Dan Fumano: B.C. cities rethinking the use of public hearing

[officedweller]

From the Vancouver Sun - 2 part series:

Dan Fumano: B.C. cities rethinking the use of public hearings
Dan Fumano
Published Jul 05, 2023
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...ublic-hearings


Dan Fumano: Critics say public hearings on development proposals in B.C. are often unfair
Dan Fumano
Published Jul 06, 2023
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...ublic-hearings

[SpongeG]

they talked about this on the radio yesterday, one of the things the host brought up, he has in the past covered this kind of hearing for work and he was liking the idea of getting rid of these hearings as he said in the times he would be at the events/hearings that he would see the same faces and people attending over the years and they were often opposed just cause they were anti-development etc. and it felt like a waste of time as the general public really wasn't attending.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Can confirm - the idea of "local" consultation is really ironic when a lot of the people at open houses are from outside of the neighbourhood and waging a proxy war to prevent it "spreading" to theirs.

Who is Not in the Room?

In other words, ask: What real points of view, and real dimensions of the human experience, are not represented in this conversation? How could their absence lead us to make a bad decision even with the best of intentions, and how do we compensate for that?

[jollyburger]

It's always a charade of public consultation and input when they plug their numbers on how many people were reached and how many people interacted when it's only a tiny sliver of the community that cares enough to vote let alone give their input into development proposals or anything else. They should make public hearings into jury duty that people are forced to attend once every 10 years lol

[Migrant_Coconut]

Not a bad idea - take a random sample of around 20-40 people, then 20-40 more, and you're bound to hear a much more diverse set of opinions than the standard YIMBY/NIMBY split.

[logan5]

We have had public consultation during the making of the Vancouver Plan. This covers the entire City of Vancouver, so we shouldn't need any more public hearings on any plans that fall under the Vancouver Plan model. The Renfrew/Rupert Plan for example. Using the Vancouver Plan as a guide, we already know what building type and density is going to be planned for this area.

The new Rupert Renfrew land use policy should only take 6 months to complete, but it won't of course. It will take 2 years, just like previous plans, rendering the Vancouver Plan a complete waste of time.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not a bad idea - take a random sample of around 20-40 people, then 20-40 more, and you're bound to hear a much more diverse set of opinions than the standard YIMBY/NIMBY split.

That assumes they care.

The small size allows all activists more say than the normal set of the population. Considering the turnout of municipal elections, that’s the exact number of people who care.


The better solution is to pre-zone properties with zoning approved in approved plans so that no hearing is required. Which is the direction Vancouver is going in anyways.

Originally Posted by logan5

We have had public consultation during the making of the Vancouver Plan. This covers the entire City of Vancouver, so we shouldn't need any more public hearings on any plans that fall under the Vancouver Plan model. The Renfrew/Rupert Plan for example. Using the Vancouver Plan as a guide, we already know what building type and density is going to be planned for this area.

The new Rupert Renfrew land use policy should only take 6 months to complete, but it won't of course. It will take 2 years, just like previous plans, rendering the Vancouver Plan a complete waste of time.

Because Vancouver feels the need to micromanage every aspect of the buildings in its plans, not because of public consultation.

The Vancouver Plan is also not intended to be a plan on its own, as it has no zoning recommendations in it. Which is a big deal. This is intentional- from the website:

it is the City’s strategic land use framework, guiding more detailed plans and policies to come.

[WarrenC12]

The people missing from public hearings for big new developments are the people that will eventually live there.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Can confirm - the idea of "local" consultation is really ironic when a lot of the people at open houses are from outside of the neighbourhood and waging a proxy war to prevent it "spreading" to theirs.

Who is Not in the Room?

How is that any different from someone on an Internet forum plumping the link to the comments button to flood a development survey with support from people outside the neighborhood?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by officedweller

From the Vancouver Sun - 2 part series:

Dan Fumano: B.C. cities rethinking the use of public hearings
Dan Fumano
Published Jul 05, 2023
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...ublic-hearings


Dan Fumano: Critics say public hearings on development proposals in B.C. are often unfair
Dan Fumano
Published Jul 06, 2023
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...ublic-hearings

I was at the public hearing for temporary modular housing in New West that Nadine Nakagawa talks about in the second article. It was disgusting. Here's what I wrote afterwards:

It was disgraceful, and the overwhelming majority of that disgrace falls on the group of people who came out in opposition to the project. They were rude, they were disrespectful, and they created a hostile environment for everybody involved. The only raised voices I heard from anybody who was supporting the project was asking the loud opposition crowd to be quiet.

Women who had been given assistance through similar projects came out to speak in favour of housing, and a number of them bravely shared incredibly personal and heartbreaking stories. A lot of people from Elizabeth Fry and other similar organizations spoke about the massive benefits of projects like this, not only for the people involved but also for the community. I spoke, yes, but the brave women who shared their stories are the ones we should be focusing on.

And then there were the group of people in opposition. With threatening words towards council like “we’ll be watching” or “November, guys” (pro-tip: if you’re going to threaten politicians about an upcoming election, get the month right) and the clapping and shouting after anybody in opposition spoke, this group made City Hall feel like a riot was going to break out. Two women who were going to speak in favour were intimidated by this behaviour into leaving before they could speak. The safe and welcoming place that City Hall is meant to be was completely transformed by the intimidation of the opposition group.

Queensborough-Richmond MLA Jas Johal was in the lobby, but unfortunately did not speak about the project. After I spoke in favour, I passed him in the audience and he gave me some kind of a smug smirk. I learned afterwards that he was seen chatting and laughing with a group of people in opposition who were being loud and intimidating. This is poor behaviour from someone who is supposed to be a leader in the community.

None of the bullying came from people in support of the project. None of the intimidation came from people in support of the project. If someone in opposition to the project felt bullied or guilty because they stated their reasons for opposing the location, maybe that’s their conscience making an appearance. If you feel guilty because you’re opposing a project because it’ll take away park space when women who lived on the streets and could have died without projects like this speak up, then maybe it’s your conscience making you feel guilty that you place park space above housing a vulnerable neighbour.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

How is that any different from someone on an Internet forum plumping the link to the comments button to flood a development survey with support from people outside the neighborhood?

Online surveys are also flooded with out-of-area NIMBYs - for 1477 Broadway, some woman from Point Grey sent three angry comments.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by whatnext

How is that any different from someone on an Internet forum plumping the link to the comments button to flood a development survey with support from people outside the neighborhood?

it's a waste of time and resources to hold it in person and elongates the process of an already long process.