Bill 44-2023 What We Heard Report - Part 3: Written Correspondence (Letters, Emails) Received by the Town of View Royal

What We Heard

Part 3: Written Correspondence (Letters, Emails) Received by the Town of View Royal

Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:01 PM To: Mayor And Council Email mayorandcouncil@viewroyal.ca Subject: Provincial Govt Housing Policy

Dear Mayor and Council;

I am in complete disagreement with this council's stance of opposing the Provincial Government's recent changes to housing policy. The government's efforts to address this housing crisis are laudable. This is no time to cater to NIMBYs.

Frankly, I think that the government's move to increase density in areas dominated by detached single-family homes is a good thing I live in a duplex town home in the very densely populated area behind Thrifty Foods off Admiral's Road There are hundreds of people living in this area, and there are several large four-story "apartment" condos a few hundred feet from our door. I have no issues with living in such close quarters with my neighbours So I don't see any problem with allowing homeowners to add more units to their lots. Furthermore, the government has said they will help with infrastructure and there is no reason to not believe them.

No need to reply to this message. I just wanted my opinion to go on the record.

---

Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2023 5:23 PM To: Mayor And Council Email mayorandcouncil@viewroyal.ca Subject: Sliding by game - housing laws edition

In claiming that the government of BC did not consult residents of View Royal before legislating to remove zoning restrictions on building residential accommodation you omit that municipal fiefdoms have largely continued to be control-minded, pandering to the dishonesty of BANANA/CAVE/NIMBY types.

Their agenda is to control others’ property at no cost to themselves. They roll through excuses, lately ‘character of the neighbourhood’ – which is bad if they are representative (a scam is claiming they represent everyone, whereas honest people are busy working to feed and house their families).

Most municipalities in this region have been sitting on fences, waving hands, adding bureaucracy to study their navel, and worse. Joak Bay is the worst, playing versions of ‘heritage’ buildings whereas true heritage is in the freedom with justice system that feeds you well and peacefully.

Perhaps you can complain about a broad brush – but I ask if you have been progressive in relaxing zoning laws (as Victoria BC did).

Recall the mentality of a past council in delaying Janeece Place charity housing to prevent anyone from building a motel in View Royal to – gasp! – support temporary workers, technicians and visitors to Victoria General Hospital.

You’d have to have been sleeping all day to miss that the government of BC is very unhappy with municipalities over obstruction of building housing – why are you surprised that he finally used his threatened hammer?

People will suspect you are on a power trip at the expense of honest people building and earning. Get out of their way!

---

Dear Mayor and Council,

As a long time advocate for active transportation, climate action and good municipal governance, I would like to highlight concerns in regards to Bill 44: Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act.

The province has indicated we are in a housing crisis, but won’t share their data while the issue is before the House. This is worrisome. Like so many others I am deeply moved by the tragedy of people sleeping in parks and on streets. This is a provincial responsibility but their preferred solution (build everything everywhere all at once) seems very helter skelter.

As a retired banker I feel banks will ensure profitability before lending funds. But the province gives no affordability guarantees. Meanwhile their own financial forecast is calling the pre-election urgency into question:

EXCERPT: The finance ministry expects housing starts to total 42,900 units in 2024, down from 47,400 in the current year. That is a reduction of 4,500 units and a drop of just over nine per cent. The decline was blamed on higher interest rates, higher construction costs, skilled labour shortages, “as well as a broader economic slowdown.” …. For weeks now, Eby and Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon have been claiming that their housing legislation will deliver 130,000 multi-unit homes over 10 years. (https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/les-leyne-finance-ministry-lowballs-housing-start-forecast-7896373)

Former NDP Premier Mike Harcourt is critical of the power grab and points to an established (NDP introduced) legislative solution - regional growth strategies

EXCERPT: They are showing insufficient regard for the responsibilities of local and regional governments for community planning and the provision of infrastructure for water supply, sewage treatment, stormwater systems, transportation and other services that new development requires. A key purpose of the regional growth strategies legislation our government introduced in 1995 was to enable local government to respond to housing needs. It provided a basis for regional districts and their member communities to support adequate, affordable, and appropriate housing in places where the necessary facilities exist or can be provided. It promoted settlement patterns that would minimize the use of automobiles and encourage transit, walking and cycling. (https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/we-all-need-access-to-appropriate-and-affordable-housing/wcm/f3c098f9-0d6e-4506-95ad-7abdd6c6e9fc/amp/)

We are also in a climate crisis, one the province has yet to fully declare. The proposed changes could amplify the urban heat island effect, UHI, risking human life.

Dr. Theresa Tam, Chief Public Health Officer of Canada has urged action on UHI’s and connected low tree canopy and high percentages of built environment to them:

EXCERPT: In addition to its significant environmental benefits, addressing urban heat islands (UHI) through interventions in the built environment, can positively impact the physical and mental health of Canadians and reduce the factors that contribute to chronic diseases. For example, increasing urban green space reduces outdoor temperatures, while also providing opportunities for social connection, active transportation and physical activity. Increasing vegetation may also specifically benefit some marginalized and lower-income groups living in areas with low tree canopy and high percentages of built surfaces, two of the main contributors to UHIs. (https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/reducing-urban-heat-islands-protect-health-canada.html)

Finally, Re Transit Orientated Developments. TODs Victoria General Hospital is situated in the middle of a regional traffic bottleneck. We are in the midst of adding OCP approved density.

I am concerned the zero parking mandate will result in disabled residents (some attracted to the area because of the hospital) having to park on slippy narrow hilly streets, even if they are physically able to use an accessible car share. This seems idealistic and cruel.

We also don’t see any requirements for secure bike parking in TODs, something View Royal has prioritized for a very long time. The province may visualize the area around our hospital as a transit hub but residents may not want to take a bus when the Galloping Goose is right there.

Mr Harcourt also highlighted concerns with the one side fits all TODs in Vancouver:

EXCERPT: Take recent proposed regulations for transit-oriented development, which for Metro Vancouver establish minimum building heights of 20 storeys adjacent to rapid transit stations and 12 storeys within 200 metres of a bus exchange (eight storeys within 400 metres). These “one size fits all” regulations ignore the designated network of urban centres and frequent transit development areas in this region where infrastructure, community amenities and services are in place or can be affordably provided. Applying the province’s blunt policy framework would provide incentives for eight to 12 storey buildings in areas that are already congested, have heritage assets or have stable older affordable rental buildings in preference to areas where municipalities are striving to create more complete communities with diverse housing choices. (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/business/article-riocan-reit-records-third-quarter-net-loss-of-735-million-amid-fair/ )

In closing, I hope this poorly researched legislation does not pass. The province needs to consult municipalities.

Note that I don’t live near our hospital precinct, but if bill 44 proceeds I feel the Victoria General Hospital precinct should get a TOD exemption.

Respectfully submitted,

---

Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 11:09 AM To: Mayor And Council Email mayorandcouncil@viewroyal.ca Subject: BC bill 44-2023

Hi to all,

My interests and concerns for BC Bill 44-2023 with regards to it’s affect on our municipality. All levels of Governments are slowly taking away our rights to life, liberty, and freedoms. They base their governance on their feelings, lobbyists, or poorly informed public opinion.

Bill 44-2023 seems to be a nee-jerk reaction to a seemingly problematic housing issue by a rushed and confused government facing an election soon. Provincial and Federal governments are increasingly using a tactic of “creating a law or mandate that will not be accepted by a majority of the population (beware of the silent majority we are silent for a reason) then only rescinding or try to ignore the law or mandate because of court actions. Is this deception or electioneering? I suggest all municipalities send a simple message to the government of BC “We and our constituency will not comply with 44-2023.” Then go to court to legally solve the issue. This will be cheaper and make a clear statement. No need to offer reasons or what abouts, these are for the supreme court.

Thanks

---

November 24, 2023

Mayor and Council, Town of View Royal 45 View Royal Avenue Victoria BC, V9B 1A6

Dear Mayor and Council,

I’d like to extend my gratitude for your proactive stance on challenging Bill 44 and for recognizing the importance of a thoughtful pause in its implementation. As a longstanding resident of View Royal and an award-winning builder and developer with over 30 years of experience, I have actively contributed to numerous small-scale residential projects across Greater Victoria.

While I acknowledge that the existing development process could benefit from streamlining, I must express my deep reservations about the proposed legislation. Bill 44 represents a seismic and overreaching shift in land use planning that raises concerns about its compatibility with democratic principles governing property rights. It is crucial to strike a balance between fostering responsible development and preserving the fundamental rights of property owners.

Zoning bylaws serve as a crucial framework for creating livable neighbourhoods, ensuring a balance between development, existing housing stock and the natural environment. It is with great concern that I highlight the potential pitfalls of Bill 44, as it poses a significant risk to the very fabric of our communities. The proposed legislation, in its current form, lacks the specificity required to address the intricacies of neighbourhood planning.

Instead of fostering more livable environments, the bill has the potential to exacerbate parking challenges, compromise privacy, and contribute to the degradation of our natural surroundings.

---

The Honourable Ravi Kahlon Minister of Housing Parliament Buildings Victoria, BC, V8V 1X4 Via Email: HOUS.minister@gov.bc.ca

Dear Minister Kahlon:

I am pleased to hear about the action your Ministry is taking to address the housing crisis in the Province. The proposed legislative amendments (Bills 44, 46, and 47) the government has introduced will remove barriers and support the development of in-fill housing and housing near transit hubs. I write to offer my full support.

I live in View Royal, BC and am excited for the changes that the proposed legislative amendments will enable in my Town. As you may be aware, an apparent majority of View Royal Council are opposed to the actions your Ministry is proposing. This opposition is a continuation of Council’s attempts to maintain the ineffective status quo and the false conclusion that application-by-application public hearings are an equitable and effective method for gaining public input. Moreover, Council’s position appears to reinforce the idea that the only housing type not open to debate is the single-family house.

It is the action and inaction of local governments, and current and previous other levels of government that have brought us to this crisis point. For example in June 2023, View Royal Council considered a motion from the Mayor to enact a six-month moratorium on all new development activities. Although narrowly defeated, this motion (advanced amidst a housing crisis) and accompanying discussion illustrate Mayor and Council’s position with respect to rezoning and the housing crisis, and supports the need for the proposed legislative amendments.

On November 23, 2023, I attended a public meeting hosted by View Royal which was advertised as “The Last Public Hearing.” Before the public meeting, I provided feedback in “The Last Public Meeting Survey.” I understand that the Town will be compiling feedback into a report and presumably seeking to engage with you and your Ministry.

In advance of the Town potentially engaging with you, I wanted to share with you directly my concerns with the Town’s approach and the potential conclusions they may communicate:

• The tone and information being presented by Mayor and Council is coloured by their predetermined opposition or in some instances is incorrect – for example:
  • In opening the meeting, the Mayor indicated that he “assumed most people here are opposed” to the actions proposed by the government.
  • The slides presented by the Town included figures showing 200 m and 400 m polygons from bus exchanges and bus stops which when combined cover most of View Royal. The message advanced by the Town is that most of View Royal will be open for developments with minimum heights of six and 10 storeys. However, the inclusion of bus stops by the Town is incorrect. The proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Areas in the Capital Region are based on bus exchanges only. By including all bus stops, the Town grossly over represented the number of TOD Areas and the potential resulting building types.
• Advertising the meeting and survey as “The Last Public Hearing” was described as tongue-in-cheek by the Mayor. Rather than humorous, the title is instead incorrect, inflammatory and introduces bias to the engagement results the Town was attempting to collect. If the legislation is passed, the public will still have the opportunity to participate and voice their opinions in the creation of the Official Community Plan (OCP) and proposed developments not consistent with the OCP. To describe this as “The Last Public Hearing” is demonstrably false.
• The survey is structured to favour responses in opposition to the proposed legislation. For example, the response options to the question “How might this zoning change to increase density allowance affect you?” were: (1) Traffic, (2) Parking, (3) Increased taxes for infrastructure, (4) Concerns about sidewalks and roadways, and (5) Other. Where the Other option is a text field offering the only opportunity to write in potential positive results instead of the easier negative check-box options.

Given the above, I would advise caution when reviewing any submission from View Royal which purports to summarize public feedback. I hope View Royal Council reconsiders their position, ensures they are providing accurate and unbiased information to the public, and works with the Province to advance much needed housing.

Thank you Minister for taking action to help address the housing crisis. I trust that your government will remain committed to ensuring that local governments are also working to support the development of homes for all British Columbians.

Sincerely,

---

Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 5:26 PM To: Mayor And Council Email mayorandcouncil@viewroyal.ca Subject: Letter supporting motion against provincial overruling of municipal bylaws

Dear View Royal Council and mayor,

I am very dismayed to hear of the new provincial policy that seems to overrule all municipal property bylaws. I heard that councillor Lemon may be proposing a motion on this topic and I am writing in full support of it.

I feel that this provincial policy is the not the way forward to create affordable housing for anyone. If the government wants to create affordable housing, then it needs to buy land and build large housing developments, ideally apartment buildings, which will be much higher density.

Allowing six buildings on what is normally classified as a one-home residential property will destroy the natural environment at a hyper-drive pace (at an exponentially faster pace than the continuing extreme destruction over the past 150+ years) in View Royal and around the province. In my view, it’s essential to have green space on private properties, which there will be very little of if we allow this provincial legislation. View Royal specifically has many old Douglas Fir forests and green space, not to mention Gary Oak meadows, of which only 5% of the original landmass remains. These meadows are integral to Indigenous harvesting practices of camas and exist in a very limited area along our coastline. As a settler person who works in Indigenous Education and feels strongly about truth and reconciliation, I believe that if we really follow and care about truth and reconciliation, then this new development policy from the province should be considered a “super-speed hyper-colonization” which goes far above and beyond the already unsustainable development and continued effects of colonization in all areas.

This provincial policy does nothing except give developers free run. They will be the ones who actually benefit from this, and View Royal will be left to figure out how to service the many new homes. What guarantees is the province making that any of these proposed homes will actually be remotely affordable, or provide homes for the under-housed and those who can’t afford their rent (which is getting to be a much higher percentage nowadays)?

If the provincial government actually wants to provide housing and build homes for local people, this policy will do the opposite - it will attract profit-hungry developers and people with money moving from other provinces to live here.

This policy punishes good citizens who work hard to pay their taxes and who are law abiding land owners. It will cause their property taxes to skyrocket and devalue their properties - not to mention the eyesore of six other buildings squished on a small piece of land on either side of existing properties.

I’d like to quote an Indigenous friend of mine, who recently said in a presentation at our school, “We need to plan 1000 years ahead”. What he meant is that we need to plan for future generations. Current government policy is short-sighted and only plans for 5, 10, or maybe 50 years tops. This kind of provincial policy is meant as a quick-fix because the government doesn’t want to bother building sustainable housing themselves. It is also draconian and over-centralizes power so that communities have no say in taking care of their environment and people who live there.

View Royal needs to support and create its own long-term sustainable plan, which could include a good deal of new homes - but done in a way that includes consultation with all citizens and the municipality itself, not as a command from the provincial government.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter,

View Royal Resident

---

Sent: Friday, November 24, 2023 2:02 PM To: Info Address info@viewroyal.ca Subject: Town Communications Re: The Last Public Hearing

Dear View Royal CAO,

I am a resident of View Royal and have received communications (letter and powerpoint at the last public hearing) from the town that are factually incorrect.

• In a letter (delivered to my door) re: the last public hearing event, "Residents, not developers, will pay for new infrastructure"
• In a powerpoint at the last public hearing event "Of major concern is the shift of development infrastructure costs onto current residents - growth will not pay for growth"

I am concerned that these statements are not accurate and could lead to confusion and divisiveness within our community. As I am sure you're aware, Section 559 of the Local Government Act enables local governments to impose development cost charges to pay for sewage, water, drainage, and roads infrastructure. View Royal has a DCC bylaw and is currently collecting DCCs at the time of building permit issuance or subdivision approval.

I understand that long-term planning for growth integrates the Town's financial plan, infrastructure plan, and official community plan, and that this is a complex process. I am concerned that statements like "growth will not pay for growth" or "residents will pay for new infrastructure" are not accurate and over-simplify the important strategic planning work the Town undertakes.

Please take this consideration into future Town communications.

Best,

---

THE HOUSING CRISIS

The View Royal “Last public hearing” that I attended on 22 November 2023, was made interesting by the wide ranging, frank opinions and concerns voiced. The stimulus for this extraordinary meeting was the publication of B.C.’s bill 44 -2023 and the concern felt by the Mayor and Council about the impact this would have on View Royal.

That this level of alarm was raised at this stage with this piece of legislation (not yet given First reading) betrays not only concerns about the content of the Bill, but also about our parliamentary process. There obviously is great distrust that the second reading and “committee stage” will be short-circuited and that poorly reviewed and controversial legislation will be rammed down the throats of the BC public.

Opposition to some of the proposed measures as well as support for its objectives were heard. There is not only widespread concern about the prohibitive cost of housing for some members of our society but also widespread fear of a deteriorating community. The discussion was framed by confusion and contradictions.

In my opinion there are a number of misconceptions that plague the housing debate. The very first one is the concept of “housing shortage”, hence the need to “speed up construction by cutting red tape” including time consuming public hearings. Housing shortage is not just an issue for Victoria, or Canada, but is an international concern, mainly driven by migration. Whereas Canada is encouraging migration, countries in Europe and our neighbours to the south are throwing up the barriers. This is worth a thought.

In greater Victoria there currently are 2700 homes for sale, or about one home for 150 residents. In Edinburgh (where I have lived for ten years) the current housing markets lists 1660 houses for sale, or one house for over 300 residents. In the Netherlands, where I have also lived, there are currently 75,000 houses listed for sale for the highly urbanised country of 17 million, but this boils down to one house for 233 residents. In the Netherlands excessive influx of migrants is now a top political concern. The supply of homes for sale in Victoria, relative to its population is huge.

The key concern is affordability of what is on offer, but that too is an issue in other countries. We remind ourselves constantly that house ownership is the key to a comfortable retirement, so nobody willingly sells his or her house in Victoria below market price, and thanks to Victoria’s appeal as an ideal community, a steady influx of wealthy people from elsewhere in Canada or overseas are willing to pay the price. That which makes Victoria attractive also makes it expensive. We treat monetization of home ownership as a virtue, but we all need a place to sleep.

The second misconception that bothers me is the notion that “by increasing supply of housing, the price will drop”. There are two ways of increasing supply: by expanding the urban footprint (hello ALR) and increasing the infrastructure road network or alternatively, increasing the density, also at cost of infrastructure, a key provision of Bill 44. Will it make housing cheaper? I think it not. It will, in on the contrary be counter-productive. Here’s why.

Let us begin with making a distinction between the developer and the house buyer. No developer, whether a large corporation or an enterprising homeowner wishing to subdivide, will undertake a costly project, requiring the upfront outlay of millions of dollars over a multiyear period without some assurance that upon completion a buyer will reward him with full recovery of the building costs, including interest payments on borrowed capital, and at least break even. Home construction is costly, time-consuming activity subject to risk of uncertain labour supply and material cost changes. It’s a risky undertaking. Nobody in his or her right mind embarks on a project with the idea of making a loss. Your average property owner is not a charitable organization.

A third misconception affects the underlying cause of our housing crisis: land. Land within striking distance of work or school is growing in scarcity. All migrations, worldwide, head for the cities. BC, with its more than one million square kilometers is hardly over-populated, but only urban centers attract migrants, whether the uber rich or the destitute. This is reflected in the trend in urban land values.

The BC Assessment Authority‘s records elegantly demonstrates this point. In 1991, the first year I lived in my present View Royal home, the house, newly built, was assessed at 20% more value than the land. Today that same plot of land is worth two and a half times as much as the house, which in the meantime has been improved and increased in size. Were I to subdivide in today’s market, I may, as a result, be able to count on a doubling of the total value of land I own and recovering the full cost of new house construction. The economics are worth considering, but it is risky, and it affects my lifestyle, and probably not for the better. I do not want to move. Increasing the density of land occupation increases its value and therefore the value of all housing in the area.

A number of persons present at the View Royal meeting pointed out that the only practical way to make housing affordable for the lower income classes was by municipal, therefore subsidised, housing, a task not to be undertaken lightly, but that is not part of the proposed legislation.

Town of View Royal Resident

---

1. Infrastructure Strain: The sudden increase in the number of residences on existing city lots could strain local infrastructure such as roads, water supply, sewage systems, and utilities. If the infrastructure is not adequately expanded or upgraded to accommodate the increased demand, it may lead to congestion, service interruptions, or other issues.
2. Parking and Traffic Issues: Higher residential density without proper planning may lead to parking shortages and increased traffic congestion. Limited parking spaces can result in disputes among residents and negatively impact the quality of life in affected neighborhoods.
3. Reduced Quality of Life: Overcrowding and increased density can lead to a reduced quality of life for existing residents. Noise levels may increase, green spaces may be reduced, and a sense of community may be diminished. This could lead to dissatisfaction among long-term residents.
4. Environmental Impact: Higher residential density without careful planning could contribute to environmental issues. It may lead to increased pollution, stress on local ecosystems, and a reduction in green spaces. This can have long-term consequences for the environment and biodiversity in affected areas.
5. Aesthetic Concerns: Rapid development without municipal oversight might result in buildings that are inconsistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. This can lead to aesthetic concerns and a loss of the unique identity of certain areas.
6. Impact on Property Values: The perception of overdevelopment or a lack of planning can affect property values. If residents believe that the new developments are negatively impacting their neighborhood, it could lead to a decline in property values.
7. Community and Social Disruption: Rapid changes to a community without sufficient community input and planning can lead to social disruption. Existing residents may feel disconnected from newcomers, leading to social tensions and conflicts.
8. Safety Concerns: Inadequate planning may result in safety concerns, especially if the new developments do not adhere to proper building codes and safety standards. This could pose risks to both new and existing residents.

It's important to note that the success or failure of such a policy depends on how well it is implemented and whether there are measures in place to address these potential issues. Public input, careful planning, and consideration of the long-term impacts are crucial for the success of any policy related to urban development.

---

22 Parkcrest Drive Victoria, B.C. V9B 5E7

Town of View Royal 45 View Royal Avenue Victoria, B.C. V9B 1A6

Dear Mr. Mayor and Council,

I was very pleased to see in the Nov. 11, 2023 Times Colonist that you called a "Last Public Hearing" meeting to draw attention to the overreach by the Provincial Government.

I will not be able to attend the meeting but I wanted to convey my total support for this meeting.

The B.C. Governments decision not to engage the public or municipalities on significant changes, use and zoning that will proceed in the future without their input is extremely concerning.

Thank you for your courage to stand up when many are silent.

Thank you also for pointing out the challenges that View Royal has in complying with this dictate. This must affect other jurisdictions in the province and the financial impact on taxpayers is considerable.

Perhaps public outcry will cause this government to reconsider these undemocratic processes.

Yours Truly,

Dorothy Couture View Royal Resident

---

Mayor and Council View Royal, B.C. Re Bill 44-2023

I am not in support of Bill 44-2023 at all.

Speaking as a happy View Royal community member, I wish to state my views.

B.C.'s Bill 44-2023 would be taking away peoples privacy of their own property. Bill 44-2023 would also take away freedom of choice in decision making of the future of View Royal by Bill 44-2023 over-riding municipal zoning requirements.

Public hearings are desperately needed in regards building heights, space, and tree removal.

One of the blessings of democracy is freedom of choice. We are not a communist country.

I am Dead Against B.C.'s Bill 44-2023.

Thank You.