Bill 44-2023 What We Heard Report - Part 2: Written Comments Provided at November 23, 2023 Public Meeting by Attendees

Bill 44 – 2023 Public Meeting: What We Heard

Part 2: Written Comments Provided at November 23, 2023 Public Meeting by Attendees

#	Comment	Writer’s municipality (if provided)
1	Thank you, Mayor and Council for showing Leadership	Saanich
2	This proposed legislation was produced without public input or even Municipal Council input. Completely undemocratic. One size does not fit all. VR is a small municipality which already is doing more than its share to build housing. Exemptions should be available to Towns doing its share to build housing density.
3	70% of the earth’s population lives under the thumb of a dictator. Mr Eby is the thin edge of this in BC.
4	Claim as a priority. Thanks for this meeting tonight.
5	It needs to be made more clear how we can stop this.
6	The legislation will not provide “affordable” housing. Eby - go back to the drawing board.
7	Good Job, Thanks NDP for Bill 44
8	How can we stop this Bill 44 from happening?
9	No amount of growth will make this affordable to View Royal
10	No to developers having a free rein. How does the Govt think these changes will help people (excluding the rich) get into housing?
11	NO! Development authorized even if infrastructure is not available. Really?!! Have they broken any laws? Natural Environment. No more huge infrastructure DEBT.
12	Water – We are receiving less rain. Heavier population will deplete water, so we’ll run out. Sewer, is already too small. Provincial Govt is a dictator that shouldn’t be happening. They need to be replaced.
13	Before the legislation was unveiled, municipalities received benefits/amenities as part of the development process. 1-what benefits/amenities are the for municipalities with this new legislation? 2-where do the funds come from for neighbourhoods, communities, for improvements and infrastructure? 3-How do municipalities access these funds? From whom? 4-what details are available from the BC Govt re the above questions? 5-Is it on the local taxpayer who covers the cost of infrastructure? When information is available, I am interested in knowing more. Thank you to Mayor and Council for having this meeting.
14	Bill 44 allows densification without considering the VR by itself. Not enough sidewalks and parking for densification. Does not show way to pay for government infrastructure. What about our aging population without sidewalks. Too high buildings proposed. This makes it downtown, not VR. VR is a suburb, not downtown. We chose to live here because it is not densely populated. Non-public consultation, which is not a democracy. Cannot provide a blanket solution to all of BC- each municipality has its own bylaws and has grown by 26% from 2016 to 2021. Additional homes planned too.
15	I’m wondering about this provincial government’s true motivation. They have purchased the land adjacent to Portage Park on the waterfront. Why is that land not being developed by the government into townhouses for the “missing middle”. It could be a gorgeous low storied development with trails and shored kayak dock etc. Such a great opportunity to put their money into what they say.
16	Thank you, View Royal Council for holding this public meeting so your citizens could voice their view. I would encourage you to consider the environmental impacts of this legislation. Every tonne of cement in construction of infrastructure be it foundation or roads emits 1/3 tonne of CO2. Bill 44 will cause a huge rise in emissions-countering the initiatives you have taken. Housing has become monetized - demonetize it and prices will collapse and become affordable. Granted it beyond municipal responsibility alone, but pressure from you can influence some levels of government. If the province forbids you (counsel) from holding public meetings, have a View Royal citizens forum to hold them as a 3rd party. 1. Citizens, who are homeowners made a big investment in their homes. We bought into an area where there were single family homes, or homes with a single suite. It is very undemocratic to do a change to this zoning without any input from homeowners or municipalities and locally elected members. 2. This feels very undemocratic and very un-Canadian. There has been no consultations, no good explanation and no study as to what possible consequences these huge changes might cause to current residents. 3. No corporate solutions to this problem. 4. Very disappointed in this NDP policy. 5. Start smaller, the fact that the infrastructure costs are not included in the developer costs but will be born by the current residents. The NDP is taking away the rights of residents. Support democracy and the processes that encourage greater democracy. Don’t tear down what residents have worked hard to develop! Soon people won’t bother to vote. You aren’t listening anyway. You aren’t “representing” the wishes of the people. A development lobby!
17	Thank you for organizing this meeting. I support the need for finding intelligent, peaceful ways to increase housing density in urban areas. However, this legislation seems heavy-handed. (no public consultation) with little consideration of consequences (infrastructure needs, parking issues). Or the unique needs of specific communities, (waterways and environmental considerations in View Royal). I will be writing to my MLA & Premier to oppose this legislation.
18	We are in a housing crisis. I am happy to see the province take action on housing. Public hearings are not going to be outlawed – instead it is only application compliant with the OCP that will not go to the public hearing. View Royal should support the province and support houses for people. Public hearings are not equitable. They allow people who are able to join and speak to be heard – but for people who can’t or won’t it is a barrier. Moving towards deep OCP engagement that can access more people in more ways is better than one-offs “public input” on an application-by-application basis.	View Royal
19	Thank you! Democracy (or lack of) is my main concern with these bills. Where was the public consultation? Really don’t want to see neighbourhoods breakdown as well. Worried about infrastructure, schools, sewage, water, garbage etc. Very concerned about the detrimental effect on the environment.	Saanich