Every neighbourhood has the same issues
As a former planning director for Saanich, 1964 to 1979, I offer a few comments on housing.
Any proposal to increase housing density was usually met with the identical objections, no matter where it was located. One could almost script the comments for a public hearing, i.e., it would devalue the existing properties; overload the school system; create problems with other municipal facilities such as parks and recreation; increase traffic in a dangerous manner, etc., etc., etc.
Councils of the day usually went along with the arguments advanced by local ratepayers’ associations. The only proposals which had a decent chance for approval were those which were discussed in detail with the local ratepayers’ association before they were presented to council.
There was about as much chance of a major housing policy change as there was for the approval of amalgamation — zero. Now that the province seems to have accepted the idea that we cannot go on housing our residents at 3.2 single-family residential units per acre, something might actually happen.
I’m not holding my breath.
Thomas Orr-Loney
Victoria
Beware the higher taxes that come from upzoning
Many letter writers have pointed out the many negative aspects of the proposed densification of urban areas proposed by Premier David Eby, automatic rezoning to allow four units to replace a single-family house on a standard lot.
One side effect, not mentioned yet, is that a single-family house will see a very large rise in its assessed value. This will give a windfall profit for property owners. (Many developers have made their money by obtaining upzoning from municipal councils.)
For those owners who want to sell their property, this change will be beneficial. For those owners who want to stay, these higher assessments will raise their city taxes by a huge amount (in urban areas such as Victoria, most of the assessed value is based on the land area).
This will force some of them to move. This effect will be felt mostly by older, retired people.
I grew up in Vancouver in a single-family area with a mixture of young families and older people. I think that having such a mixed demographic provides a healthy environment.
I suggest that Eby’s densification plan be suspended in order to study all its ramifications, infrastructure, environmental, financial and social, before being implemented in coordination with each municipality.
Kenneth Mintz
Victoria
Understand their vision for where you live
Re: “Sweeping density brings problems,” letter, April 8.
The writer seems to think the province has ordered increased density. I don’t think that is true.
The province is changing the rules so that four dwelling units may be built on a lot previously considered only suitable for a “single family” does not oblige municipalities to change their zoning bylaws.
If people do not want their municipal zoning changed to favour increased density on single-family lots, they need to pay attention to local council agendas.
If developers show up at council meetings and “concerned citizens” don’t, who do we think will be heard?
The people who speak to decisions before they are made are more effective than those who complain after the decision is made.
And voting against a council because you are angry is less effective than voting for a council because you took the trouble to understand their vision for the municipality.
Heather Phillips
Sooke
Let’s give more families a chance at housing
I support the NDP government’s new housing strategy. The provincial government needed to demonstrate leadership to respond to the housing crisis, as local government would not or could not.
While homeowners are panicking, imagining rezoning to accommodate four housing units on every single-family lot, this is just not the reality, as very few lots could ever accommodate such development.
Innovative design of several units, including duplexes will be what is built, in the vast majority of cases.
This strategy is more about process and costs, rather than density. Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon has stated, at a meeting explaining the new housing strategy, that with this refreshed housing policy, there will be no more long zoning process just to build a duplex or small multi-family.
The need for this new policy could not have been better illustrated than by the local politicians and mayors, at the meeting, with such comments as: What about increased traffic, trees, municipal services, sewer and water, schools, and amenities? The same old tired arguments reiterated!
This constant response and fear has caused the housing crisis, through local government’s ridiculously time-consuming and costly process. A simple rezoning can literally take years and cost thousands of dollars with charges demanded by local government.
This all needs to change, it has been years in the making.
Let’s support this housing strategy and give young families an opportunity to share in home ownership, just like the rest of us homeowners already comfortably housed.
Tim Hackett
Brentwood Bay
Navy, coast guard plans carry a huge cost
The Canadian government has embarked on an ambitious and costly program to have ships built for the navy and coast guard. The program is referred to as the National Shipbuilding Strategy which outlines new fleets for the navy and coast guard.
It is a comprehensive plan that details which construction will be undertaken by Canada’s three shipyards capable of building large ships for the navy and coast guard: Seaspan of Vancouver, Chantier Davie of Quebec, and Irving Shipyard of Halifax.
Seaspan will build two joint support ships for the navy, and one polar icebreaker, and several research vessels for the coast guard.
Chantier Davie will build one polar icebreaker, and six medium icebreakers for the coast guard.
Irving will build six arctic offshore patrol ships for the navy and two for the coast guard. This yard will also build 15 patrol frigates for the navy. There is now a contract in place for only the first three frigates.
For the navy, there will be 15 frigates at $80 billion, two support ships at $4 billion, six arctic patrol ships at $6 billion, for a total of some $90 billion. Further, the navy today is unable to recruit enough sailors to man its existing fleet.
For the coast guard, there will be two polar icebreakers at $8 billion, one oceanographic vessel at $1 billion, three offshore scientific vessels at $788.5 million, six medium icebreakers at $6 billion, plus 16 multi-purpose vessels at an estimated cost of $2 billion, for a total of some $20 billion.
For both services, there will be an estimated expense of $120 billion, with all the three Canadian yards now being fully occupied for the next 20 years.
In addition to the planned 23 ships for the navy, the government is now proposing to acquire 12 nuclear-powered submarines, at a cost of $100 billion.
First, the three yards do not have the capacity, nor do they have the technical competence, to build submarines. So, these would have to be built offshore, with no economic or social benefits for Canadians.
This purchase would be obviously done at the expense of health care, housing, and social development for Canada. The submarine project is simply overly ambitious and costly.
According to Revenue Canada, last year 18.4 million Canadians paid income taxes. The planned expense of $220 billion for ship building, would work out to cost each taxpayer $11,957. Can we afford this?
Roger Cyr, OMM, CD
Victoria
We want health care that is fair for everyone
The claim by Dr. Brian Day that surgical wait times are now permanent simply because Canada has refused to allow a two-tier health system defies logic.
The inference is that by allowing a minority of people to get access to private, exclusive and faster treatment, wait times for the majority would be alleviated.
No figures have ever been produced to conclusively prove such a proposition. Experience and common sense tell us it is highly unlikely that private clinics for a few would relieve wait times for the many.
Several decades ago, the U.K. introduced its own two-tiered system. Today, access to health care for U.K. residents who can’t afford a private clinic is now shambolic.
Day also thinks Canada needs to bring its health system statistics in line with other countries with two-tiered health systems.
But with numerous OECD countries not even providing data – and then trying to parse from those that do different procedures with economic, age, and geographic data that are collected in different ways – such statistical comparisons are a guessing game at best.
The courts have now asserted that Canada’s universal single-payer health-care system is enshrined in the Canada Health Act for a reason: to prevent private interests from creating imbalanced access.
Telecoms and others seeking to do an end-run around the Canada Health Act should know that the courts speak not for themselves but for the vast majority of Canadians who want not just health care, but to see it dispensed and provided equally and justly for all.
Paul Walton
Nanaimo
Perhaps this federation is not a good idea
I usually open first to the Comment pages, where our focus is understandably on the local scene: Municipal politics, housing, policing, etc.
For context I look to decisions long ago that echo today.
I recall the 1990s practice of downloading responsibilities from the federal level, burdening provinces with spending cuts that made Ottawa’s books look better.
The Liberal party went on a winning streak at the time, cementing the practice. The provinces have in turn passed many problems downward to municipalities, who are struggling to prioritize and deal with major societal issues.
I don’t hold local government responsible for homelessness, any more than I would call on the prime minister to deal with street sweeping. Yet, Ottawa’s void of leadership has left problems of every scale on the local plate.
Perhaps a federation isn’t the way to go about this.
Ottawa should either grab the wheel and leads us, handling all the money allocations and policy, or end this charade of constantly competing interests and allow provinces to go it alone within a European Union-style arrangement.
Canada was an imperial effort, and is looking less workable all the time.
Steve Ireland
Denman Island
Commit all resources to a better future
Few want to hear, less act, on the saddest truths, and few with something to promote want to tell it. The psyches and wallets of both parties will suffer.
On the one hand, continued use of fossil fuels will make the climate unsurvivable for our food sources, animal and vegetable, and unbearable for many of ourselves. On the other hand, finding and mining for minerals, rare, and once not, is getting more expensive as fewer and only lower grades of ore are found.
This will tear up vast tracts of the earth, and maybe the sea bottom, and while providing materials for electrification and non-climate-changing energy sources, will degrade much of our supportive landscapes now providing climate friendly trees, agriculture, pasture, and hunting.
Nearly all resources will be diverted to the commerce of bling and self-indulgence, pleasing neither consumers, manufacturers and retailers, or advertising executives and staff, nor the media which is supported by them.
Canadian geothermal energy is not yet established widely, either the many miles deep where commonly hot enough temperatures can be converted into electricity via steam turbines, or at shallower, lower temperatures, using liquids which gasify at lower temperatures than water.
Nor has the expensive establishment of vertical indoor plant food farming been tried enough to see if, with geothermal sources and more sophisticated cooling pump “waste heat” utilization, we can actually re-wild and afforest enough farmland while preserving enough wheat, rice and maize surviving outdoors, to feed us all.
G.R. Evans
Saanich
Great memories of Red Robinson
I was 14 and living in Vancouver when Red Robinson started his first rock’n’roll radio show on CJOR. I was so taken by his lively chatter and great tunes that I really wanted to meet him.
When I arrived at the station, I asked whether I could meet Red and they said “yes, go on into his studio.” He was so gracious and friendly that I returned every couple of weeks to spend an hour or so with him in the studio, talking while the tunes were playing.
When Bill Haley and the Comets came to Vancouver in 1956, Red gave me two complimentary tickets to the show and he introduced me to Haley after the concert. I was amazed as Haley’s group was a favourite of mine.
Red was a treasure and I am so fortunate to have known him as a young man in the 1950s just starting out as the first rock’n’roll DJ in Vancouver.
Arlena Dodd
Victoria
Obscuring information will hurt the public
Re: “Saanich council must be accountable: It needs a lobbyist registry,” commentary, April 6.
This commentary regarding transparency and accountably in government requires supporting voices so that Saanich council and all levels of government can hear and heed the impact of her message.
The Greek roots of tyranny lie in defining a ruler as one who unconstitutionally seizes and holds onto power. The mandate of democratically elected governments lies in transparency.
The separation of the populace from its elected government officials begins with the withholding and obscuring of information from the public.
As rational agents, it is our right to have available a full disclosure of information so that rational choices can be based on knowledge. Cracks in this relationship weaken the foundation of the principles on which public officials are elected.
Power for the sake of power is not power for the sake of the people. The former leads to tyranny, while the latter is the foundation for a healthy democracy.
James Atkinson
Saanich
SEND US YOUR LETTERS
• Email letters to: [email protected]
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5
• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not be published. Avoid sending your letter as an email attachment.
