What do you think of this project?

  • I like it a lot

    Votes: 28 68.3%

  • I like it

    Votes: 12 29.3%

  • I neither like nor dislike it

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • I dislike it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I dislike it a lot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    41
Marcolangzi said:
The outcome of last night public hearing was frustrating to say the least.
It is troubling to hear that area redevelopment plans are covenants between the city and residents and therefore should not be changed, which would then be considered a break of trust.
Click to expand...
I hear what residents are say and agree plans should mostly be followed, but there are lots of examples where Council votes in favour of a Direct Control in spite of the plans in place. This happens all the time in Downtown and Oliver for example. The property owner has the right to ask for this, whether out of desire or market conditions or influence or whatever. It is in Council's discretion whether or they agree this is best for the city or not.
 
Greenspace said:
I hear what residents are say and agree plans should mostly be followed, but there are lots of examples where Council votes in favour of a Direct Control in spite of the plans in place. This happens all the time in Downtown and Oliver for example. The property owner has the right to ask for this, whether out of desire or market conditions or influence or whatever. It is in Council's discretion whether or they agree this is best for the city or not.
Click to expand...
Also, plans are published at a fixed point in time. Public Interests, Economic Conditions, Best practices etc. change over time, and the City needs to be able to adapt to these instead of making a new plan every year. Plans are also imperfect, any planner will admit that. The plans are a starting point, but need to be flexible if there is sufficient rationale to change it.
 
In every public hearing multiple bylaws are passed that amend Area Redevelopment Plans. For some reason though, this one should be treated as a covenant, even though the more recent City Plan contradicts it.

This debacle also demonstrates that Janz is completely spineless. He talks a big talk about sustainable development but folds like a wet noodle after any local pressure.

At least the mayor had the decency to make up a reasonable excuse (along the lines of "we have to bring the communities along or we'll lose their support").

My reading is that the mayor does support this development, but has to give the impression that he doesn't. Hence supporting the motion to refer this back to administration, but not fighting the amendment that took the teeth out of the motion to refer.
 
The Councillor seems to like to grandstand and is divisive. The same characteristics I detest that have been adopted by some on the right, I equally dislike when used by the other side.

He seemed better on the school board, but being on council seems to have brought out his inner child. I hope he will grow up and learn to behave better soon.
 
I only caught some of the comments after the public hearing, but Mayor Sohi kept referring to the existing ARP's as a "contract with residents" that needs to be upheld to keep trust. Wonder if that ever comes back the next time a proposal comes forward that aligns with City Plan but not the current version of the ARP for that community.
 
To some degree I feel the mayor has a point in general - changing things or over riding what an area has agreed to in the past is not a good way to build trust or a relationship.

However, circumstances change over time. What if the ARP is very old or out of date? What if the change is not that significant? NIMBY's sometimes make a mountain out of a mole hill and get themselves all worked up about something more than the situation deserves.

In any event, surely there should be coordination between city and community plans. Planning is often the easy part, its getting people to go along with it that is the harder part and if you can't do that then the plan isn't worth much in the end.
 
strata said:
I only caught some of the comments after the public hearing, but Mayor Sohi kept referring to the existing ARP's as a "contract with residents" that needs to be upheld to keep trust. Wonder if that ever comes back the next time a proposal comes forward that aligns with City Plan but not the current version of the ARP for that community.
Click to expand...
Very simply, it is not a contract. It is a form of regulation, which is unilateral, whereas a contract is bilateral.
 
I realize this is getting into semantics, but maybe the word commitment would have made more sense to use here.

Sure, the City can do all sort of things unilaterally, but often consults extensively with citizens to get feedback for plans in the hopes what is developed will work for people in the communities affected. This is not unreasonable.

Things can change over times and perhaps there are other reasons to depart from previously agreed plans, but its not going to go over well to just ignore those previous plans and argue it can be done unilaterally.

I suppose if you look at it more as a partnership that arises from extensive consultation, you might use the word contract even if it is not a formal written one. If you look at it as someone who wants to ignore or dismiss the concerns of those pesky residents you might focus on unilateral power.

The mayor and councilors are elected, so they can't completely ignore those concerns. Bureaucrats are sheltered from all that to some degree.
 
I'm not as concerned/frustrated as others seem to be. I got the impression that most supported the proposal and motion is really just ass-covering on the part of council. It will pass in December. Previous councils would have just outright voted it down if they got this much organized opposition from some in the community.
 
#saveMetro78

That’s all I am asking.

I think this issue about betraying the residents if Council amend the ARP needs a broader discussion.

The MDP takes precedence. That is the law, period.

As a taxpayer, I will feel betrayed for not having “a” TOD project along the south leg of the Capital LRT Line.

Again, good conversation. But I am not ready to give up just yet.

One more round…
 
Good for them holding their ground on the height.

Will be interesting to see how council handles this one. I have no doubt the biggest concern residents had was with the height...but by also making such a big deal out of the waste management, they have given the developer an easy win so they can show they are willing to work with the residents, but not actually compromise on the big ticket.

Hope it passes, and the development lives up to the renders.
 
strata said:
Good for them holding their ground on the height.

Will be interesting to see how council handles this one. I have no doubt the biggest concern residents had was with the height...but by also making such a big deal out of the waste management, they have given the developer an easy win so they can show they are willing to work with the residents, but not actually compromise on the big ticket.

Hope it passes, and the development lives up to the renders.
Click to expand...
Definitely, this is the exact type of development you want immediately adjacent to an LRT station. If Council says no or requires revisions than there is no hope, as it's classic NIMBYism with these folks.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top