Motion passed by City Council on May 27th regarding housing targets

[MistyMountain]

Not sure if this has been posted about but I couldn't find any info. There was a meeting last night at city council where one of the Councillors, Councillor Hardwick attempted to get their motion passed that sought to reduce the overall housing targets set by the city from 72,000 to 30,000.

She submitted the motion to council a few weeks ago and it was referred to the meeting yesterday. The meeting yesterday then had speakers from the public to give their opinions on the motion, and one referenced that they had been given an updated version of the motion ahead of the discussion (that the public had not seen).

Right before the motion was set to be voted on Councillor Hardwick submitted an amendment to the motion, essentially rewriting it completely. They Mayor and another Councillor called her out on it, calling it undemocratic to release the motion and have the public speak on it, but then completely change the motion right before it was due to be voted on.

It often happens that small amendments are made to motions due to discussion among the Councillors, but it seems she had intended ahead of time to completely rewrite the motion and had even gone as far as to distribute it to her friends who she had seemingly lined up to speak at the meeting.

Following this, a different Councillor submitted an amendment to the amendment, and then part of the amendment was revealed to be illegal. There was a point at which the whole motion looked like it was going to get thrown out, but they were able to salvage it. One of the Councillors suggested they refer the motion to the next meeting to follow proper democratic procedure with the public and to give themselves a chance to read the motion, other than the minutes they had to read the motion before voting.

After this there was a long period of procedural confusion and it was quite hard to follow what was happening. Eventually, the Councillor who suggested to refer it withdrew the motion, saying essentially that they were fed up and just wanted to get it over with. The motion was voted on and it passed.

There hasn't been much (if any) reporting on this in the media yet because the revised motion hasn't been released to the public yet, but it should be soon.

If you want to listen to the meeting I'd encourage you to, it can be found on the city's website here.

[djh]

Thanks for pointing out what happened here. I had not seen or heard this yet. But I know who definitely would find this newsworthy: both Frances Bula (Globe and Mail/freelance) and Mike Howell (Vancouver Courier) would find any irregularities and sneakiness in city hall worth reporting. I suggest you contact them on social media.

[TheTerminalCity]

Thanks MistyMountain, I'd been wondering about the outcome of that motion and the minutes haven't been posted yet. Wouldn't say I'm excited to listen to the proceedings but curious is probably fair.

[whatnext]

I hadn't heard about the strange last minute rewrite, but there was a good article in the Globe & Mail a couple weeks ago explaining the rationale behind it:

Critics say Vancouver needs to recalibrate its housing strategy
KERRY GOLD
VANCOUVER
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED MAY 13, 2020

The Housing Vancouver Strategy needs a serious rethink because it is based on flawed population projections that are pressuring the City to develop more market housing than it needs, say housing experts.

Councillor Colleen Hardwick’s motion to recalibrate the Housing Vancouver Strategy (HVS) was expected to go before council this week.

In 2017, the previous council responded to the city’s affordability crisis with a 10-year strategy that aimed to create a greater supply of rental and social housing, a diversity of housing types, and discourage speculative demand that had driven prices. The plan included a target of 72,000 new homes, of which nearly half would accommodate households earning less than $80,000 a year.

Ms. Hardwick and several others question the HVS’s goal to build 72,000 new homes of all types in the city between 2018 and 2027. They argue that the target is based on a flawed projected population increase of 158,400. That’s twice the historical rate, based on census numbers, and post-pandemic, there is no reason to believe that the population will drastically grow in the near future.

It’s an important distinction, they say, because the projected need for 72,000 homes guides housing policy.

David Ley, geography professor emeritus at the University of B.C., studies global housing markets. Dr. Ley said policy based on such a high projection leads to massive changes of the urban fabric, which is what the city has already endured.

“I think what the 72,000 [figure] does is set in orbit a whole series of policies and practices, and they include seemingly relentless condo development and the demolition of affordable rental units and spot rezoning, which is destabilizing neighbourhoods. And Vancouver residents voted exactly against that policy in the last civic election...

...It later became clear that much of the demand was for speculative or long-term investment. Last year, new government data showed that 46 per cent of Vancouver condos are rented out, used as a secondary residence, or left empty. But investor-owned housing is nothing new. The City of Vancouver’s own Condominium Rental Study from 2001 to 2009 showed that the rate of investor ownership in 2001 was 34.7 per cent.

Considering that high level of investor ownership, and no reason for a major influx of immigration, Andy Yan, director of Simon Fraser University’s City Program, says he’d like to see a break down of the projection, and where the demand is coming from.

“What is that number based on? The City should be able to explain their assumptions, as opposed to citizens having to figure it out,” Mr. Yan says....


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...sing-strategy/

[GenWhy?]

It's really a nothing-burger as many recent policies enacted and coming out this year heavily focused on rental and the under $90k household incomes.

It's really just an update but Hardwick's language of the motion didn't help. I'm certain the Strategy's housing numbers are gross. and not net

[s211]

Condos being rented out are a red herring, and shouldn't be demonized. They're meeting a rental market demand need that wasn't being met sufficiently from the purpose-built rental side (because purpose-built was typically uneconomic to build). Without this shadow rental supply, the rental market would be in even more dire need.

And to be clear, I'm not speaking as a developer or nor do I rent condos out. This is the market economist in me speaking.

[GenWhy?]

The Motion

[rofina]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The Motion

OK.

Whats her angle on this?

I doubt its her trying to be proactive and preventing the city from giving away density rights because of too high completion targets needing to be met.

It has a potential NIMBY angle to it - " Stop with the condos! Were overbuilding!" but I cant think of much beyond that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The Motion

That was the original motion - but apparently (reading above, and comments while the meeting was taking place) she then substituted a different motion that she'd circulated among her 'supporters', but not to Council. Until we see the minutes we won't know exactly what was voted on.

Like being 'The Greenest City' or 'Solving Homelessness' the Housing targets are really only aspirational - so in one sense they're not a big deal. On the other hand, they are the basis for specific decisions, whether it's creating energy systems, or buying SROs, or building modular housing, and in this case approving higher densities.

This is presumably intended as a shot across the bows for developers and the new City Plan from a councillor who doesn't really like growth, or development, especially big developments in places that have lower scales of development today. Particularly on the West Side.

It probably won't make any difference in the big picture as housing starts are dropping anyway, and I'd be surprised if the target has been met since it was adopted. It's more indicative of a relatively small but very vocal group of people that Featherfriend has met at rezoning open houses and in connection with Broadway Corridor planning, who really don't see the need, or the justification for much growth, especially if it affects their homes (or their home values) or their neighbourhood.

If you check Councillor Hardwick's voting record on rental schemes last year, (allowing for absences due to an accident) she was not a big fan of quite a few developments.


[source Daily Hive]

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

It has a potential NIMBY angle to it - " Stop with the condos! Were overbuilding!" but I cant think of much beyond that.

It's total NIMBY.

Why not let the market overbuild, if that's what will happen.

[GenWhy?]

Correct, Changing. The adjusted motion looks like a reporting memo from staff more-or-less but it has a weird scent about it.

And it appears she wants to break things by neighbourhood (unit targets) as opposed to city-wide. Which is also her position to the City Plan.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's total NIMBY.

Why not let the market overbuild, if that's what will happen.

Because overbuilding destroys affordable housing. Look what is happening in the West End. The prices or even rents on those new buildings will never be slashed to the levels that those rather dreary but functional walk-ups offered. If a developer sees an opening to create a new building and offer it offshore for more money they'll take it.

Andy Yan is one of the most reasonable urbanists around and I think his comment in the article I quoted is spot on: citizens have a right to know how the city arrived at its numbers.

[GenWhy?]

"It’s an important distinction, they say, because the projected need for 72,000 homes guides housing policy."

Data and numbers sure but recent housing policy and tenant protections, especially on the rental front has been greatly in tune with finally doing something with the households under $80k. Just I wish Hardwick was a bit more easily to believe she's in favour of affordable housing when the more I go to council for my rental projects she doesn't seem to care or understand a rental building proforma or the economics and City regulations we're abiding by.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Because overbuilding destroys affordable housing. Look what is happening in the West End. The prices or even rents on those new buildings will never be slashed to the levels that those rather dreary but functional walk-ups offered. If a developer sees an opening to create a new building and offer it offshore for more money they'll take it.
.

You've said that before, and it wasn't true then, and it's not true now. Hundreds of new rental units have been created in the West End, and almost no dreary but functional walkups have been demolished. The two Safeway rental towers replaced a Safeway. The liquor store was replaced by a tower, and there were 10 units there. The London Drugs parking lot had no residential. Up the street, Jervis and Mirabel are developing 96 non-market rental units - more than the market units that were there before. There's a net gain in affordable units in the West End.

The few buildings where affordable units are being lost is when those dreary blocks are being given a 'back-to-the-studs' makeover, and the developer then charges much higher rents. As there's no redevelopment, the city can't get any affordable units out of those projects.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Because overbuilding destroys affordable housing. Look what is happening in the West End. The prices or even rents on those new buildings will never be slashed to the levels that those rather dreary but functional walk-ups offered. If a developer sees an opening to create a new building and offer it offshore for more money they'll take it.

What? Supply and Demand don't exist anymore?

[MistyMountain]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Because overbuilding destroys affordable housing. Look what is happening in the West End. The prices or even rents on those new buildings will never be slashed to the levels that those rather dreary but functional walk-ups offered. If a developer sees an opening to create a new building and offer it offshore for more money they'll take it.

Andy Yan is one of the most reasonable urbanists around and I think his comment in the article I quoted is spot on: citizens have a right to know how the city arrived at its numbers.

This seems like a false dichotomy, there's plenty of room to build new housing without touching existing housing (ie. 60% of Vancouver zoned for SFH) but the COV has decided that essentially the only place to build new rental is on top of older rental.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by MistyMountain

This seems like a false dichotomy, there's plenty of room to build new housing without touching existing housing (ie. 60% of Vancouver zoned for SFH) but the COV has decided that essentially the only place to build new rental is on top of older rental.

Which is what it seems like Hardwick is getting at but I'm still not sure the end game. For rental (especially the West Side) she is definitely not the friendliest to redevelopment so her folks of support posting videos to her motion and I think her comments on lower density and moderate increases in housing throughout the city seems to butt heads.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by rofina

OK.

Whats her angle on this?

I doubt its her trying to be proactive and preventing the city from giving away density rights because of too high completion targets needing to be met.

It has a potential NIMBY angle to it - " Stop with the condos! Were overbuilding!" but I cant think of much beyond that.

Exactly. Without condos and strata housing, what are ordinary folks going to live in? Shaughnessy mansions?

Or maybe she thinks that the Coronavirus would inflict mankind for the next 10 years, and hence limited population growth.

Indeed too many dumb folks voted into office.

Maybe it's time to recall this useless politician.

Originally Posted by Changing City

You've said that before, and it wasn't true then, and it's not true now. Hundreds of new rental units have been created in the West End, and almost no dreary but functional walkups have been demolished. The two Safeway rental towers replaced a Safeway. The liquor store was replaced by a tower, and there were 10 units there. The London Drugs parking lot had no residential. Up the street, Jervis and Mirabel are developing 96 non-market rental units - more than the market units that were there before. There's a net gain in affordable units in the West End.

The few buildings where affordable units are being lost is when those dreary blocks are being given a 'back-to-the-studs' makeover, and the developer then charges much higher rents. As there's no redevelopment, the city can't get any affordable units out of those projects.

Can't agree with you more.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You've said that before, and it wasn't true then, and it's not true now. Hundreds of new rental units have been created in the West End, and almost no dreary but functional walkups have been demolished. The two Safeway rental towers replaced a Safeway. The liquor store was replaced by a tower, and there were 10 units there. The London Drugs parking lot had no residential. Up the street, Jervis and Mirabel are developing 96 non-market rental units - more than the market units that were there before. There's a net gain in affordable units in the West End.

The few buildings where affordable units are being lost is when those dreary blocks are being given a 'back-to-the-studs' makeover, and the developer then charges much higher rents. As there's no redevelopment, the city can't get any affordable units out of those projects.

Is there any way to see what the non-market monthly rental rates are for these projects?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Is there any way to see what the non-market monthly rental rates are for these projects?

Yes