Little Mountain Redevelopment | Proposed

[racc]

Originally Posted by awvan

Nothing of real substance to note, except that the number Holborn has paid for the land is close to $300M. That's a real big nut. This project will have to be 2.5 times the size of the Olympic Village, that 2500-3000 unit count is something I've heard from a couple people in the last couple weeks.

I wouldn't expect to hear much publicly on Little Mountain until after the election, probably not until the Spring. This is move slowly and undoubtably awaken a lot of negative feedback from the neighbouring community.

They were saying up to 3000 last year.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by bardak

I think it would be smart not to become an election issue.

Does it really matter? Should Vision Vancouver be lucky enough to be re-elected with a majority on Council they'll justy steamroll over what the neighbourhood wants anyway, in favour of whatever proposal the developer brings forward.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Does it really matter? Should Vision Vancouver be lucky enough to be re-elected with a majority on Council they'll justy steamroll over what the neighbourhood wants anyway, in favour of whatever proposal the developer brings forward.

That's kinda what I was getting at. Submitting a large proposal in the middle of an election would only hurt Vision and I don't think that the developer would want that.

Whether that is a good thing for Vancouver and/or the neighbour is another thing entirely.

[flight_from_kamakura]

uh, i hope that your skepticism is coming from the "insufficiently dense" side. in that event, i'd guess that vision would be better that the nimby-coddling npa.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

uh, i hope that your skepticism is coming from the "insufficiently dense" side. in that event, i'd guess that vision would be better that the nimby-coddling npa.

Not at all. I find that those who like to bash single family home owners as NIMBY's are generally those who don't own a single family home. If the citizens don't want towers thrust into their neighbourhood, who are the elected politicians (elected by them) to force it on them?

And you don't know Vancouver politics if you think the NPA coddle NIMBY's. COPE, yes.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Not at all. I find that those who like to bash single family home owners as NIMBY's are generally those who don't own a single family home. If the citizens don't want towers thrust into their neighbourhood, who are the elected politicians (elected by them) to force it on them?

And you don't know Vancouver politics if you think the NPA coddle NIMBY's. COPE, yes.

And who are those nimby single-family home owners to tell a deelope what try can and cannot do on their private property?

[jlousa]

Um the home owners are the community, and the voters that vote in the civic elections. You surely can't be serious about letting the developer just build as they please, there has to be compromise.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Um the home owners are the community, and the voters that vote in the civic elections. You surely can't be serious about letting the developer just build as they please, there has to be compromise.

Zoning laws are a huge violation of private property rights. Anyway that's completely off topic.

[jlousa]

Not having zoning would be even a bigger violation of your property rights as it would allow your neighbour to build a rendering plant directly next door to you. Zoning is a good thing.

I'm hearing that we can expect to see a proposal late this year/early 2012.

[cc85]

Originally Posted by galeforcewinds

Zoning laws are a huge violation of private property rights. Anyway that's completely off topic.

hahahahahahahaha

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by galeforcewinds

Zoning laws are a huge violation of private property rights. Anyway that's completely off topic.

hahaha oh jeebus.

[logan5]

Ron Paul is an American hero. - "Truth is treason in the empire of lies". Only fools and Fox News try to denigrate this man.

Anyways, without zoning I think Downtown Vancouver would be a chaotic mess, as would the Little Mountain project.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Not having zoning would be even a bigger violation of your property rights as it would allow your neighbour to build a rendering plant directly next door to you.

So you admit that externalities exist - what about the extra congestion caused by people who can't live near transit when this development is inevitably downsized? What about the upward pressure on housing prices caused by an undersupplied market?

Just because those externalities are spread across a large number of people doesn't make them smaller.

I'd love to live in a world where residents of Mount Pleasant (including myself) had zero say in the size of this development. Some zoning is obviously necessary, but I really can't get behind the kind that will inevitably cut hundreds of housing units from this project.

[Pinion]

I am 100% behind Ron Paul's foreign policy for the US and respect his courage on that issue. But his domestic policy has already been tried in places like Somalia and doesn't work out so well in practice.

Fox News may ignore Ron Paul but they both want us to be slaves to unaccountable multinational corporations.

I apologize for extending the derail but I still can't believe a Canadian (?) is against zoning laws.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by quobobo

So you admit that externalities exist - what about the extra congestion caused by people who can't live near transit when this development is inevitably downsized? What about the upward pressure on housing prices caused by an undersupplied market?

Just because those externalities are spread across a large number of people doesn't make them smaller.

I'd love to live in a world where residents of Mount Pleasant (including myself) had zero say in the size of this development. Some zoning is obviously necessary, but I really can't get behind the kind that will inevitably cut hundreds of housing units form this project.

Our local market isn't undersupplied.

I always get a chuckle out of those who hold up the residents of Strathcona in the late Sixties as plucky little urbanists when they fought off redevelopment of what was then a total slum - yet the same people will disparagingly refer to the Little Mountain residents fighting off out of scale redevelopment as NIMBY's.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Our local market isn't undersupplied.

And yet there are so many developers willing to sell way more housing than they're currently allowed, and housing sale prices are roughly double construction costs (compare MLS data to RSMeans construction cost data. I'm dead serious). That would meet my definition of undersupplied.

I don't know what it is about real estate that makes people think this way. If the price of wheat was twice what it cost to grow it, would you recommend that farmers produce more or less of it?

(and yes, I know that you think that's mostly because of foreigners who shouldn't be allowed to bring their money here. Doesn't matter to me who's providing the demand)

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I am 100% behind Ron Paul's foreign policy for the US and respect his courage on that issue. But his domestic policy has already been tried in places like Somalia and doesn't work out so well in practice.

That is comepletely untrue. Somalia doesnt have any government. Ron Paul believes the role of the government is to protect individual rights. I don't see the right to life, property, speech, religion being protected in Somalia. I doubt Somalia's court system allows you to sue a neighbors for pollution causing harm to you or your land. I don't see Somalia having a strong national defense to protect it's citizens from warlords or foreign invasions. I don't see the central government enforcing the rule of law against pirates. Ron Paul's domestic policy is nothing like the lawlessness rampant in somalia.

Ron Paul is not an anarchist, he sees a role for the federal government, a role that is clearly spelled out in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. And as the 10th amendment states, all other powers are left to the states and people.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Fox News may ignore Ron Paul but they both want us to be slaves to unaccountable multinational corporations.

Again not true. Fox News is part of the neoonservative corporatist military-industrial complex. They love war, corporate welfare and big government meddling in the private lives of people.

Ron Paul wants to end all corporate welfare, bailouts, tax loopholes, regulations written by big business lobbyists that do nothing to protect consumers and only help keep competition out. Ron Paul doesn't accept any lobbyist money or donations from corporations. Ron Paul also believes that corporations should be held accountable for their actions, whether it be fraud, enviromental damage, abuse of it's workers, and that it is best done through the court system instead of big government regulations. There's no need for so much regulation when you enforce the law.

[whatnext]

I'm surprised this wasn't posted in here: Jim Green resigned last week as the community consultation advisor to Holborn's Little Mountain project, citing a difference of opinion Holborn's president Joo Kim Tiah.
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/1...using-project/

Umm,after seeign the article I have to ask, how old is Joo Kim Tiah? Does he have the experience to helm a project this complex?

[Pinion]

Doesn't matter if he is older than he looks, anyone who has that haircut shouldn't be in charge of anything.