Think City Minute Archive

Get the Minute

admin — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 23:21:34 -0400

The Think City Minute is a regular bulletin sent to thousands of subscribers each month, providing news, opinion, events, case studies and information on civic life in Metro Vancouver.

Sign-up here to receive the Minute.

NEWS: Vancouver’s Path for Electoral Reform

editor — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:16:54 -0400

By Think City Staff

When the province’s local government elections task force released its May 28 report listing 31 recommendations for reforming BC’s civic elections, Vancouver's Mayor Gregor Robertson said they didn’t go far enough.

City council’s unanimous call for full disclosure and a ban on union, corporate and foreign donations were nowhere to be seen said the mayor. Other councillors also expressed disappointment that limits on donations were left off the list of reforms.

Is the road to electoral reform dead in Vancouver? Will the city’s 20-plus other democratic reforms that former supreme court justice Thomas Berger identified in his 2004 Vancouver electoral commission continue to gather dust? Maybe not.

When Think City interviewed Bill Bennett before he was shuffled into another cabinet position in mid-June, the then minister of communities and rural development said he wanted to “try to find some way for Vancouver to act differently.” Bennett went on to say he recognized Vancouver’s unique electoral reform issues and perspectives.

And it’s a good thing too. Take a look at the case against contribution limits made by Bennett’s task force.

When the task force decided to choose spending limits over contribution limits, Bennett originally told the Vancouver Sun editorial board that councillors had to excuse themselves from votes at council involving campaign donors. Bennett was wrong and was forced to retract his comments the very next day.

If it were true, no elected official in Vancouver could vote on council business that involved Concord Pacific or its CEO Terry Hui, as all three civic parties took donations from Hui or his company in 2005 and 2008. Strike one.

Bennett’s task force also rejected the notion of contribution limits claiming that spending limits would also reduce the need for large contributions. Just saying that donors who gave $100,000 to campaigns in 2008 won’t in 2011 doesn’t make it so. Strike two.

Finally, the task force’s own background paper on contribution limits recognized that outside BC there is a trend toward imposing contribution limits. Moreover, a glaring omission from the report is Alberta’s recently revised municipal campaign finance laws. In that province, there are no restrictions on election spending, however candidates standing for election cannot take contributions from individuals, unions or corporations over $5,000 during an election year.

This legislation was passed in the Alberta legislature last February, yet the Bennett task force paper on contribution limits makes no reference to this example from our nearest provincial neighbour. Strike three.

More than 3,000 Vancouverites took part in Think City’s two surveys on electoral reform conducted this past winter and spring. The vast majority supported the reforms repeatedly put forward by city council since the Berger Commission. So where does Vancouver go next?

On June 24, city council debated how they would continue to lobby for contribution limits, on-going disclosure, a ban on union, corporate and foreign donations, and tax credits for political donations. They also raised the issue of widening the scope of electoral system choices for the city without having to seek permission from the provincial legislature to change how we vote for our local politicians.

Council ruled out further attempts to get the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) onside. Last year’s tri-party motion to the UBCM calling for a variety of campaign finance reforms got buried in the agenda, according to the motion’s sponsor, Councillor Ellen Woodsworth. In addition, half of the members of the local government elections task force were drawn from the UBCM executive and all of them opposed contribution limits. Finally, leading BC mayors, like Burnaby’s Derek Corrigan, want no changes to how local politicians finance their campaigns.

Instead, Mayor Robertson and council have chosen to deal with the one body that has the authority to make change – the provincial legislature. The latest in a series of unanimous tri-party votes on electoral reform saw the three major civic parties – the Coalition of Progressive Electors, the Non-Partisan Association and Vision Vancouver agree to step up the city’s campaign for democratic change. Council will now be seeking a meeting with Ben Stewart, the new minister of community and rural development, to discuss Vancouver Charter changes that would improve the electoral process for the 2011 civic election.

When Mayor Robertson does get his meeting in Victoria, he may want to push for Toronto’s solution. Canada’s biggest city was able to strike a separate deal from other municipalities with the Ontario legislature on election law reforms. Toronto now has spending limits, contribution limits, public financing in the form of generous donor credits, a neighbourhood constituency system, a total ban on union and corporate donations, and strict laws governing disclosure.

As University of Calgary professors Lisa Young and Sam Austin found, Toronto’s local election candidates have a more diverse funding base, are less reliant on corporate contributions particularly development industry contributions and are forced to compete in elections where the playing field is more level. And just like Vancouver, Toronto has its own legislation that separates it from the rest of the province’s municipalities.

NEWS: Share the Road Pilot Project

admin — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:28:30 -0400

By Think City Staff

Today, city streets are used mostly by private vehicles, but this space is also shared with cyclists, pedestrians, taxis, commercial goods movement and public transit. However, should street use be changed to provide more space for walking, socialising, bike riding, transit or other purposes?

The newly-launched, citizen-led Share the Road project will be seeking answers to that very question this summer in east Vancouver. While the City of Vancouver owns the streets, sidewalks, boulevard strips and back lanes, citizens can propose changes to how roads are used in their neighbourhood to their elected city council.

Local residents in the Grandview-Woodland neighbourhood and Think City are working together to consider how the city can make the area more pleasant, safer, healthier, cleaner and sustainable. The goal is to have citizens develop and propose their own ideas to re-allocate road space for the benefit of the entire community.

Transportation was one of the three key themes to emerge from Think City's 2007-2008, citizen-led policy development project called Dream Vancouver. Making more city road space car-free was the top priority in this issue group. Through the Share the Road project, Think City hopes to model how local residents can better inform the decisions that shape their neighbourhood, while at the same time meeting the number one transportation public policy objective that emerged from the Dream Vancouver process.

Starting June 20, Think City will be surveying citizens in-person and online. Over the summer, in collaboration with a working group of local volunteers, we will incorporate survey feedback into a set of transportation proposals which will be presented to the Grandview Woodland Area Council this fall.

In addition to gathering the ideas of local residents, Think City will also be asking for feedback on:

More separated bike lanes;
Wider sidewalks on Commercial Dr.;
Changing traffic lights in favour of buses and pedestrians;
Greening residential streets;
Changing residential streets so road space is shared equally by cars, cyclists and pedestrians;
Lowering speed limits on residential streets;
Making Venables St. into a greenway; and
Improving transit services to and through the area.

The City of Vancouver is not directly involved in Share the Road and there is no commitment from the city to implement the suggestions. However, we hope city council and TransLink will listen to the results and act on them. If this project is successful, Think City plans to work with other neighborhoods to develop more citizen-led Share the Road projects.

Take the Grandview-Woodland Share the Road survey by clicking here.

OP-ED: Five Ways to Fix Transport Woes

editor — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:58:38 -0400

By James Fletcher

Everyone agrees that Vancouver’s transportation network is a mess. Unfortunately, there is little consensus on how to fix it.

The city’s last transportation plan came out thirteen years ago, and an updated plan is long overdue. Starting this fall the city will be seeking input on its new transportation plan. The plan sets out the city’s transportation policy goals and the main priorities for capital investment and service needs.

However, the city actually has very little control over transportation policy. TransLink, the regional transportation authority, is in charge of public transit and major regional roads and bridges. Vancouver’s influence on TransLink depends largely on the leadership and political skills of our local politicians.

The city does have control over its streets, bridges, traffic signals, land-use policies and capital budget for infrastructure. In these areas the city should be as bold and innovative as possible.

Vancouver’s ambition to be the world’s greenest city is pointless without decisive action on transportation, the largest source of greenhouse gases. With that in mind, what should the new transportation plan include? Here are five ideas:

1. A regional focus

As the metropolitan core of the region, Vancouver has to take up a leadership role on transportation issues. The city’s transportation plan must have a regional focus, based on the understanding that better transit options in the suburbs will ultimately result in fewer cars coming into the city, and cleaner air for the whole region.

Unfortunately, when TransLink was debating its budget and ten year operating plan last fall, Vancouver was silent on the issue. In the end, the TransLink council of mayors chose the status quo option which is clearly insufficient to meet the needs of a rapidly growing region over the next ten years.

In fact, even TransLink’s own documents acknowledge the plan does not provide enough funding to maintain service at current levels over 10 years. In effect, the region’s mayors have created the makings of crisis – in a few short years TransLink will be forced to either make dramatic service cuts or impose big tax increases. Leadership at the regional level is needed desperately.

Vancouver’s politicians should be outspoken advocates for investing in transit projects – not just for Vancouver, but for the whole region. You do not have to dig very deep in the suburbs to hear valid complaints that their transit needs have been ignored. For example, Port Moody has built a dense urban centre based on the promise that rapid transit would be built – yet the Evergreen Line keeps getting delayed while the traffic in the area becomes ever more congested. Vancouver should insist the Evergreen Line be built without further delay.

Vancouver should also support plans to introduce commuter rail service in the Fraser Valley as far as Chilliwack, and expansion of the West Coast Express to provide trains in both directions during the day – not just morning and afternoon peak periods.

2. Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure

One area where the city has shown it can make a difference is providing separated bike lanes on city streets. The successful trial of the Burrard St. Bridge bike lane encouraged the city to push forward with more bike lanes, including the newly opened Dunsmuir bike lane. Connecting up with the Dunsmuir St. viaduct bike lane and the Adanac St. bikeway, it provides a safe, separated bike route right into the downtown core. The mayor’s party deserves credit for keeping its election promise to expand the city’s bicycle lanes, but the city can and should go further. Building bicycle infrastructure is key to making cycling a safer and more appealing option.

Many cities in Europe have short-term bike rental schemes with hourly rates. Richmond has expressed interest in creating a bike rental program here. The city should partner with Richmond and other municipalities to create a regional bike rental program for Metro Vancouver.

Vancouver could also look down under for inspiration. Over the last 15 years Melbourne has transformed its downtown by facilitating the use of its alleys as pedestrian ways. Now lined with trendy boutiques, shops and bars, Melbourne has used its lanes to create vital, pedestrian-friendly urban spaces. Other cities, like Baltimore, are now using this strategy to revitalize their downtowns. Vancouver's city-wide network of lanes is an under-utilized asset and has great potential for increased pedestrian use.

A car-free crossing for pedestrians and cyclists is an old idea whose time has come. Many cities around the world have iconic pedestrian bridges. For Vancouver, a city surrounded by so many waterways, it is a natural fit. Not only would such a bridge facilitate walking and cycling, it would quickly become a civic landmark and international icon.

The pedestrian bridge idea was revived by Think City board member Kera McArthur in 2008 as part of Jane's Walk, and last year architect Gregory Henriquez proposed a striking design. Although it was pooh-poohed by some bureaucrats and commentators, the concept has taken hold in the public imagination. Clearly, people want a more pedestrian-friendly urban environment. Will Vancouver take a bold step forward in this area?

3. Goods movement

Efficient movement of goods is crucial to the city’s economy. Transportation costs are an important component of the cost of doing business in the city but add no value to the final product or service. Therefore, facilitating goods movement helps to reduce costs for business and keeps companies and jobs from relocating to other cities. The city should look at the feasibility of creating road space dedicated for trucks and commercial vehicles.

A functioning example is Commissioner St., which takes much of the truck traffic to and from the port. Without this commercial-only route, a lot more port-bound traffic would be tying up east Vancouver streets.

Perhaps other rights-of-way, such as the Grandview Cut, could be re-engineered to allow more efficient truck access from Highway One to the city centre in a way that reduces the impact of heavy truck traffic on neighbourhoods? Negotiations with CN Rail would likely be lengthy and complex, but there is the prospect of a win-win solution that would improve the flow of goods and the livability of east Vancouver neighbourhoods.

At the very least, some dedicated commercial vehicle lanes on the city’s busiest streets could help to improve goods movement through the city.

4. Land use planning

Land use planning and transportation planning are two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, in Vancouver they have rarely been coordinated effectively. Separate bureaucracies and political processes seem to ensure that major transit investments are considered separately from big development proposals.

Entire neighbourhoods, such as the area south of SE Marine Dr. between Victoria and Kerr, have been built without any new bus routes. The East Fraserlands plan talks about better transit as the area is developed but there are no targets or enforcement tools, just feel good statements. Transit service in the southeast corner of the city is sparse at best, and living without a car simply isn’t an option for many residents.

Mini-buses, or community shuttles as TransLink calls them, are far more efficient than an infrequent 40-foot bus in serving local neigbourhoods and feeding into the transit network. The city should make them a condition of major development approvals. In other words, show us your contract with TransLink before you get your development permit.

At the same time, the city has done very little over the past 24 years to foster higher densities around transit nodes such as the Broadway, Nanaimo and 29th Ave. stations. Land within 400 metres of each station on the Expo and Millennium lines and the new Canada Line should be automatically up-zoned for higher density development.

5. Citizen involvement

The city must do much more to engage the public in transportation decisions. People will use alternative transport options when they are well-designed and fit easily into people's lives. This means recognizing that our travel patterns are becoming more complex – and the days of planning for peak period travel to and from the downtown core are long gone.

The city's capital budget is a great place to start. Transportation projects are very capital intensive. Therefore, the city's capital plan which goes to referendum every three years is a key opportunity for the public to have an impact on transportation choices. Instead of working on the capital plan behind closed doors and putting the whole package to voters for a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, city council should engage citizens in a participatory budgeting process. It's time people had a real say in how their tax dollars are spent.

Think City's Share the Road project in the Grandview-Woodland neighbourhood is another example of public engagement on transportation issues at the local level. Our survey asks people how they get around, which places they find inconvenient or unsafe, and what they would change. We ask participants to rate many different options, and will present the results to the city and TransLink.

If the city acts decisively in these five areas, Vancouver will be well on its way to being greener – and maybe even the greenest city.

James Fletcher is a Think City board member and the editor of the Think City Minute.

OP-ED articles do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Think City. To make a submission to the OP-ED section of the Think City Minute, please email editor@thinkcity.ca for details.

OP-ED: Preventing Spatial Apartheid

editor — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:19:44 -0400

By Jim Green

Vancouver has a world-wide reputation for planning expertise. Many former City of Vancouver planning staff went on to work on significant projects in China, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai.

What put Vancouver on the world planning map is the concept of “Vancouverism”, which is basically a means of creating mixed-use developments that are environmentally, socially and culturally sustainable. It started many years ago under the planning director of the day, Ray Spaxman, and was further developed by Larry Beasley.

A component that cannot be overlooked is the inclusivity required to have a city that truly works. Mike Davis, a renowned planner and academic at the University of California, has studied very different approaches that are based on the separation of people along the lines of wealth, occupation and race.

This is typical of many American cities where low-income people are ghettoized and those with money are enclosed in gated communities that exist to keep out lower income people and people of colour. Mike Davis calls this approach “spatial apartheid”, which in my opinion, is clearly not the way to develop a livable city. This approach leads to isolation, hostility and violence.

The emerging trend in Vancouver is to strive for the polar opposite of spatial apartheid. The best example of this is Woodward’s. The redevelopment of Woodward’s set out to accomplish many things on a small but yet very strategic piece of land. The community was involved in all aspects of the development process – and that process included 4,000 people that came to co-design sessions to give their vision of how Woodward’s should work. There was a community advisory committee, co-chaired by a long term Downtown Eastside resident, Lee Donahue, along with the Chair of Gastown Business Improvement Association, Jon Stovall. This collaborative approach led to a project which functions in so many ways to improve the community and the social and cultural aspects of Vancouver.

Approximately 50 BladeRunners, who are primarily aboriginal street involved youth, worked on the construction of Woodward’s. Retail on the site includes a highly sought after Woodward’s food floor run by Nester’s, a London Drugs, a Subway and J.J. Bean Coffee, whose head office and roasting facility is located in the Downtown Eastside.

Building Opportunities with Business (BOB) and Jim Green and Associates worked with these retailers and with Simon Fraser University, whose School for the Performing Arts is also part of the redevelopment, to recruit local residents and train them for positions.

The recycling in the Woodward’s complex has been contracted to Recycling Alternatives, a neighbourhood business that hires locally, while the refundable containers are managed by United We Can, a Downtown Eastside non-profit. Security for the complex is provided by the Portland Hotel Society, a well known non-profit operating in the Downtown Eastside. There are 200 units of social housing and a childcare facility, as well as W2, a non-profit media arts collective, which will soon be operating a social enterprise coffee shop on the site.

Woodward’s also features 500 units of market condominiums, some of which were sold at reduced prices to Downtown Eastside residents. Many of those buyers work for organizations such as the Portland Hotel Society and other non-profit organizations. Simon Fraser University’s School for the Contemporary Arts is committed to providing access to their facilities and events to local residents and organizations.

According to Dr. Pier Luigi Sacco, the Downtown Eastside is already the centre of culture in the city and I believe very strongly that there will be a synergy between W2, SFU with its five theatres, and the community. I believe this will bring great benefits to the whole city.

I have said on many occasions that Woodward’s is the model for the future, and I think that we are beginning to see that happen in places like the Olympic Village that have many of the components that Woodward’s first embraced.

In my current work with the Holborn Group on the redevelopment of Little Mountain, I can see many similarities with Woodward’s, especially the challenge of inclusivity. Little Mountain has a strong community advisory group that meets regularly and is well-educated on planning concepts and procedures. This group, which is open to anyone who would like to join, is an invaluable part of the redevelopment team. Holborn has also agreed to offer employment opportunities to the Musqueam people.

Little Mountain, which was the first social housing in Vancouver, was demolished for the redevelopment – but part of the arrangement between the provincial government, the city, and the Holborn Group is that the 224 social housing units that were on the site will be replaced and former tenants will have the opportunity to come back and live there. We are also looking at the possibility of including the Little Mountain Neighbourhood House in the plan, along with retail and possibly childcare. The plan is that it be architecturally significant and achieve LEED Gold. The possibility of including more social housing and affordable rental will be considered as well.

An interesting sideline to this redevelopment is that from the land costs and profits generated, the provincial government will invest half the money in social housing in Vancouver and the other half throughout the province. The province and the city, along with Streetohome, have just announced $225 million for 1,006 social housing units in Vancouver, and part of that funding is expected to come from the redevelopment of Little Mountain. This is a unique situation in which the redevelopment of a social housing project is being used to generate funds to finance other off-site social housing. The precedent for this is Woodward’s, which generated 200 units of social housing off-site, known as the Lori Krill Housing Co-op.

According to Housing Minister Rich Coleman: “the capital that Little Mountain will bring will actually create another thousand units of social housing…this is the right type of housing, which is supportive housing.… It’s really smart leveraging of an asset to actually do more in the areas that you need it the most."

It is imperative that we use every tool at our disposal to produce the housing that is so badly needed in our city and province.

Jim Green is the principal of Jim Green and Associates and served on Vancouver City Council from 2002 to 2005.

OP-ED articles do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Think City. To make a submission to the OP-ED section of the Think City Minute, please email editor@thinkcity.ca for details.

NEWS: Public Want Strict Limits on Donors

admin — Tue, 25 May 2010 18:41:40 -0400

By Think City Staff

British Columbians want the province to end big money influence on local elections according to a new survey released by Think City.

A majority of 1,025 people surveyed want strict donor contribution limits and campaign spending caps for local elections.

"Our survey shows the vast majority of the public want the province to bring in strict laws regulating how local candidates and parties finance their election campaigns," said Think City Chair Neil Monckton. "More than half of those surveyed rated donor contribution limits as the most effective way to curb the influence of big money on local politicians in BC's at-large local electoral system."

Think City's online campaign finance reform survey of 1,025 citizens between May 11 and 21 showed overwhelming support for contribution limits, spending caps and public funding. In particular:

80 per cent want donor contributions capped at between $1,100 and $2,500 annually;
71 per cent want campaign spending limited to between $0.85 and $3.30 per voter; and
63 per cent want public funding in the form of tax credits or donor rebates to be made available at the municipal level.

Think City's survey findings mirror the results of a Mustel poll of 500 BC residents conducted between April 7 and 14 that showed 85 per cent support campaign spending limits and 75 per cent support limits on how much money any one person or organization can donate to a candidate or political party.

"In the 2008 elections, municipalities across the province were plagued by numerous cases of campaign financing irregularities that resulted in police investigations, inquiries and legal challenges," said Monckton. "We hope Minister Bill Bennett and his local government elections task force will reflect on the significant support for campaign finance reform when they make their recommendations for civic electoral reform public on May 30."

"Candidates and parties have strict limits on both campaign spending and donor contributions federally and at the municipal level in several provinces including Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec," said Monckton. "During provincial elections in British Columbia, candidates and parties are subject to strict expense limits. It's about time BC modernized its local election campaign finance laws."

Think City’s second submission to the provincial task force on local government elections detailing the results of the campaign finance survey will be availbale on May 26.

To read Think City’s May 26 submission to the provincial local government elections task force, click here.

OUR VIEW: Leadership Needed on Housing

editor — Tue, 11 May 2010 15:38:01 -0400

Leadership is about having the courage and confidence to step forward when everyone else is afraid to take a risk.

In our view, the housing affordability crisis is primarily a crisis of leadership.

The lack of leadership is usually attributed to our politicians, but equally applies to developers, planners, architects, contractors, housing activists, community organizations, and other players in the housing industry.

The average one bedroom apartment in Vancouver rents for $936 per month, meaning that a household income of $37,500 is required to achieve the affordability threshold that housing costs not exceed 30 per cent of income.

The 2006 census revealed the extent of the problem – 21 per cent of Vancouver’s renters, comprising 57,000 households, pay more than 30 per cent of their income in rent. Those numbers are certainly higher now. Last year, average rents in Metro Vancouver increased almost ten times faster than inflation (as measured by the consumer price index).

And this points to larger changes to the social make-up of our city. School enrollments are dropping as families are driven out of the city. Companies report they cannot attract and retain staff in Vancouver. Any attempt to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, green jobs or cultural industries is hobbled. The housing crisis is strangling our economy.

Yes, its causes are many and complex – a very finite supply of land, a growing population, a wave of real estate speculation, the poor economies of scale of smaller households, high development costs and too much red tape, high labour costs during a construction bubble, and the withdrawal of senior government funding for building non-market units all contribute to the housing affordability crisis in Vancouver.

However, these problems are not insurmountable. What’s needed is an effective public policy response that uses market and non-market solutions and involves all levels of government.

In recent years, there has been an understandable focus on the most visible manifestation of the housing affordability crisis – homelessness. However, we believe the pursuit of an answer to housing our poorest citizens is obscuring a more complex problem.

Tens of thousands of low- and middle-income people are being squeezed by rising housing costs, causing massive downward pressure in the housing market, and ultimately, the displacement of the poorest and hardest to house.

What we need is a long-term strategic initiative that involves governments, business and advocates that is focused on the single goal of housing affordability for all citizens, not just those who are destitute and homeless. Instead, we have an uncoordinated tangle of contradictory public policies, goals and market forces.

Vancouver city council is moving ahead with initiatives intended to create more affordable housing, while at the same time adopting policies that restrict other opportunities for low- and middle-income housing development.

Very early in their mandate, the current city council initiated the short term incentives for rental housing program to address affordable housing problems by providing incentives for developers to increase the supply of rental housing. These incentives include exemptions from development cost levies and other development charges, increases in allowable density, and streamlining the development approval process.

However, this past January, council decided that protecting views of North Shore mountains from a few arbitrarily selected locations was a higher priority than taking positive steps to address the housing affordability crisis.

By capping building heights at or near present levels, the view corridor decision will make future Woodwards-model projects much more difficult to achieve. The Woodwards model is based on the policy of trading higher density (extra units) for affordability (non-market units). This model is very suited to dense, urban neighbourhoods like those in the downtown peninsula, and could provide that much-needed mix of market and non-market housing.

Another piece of the puzzle is the role of housing advocates in promoting effective solutions. Unfortunately, recent lobbying efforts by some housing activists not only failed to advance long-cherished social housing goals, but have actually been an obstacle to other low- and middle-income housing development.

Last fall, gentrification fears stoked housing activists’ opposition to any relaxation of historic area height limits in Chinatown, Gastown and the Downtown Eastside prompting city council to cap building heights. Instead of fighting for tools that could provide more affordable units, as well as protect and expand housing for the most vulnerable, activists lobbied for this deeply regressive policy decision, making it unworkable for developers to consider Woodward-model solutions in the three neighbourhoods for the foreseeable future.

More recently, demands for keeping the Olympic Village social housing intact came at the expense of converting the 252 units of Olympic social housing into two or possibly three times as many units of social housing elsewhere on less expensive city land. In the end, the city will only bring 126 units of social housing online. The other 126 units have been earmarked for workforce rental housing that comes at a hefty market price and still requires an additional $32 million subsidy from the city.

Finally, there are too many developers trying to make big profits building overpriced units for the upper end of the market. Few developers are sharpening their pencils, being creative, and building a product priced for middle class families who want to stay in the city. In the current real estate bubble, there’s simply too much easy money to be made.

For example, Concord Pacific and the city could do something innovative with the northeast False Creek site. Unfortunately, the current plan calls for yet more high-end towers to fill up the remaining space between BC Place Stadium and Science World.

Reliance Properties, the developer of the controversial Burns Block project at 18 W. Hastings St., claim to have a solution to the affordability problem – microlofts. However, these units of 270 square feet (about the size of two parking spaces) will rent for an average of $750 per month, or $2.77 per square foot, making them some of the most expensive rental housing in the city on a per square foot basis. Although the city subsidized the project with grants and tax breaks worth almost $1.5 million, it achieved no guarantees on affordability or contributions to the stock of non-market housing from the developer.

The housing affordability crisis demands more than a single approach. All the players must come together to work on solutions to this problem. It’s long overdue.

We’re not just calling for another meeting where everyone talks about what other people ought to be doing with someone else’s money. We’re talking about an open, transparent process with clearly defined goals where everybody puts something on the table and agrees to be accountable for their part. That makes it a very radical concept.

But who will convene it? Who will step forward? Who will provide the leadership that Vancouver and the region so desperately need?

NEWS: Shaking the Big Money Taint

editor — Tue, 11 May 2010 15:06:54 -0400

By Think City Staff

“I think there is a general belief out there amongst local government circles and among the general public that there should be some type of restriction on campaign spending...”

- Community and Rural Development Minister Bill Bennett, May 3, 2010

Who says individual citizens coming together can’t make change happen?

Since last December, when Premier Gordon Campbell appointed the local government election task force to consider sweeping legislative changes to the rules governing civic campaigns, thousands of individuals have told the task force it’s time to take big money out of local elections.

If that wasn’t a clear enough indication the public wants to rein in BC’s local election financing, Think City’s survey of nearly 3,700 citizens and an April 14 Mustel poll of 500 British Columbians both show overwhelming support for campaign spending caps, contribution limits, and a ban on union and corporate donations. Think City’s survey also shows strong support for public financing in the form of tax credits for donations and per vote funding.

And now it appears the minister in charge is finally getting the message. Last week, Community and Rural Development Minister Bill Bennett acknowledged citizens' support for campaign finance reform by publicly supporting spending limits.

It is no longer a question of whether there will be significant reforms to local campaign financing in BC, but rather what will those reforms actually be. The challenge for the legislature, when it finally gets down to the business of crafting a new law governing local election financing in time for the 2011 municipal elections, will be getting the right combination of spending caps, contribution limits or bans, and/or public financing in place to ensure that big money’s influence is diminished.

But there are examples of campaign finance rules already in place at all three levels of government in Canada. Here’s a quick overview of just some of the federal, provincial and municipal regulations governing election financing BC could consider.

Federally, those running for office are subject to the most stringent and comprehensive campaign finance laws in the country. Parties and candidates are subject to both spending and contribution limits. As well, unions and corporations are forbidden from making political donations.

Federal parties and their candidates may only receive $1,100 annually from any individual. On the spending side, each party and its candidate can spend approximately $195,000 per federal riding. If this formula was applied to civic elections in Vancouver, it would mean a spending cap of $975,000 or $2.40 per elector.

In BC, the laws governing provincial election financing are less rigorous but parties and their candidates are still subject to spending limits. A single party and its candidate can spend approximately $122,000 in a single district. This works out to $1,342,000 for all 11 provincial electoral districts in Vancouver or $3.30 per elector.

Both the federal and provincial electoral systems are supported by generous public financing in the form of tax credits for donations. Federal parties also receive an additional annual public financing allowance of $1.75 per vote from the federal government and candidates who receive at least 10 per cent of the vote are entitled to a reimbursement of up to 60 per cent of their expenses.

At the municipal level, BC is the wild west – there are no laws on the books that provide local public financing or restrict civic election campaign spending or contributions. However, other jurisdictions like Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario or Quebec can provide some guidance on how municipal election finances are regulated.

Toronto has the most generous spending limits of all major Canadian cities that regulate campaign financing, setting $1,014,000 as the mayoral campaign limit or $7,500 plus $0.85 per elector in the 2006 election. On the least generous end of the scale, Winnipeg, Canada’s seventh largest city, has a $150,000 spending limit for its 2010 mayoral campaigns or $0.30 per elector.

Toronto limits mayoral campaign contributions to $2,500 per donor, while Winnipeg has set a $1,500 limit on all donations. Toronto has banned corporate and union donations, while Winnipeg has not.

Toronto and Winnipeg also make use of public financing to rebate a portion of election contributions. Both cities provide a rebate that varies in relation to the amount of the contribution, but cannot be in excess of $1,000.

There is one more issue that needs to be considered before recommendations are made by Minister Bennett’s task force on May 30. What impact, if any, does BC’s unique at-large electoral system have on devising credible and robust local campaign finance regulations?

In every jurisdiction cited earlier, individual candidates are elected from a geographic or neighbourhood constituency. In British Columbia, all local politicians are chosen at-large, forcing civic candidates to market themselves to the entire population. In Vancouver, Canada’s eighth largest city, that means a city council or parks board candidate must get their message to more than 400,000 voters – a daunting task.

Over the next two weeks, Think City will be surveying the public to ask their opinion on the best combination of campaign finance reforms. Results will be forwarded to Minister Bennett and the local government elections task force by May 25. To take the survey click here.

OP-ED: UBC's Workforce Housing Model

editor — Wed, 05 May 2010 20:23:56 -0400

By Nancy Knight

Vancouver’s decision to designate 125 units of rental housing in the Olympic Village as “workforce housing” has prompted debate and discussion about the role of affordable housing in our communities.

Like the city, the University of British Columbia (UBC) has been grappling with this issue for almost 20 years. The neighbourhoods next to our campus have always had some of the highest house purchase prices and lowest rental vacancy rates in the region and consequently, the university was viewed by many as a relatively isolated commuter campus.

To address these challenges, as well as our sustainability goals, we created UTown@UBC, with its new on-campus residential community consisting of eight emerging neighbourhoods. This is a new venture that is complemented by the institutional student, faculty and staff residences that have historically been provided by the university and continue to be provided today.

The policies guiding the development of UTown@UBC include specific obligations, established in our official community plan (OCP), for rental housing and “non-market housing.” The primary means by which OCP obligations regarding non-market housing can be met is by building workforce housing. Accordingly, half of the rental units in our neighbourhoods are non-market. UBC also created a subsidiary, UBC Properties Trust, to implement the plans in our new neighbourhoods as well as key policies with respect to workforce housing as this was a new area of business for the University.

The principles of UTown@UBC are to build a sustainable, diverse, unique, university community. A key element of UTown@UBC is developing a mix of housing options with a variety of benefits. This includes everything from large condominiums and family housing to traditional dormitories for students. Affordable rental and leasing options are also available for faculty, staff and students. And shops, services, recreational and cultural facilities create a more complete, inclusive community with a stronger social fabric.

The opportunity to build UTown@UBC is due to the long-term thinking of the provincial government when it established the university. Using the model of land-grant colleges in the United States, the government provided UBC with a land endowment which was to be used to fund generations of research, teaching and learning.

Since land is an expensive part of any housing project in our region, costs are reduced by building affordable rental housing on land we already own. This reduces our borrowing requirements and improves our access to financing. We borrow money through the provincial government for student dormitory housing and from the private sector (often using Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation programs) to pay for the construction of rental properties.

The rental income is used to pay down the mortgage on the property over time. At a certain point, rental properties start generating revenue, part of which is then used to finance the construction of new rental properties. Using a portion of existing UBC land for rental housing allows us to more quickly generate a positive cash flow.

Half of the rental units in our new neighbourhoods are non-market. Creating non-market rental options ensures that you do not price your “workforce” – or in our case a community that includes students as well as faculty and staff – out of the housing market.

UBC has identified on campus housing choices as key to attracting the best students, faculty and staff. We are providing the capacity to house 50 per cent of our full-time students by 2030, with 2,500 new dormitory beds becoming available in the next five years. This will help us meet our goal of providing a first-year housing guarantee to new students. We also have the planning objective of housing twenty per cent of our full-time faculty and staff on campus.

Currently, UTown@UBC has one of the largest stocks of rental units in the region, with nearly 750 apartments and townhomes in our family neighbourhoods. This number will grow through the first half of this decade as more rental units are developed in the UTown@UBC neighbourhoods. What UBC has learned is that there is a return, both monetarily and socially, on investing in rental housing. It generates a cash flow that goes on in perpetuity, while building housing opportunities to foster a community. This is a model that could be adopted by many municipalities who have significant land holdings.

But affordable rental is not the only form of affordable housing development at UTown@UBC. We wanted to create a mix of housing options to attract a diversity of residents to our on-campus communities. For faculty and staff in particular, ownership models are often more appealing than rental.

A proactive UTown@UBC policy aimed at staff and faculty was co-development. In this equity model, staff and/or faculty form a company to undertake the development of a multi-unit residential building which will be converted to individually owned strata units. UBC Properties Trust, an income trust whose beneficiary is UBC, provides the project management to the co-developers. The co-development company takes out a loan to buy the property, and hires architects and the construction team.

This model can bring the cost of new housing down by as much as 20 per cent. UBC has also built in disincentives for those looking to earn quick money and flip a home, so that families commit to being part of the fabric of their campus neighbourhood.

Contrary to what many might think, these policies have not had a negative impact on UBC’s credit rating. We consistently receive the highest credit rating of any North American university. We have created financial benefits for the university through family housing developments which grow our endowment to fund research and scholarships.

The creation of UTown@UBC has been a significant financial success and enabled the University to add significantly (to date over $280 million) to the University’s endowment to support its academic mission. The innovative affordable housing solutions help us create a diverse university community that is an attractive place to live for high calibre students, faculty and staff.

UTown@UBC is leading the way in how land use and endowment policies can work together to create a positive community reality.

Nancy Knight is UBC's Associate Vice President, Campus and Community Planning.

OP-ED articles do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Think City. To make a submission to the OP-ED section of the Think City Minute, please email editor@thinkcity.ca for details.

NEWS: 2010 Jane’s Walk Bigger than Ever

editor — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:20:11 -0400

By Think City Staff

Think City hosted Vancouver’s third annual Jane’s Walk on the weekend of May 1 and 2. Already over 1,400 people signed up for over 40 walks, increases of almost 50 per cent over the 2009 Jane’s Walks.

“We have experienced overwhelming enthusiasm from participants in years past and that is definitely reflected in this year’s sign-ups. We have doubled the participation and for the first time are bringing Jane’s Walks to Surrey and UBC and more neighbourhoods throughout Vancouver,” said Think City board member and chair of Jane’s Walk Metro Vancouver Kim Fleming.

Another new development this year was the introduction of three Jane’s Rides. These guided bicycle tours covered a larger area than the Jane’s Walks and provided a two-wheeled perspective on city living.

“People definitely want to get out and re-discover their neighbourhoods, and Think City is happy to facilitate these walking and bicycle tours throughout Metro Vancouver," said Fleming. “Jane’s Walk is about providing a fun and informative way for residents to engage with the many rich stories of the people, nature, history, and culture."

Some notable walks held this year include:

Bruce Macdonald’s Kitsilano’s Earliest History and Homes, a tour of century-old houses in Kitsilano;
Tracey Mann's Alphabet Walk in Mount Pleasant, a fun-filled learning adventure for families with children under seven;
Steve Chitty’s Crescent Beach Circuit Tour in South Surrey, which explores the waterfront promenade, Blackie Spit and the old oyster farm;
Adam Cooper’s UBC Jane’s Ride – Challenges and Achievements, a bicycle tour that looks at facilities for transit and cycling, as well as development proposals at UBC.
Michelle Ng’s Network Over Good Food, a walking tour of some of the city’s best restaurants and cafés;
Michael Barnholden’s Magnetic North/True North – First Surveys, an exploration of Vancouver’s earliest neighbourhoods;
Judy Williams’ Wreck Beach – Walk on the Wild Side, a look at the flora, fauna, geology, ethnographic and cultural history of the storied beach; and
Bryan Newson’s Public Art in Vancouver, a walking tour of contemporary public art installations in downtown Vancouver.

The goal of Jane’s Walk is to raise urban literacy and build strong, connected communities by offering a pedestrian-focused event that combines insights into civic history, planning, design and citizen engagement with the simple act of walking and observing.