer is looking for over 50 new hires, not because the economy is good, but because no one can afford to live anywhere near their job on "normal" Vancouver wages. They'd have to offer at least $10 more per hour to entice people to commute from Surrey and beyond.

I mean theoretically offering higher wages is what we need but obviously it's not always so easy to do so.

Good point about the disease spreading, that's exactly how I feel.

I forgot to finish my last post in that restricting demand in the form of stricter foreign-buying laws is the only thing that can save us at this point. But then our economy's become so dependent on this money that it would surely ruin us if we banned it right away. Still, we need to be bold as soon as possible if we are to have any hope after this.

[whatnext]

It has been shown that adding supply can just be akin to throwing fat on the fire if you don't tackle demand. It's funny that those who keep screeching that we're running out of land and must densify willy nilly never answer this question: if land is so scarce why do we allow it to be sold to foreign buyers?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Just a brief comparison:

Seattle: population, 3,733,580; city density, 3,242/square km; metro density, 647/square km

San Francisco: population, 4,679,166; city density, 7,170/square km; metro density, 730/square km

Los Angeles: population, 13,131,431; city density, 3,275/square km; metro density, 212/square km;

Toronto: population, 5,928,040; city density, 4,149/square km; metro density, 849/square km

Montreal: population, 4,098,927; city density, 2,719/square km; metro density, 890/square km

Houston: population, 6,313,158; city density, 1,414/square km; metro density, 630/square km

Chicago: population, 9,472,676; city density, 4,600/square km; metro density, 509/square km

Boston: population, 4,628,910; city density, 5,368/square km; metro density, 396/square km

New York City: population, 20,153,634; city density, 10,890/square km; metro density, 688/square km

Vancouver: population, 2,463,431; city density, 5,493/square km; metro density, 855/square km

That's right, we've got density greater or near equal to Chicago, Houston, and Boston, any other city in Canada and any city in the West Coast... despite having a fraction of their populations. Only NYC is more crowded. And the powers that be are still calling for more.

By all means, let's welcome more supply, BUT we need to look at the demand side of the equation too.