Bill 44-2023 What We Heard Report - Part 4: Verbatim Survey Comments

ID	How might this zoning change to increase density allowance affect you?	The Province's proposed legislation will prohibit municipalities from requiring off-street parking and loading spaces for small-scale, multi-family housing (i.e. secondary suites, garden suites, h...	How might this zoning change to not require parking spaces affect you?	Do you use public transit regularly during peak times?	Do you feel public transit is adequate?	Do you believe this proposed legislation change will lead to more affordable housing in the Province?	Further comments?
5	N/A;	Yes	N/A;	No	Yes	Yes	I think we need to work on getting more housing built in the area to help solve the housing crisis. We all came together recently when there was a health crisis, lets try to do the same.
6	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Strain on existing infrastructure;	No	Traffic;Parking;	No	No	No
7	More housing options to live in Place with family;	Yes	our family uses other modes of transportation;	Yes	No	Yes	I believe this will create greater housing options and more affordable units. We have no choice its either build out into nature or allow more density in urban areas. During this councils term I haven't seen a public hearing for a housing development?
8	Density is needed for the future familys and our children we are in a housing crisis. ;	Yes	Parking will be a concern as it always is;	No	No	Yes	More housing options will at least keep prices from rising. Stopping further development will only increase prices for future generations.
9	My friends, kids, and essential workers I depend on are less likely to be displaced from the region. I will have more diverse neighbours. This is a leading survey, very unethical.;	Yes	It won't really affect me because developments will provide the parking that their residents need, otherwise they cannot market units. I have my own parking spot, and I don't own the public street.;	Yes	No	Yes	I find this survey very leading as it provides a small number of supposed "impacts" to choose from and does not mention any of the positives of having a diverse community where our friends, kids, essential workers can find a place to live. It does not even mention "housing crisis" nor climate change, but rather pre-supposes housing and diversity are negatives. There is clearly an agenda. I'd really question the ethics of such a survey.
10	Increases the need for services of which there is a dirty in my neighbourhood (i.e. a good thing if it spurs growth);	Yes	Shortage of bike lanes and encouragement of alternate transport means;	No	No	Yes
11	No concerns. We need density!;	Yes	No concerns. We need more density!;	Yes	No	Yes	We would like to build a secondary suite. These changes are good news!
12	Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Resale value of property ;	No	Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	No	There is nothing to ensure that the market isn’t being flooded with low cost/high rent housing. Infrastructure should be paid by the developers not the taxpayers.
13	Traffic;Make housing more affordable for people;	Yes	It won't;	No	No	Yes	Hopefully the province will push harder
14	Allows more friends and families to buy homes in View Royal ;	Yes	Cheaper homes for friends and family who want to live in View Royal ;	No	No	Yes	View Royal needs to improve cycling infrastructure for those of us who get around by bike
15	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Lack of Good Transit/Alternative infrastructure and Choice ;	Yes	With outdated Car centric infastructure using transit/bikes/walking will be dangerous;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Yes	No	Yes	Members of the CRD should not use years of putting off/slacking about"infastructure" upgrades to prevent more housing being built - All CRD members desperately need to build out housing to keep Victoria vibrant, safe, and affordable. City Councils are given power and exist because the province gives them power - This is not some U.S. city state system.
16	Need to plan for transportation systems to accommodate (safe active transportation options);	Yes	I don’t see it having an impact on our household ;	Yes	Yes	Yes
17	Traffic;Parking;Mutilple units may suit some lots but not others. Not fair to neighbours.;	No	Traffic;Parking;	Sometimes	No	No
18	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;	Yes	None;	I ride transit often, but not too often at peak times.	Yes	Yes
19	Negative change in the neighbourhood;Traffic;	No	Traffic;	No	No	No	The Province must not strip local government of land use authority.
20	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Yes	No	No
21	my kids might be able to afford housing one day;	Yes	more housing, very good;	Yes	Yes	Yes
22	Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Drive up property prices, evaluations, and taxes;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	No	This is a half-arsed solution by a desperate government. It is also THE biggest power grab and a complete disenfranchise of the citizen of BC. It pushes anll - de-facto power - to already greed developers. It will not make real-estate ownership more attainable and affordable.
23	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking;Traffic;	No	No	No	Bill 44 guys the authority of municipal governments. Makes a mockery of province's claim municipalities are a third order of government in Canada
24	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Parking;	Yes	No	Unsure
25	Increased taxes for infrastructure;	No	Increased taxes for infrastructure;	No	Yes	No
26	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Noise;	No	Parking;Everyone will still drive and now park on my street;	No	No	No	Get a grip. Densifying an already constrained geographical area makes no sense. This city is not built for moving that many people.
27	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;loss of trees and greenspace, loss of bird habitat, noise;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;boulevards will be muddy messes;	No	No	No	i don't see anything about affordable housing in this legislation. I do not for a second believe that we can build our way to affordable housing
28	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Without consultation the province has seized authority for zoning away from municipalities. The edict also bans future public consultation. Bill 44 is so poorly thought out that it took away municipal ability to fund infrastructure through development charges - Bill 46 is supposed to fix that by creating an entirely new system, yet untested. This is a massive overreach by the provincial government, they should withdraw the legislation and apologize.;	No	Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;View Royal is unprepared for on street parking. We have no sidewalks in most neighbourhoods. Forced on street parking will make our current "quaint" streets unsafe to walk on. We cannot afford many millions for sidewalks. Electric cars are mandated for 2030 - you can't charge an electric car if you don't have a dedicated parking spot. Just stupid. Bills 44, 46 and 47 are an embarrassment of poor planning. Go back and do the hard work of coming up with an affordable housing plan that will deliver affordable housing. ;	Public transit in my area is crowded, slow and unreliable. I live within 400m of a frequent bus stop. The bus takes twice as long as a car trip.	No	No	This legislation will not create affordable housing. Minister Kahlon has admitted this. Minister Kahlon also said that "we need housing now. The infrastructure will follow". Magical thinking. The responsibility for zoning must stay in the municipalities. Once the province takes over some of the zoning they will eventually meddle in all of it - and judging by this legislation the province does not have anyone competent to oversee any of this. Banning public consultation is a travesty. When governments' ban the public voice it is time for an election.
29	More density means more and better services. Better shops within walking distance. I’m looking forward to it.;	Yes	I look forward to removing the public subsidies for private vehicles. Also, I think its insane that we require builders to provide mandatory storage space for private property that residents may or may not have.;	No	No	Unsure	Please abolish minimum parking requirements and establish and maintain a maximum casualty rate for view royal public facilities. Provide immediate engineering controls to streets, road segments and intersections that are operating out of safe conditions to render them safe for public use.
30	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;	No	No	Unsure
31	Increased taxes for infrastructure;	Yes	No;	No	Yes	Yes
32	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Loss of democratic rights;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Can drastically alter neighborhoods and property values without the ability to take proper time to evaluate impacts;	No	No	No	Look at the Fairfield project that took a year to approve with stipulations of providing affordable housing. The developers have now said it can’t be done with the high interest rates and building costs. They’ve asked to have this stipulation removed. This bill will not provide affordable housing but rather cookie cutter strictures all over the city that will still go to the highest bidders from other Canadian provinces. We don’t have the infrastructure in our roads or in medical services to accommodate the current residents in BC already. This had not been thoughts through at all. The NDP has lost me.
33	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Too many people living in our area;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	Unsure
34	No concerns. City should be planning to accommodate growth;	Yes	No concerns, parking minimums are regressive everywhere;	No	No	Yes	This survey is extremely biased. Please approach this issue with more professionalism and respect for the housing needs of your residents.
35	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Yes	No	Yes
36	Increased density on residential lots will lead to the removal of mature trees which are major component in storm water rentaintion and erosion. Also we will lose privacy and the roads can't handle increased density off the island high way.;	No	Vehicles parked on the shoulders of roads that don't have sidewalks forces pedestrians to walk closer to vehicles and in on coming traffic ;	No	No	No	I think we need to strengthen our tree protection plans and our tree by law. Look closely at oak bay they are doing it right.
37	More available and lower-cost housing ;	Yes	More lower-cost housing, greenspace;	No	No	Yes
38	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Yes	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Yes	Yes
39	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	No	I think this is very short sited and not well thought idea of the bc gov there are many parts that they are downloading to communities. There is little thought to individual municipality’s, there needs and the effect that this will have. The thought also is that this will not affect housing prices and decrease the effect of the housing crisis. Not to mention the effect on climate, environment etc, In short this is a very, incredibly wrong idea to address the long term and short term issues! In addition the fact that this was surely in progress when the UBCM was in progress and the Mayors from most municipalities were in not communicated with is truly a problem in the due process of of democracy.
40	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Lack of democracy and skyrocketing government debt.;	No	Parking;Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Ride bicycle	No	No	I believe the changes are catalyzed by the real estate investment and development communities...REIT, UDI...and government tax returns. The irony exists in that this infinite economic growth strategy creating wealth for real estate speculators only results in skyrocketing government (taxpayer) debt and environmental degradation.
41	Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking;Traffic;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	Unsure	The OCPs should outline the zoning regulations. The municipalities need to stay firm to those and not make it a war amongst neighbours. We bought a house and expect to look left and right and see the same, unless it goes through due process.
42	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	No	this proposed legislation is cultural genocide on single family home owners and strips local governments from responding to the local need of the people who elected them. How will .sewer and water demands be met by existing infrasture . Traffic is already bad and this could lead to grid lock
43	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Yes	Unsure
44	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Environmental destruction;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Yes	No
45	Traffic;	No	Parking;Traffic;	No	Yes	Yes	Agree with some of the rationale in proposed changes as we live in part of the world where housing growth opportunities are limited. Discussion need to take place in terms of requirements re set-backs et al.
46	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Yes	No
47	Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking;Decrease in home values ;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Zoning is designed to protect neighborhoods. This will negatively affect my neighborhood. Density and zoning needs to be a municipal matter with public input ;	No	Yes	No	We need more affordable housing, but it should be planned by each community with consideration for future impacts. Private development will not improve affordability, and blanket legislative rules are just political grandstanding without appropriate regard for individual communities needs.
48	More affordable housing and green space ;	Yes	More affordable housing and green space ;	Yes	Yes	Yes	Embrace change!
49	Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;	No	No	No	Bill 44-2023 equates to nothing more than a "slipperly slope" approach to development. Withdrawing citizen's rights to voice an opinion will not pave the way toward affordable housing - only resentment (which is already stirring). We live within 400 Metres of a bus stop - the bus doesn't run on weekends yet our quiet small street would certainly be targeted for a 6-plex. There are many small roads and lanes in View Royal that stand to be adversley affected by this nonsense legislation. It's not a matter of build it and they will come. "They" are already here, or on their way and it seems the Provincial government will stop at nothing to accommodate what equates to a never-ending demand for housing. I understand we need immigration etc to maintain our economy and people need places to live. But forcing Bill 44-2023 and all it entails onto established communities is not the way forward. we need our elected council to make thoughtful decisions based on local interpretation and input from residents and not be dictated to by those who have no vested interest in our community yet demand we accomodate and adapt with no thought toward quality of life.
50	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Yes	Traffic;Parking;	sometimes	Yes	Unsure
51	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	No
52	Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking;	No	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;Parking;	No	Yes	Unsure
53	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Reduced privacy, potential increase in property crimes;	No	Traffic;Parking on boulevards in View Royal is already a problem;Parking;	No	Yes	No	Zoning regulations are the only means of controlling growth in a reasonable manner and allowing choice in the type of neighbourhood environment you choose to live in. Increasing housing density should not be permitted in a haphazard manner, which this proposed legislation would lead to.
54	Parking;Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;it would change the character of our street ;	No	Traffic;Parking;our street is a small laneway and it already has parking issues ;	No	No	No	There is no possibility of these measures reducing housing prices or demand in the CRD. The benchmark price for a single-family home in Victoria was $1.15 million in June 2023, down 7.0 percent from June 2022 but up 47.9 percent from June 2019. The Capital Regional District (CRD) added 9,466 new residents in 2022, bringing the total population to 439,950...the CRD’s population grew at the highest rate in more than 20 years. This coupled with higher interest rates has effectively stalled some major rental developments in the CRD and this is likely to remain the case until rates come down
55	Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;	No	Increased taxes for infrastructure;UVic is currently recognized as a Transit Hub and will un-invited densification with the 400m guideline will automatically give UVic permission to do what they want to our community. No public input as it is a provincial entity. Densification would create serious problems for wet weather management and privacy.;	No	Yes	No	The new legislation, Bill 44 will take away our democratic rights. As has happened in Hamilton, Ontario. Disaster for everyone. The Mayor of Hamilton was Boo'd at the Grey Cup game that was hosted in Hamilton.
56	Parking;	No	Parking;	No	Yes	No
57	This question is slanted. Why aren’t any positive options available?;	Yes	Again, slanted. Why are there no positive options? Not everyone uses cars. ;	No	No	Unsure	This was a very bias survey, IMO.
58	Adds much needed housing without more urban sprawl;	Yes	It doesn’t ;	No	No	No
59	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Noise, lack of privacy, property crime;	No	Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;	Close enough to walk to work	Yes	No	Increasing housing density in this bedroom community = more money in developers' pockets for "luxury" homes. How can this be a win for lower/middle class families looking to buy into this ridiculous market???
60	This question is phrased neutrally but the answers imply negativity. I would say it positively affects me. ;	Yes	By improving things ;	Yes	No	Yes	Stop getting in the way of the Province - they know better and they have infinitely more resources to explore and research these topics. By putting up barriers under the veil of “concerned citizens” when really you just feel imposed upon and it hurts your delicate egos, it harms the community. Quit wasting our time with this. Just go with it. You don’t represent me when you do stuff like this and I will be sure this is reflected in my voting next election.
61	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Parking;Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Intermittantly	Yes	No	I am an active real estate developer and I know the proposed provincial legislation will destroy entire neighborhoods. The legislation is short sighted and badly conceived. Densification and housing with no adequate on site parking does not acknowledge how some people aspire to live. I am proud of our mayor and council for standing up to this bullying. A lot more thought has to go into where and how density and new forms of housing will be achieved. Big brother has to be stood up to. I am sorry I cannot attend Thursday’s meeting as I am out of town. Happy to help in any way I can to fight this. Fraser McColl
62	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	No	Leave it alone. Go save us money.
63	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Yes	Parking;	Yes	Yes	Yes
64	Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	No
65	Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;	No	Yes	No	The term “affordable” is very subjective. It seems that more housing is needed, but for people who can’t afford the high rents. Lowering the cost of living for everyone will make the current market more affordable for those who need a place to live. Any new builds are going to be rented for what the market will bear. Also, will View Royal be able to keep up with infrastructure needed for densification?
66	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Supporting infrastructure, safety, loos of trees,;	No	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Safety;	No	No	No	This does not address affordable housing nor is it democratic to keep out the public from issues that impact us directly.
67	Traffic;Parking;Environmental;	No	Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;obstruction on narrow roads. Destruction of boulevards and/or culverting ditches-no water detension/ increased stormwater discharge to receiving waters + pollution affecting fish and habitat.;	No	Yes	Unsure	Many trees will be sacrificed. Land for replacing twice their number will be unavailable (Tree Bylaw). Stormwater surges/floods will not be retained without legislating "rain gardens" (expensive landscaping and soil (clay) excavation) or engineered retention tanks on the parcels. This might be 80% of all SFD parcels depending on "perc tests" . Overland flooding will occur. Insurance premiums will increase or claims denied. Will building setbacks from DPAs be observed or will density over-rule? Will Riparian Area Regulations be in effect for streamside properties above high tide boundaries? Will Archeological Assessments be necessary where currently indicated and if so will proposed new building envelopes be compromised? The extinction of single family dwellings, with open space and gardens, will ruin the lifestyle, and destroy neighbourhoods, which long term residents presently call "home", secure from observation and intrusion. Many of these owners are elderly widows who pioneered this land. View Royal will become a mixture of appartment houses and slums burdened by noise and lack of privacy. Increase in density should be delayed until everyone can have a family doctor. Why has the "prescribed distance" from a bus stop not been defined? Likewise a "Transit Hub" distance has not been defined?
68	All of the above;	No	All the above;	No	No	No	I think all these laws will definitely negatively impact BC in so many areas which have not been thought about. Will not do what they are claiming it will increase population without adequate infrastructure and healthcare requirements.
69	Traffic;Parking;	Yes	Don't know yet;	No	No	Yes
70	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Urban heat island effect increasing temperatures from loss of tree canopy and greenery in urban areas. ;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;. When cars are solidly parked on every side street, cars patrol the area in search of a parking spot. Think downtown Victoria This adds to air pollution and discourages active transportation. ;	No	No	No	1/ View Royal is a regional traffic nightmare. By forcing additional large density increases around the hospital, the province will slow emergency response times. This makes no sense The bus was put there to help patients access care not to slow care times. I feel transit areas in hospital precincts deserve a healthcare exemption in bill 44 2/ I am concerned View Royal and other municipalities will have a much more difficult time planning infrastructure in general (sidewalks and bike lanes for example, vital to active transportation goals) with pockets of growth potentially popping up all over. Far from the usual planned View Royal growth that I doubt even the province could find fault with. 3/ Senior levels of government dropped the housing buck decades ago, now they want to pass the buck they should spend a lot more infrastructure bucks than they are currently offering.
71	Parking;Traffic;	No	Parking;	No	No	Yes
72	Parking;Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;	No	No	No
73	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;	Yes	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	Unsure	Caveats might be necessary to disallow car registration at more dense locations and that builders and developers shift the savings to the consumer
74	Parking;Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Noise levels;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	No	Absolutely not, these are not going to be affordable dwellings. People are being put out of their homes, so developers can make money. It is a social disaster and they should not be allowed to get away with it. This Province is failing its people in so many areas, this will just make things worse.
75	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	Unsure	I feel that this gives developers a green light to ruin neighbourhoods and communities that people have worked hard to create within the town. It may also devalue current property values.
76	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Impact to our kids ability to use and enjoy their neighborhood. The safety in knowing our neighbors would also change;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increase the use of limited street parking making the roads more dangerous to walk, play, bike or travel on. ;	No	No	No	I am so tired of our existing communities being destroyed in order to push more small space living that people cannot grow in. Expand the ability to freely travel into cities rather than destroying the cities themselves.
77	Quality of life. Having a sixplex next to me is not what I saved my hard-earned money to buy my house for. ;	No	Parking;	No	Yes	No	Thank you. View Royal for doing this. They should have a province-wide public hearing
78	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Parking;	No	Yes	No
79	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	No	Just because there is more housing, which is needed. Does not mean it will be affordable. Also community zoning changes without input from local government or residents will not work. Local government not being allowed to hold hearings to share and discuss the changes in community zoning/ development does not make any sense. There are many other factors to consider when increasing density in a community, Just a few are sewer, storm drains, hospitals, doctors, police, firefighters, schools All these things have to be expanded to support an increase in community density. At the present time we already don’t have enough of these necessities for our current population
80	Increased taxes for infrastructure;	No	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking;	No	No	Unsure	We don't have sidewalks on our street, and one has to pull over to let the 2nd car pass. Unpaid rent (even with a property manager) to follow RTB provincial process to evict, hearing was booked for 6 months+. The owner told to get a lawyer to pursue but relays on the income to pay the mortgage. How do you enforce Town bylaws? There has to be some criteria, to ensure safety for what was built for sewage, electricity etc. Higher density may mean an increase to home insurance too, higher property taxes. Green canopy maintenance. 1000$ fee (or plant 2 trees for 1 dead protected species removed).
81	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	No	Already burnside helmecken is a parking lot . As these apartment blocks are put in with old data about traffic. The lights only 1 or 2 cars can turn as traffic backed up all 4 directions . Trying to cross helemcken is taking your life on yr hands at the cross walks daily. No more development till issues are addressed and fixed. If you dont have parking at your land then you should not be allowed to build. Only people who can afford to buy will be developers so regular people still wont have a place to live.Home ownership is moving away from personal to being a business.
82	I share none of these concerns and think the harm the housing crisis has on our society massively outweighs them;	No	I share none of these concerns and feel addressing the housing crisis massively outweighs them;	I bike	No	Yes	This legislation overrides single family zoning. Multiplex’s are less expensive then single family zoning. Truly affordable homes (30% of income) will not be reached with this legislation and will require higher density and government subsidies. Reserving most land in most cities for an increasingly small sliver of the highest incomes during a national housing crisis is unjust. Cities having a good infill policy allows people to live in areas with existing amenities and closer to where they work. This has been shown to be the single largest climate action and city can make. Municipalities are a creature of the province and it’s entirely within the provinces rights to override land use decisions. Hearings will still be held for projects that are not compliant with the OCP and this adds incentive for them to respect that and for citizens to engage in the OCP planning on more broad community objectives rather than site by site hearings where neighbours concerned on the perceived personal impacts on themselves cannot override those. The statement in the notice regarding development financing is simply false and fees will be paid on permitting rather than at rezoning. Having more neighbours also adds to the broader tax base. My concern is session and surveys like these are aiming to stoke fear about drastic community change I’ll remind
83	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Privacy;	No	Traffic;Parking;	No	No	No
84	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Have these larger unit houses planted right beside single residential houses would cause a huge concern. Privacy, noise, invasive, and completely takes away from the single house dwellings in a residential area. Traffic would increase immensely, our children would not be able to ride bikes play outside on the street as traffic would be a major concern. ;	No	Parking;Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Yes	Yes	Unsure	I am raising my children in View Royal. We have lived here for almost 15yrs. Our once quiet neighborhood has already been affected by new infrastructures. The increased traffic and speeding is an issue. Having houses sell and large monstrosities built to replace them is completely taking away from the residential footprint. You will have an increase in higher traffic, crime, congestion, no parking no privacy not to mention taking away from the neighborhoods for families that have worked hard to own their homes.
85	The changes are a huge net positive.;	No	Parking;	No	No	Yes	I fully support the changes as I believe that they will lead to more housing being built which in turn will help with the housing crisis we are currently it. I feel that public hearings for these types of projects is a huge waste of time and completely uneseccary. Public hearings should be reserved only for housing projects that differ greatly from the OCP.
86	Traffic;Parking;Health care;Increased taxes for infrastructure;	No	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	No	Unsure	Municipalities should retain the right to determine what is developed in a municipality. However, the planning and development process has to speed up. The Town of View Royal is notoriously slow in processing and approving new developments. This has played into the Provincial Government's hands. We have reaped what we as a Town have sown.
87	Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Parking;Traffic;	No	Parking;Accessibility and equal access for persons with disabilities who rely on personal vehicle and also limits in some instances job opportunities for everyone if they need a car to access a job site (e.g., construction workers), or people who use their cars for work (e.g., Uber drivers, home care aids). ;	Yes	No	No	My big concern is about equal access to job opportunities and limiting parking at residential sites is a discriminatory practice. Also - safety. Owning a car and having safe, close parking increases my personal safety when out and about in my community. Do I feel more safe taking the bus at 11pm or driving my car from destination to destination? The latter because so have more control over my personal safety.
88	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Don’t enjoy high density living. ;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;General unwanted noise;	No	No	No	How about getting me a family doctor instead? Infrastructure such as roads not being upgraded to take extra traffic. Leading to more greenhouse gases in traffic jams.
89	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;There will be no regulation and it is not going to solve the housing crisis;	No	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Our road is already narrow, there is no room to park cars on both sides of the road. The road would become more dangerous ;	No	No	No	Home owners will tear down old homes and build rental units and charge a premium price. Their whole focus will be to make money. This will deepen the housing crisis and forever change neighborhoods for the worse
90	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Yes	Won't ;	No	No	Unsure	We have to think of the younger generation and their ability to afford housing and live on the island or we will just be an island of older people. Housing affordability is a crisis.
91	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	Our Ukrainian refugee roommate does	No	No
92	Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;	No	Yes	No
93	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;	Yes	No	No
94	Create more affordable housing options.;	Yes	Increase the viability of transit and bike lanes;	Yes	No	Yes	Your survey is very biased. You are a municipality and should be a leader of this change.
95	Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Negatively impact the quiet peace and enjoyment of my home;	No	Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;	No	Yes	No	We moved to View Royal because the neighborhood is quiet, safe, family friendly, and has an almost rural feel. Allowing multi-unit buildings in what was previously single family zoning will ruin the neighborhood and not result in more affordable housing because developers will pay premium prices for the lots. We also do not believe that these legislative changes are evidence-based.
96	More neighbours and hopefully more services close by so I don’t have to drive everywhere. View Royal, you guys should make it so your residents don’t have to drive everywhere.;Increased taxes for infrastructure;	Yes	People might decide not to have their own car so there could be fewer cars. But again, View Royal will need to up its game on enabling services near residents.;	No	No	Yes	This was an overtly biased survey that focused on the bad and not the good. It seems the authors are completely unaware of the housing crisis. We need more homes and we need better location of services to bring about lower car dependence.

Bill 44-2023 What We Heard Report - Part 4: Verbatim Survey Comments

Survey Results: Proposed Provincial Zoning Changes