HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 2:22 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2010, 4:08 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
City Hall showdown looms over sprawl
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ci...852/story.html
Fight over boundary down to ‘white-hats-versus-black-hats’

BY NECO COCKBURN, THE OTTAWA CITIZENFEBRUARY 21, 2010 10:02 PMCOMMENTS (2)


OTTAWA — An old-fashioned showdown is looming at City Hall between councillors who want to expand the city’s suburban boundary and potentially allow new subdivisions farther from Ottawa’s core and those who want to rein in the line to prevent urban sprawl.

College Councillor Rick Chiarelli, backed by Mayor Larry O’Brien, will have council reopen discussion on the issue next week. Chiarelli said he had hoped to spark “intelligent debate” between councillors, but that’s not happening, since “there seems to be no moderation on either side.”

It has come down to a “white-hats-versus-black-hats gunfight,” Chiarelli said.

It will be the second time in seven months that council will consider the boundary, which is a line on city zoning maps outside which no major development is supposed to happen.

Land inside the boundary can be developed and instantly becomes more valuable than land that’s not, but people opposed to expansion say moving subdivisions farther away from the core creates more demand for expensive city services and can damage the environment by consuming land and increasingtraffic.

The city has conducted several studies showing this, and minimizing sprawl is official policy.

In June, at the end of a year-long review of the city’s official plan, which governs what can be built and where and which has to be re-examined every five years, council decided not to follow a staff recommendation to expand the boundary by 842 hectares.

Instead, councillors voted 12-11 to expand the boundary by 222 hectares, mostly between Kanata and Stittsville, to fill in gaps between areas where development has been approved; before that, they voted

13-10 against a straight freeze on the boundary. Because the compromise passed, the idea of an 842-hectare expansion didn’t come to a vote.

Landowners and builders wanted more than 2,000 hectares to be approved and have launched appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board, which can overrule city planning decisions.

Chiarelli wants councillors to hear the expected costs and the city’s chances of successfully defending its decision. He expects the city might have a weak case before the board, since councillors voted for a limited expansion in defiance of their own staff’s advice. Trying to defend council’s decision could be expensive and pointless if the city’s going to lose, he said. Chiarelli’s motion says council should adopt the staff recommendation to expand the boundary by 842 hectares.

There are 29 appeals before the board dealing with the official plan and the city has set aside $500,000 for “specialized legal advice.”

Councillors expect a legal opinion on the matter, but several of those opposed to expansion appear doubtful their minds will change.

“I fundamentally believe that on the merits of the argument, the decision that city council has made is right, supportable, defendable,” said Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume, who proposed the 222-hectare expansion.

Hume, chairman of city council’s planning and environment committee, said some official plan cases before the OMB deal with more than just the boundary and will still require the city’s attendance even if council takes a new vote.

Some councillors expect part of Wednesday’s discussions to involve procedural wrangling over whether council can revisit the issue at all. Ordinarily, revisiting an earlier decision requires several councillors to have changed their minds, or for significant new information to have become known. The question will be whether the details on the legal costs of the OMB fights will qualify.

Based on the narrow decision in June, things could get particularly interesting if councillors are asked to vote on Wednesday. (Due to a heavy schedule, part of the council meeting could take place on Thursday or Friday.)

In June, O’Brien was away due to his criminal trial, and he says he’d have voted against the 222-hectare compromise. Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes, who has advocated freezing the boundary and voted for the compromise as a fallback position in June, is expected to miss at least Wednesday’s meeting.

That could shift the balance of power from those who would not approve further expansion to those who would.

Depending on the outcome, some councillors could still call for the issue to be considered yet again when council meets in March.

Just like last time the issue was debated, community groups opposed to expansion plan to rally outside city hall at noon on Wednesday.

Bay Councillor Alex Cullen, who is opposed to further expansion, expects “high political drama” at the meeting.

“We are talking about the future of the city for the next 20 years. We’re also talking about millions of dollars of land value riding on this decision,” he said.

Councillors on either side of the issue don’t appear to be wavering.

“The right decision was made to begin with and I don’t know that there’s any relevant new information that would cause us to change our minds,” said Rideau-Rockcliffe Councillor Jacques Legendre, who voted to limit expansion.

Rideau-Goulbourn Councillor Glenn Brooks, who also voted to rein in expansion, said he has not changed his mind.

But on the other side, Osgoode Councillor Doug Thompson said it would be good long-range planning to expand the boundary to what staff had recommended. He voted against the compromise last time.

So did Kanata North Councillor Marianne Wilkinson, whose ward contains land that would have been added to the urban boundary under the staff recommendation. She said she doesn’t want to shut the door on new development for people who want certain types of housing.

“I’m not going to go and say that in the future, nobody can have a single-family house.”

ncockburn@thecitizen.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2010, 8:11 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Council is in camera right now... discussing the Chiarelli motion perhaps?

Here's the text of the motion


Moved by Councillor R. Chiarelli
Seconded by Councillor S. Desroches

WHEREAS the urban boundary proposed by staff and adopted by The Planning and Environment committee on May 26, 2009 recommended an expansion of the urban boundary to accommodate projected growth in the city of Ottawa over the next 25 years and this recommendation by Committee came after the receiving of over 270 public submissions; and

WHEREAS, when the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Of The Official Plan - Public Meeting ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0080 was debated at Council on June 10, 2009 several motions were adopted that had the effect of reducing the recommended expansion of the urban boundary; and

WHEREAS this decision is now being appealed and part of the basis of that appeal are the amending motions that were adopted by Council on June 10, 2009 reducing the urban boundary and in effect removing select lands for development;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council approve that the urban boundary be defined as described in the original Joint Planning and Environment and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Report #1 - Comprehensive Five-Year Review Of The Official Plan - Public Meeting (ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0080).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2010, 9:41 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Chiarelli motion is now being discussed in public session....
http://ottawa.ca/online_services/cou...ish/index.html

edit: Chiarelli motion withdrawn

Hume motion - Direction to staff to defend City Council's decision at OMB

Big rant by Councillor Hunter (huge mistake, head in sand etc)
Deans - Decision is good as long as we supply transportation/infrastructure for this land (should have built NS LRT)
Wilkinson - didn't like Councillor Deans' use of the word 'sprawl'
Hume - Look to Choosing Our Future... Council decision is defensible at board
O'Brien - was not convinced by staff/lawyers

Hume's motion - passes 17-3

See you at the OMB (I guess we'll find out who appealed in one of the next PEC reports)

Last edited by waterloowarrior; Feb 24, 2010 at 10:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2010, 10:53 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Chiarelli motion is now being discussed in public session....
http://ottawa.ca/online_services/cou...ish/index.html

edit: Chiarelli motion withdrawn

Hume motion - Direction to staff to defend City Council's decision at OMB

Big rant by Councillor Hunter (huge mistake, head in sand etc)
Deans - Decision is good as long as we supply transportation/infrastructure for this land (should have built NS LRT)
Wilkinson - didn't like Councillor Deans' use of the word 'sprawl'
Hume - Look to Choosing Our Future... Council decision is defensible at board
O'Brien - was not convinced by staff/lawyers

Hume's motion - passes 17-3

See you at the OMB (I guess we'll find out who appealed in one of the next PEC reports)
Thanks for the update...so in other words the current urban boundary will remain. Why did Chiarelli talk about making this motion and then not carry forth (or is that different from what happened).

If ever a Councillor likes to have himself in the spotlight it is Chiarelli..the guy walks around City Hall like he is some sort of rock star with his swagger (albeit a very slow swagger). I think he was getting some grief today from some lefties in the crowd at the Council chambers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2010, 11:12 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
He seemed to withdraw it based on the discussion during the in camera session and the direction the rest of Council was heading, although he did make statements about "extreme" intensification in his ward.

He's just doing his part to help us become a "city with swagger"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2010, 11:28 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
He seemed to withdraw it based on the discussion during the in camera session and the direction the rest of Council was heading, although he did make statements about "extreme" intensification in his ward.

He's just doing his part to help us become a "city with swagger"
Thanks for the insight. Extreme intensification...where other than at Greenbank/Baseline (Baseline/Merivale power centre doesn't count as that is not in his ward...despite his efforts) is there a lot of intensification.

I can't see that many on Council have the stomach to justify the huge expansion unless they are in Walton's pockets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 4:34 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Council holds line on boundaries
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Council...184/story.html
College councillor withdraws move to push urban limits; motion passes to defend 222-hectare decision in court

BY NECO COCKBURN, THE OTTAWA CITIZENFEBRUARY 24, 2010 11:25 PMBE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT


OTTAWA — A controversial motion that could have expanded the city’s suburban boundary died Wednesday when it was withdrawn by the councillor who presented it.

After a lengthy in-camera legal briefing, College Councillor Rick Chiarelli pulled the motion, saying councillors were willing to defend an earlier council decision to limit expansion of the boundary in spite of appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.

“I understand what council believes to be in the best interests of taxpayers in this case,” he said.

Council ended up passing by a vote of 17-3 a motion presented by Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume that reaffirms the fact that legal staff will defend a council decision made in June to expand the boundary by 222 hectares, mostly between Kanata and Stittsville.

Staff had recommended expanding the boundary by 842 hectares. Landowners and builders wanted more than 2,000 hectares to be approved and have launched appeals to the OMB, which can overrule municipal planning decisions.

The city’s suburban boundary is a line on city zoning maps. No major development is supposed to happen outside it.

Land inside the boundary can be developed and instantly becomes more valuable than land outside, but people opposed to expansion say allowing the construction of subdivisions farther from the core causes more demand for expensive city services and can damage the environment by consuming land and increasing traffic.

The problems are shown in several studies conducted by the city, and official policies aim to minimize sprawl.

Chiarelli, backed by Mayor Larry O’Brien, said he wanted councillors to hear the expected costs and the city’s chances of successfully defending its decision at the OMB.

His motion called for council to adopt the staff recommendation of an 842-hectare expansion, which outraged community groups, residents and some councillors who said it amounted to giving in to developer interests.

On Wednesday, dozens of people gathered in the snow outside City Hall at noon to protest the motion. A few in the group held signs reading “Hold the line,” and speakers touched on problems caused by urban sprawl, such as increased costs and taxes.

After hearing legal advice and following some private debate, Chiarelli ended up voting for Hume’s motion to have staff defend the decision to the OMB.

Councillors “got the briefing, they know the implications, they chose to go ahead,” Chiarelli said.

“If we’re going ahead, then we should pull together and fight the fight.”

Chiarelli said he wants to make sure that “extreme intensification” that’s out of step with existing neighbourhoods does not happen as a result of limiting boundary expansion.

Hume told council it had made the right decision in June, and the city meets provincial requirements for available future land. Councillors heard from an outside legal expert that “the decision that we made was defensible, that we didn’t reject our staff’s advice and, indeed, that they will be able to be at the board and defend the decision that we took,” Hume said.

He said he didn’t think the staff recommendation provided strategic growth.

However, the mayor voted against Hume’s motion, saying he wasn’t convinced by legal arguments raised at the in-camera briefing. O’Brien told reporters that “we just have to move forward with this now.”

Bay Councillor Alex Cullen said O’Brien miscalculated when he pushed to re-open debate on the boundary.

“The advice we got from our staff was very clear: That our case was very strong,” Cullen said. “We got a lot of response from the public to vote against urban sprawl and the mayor’s credited for stimulating public debate, but I don’t think he got the result he was looking for.”

Not all councillors agreed with council’s previous decision.

Knoxdale-Merivale Councillor Gord Hunter and Osgoode Councillor Doug Thompson were the other council members to vote against Hume’s motion. Hunter said the staff recommendation would have provided “smart growth” that wouldn’t require new facilities or infrastructure.

“It starts to be problematic if we keep making symbolic-type decisions now that shirk our responsibility to plan communities as our population grows in the next two decades,” he said.

ncockburn@thecitizen.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2010, 2:49 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
OBJ article on the urban boundary and land supply (Polowin, GOHBA, developers' perspectives)
http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/2010-0...ing-the-line/1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2010, 4:25 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
OBJ article on the urban boundary and land supply (Polowin, GOHBA, developers' perspectives)
http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/2010-0...ing-the-line/1
Quote:
Michael Polowin, a planning expert and partner at Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, says the city’s official plan has a “split personality.”

“We can neither go up nor can we go out. Where are we going to put all these people?” asks Mr. Polowin, who represents several clients appealing the city’s official plan.

The planning document prohibits using the city’s intensification targets as justification for additional height and density if those targets can be met over the planning horizon with the existing zoning.

It also says zoning amendments must be carried out in consultation with the community.

The height and density of development proposals in existing neighbourhoods are frequently fought across Ottawa, with residents often claiming their community is not conducive to intensification.

“The reality is that neighbourhoods that fight development are not fighting on a principled basis. They are fighting on a ‘let’s-preserve-the-status-quo’ basis,” says Mr. Polowin.
Since when is Mr. Polowin a "planning expert"? He's a real estate law expert, but a planning expert he is not. The above shows why. He accuses the city of having a split personality and then asks where all these people are going to go and yet the following paragraph gives the answer: if the existing zoning is sufficient to allow the intensification targets to be met over the planning horizon, then by definition all these people can be accommodated within the existing zoning. If not, then the intensification targets of the official plan allow for higher densities than allowed for in the zoning - not that that has ever stopped Mr. Polowin anyway.

As for community opposition, perhaps Mr. Polowin could try advising his clients to adhere to the existing zoning and community development plans for once. Since this never actually happens we simply don't know what the community response would be. It's always a game of pushing the limit, and then of using past successes of pushing the limit to push it further still. People are not complete idiots - they figure this out before long - so they fight like mad to hold the line. Of course the one place where these limits could be pushed virtually with impunity and no one would really give a damn - in undeveloped areas - we instead have to have in place policies to enforce minimum densities, to the horror of people like John Herbert.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 4:30 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Richfield vs. Sierra Club in Kanata
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technol...688/story.html
Builder wants to develop both sides of Terry Fox Drive
BY KATE JAIMET, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMARCH 30, 2010 11:34 PM

OTTAWA-Extending Terry Fox Drive through the sensitive South March Highlands and then only allowing construction on one side of the street makes no sense, argues a development company seeking to expand the urban boundary further into the endangered species habitat.

Richcraft Homes is appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board, which can overrule city planning decisions, to strike down the urban boundary set by city council last summer and instead allow expansion in several areas of Ottawa, including the South March Highlands.

There, the Terry Fox Drive extension — set to be built this summer — marks the boundary of allowed urban development in Ottawa.

Richcraft owns an 80-hectare parcel of land straddling the road’s planned route, which it bought in 2006 for $9 million.

Now, the company is arguing that it should be allowed to develop its land on both sides of the new road, not just on the side where the city’s plan says development is OK.

“The city has to grow somewhere … Yes, (Terry Fox Drive) has been a boundary, but boundaries shift,” said Richcraft senior planner Lisa Dalla Rosa.

“If the city is putting in infrastructure, like Terry Fox Road, with servicing, why not take advantage of that?”

However, the executive director of the Sierra Club Canada, which is leading the lobby against the Terry Fox Drive extension, says Richcraft’s appeal just proves that the entire $47-million roadway project is a bad idea.

“It’s been obvious to the Sierra Club from the beginning that the purpose of developing Terry Fox Drive was to make it easier for developers to acquire more land,” John Bennett said.

“This just reinforces that point.”

About half the land owned by Richcraft is within the South March Highlands, according to a report commissioned by the pre-amalgamation Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in 1997.

That report describes the highlands as an extraordinary area of mature forest and wetlands, providing a home for regionally rare animals such as black bears, red-headed woodpeckers and threatened Blanding’s turtles, as well as rare plants, including endangered ginseng and butternut trees. The Richcraft land also includes a stretch of the Carp River and its associated floodplain.

Dalla Rosa said that, while Richcraft is asking the OMB to designate the entire parcel of land as “urban,” the company does not intend to develop the most environmentally sensitive portions.

She pointed out that part of the land is already zoned as environmentally sensitive by the city.

“The environmental studies would be done and we’d establish the boundary,” she said. “We would have to work through that process with the city.”

Bennett was skeptical of the developer’s assurances.

“How can you possibly protect environmental land by developing all the way up to it and around it?” he said. “We need to have clear regulatory protections and not a promise from developers.”

A date has not yet been set for the OMB hearing.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 2:04 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
I don't get the anti-developer bias many have...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 4:57 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
I don't get the anti-developer bias many have...
Developers are evil because they want to make a profit and get a good return on their investments (unlike any other kind of business )
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 5:39 PM
blackjagger's Avatar
blackjagger blackjagger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Developers are evil because they want to make a profit and get a good return on their investments (unlike any other kind of business )
Yeah I don’t get the extreme hatred of developers. I guess it’s only because of their direct impact on locals. A kid in a sweat shop or an oil tanker leaking oil doesn't have the same direct in your face presence as the empty lot two blocks over becoming a 10 storey condo.

Cheers,
Josh
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 5:39 PM
rodionx rodionx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Centretown
Posts: 283
But no one holds it against Tim Hortons that it wants to make a profit. The issue with developers is that they make a commodity out of something that the public instinctively regards as belonging to everyone - forests, turtles, and all. They are perceived to be taking something away, and making money off of what doesn't belong to them.

Not that it's a particularly defensible view, but it's a major psychological factor. Tim Hortons, conversely, makes money off of soaking beans in hot water.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2010, 4:45 AM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
I was under the impression that the city was already pushing the limits of what should be allowed in that area by building the road in the first place. We have endangered species protection legislation for a reason. If the OMB says the road-building makes the land urban, then stop building the road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2010, 9:42 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
the party starts with a pre-hearing on June 14th
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL100206
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2010, 6:16 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
first decision document is up from pre-hearing... you can see who is appealing (Minto, Claridge, Richcraft, Tamarack, GOHBA, Walton, FCA, Friends of the Greenspace Alliance etc)
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions...un-30-2010.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2010, 7:40 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
first decision document is up from pre-hearing... you can see who is appealing (Minto, Claridge, Richcraft, Tamarack, GOHBA, Walton, FCA, Friends of the Greenspace Alliance etc)
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions...un-30-2010.pdf
Thanks for that link...when you look at the list of parties and counsel/agent you basically have, with a few exceptions, all those 'developer types' that Doucet rails against.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2011, 5:31 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:20 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.