Bill 44-2023 What We Heard Report - Part 1: Meeting Notes from November 23, 2023 Public Meeting
Comprehensive notes summarizing comments made by attendees at the public meeting regarding provincial housing bills.
Bill 44-2023 Public Meeting – What We Heard Report
This “What We Heard Report” is a synopsis of information received and steps taken over several weeks during the month of November 2023 by the Town of View Royal in relation primarily to Bill 44-2023: Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023 and also to Bill 47-2023: Housing Statutes (Transit Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023.
This report is comprised of four sections as follows:
- Part 1: Meeting notes from the November 23, 2023 Public Meeting
- Part 2: Written comments provided at the November 23, 2023 Public Meeting by attendees
- Part 3: Written correspondence (letters, emails) received by the Town of View Royal
- Part 4: The Last Public Hearing Survey (online)
Part 1: Meeting Notes from November 23, 2023 Public Meeting
Present were: Mayor Sid Tobias Councillor Don Brown Councillor Damian Kowalewich Councillor Gery Lemon Councillor Alison MacKenzie Councillor Ron Mattson Councillor John Rogers
Present also: Sarah Jones, Acting Chief Administrative Officer/Director of Corporate Administration Julie Paterson, Finance Clerk 1
165 members of the public (approximately)
Mayor Tobias opened the meeting and introduced View Royal Council members and staff to those in attendance.
He described that the purpose of the public meeting was to provide some information to the public about the anticipated impacts of Bill 44-2023 as well as Bill 47-2023, to collect the input received from the community, and prepare a “What We Heard Report” to provide to the Province of British Columbia. Mayor Tobias noted that proposed legislation would remove the ability to have public hearings or severely restrict the ability for municipalities to collect input from the community on land use changes. He provided a PowerPoint presentation that described that the Town of View Royal has historically experienced rapid population growth and that it continues to grow quickly. The presentation included slides describing potential impacts to infrastructure and staff resources.
After the Mayor’s presentation, members of the audience were invited to provide their comments. These comments are paraphrased as follows:
View Royal resident – A housing shortage is not the issue; affordability is the issue.
View Royal resident – This is bad governance as land use authority is being taken away and no consultation. Will this be forever? Others do this and it is shameful. We are contributors to housing and they are not listening. Will TVR lead at the Union of BC Municipalities on this? Be a leading voice and take a stand.
Saanich resident – Thanks for taking a stand on democracy. You represent a lot of people. Thanks Council.
View Royal resident – Have you heard back from other municipalities? In response, Mayor Tobias noted that some municipalities have responded though things move slowly. He stated that some communities are supportive of the legislation while some are not or there is a division.
Langford resident – Thank you for organizing this event. We need more democracy not less. The premise of a trickle-down economy is not true – to the first speakers comments and to the second speaker – yes, school boards were gutted in 1980s by the Province and they have not come back from that as they cannot tax directly. So, what do we do? Democratize planning – all citizens should form forums to study proposals. Organize to push yourselves forward. We need to look at development and see that it’s corporate enrichment only while we get poorer and poorer. Public housing is required that is run by government – not housing just for the desperately poor and not piecemeal alphabet soup. There are no corporate market solutions to this problem.
View Royal resident – Thanks for the opportunity. I agree that public housing is essential. I am not a fan of edicts. Let’s not get into a frame of mind of pushing back so we can increase housing and control it at the same time. I have been here 30 years and can buy. I’d like to take advantage of these programs by adding rental premises which will be good as we age, retire, and want to have families, and affordable healthcare providers nearby.
View Royal resident – I am a motorist, cyclist, and a pedestrian. Redeveloping existing infrastructure could mean we turn things on their head and attract people who support the Town’s Active Transportation Network Plan. What can we do to Town bylaws to facilitate easy, comfortable, and safe networks for cycling and walking? View Royal can become known for this and then it will not be as big a problem. Redevelopment of existing will reduce pressure. It’s homeowners who will pay as they grow. As a comment to the second last speaker – I love it! Don’t hate it, don’t be victimized. Form committees and see how we can work with this. Don’t do crazy and take this to court. The legislative assembly cares very little for us – they are friends of industry. Do what we want to be done. Climate change is not about weather. This legislation is the right thing – it is just being done the wrong way.
View Royal resident – The legislation poorly thought out and seeks to silence the public. Go back to the drawing board – public consultation is needed. Affordable housing in our communities is needed.
View Royal resident – Development cost charges ban or no taxes from new developments - I haven’t seen that. What is the information for setbacks, parking reductions, etc.? What can we do? In response, Mayor Tobias noted that the Province is to provide a policy manual in December with further details. With respect to options, contact information is available to reach out to Provincial representatives.
View Royal resident – We need more density. We lose distinct neighbourhood look if all housing is ten storeys. How will people move around and how will this all be funded?
View Royal resident – Infrastructure costs are a concern as we will become bankrupt and absorbed into a larger municipality. Removal of parking requirements will mean that disabled people will be forced to park on the street. We will see increased development near the hospital. How do we deal with climate change when more than thirty years ago the federal government stopped funding construction of high rises, so none were developed. So, now – with climate change – these costs are being pushed down to us.
Saanich resident – Thank you for the opportunity. I ran on engagement and there are people from all over the region listening to this and writing to their newspapers. People are upset that developers’ voices are being heard so loudly. I’ll be writing to newspapers as I don’t have the support of my District of Saanich colleagues. Zoning is within our purview. It’s a legacy of civic engagement and people. We need to take major action.
Saanich resident – Thank you for respecting people’s views. People have been captured by the Urban Development Institute. Get some balls and stand up to this government. People are being greenwashed. This plan is not going to work for us. How many units are empty? They don’t even tell us. Don’t let corrupt people and developers/profiteers get this through.
View Royal resident – My partner and I support the Provincial legislation. Her comments that I am providing are as follows: Density supports walkability, diversity, and affordability. We are in a housing crisis. The Province is taking actionable moves to support people and deal with local governments that aren’t taking actions. Public Hearings don’t let newcomers, parents, and students be involved. An Official Community Plan (OCP) is future oriented and not a one-off opinion. Density has been long ignored. Listen to the OCP. Removing the requirement for public hearings that are aligned with the OCP is smart. For my own part, I am happy to see action from the Province. I reject that single family status quo housing is the only form of housing; multi-family housing is needed. Several months ago, the Mayor proposed a moratorium on development. Your minds are already made up. “The Last Public Hearing” is not true – even the name is inflammatory. The online survey is slanted as the response options are all biased to negative. It’s the last public hearing when the development is consistent with the OCP. I hope you stop thinking we are all thinking the same thing. I don’t support your position.
– Thank you for demonstrating democracy. These are not new issues. Democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny are a cycle. Where are we in the cycle? Thanks for voting to leave Urban Development Institute. Developers lobbied and supported Bills 44 and 47.
View Royal resident – I bought here, but my adult children can barely afford the rent here. I am willing to support change so those after us that we need to have live in our community – to be here for us as we age – can afford to live here. We need their services (for example, lawyers, doctors, firefighters).
View Royal resident – I am happy to live here. Everyone is making more money. Young people need houses, and more people are coming. I support this bill – the NDP needs it to pass.
Saanich resident – Thank you for allowing me to speak. This is the first opportunity to respond to this legislation. If building housing was the solution, we’d have affordable housing now. Downtown buildings are empty – they were purchased on speculation and are not providing housing for people. Homes being purchased now are homes being bought as second homes. Monetized housing drives prices up. There is no limit to the number of homes you can buy, but we have had ultra-low interest rates. We have only 5% non-market housing while a place like Vienna has 40-50% non-market housing which makes overall prices lower. The federal government got out of co-op housing. The environmental impact will be large including CO2 output /carbon emissions, global warming, and deforestation. People can go to the legislature during second reading if they want to take further action and let Provincial officials know your thoughts.
View Royal resident – Is there capacity for additional population growth at the local schools and is there land available for a second fire department?
Saanich resident – The legislation will create unintended consequences in other areas such as on Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) land. As there is a lack of industrial land in municipalities for people to work, it spills out to farming land/ALR . Through temporary use permits, farming is lost to industrial uses. There is a 0% vacancy rate for industrial land in Saanich currently and this is not being talked about. Therefore, plan holistically. Move to Fort Nelson where affordable lots are for sale.
View Royal resident – I don’t think intent is misplaced. We have a missing middle problem. Like my kids can’t afford to buy a home. Try to put more housing that is affordable. It’s only one component of the Provincial housing initiatives – street living is a different issue being looked at as is non-market housing and housing options where there is violence at home. This government is not captured by developers. This is an attempt to capture an area where developers are not doing something. This is the toughest area to fix. No legislation is perfect. Perception is worse than reality. It is never as bad as anticipated. Some advice? Work with your MLA. That relationship is critical for Council. View Royal does not have a large commercial tax base. In my time, we have achieved the Casino agreement because no industry. No one thinks you’ll be doing infrastructure alone. Province and federal governments will be working together – there is an interrelationship. Take heed to what’s being said. There are open minded people in legislature; plus, if changes are needed, they’ll be made. The system works well because we listen well. Work with them to work through this crisis.
Langford resident – Thanks NDP for sending a representative to the meeting.
View Royal resident (speaking for second time) – Did someone say these bills are not because of a lobby group? A Vancouver Sun article identifies a list of groups that advise the Province on housing including the Canadian Home Builders’ Association, Urban Development Institute, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Rennie Corporation, and Homebuilders Association Vancouver.
View Royal resident – This is an overreach of authority. This initiative should be shutdown like the Royal BC Museum renovation project was shutdown.
View Royal resident – I support this initiative and worked in housing for twenty years. While the legislation is not the most ideal, the existing situation has been broken for decades. I have been at 400 public hearings, but only five times has there been any value added to the projects because of those public hearings. In a majority of cases, Canadian human rights are being trampled upon. There is only one resident in a majority of homes and there are many vacant units. 25% occupancy rate at best. Our kids have to live in rural area and build new schools.
The new legislation will: 1. increase housing stock; 2. stop ignoring the Charter of Rights; 3. decrease price of housing; 4. change how we build; and 5. build sustainable/ healthy communities.
View Royal resident – We need more housing. I’m concerned about rights. This government has trampled on our freedoms. I can’t rent my house and they’ve taken away my privacy. Why aren’t the Provincial and Federal governments building social housing? Isn’t it their responsibility? Where are “council houses”?
Saanich resident (speaking for second time) – What about seniors and youth? Seniors are left with taxes they cannot afford. Taxes on taxes. Kids are afraid of the future. No democracy for them to fall back on. We’ll never pay things off; we’re just servicing the debt. Tax burdens are deflected to future. We need to talk to our neighbours.
View Royal resident – I agree with social housing. The tone of the survey and tonight was against the legislation, but I think it will go forward. I’d like to share the positive aspects: this legislation is inevitable because currently land is all for single family and costs more than $1M. This initiative is not meant to address affordability. The non-market housing program will be launched in the spring. Instead, this initiative is to allow greater housing choices in the range of $600-900K and is a positive for climate action because it creates buildings where people already live and where things already are.
- This program will allow options off our arteries and therefore increases health in our community.
- It increases support of our Active Transportation Network Plan goals.
- There is efficiency in this approach because the Province is doing it versus each municipality doing it alone.
- The reality is that big companies don’t do these small developments. These will be done by regular, in your neighbourhood type people and to small, old houses that are at the end of their life expectancy. The change will be slow so there will be time to react with respect to infrastructure requirements.
View Royal resident – Appreciate that this was put together – thank you for the opportunity. I am interested to know why people are motivated to speak. Democracy is threatened. If sounds too good to be true – it’s too good to be true. Everything will look the same? Not enough doctors or roads to support this. This is not an affordability plan. This is loss of democracy that we need to take seriously. It is a bigger issue than our kids needing to have a house. People’s expectations need to change. It is an assault on democracy and not a way to move forward.
Saanich resident – A lot of trees and permeable surfaces will be lost. The landfill is at capacity. This is not sustainable.
View Royal resident – This initiative makes it so that the little guy can stay in the neighbourhood that they want to live in.
In closing the public meeting, Mayor Tobias thanked attendees for coming and providing their ideas and comments. He reflected on the value of zoning and local input in decision-making and stated that Council supports housing and recognizes the need for it.