Committee of the Whole/Documents/Bill 44-2023 Public Meeting - What We Heard Report (Survey Feedback)
Appendix
Bill 44-2023 Public Meeting - What We Heard Report (Survey Feedback)
December 12, 2023Pages 82–1132 sections
A detailed table documenting public feedback and survey responses regarding the impact of Bill 44-2023 on zoning density, parking, and affordable housing.
Covers survey response IDs 97 through 290Collects data on transit use, infrastructure taxes, and public sentiment toward provincial legislationContains specific comments from residents on community character and housing affordability
Survey Results: Proposed Zoning Changes and Housing Legislation
Page 82–113
| 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? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 97 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Safety ; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Safety; | No | Yes | No | Allowing developers to build in more areas will not lead to more affordable housing. A $900,000 condo/townhouse is not affordable. Developers do not care about affordable housing. They are in it to make money. Look at their bottom line. Parking, taxes, safety are all a huge issue in this. The infrastructure will not support this. |
| 98 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Property rights; | Yes | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | Yes | Yes | No | Increased density does not lead to reduced housing costs, only to increased density. Until we have dealt with our mental health/addictions situation with young people across the province we are at risk of simply spreading the disease across a broader geography. We have people, we just are not able to utilize them because we have created a situation where they cannot thrive. So we need to bring new people in to replace the people we are not allowing to thrive. And, it's become a cycle. The need to "stay in our lane" when it comes to solving societal problems such as housing/mental health/addictions, exacerbates the problem because it only deals with symptoms when the actual root causes are a kaleidoscope that needs to be mapped. Don't put that on fragile municipalities that are trying to serve the residents who pay for them and who own the property. Forcing density essentially tells residents who pay for all this that they are serfs in the grand scheme of things. The wealthy don't pay, the poor don't pay. For different reasons. And the middle class are forced to conform. |
| 99 | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Traffic;Parking; | No | No | Yes | There should be a box for ...not applicable as I don't use transit...I agree with speeding up the process buts it's the unknown consequences of this after the fact....thank you |
| 100 | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Parking; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Yes | No | This represents the NDP "bully" style when it comes to affordable housing. I'm not against more housing and more affordable housing. I'm against a government that doesn't listen to, consider, value the opinions of, or care about how achieving it's housing goals will impact current residents. |
| 101 | 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 | Unsure | Govt is over reaching in all aspects of our lives. Do not comply. Hear the voices of all |
| 102 | all above plus crowded and ugly; | No | Parking; | No | Yes | No | The first thing of think of when I learned about forced changes, no public input, no town council input is how very communist like of this government, not to mention how awful it will our communities look, and it won't solve anything. |
| 103 | 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 | Unsure | |
| 104 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | |
| 105 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | This legislation will create havoc in all neighbourhoods, our democratic rights are being eroded and none of this is will fill the gap created by years of governments inaction building coops, seniors housing etc |
| 106 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | |
| 107 | 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 | |
| 108 | All of the above; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Safety issues - traffic is already bad and with new multi-family dwellings are already taking up much of the road space making it hard for traffic and services to be delivered; | Sometimes | No | No | This is a band aid fix from a provincial government without thinking it through. Homeowners should not have to constantly take the brunt of inaction for decades on a continually growing issue that they have been aware of. There is not enough health care services to serve communities. Putting the brunt of the infrastructure costs onto the homeowner rather than developers is ridiculous as taxes are already incredibly high. The reality of the carbon footprint with these increases will multiple incredibly. The provincial government bought up hotels to provide homes to the various homeless populations and it doesn't appear to be working. Pushing through the changes proposed will also bring many other issues when there is an increase to density leaving less green space, increase in many cases of crime etc. |
| 109 | Parking; | No | Parking; | No | Yes | Yes | |
| 110 | Traffic;Parking; | No | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | Question 12 needed an "I don't know" response choice. And re. this legislation, of course it will make housing more expensive because government should not interfere in the free market like this. Why is the Province just listening to Lisa Helps on this and why didn't the Province consult municipalities at all or the public? There are better ways to bring about change than this method. |
| 111 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | Building more houses/apartments does not mean they will be affordable. |
| 112 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Traffic;Parking; | No | Yes | Yes | |
| 113 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;limited resources, increased levels of pollution, social problems, and pressure on the natural environment; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;limited resources, increased levels of pollution, social problems, and pressure on the natural environment, along with not a very good transit system ; | Sometimes and it is not always reliable | No | No | Limited resources, increased levels of pollution, social problems, and pressure on the natural environment, overcrowding and overburdened infrastructure. Lack of privacy: Living in close proximity to neighbors. Safety issues such as fires spreading, crime etc. Many issues already exist for housing provided to already homeless & still not being resolved and the issue is expanding where facilities are NOT being used. |
| 114 | I might be able to actually find a transit accessible place to live that isn't moldy, and is built with basic earthquake safety in mind, and isn't a basement suite a few years after it goes into effect; | Yes | As someone without a car, it will help make housing more affordable ; | Yes | No | Yes | That question on if transit is adequate is interesting in the context of this survey having a slant against density. Density helps makes more frequent transit more cost effective. Greater Victoria currently needs a lot of transit expansion, regardless of housing density. We're already at the point that the region may support an automated light metro (ie Skytrain, Montreal REM, stations can be Canada Line sized to save money), though this requires further study by the regional transit commission. Really hoping forced upzoning will not encourage View Royal to fight against this hypothetical system if it has stations by Vic General and 6 mile. PS density is an opportunity to reduce the cost per capita of infrastructure if you do it right |
| 115 | Allow me to actually afford to buy a house; | Yes | Allow me to afford buying a house in bike/transit friendly areas; | I do not commute | Yes | Yes | Given that taxes I pay to the province, federal government and the CRD (through my municipality) may have trickled down into funding parts of this opposition to provincial legislation, I would kindly request that no more be spent on it as a matter of basic financial accountability. |
| 116 | more housing so my friends and family don't have to move away; | Yes | Sounds like it will start to address the climate impacts of our car-centric planning.; | Yes | No | Yes | This survey seems extremely biased, only giving negative reactions to the provincial changes with no possible positives. |
| 117 | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Yes | Yes | |
| 118 | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | Clearer and nicer roads, more room for bike lanes; | No | Yes | Yes | |
| 119 | Will allow for lower rents due to more rental opportunities ; | Yes | Will make streets with good transit easier and safer to access by bus. Will make driving through these smaller streets easier and safer. Less likely I will get hit with a door when riding my bike. ; | Yes | No | Yes | I support increased density and better access to public transit. Increase density means there is more housing opportunities in both the rental and the ownership markets, which leads to lower housing costs. |
| 120 | This will improve housing options and in the long improve affordability for me as a local resident. It will also allow for low taxes a d infrastructure spending on a per capita basis. It will increase viability of public transit.; | Yes | It allow for cheaper construction of homes and increase viability of public transit.; | No | No | Yes | I am in full support of these changes. I think they will greatly improve affordability and livability of the CRD. In addition, Increasing importance of the OCP will lead to much more democratic and efficient process of approving housing. |
| 121 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;my naighbour has 1/2 acre lot. he could build townhomes on it. I don't want that; | No | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | Yes | No | View Royal already has plans and rules for allowing secondary suites. This is enough for our community as we are not close enough to the downtown area for many people to want to live in someone's backyard. A single or even 2 secondary suites inside the main residence should be enough. |
| 122 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Yes | No | |
| 123 | It will be a positive change. More housing is a good thing. ; | Yes | This will be positive. More housing is good. ; | Yes | Yes | Yes | We find ourselves in a housing crisis because of the action (and inaction) of local governments. This includes View Royal who not long ago considered a moratorium on considering rezoning applications. I am happy to see the province step in to ensure housing gets built and would encourage View Royal to support and take complementary action to address the housing crisis. |
| 124 | none of the above; | Yes | it will encourage more alternative means of transportation; | No | No | Yes | This form is unnecessarily biased -- "how will x impact you" followed by a list of only negative outcomes. |
| 125 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Parking;Traffic; | No | No | No | |
| 126 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Will allow zero input from the the community or neighbourhood in shaping this community and aesthetic. If developers are allowed to do what they want, it will totally change the meaning of community and allow developers to do what they want.; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;It is lovely to think no parking and all residents will ride, walk or take transit to places but the reality is vehicles are required which means parking is required, road maintenance which includes bike lanes. Currently walking with a pet or child/ren on the E&N as well as the Galloping Goose is a joke because there are so many bikes (ebikes &/or pedal) that don't consider pedestrian traffic and the speeds they go at is VERY unsafe. Similar to cyclists complaining about drivers. ; | Sometimes, but the reliability is not the best. Another issue that needs to be addressed for infrastructure and transportation needs/demands | No | No | Just because there is more housing does NOT mean it will be anymore affordable. There are also other issues with increased density which include limited resources, increased levels of pollution, social problems, and pressure on the natural environment. Other considerations are overcrowding and overburdened infrastructure (police, fire, health care). Lack of privacy: Living in close proximity to neighbors. No public input tends NOT to be a good thing or work out well, especially when the whole 'Community' is touted in developers plans. Not having accountability and public input is a a determent to the actual communities and residents |
| 127 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | Yes | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | Yes | The provincial government is offering an opportunity for home owners to take some responsibility for housing shortages, to increase the diversity of their community, and to use their property to generate income for future needs, such as seniors care. Currently, there are situations where View Royal bylaws appear to unnecessarily block this opportunity. |
| 128 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | Yes | It won't. Having stupid rules about parking dictate good housing policy; | Yes | No | Unsure | This survey is really bad. These questions are leading, and the attitude of the current adminstration to let zero building happen, or only when the developers provide kick-backs to the council is god-damn shame. I hope more people can live here, more new voters can come and vote out this NIMBish council who are only trying to protect their investment. I mean look at the Mayor and Coucil they're all white, old as dinosaurs and are trying to protect their mortgage/property values. |
| 129 | Traffic; | No | Traffic; | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 130 | 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 | I feel the only thing that will help build more affordable housing is for the federal government to resume building subsidized housing like co-ops and other types of housing for low income people/families. There needs to be large enough incentives for developers to build this type of housing so they do not continue to build only high priced condos. Shutting municipal governments out of the process is not the answer. |
| 131 | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;no mention of affordability requirements; | No | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | Government must support or subsidize rents to keep them affordable (30% of income or less) |
| 132 | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic; | No | No | No | Freehold Strata already pay more than their fair share of taxes for fewer services. Will these multiple unit projects pay their fair share or will services be reduced or taxes increased to cover their share. |
| 133 | Parking; | Yes | more bike paths might be needed; | No | No | Yes | With our proximity to both Langford and Victoria, our area could provide homes for more young, active, working people in single occupant, smaller scale dwellings such as garden suites and secondary suites in accessory buildings. This would work if the community works to ramp up development of active transit routes/ paths and smaller lighter electric public transit services. |
| 134 | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | Yes | Unsure | |
| 135 | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;Increased need for health services; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Safety within an already busy TCH/Old Island Hwy connector corridor; | No | No | Unsure | Much depends on the details, the builders, the locations, the volume, the capacity, the availability of trades and materials, the provincial support for infrastructure and all, the finished costs, the buyers/renters, the definition of "affordable." Affordable for whom? |
| 136 | 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 | This is disasterous for most established neighbourhood. |
| 137 | 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 | |
| 138 | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking; | No | Parking;Traffic; | No | No | No | I feel this legislation is an attempt by thr NDP government to act on a problem they've done nothing to solve for 6 years. It's an intrusion on local democracy and incredibly irresponsible. |
| 139 | More walkable communities, more diversity, more affordability ; | Yes | More affordability and more diversity in our communities! If you build it they will come! FULL SUPPORT ; | Yes | No | Yes | I am fully in support of the provinces changes. I am disappointed by the language in this survey and the implication that density in our community will lead to traffic congestion and parking challenges. This survey in its formation is biased. |
| 140 | It will help young families and more diverse people to live in my neighborhood. It will increase housing options. ; | Yes | It will lead to denser, walkable neighborhoods which is better than the sprawling single family neighborhood I currently live in. ; | No | Yes | Yes | This survey seems biased and focused only on negative aspects of the legislation. The town’s closed off views and anti-housing attitude is disappointing. I’m concerned to see the demographics of my neighborhood changing to become less diverse, and so I think the change to zoning is a great thing. It will mean more housing options for more diverse families to live in existing neighborhoods. This will also increase the tax base, increase density which can support commercial activity and services, and walkability. This is a small change in terms of process. Single family developments don’t have a rezoning or public hearing and so I don’t see why 6 units needs to go onto through a timely, costly process to move ahead. |
| 141 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;We already have a parking issue on our street. There no room for more parking. ; | No | No | No | |
| 142 | Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | No | No | From what I understand, infrastructure will be paid for by residents and not developers. I find that troubling and unfair. |
| 143 | Parking;Traffic; | No | Parking;Traffic; | No | No | No | |
| 144 | More housing options in the community is good; | Yes | Makes sense near transit. ; | No | No | Yes | Seems like a positive change. Housing is the number one priority for residents of the CRD and this will help alleviate the shortage. Please advocate for improved transit to ensure residents without a car can get around effectively |
| 145 | Traffic;Increase housing and thus afforability; | Yes | Result in increased use of bike lanes and transit; | No | No | Yes | |
| 146 | Allow me (an engineer) to afford to live; | Yes | Not everyone drives. Let the people who want to bus live. ; | Yes | Yes | Yes | I don’t think you understand how dire the housing crisis is. I would chop off a toe if it meant those of us who got an engineering degree and work in high-paying fields could afford to own a home. I’m certainly willing to sacrifice parking spots for that purpose. |
| 147 | It will make our area more affordable; | Yes | It won’t; | No | No | Yes | I support this legislation. |
| 148 | More tax revenue, reduce our massive housing shortage. ; | Yes | Not at all. Probably would have reduced the cost of my housing if the rule was introduced in the 60's. ; | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 149 | It would mean that there's more housing units to go around and it'll combat homelessness; | Yes | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | Yes | More housing needs to be built here. Period. There is a dire need for more housing unit around. If anyone can't understand that they should just take a look at Pandora Ave and count the amount of tents being put up every other week. It is honestly quite shameful that public hearings prohibited the construction of more homes when we are so desperate for them. The fact that whenever a new rent ceiling gets reached, other units follow to unaffordable prices seems unreasonable. This is going to drive so many young people away. This means nurses, teachers, store staff, and other employees at early stages of their careers. If nowhere chose to neglect to build more housing units, why should anyone be opposed when the crisis is addressed by the provincial government to take action. This proposed legislation change doesn't mean that they'll be forcing unnecessary changes upon communities. They mean no one has been doing anything on a desperate situation and if it means telling off the government has to tell us to stop throwing tantrums and do our chores, then so be it. If anyone is going to still oppose this I look forward to your |
| 150 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Crowding the neighborhoods and losing a good neighborhood ; | No | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Crowding and congestion on roads; | No | Yes | No | I strongly feel that people should be able to have a say and vote in what goes into the neighborhood they live in. |
| 151 | Increase supply of housing, allowing more homes to be built so my children will be able to live here ; | Yes | Not requiring parking can help affordability by offering more choice for homeowners ; | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 152 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | |
| 153 | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Quality of life ; | No | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking; | No | No | No | The province should not be interfering in municipal government with respect to zoning bylaws , especially in rural and semi rural communities . No business dictating at a local level |
| 154 | it will provide much needed housing for my family; | Yes | it will make for more vibrant livable community's and less traffic noise if I move there; | Yes | Yes | Yes | this is a great change and view royal needs to do its part too as a member of the region |
| 155 | I'll have more neighbours, it will be awesome.; | Yes | Fewer cars cluttering up the place is awesome; | No | No | Yes | Good luck with your whingefest, it isn't going to change a thing and I look forward to the total meltdown of some of the dumber politicians in View Royal and elsewhere as this goes ahead! More housing is awesome. |
| 156 | It will lower the cost of housing which will make for a more prosperous community of which I am a part of.; | Yes | It will allow for better land use and lower the cost of housing which has all kinds of positive impacts; | No | No | Yes | As a View Royal homeowner that lives within 400m of a transit exchange, if my neighbours maximize their land use I will not stand in their way and I may even encourage them knowing it will make for a more prosperous community where housing is more affordable for everyone, not just those who got lucky in the BC home buying lottery of the past two decades. If I don't like how the area is changing, I will reallocate my home's capital, along with what are likely substantial capital gains from the increased value of my land and move somewhere else. As a wealthy homeowner, I have that privilege while many others who do not own a home in View Royal do not. |
| 157 | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | |
| 158 | Traffic; | No | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Yes | Unsure | |
| 159 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Less greenspace; | No | Parking;Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | No | No | |
| 160 | No concern; | Yes | No concern; | No | No | Yes | |
| 161 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | No | No | Why not embed affordability into some of the units? What transportation demand management will be included in no parked projects. |
| 162 | Welcome it, we need more housing. ; | Yes | It won’t change much, common sense will prevail with building applications.; | Sometimes | No | Yes | The survey is designed to cast negative aspirations about the changes, stop. Just design a good OCP and trust it. |
| 163 | What a stupid fucking leading question. Why even bother to have a survey if you've made up your minds on what you want it to say. Such a NIMBY attitude ; | Yes | Better traffic, less parking meaning less vehicles, increased taxes on undertaxed land owners, and better sidewalks and roadways via these increased taxes....sounds great! Get it done already!; | No | No | Yes | Stupid ass survey What a waste of resources. Typical NIMBY bullshit from a typically NIMBY muni |
| 164 | What no positive impacts? Better community and land use; | Yes | No impact; | Bike | Yes | Yes | This survey has a negative bias. My neighbour already has 2 "illegal" suites and someone living in a motorhome in the driveway. A legal four plex would be much better. More housing is needed and it's time for broad scale change to allow it. |
| 165 | No concern with appropriate design guidelines; | Yes | No concerns; | Yes | Yes | Unsure | |
| 166 | More affordable homes faster; | Yes | More walkability ; | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 167 | IT WILL INCREASE SUPPLY AND LOWER HOUSING COSTS, I.E. DO YOUR JOBS FOR YOU. ; | Yes | IT WILL MEAN I DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR A PARKING SPACE I DO NOT USE AND DO NOT WANT. ; | Yes | No | Yes | Stop playing. The correct policies to ameliorate the housing crisis are known. |
| 168 | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | |
| 169 | Make life better for everyone; | Yes | Make life better for everyone; | Yes | No | Yes | Stop getting in the way of people getting shelter |
| 170 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Traffic;Parking; | No | Yes | No | As far as affordable housing is concerned I see it as nothing more than a money grab. I am very concerned about the infrastructure of neighbourhoods and how it will effect traffic flow and the tranquility of the neighbourhood. |
| 171 | How on earth did you choose the answers to this question? Where is "improve access to housing?" Where is "Improve walkability?" Where is "Tackle the housing crisis and increase affordability?" Your suburb is becoming worse than Oak Bay.; | Yes | See previous point. The world doesn't revolve around parking and cars. You govern View Royal for humans, NOT CARS. ; | Yes | Yes | Yes | This was the most disgraceful, biased, and poorly created survey I've ever seen. This is to increase the amount of space in our province dedicated to humans instead of continuing to force land to be wasted by cars. Whoever designed this survey should be fired. Your "town" is a waste of space. |
| 172 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;There could be a lot more after consulting the public ; | No | Parking; | No | No | No | |
| 173 | Find the way it is. Need housing; | Yes | No change needed; | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 174 | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | It's inappropriate for any government to bring in legislation that will affect so many people and municipalities without discussion. One rule should not be applicable to everyone throughout such a large province. |
| 175 | Improve housing availability; | Yes | Improve housing affordability ; | Yes | No | Yes | This survey seemed bias towards a concern toward the legislation. I agree with the provincial legislation but do worry about financial impacts for local governments. |
| 176 | More affordable housing, more young families can stay in our communities instead of movie to Alberta, less gatekeeping by NYMBY residents who were lucky to have purchased back when homes were actually affordable, more people encouraged to ride bicycles and take public transit (reducing traffic), lower carbon footprint, limiting urban sprawl on the periphery of the Capital region (e.g. Sooke/Langford/East Sooke/Malahat) and reducing car commute times into town from these regions. Density in the core of the city is good! And View Royal is very close to the core of Victoria.; | Yes | Less traffic, less traffic congestion due to more ppl being encouraged to walk, bike and take public transit. Lower carbon emissions per capita. Less traffic noise. More land dedicated to humans and less land dedicated to cars.; | Yes | No | Yes | This proposed legislation is good. It is exactly what we need to combat the housing affordability and supply crisis. It also encourages densification in urban areas, instead of encouraging suburban sprawl which our current model and zoning does. We can reduce our impact on nature and our carbon emissions from commuting by building "upwards" close to town, not "outwards" destroying forests for new homes on the periphery of Victoria. We need to encourage more cycling (expecially, it is the more efficient form of commuting) by making it more inconvenient and expensive to own and operate cars. We need to prioritize living space for humans over living space for cars. |
| 177 | Negligible difference; | Yes | negligible/not noticeable; | No | No | Yes | We need this legislation because the local municipalities across the province have proven over the past 20 years that they are unable to effectively provide/allow for housing supply of all kinds. Municipalities are the primary reason for our housing crisis we find ourselves in, so they are not the ones who are able to solve it by doing the same old same. We need big changes to tackle a big problem and the province had to step in where municipalities are simply unable to. This is no fault of the municipalities as they are constrained and beholden to their residents (those who are "already in" the housing market and already own homes, so they care more about preserving things as they are and maintaining the status quo than letting more people into their communities by creating more housing and rental stock/supply for others to move into their communities too). So I do not blame councillors as they are elected by residents and homeowners who are biased against development and change. |
| 178 | lower rent, shorter walks to services and friends; | Yes | lower costs for businesses transferred to lower prices, shorter travel distances; | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 179 | Reduce cost of housing and will help improve the community.; | Yes | once again, this will greatly improve the citys livability.; | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 180 | reduces sprawl, improves services convenience, better for the environment; | Yes | reduces housing costs, encourages cleaner greener transport choices. so it will effect me positively; | Yes | No | Yes | Clearly the government is having to play it's hand here because local municipalities aren't doing enough to improve housing affordability or availability. I applaud the government in increasing density, reducing sprawl and parking minimums. It beyond time we started to think of the environment, moving to more sustainable transportation choices, because local government isn't doing enough, fast enough. Thanks for providing the survey! |
| 181 | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;lack of sustainable transportation options in View Royal so way more people driving; | Yes | hopefully it encourages more people to use sustainable transportation and the Township of View Royal to actually make investments in safe and sustainable transportation options.; | Yes | No | Unsure | The way this survey is framed is very leading. |
| 182 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Expect lack of infrastructure planning and commitments; | No | Traffic;Parking; | No | No | No | I have many concerns about the legislation, but primarily feel the removal of municipal checks and balances will lead to many negative consequences; 1) lack of supporting infrastructure. 2) displacement of low income community members due replacement of low rise and affordable housing with market value high rises. 3) increased traffic congestion and parking overflow 4) increased powers to developers who are already least concerned about community infrastructure. |
| 183 | Not where we are; | No | NA; | No | No | No | I think the governments have lagged far too long on fixing the housing problem and now they are panicing. Letting real estate spiral out of control and speculation and totally ripping people off. |
| 184 | Loss of natural environment, birds, animals, trees etc. loss of privacy. Loss of area for water absorption; | No | Traffic;Safety for forms of transportation, increased congestion, emissions, noise, anxiety; | No | No | No | Removing public input from process is dangerous for our neighbourhoods, society and environment. If the proposed builds do not meet the requirements of the area, there should be a public review. This keeps all sides in check, engaged, balanced and all parties involved will be aware of what is happening. Currently difficult to know what is happening. Pushing things through is not good for any of us. Fast is not better. |
| 185 | Traffic;Birds wildlife,; | No | Need better transit ;Traffic; | E car | No | No | There will soon be a glut in rental housing |
| 186 | Provide much-needed housing; | Yes | Less vehicles cluttering streets and yards; | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 187 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Large rental buildings encroaching on neighbouring properties. loss of neighbourhood character. The end of calm and pleasant single family neighbourhoods.; | No | Parking;Traffic;loss of local control.; | No | Yes | No | These policies represent an abandonment of government responsibility, an abandonment of active rezoning procedures and directed initiatives to create more rental housing. These are destructive initiatives, not constructive ones. There is a lot of redevelopeable land outside of the single family neighbourhoods. you just have to look for it. Why disrupt the comfort, safety and pleasantness of our neighbourhoods in a vain attempt to accomodate people who think they want to move here from Regina (or wherever)??? Leave the neighbourhoods alone. Look to underutilized commercial and "industrial" areas and arterial routes and focus on rental development instead of condos. Look to your lost opportunities, for instance when Sears and Target closed at hillside mall someone could have approached the property owners with the idea of building two modest low er height apartment towers on that site, still including two floors of retail space at ground levels. I know that's outside of VR but the principal applies -actively pursue possibilities with larger property owners. |
| 188 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Taking away the voice of citizens/neighbourhoods & communities. Government is trying to compensate for its own housing policy failures & government overstepping its bounds. ; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;No change in transit reliability - people will just park where ever and not care; | No | No | No | Taking away the voice of citizens/neighborhoods & communities. Government is trying to compensate for its own housing policy failures & government overstepping its bounds. Gov just dictating to citizens what will happen. Our rights are being legislated away to deal with deficit, no housing etc. They are really pushing their agenda. Increased density has so many problems such: limited resources, increased levels of pollution, social problems, and pressure on the natural environment. With more people living in a smaller area, high-density housing can create issues with overcrowding and overburdened infrastructure. Lack of privacy. Also as the population increases there will be more chances for the exploitation of natural resources and wildlife habitat being destroyed. Low Per Capita Income. Low Quality of Life. Environmental Degradation and Others. The number of unproductive consumers is increasing. Unemployment. |
| 189 | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | The proposed legislation change will do Absolutely nothing to create more affordable housing. Lowering development costs means we will be paying for infrastructure through increased taxes, one way or another! The easiest way, and I see it mentioned nowhere, is to legislate lower interest rates on mortgages on the length of the mortage so that homeowners are not held as economic hostages to increased interest rates which only benefit the banking industry and the already wealthy! |
| 190 | More property tax collections, increase in services provided, potential for more businesses in View Royal. Not sure why you did not include any positives above, almost like you're pushing a narrative. ; | Yes | It will force municipalities to review and hopefully improve transit options; | Yes | No | Yes | Thankfully the provincial government is stepping in to try and address a growing need for housing in BC/on Vancouver Island. Municipalities, including View Royal, have been slow to adapt to a changing population and now are forced into this situation. The options provided through this survey are indicative of a council that does not want change or progress within the township. |
| 191 | No option for "not at all"; | Yes | Again - no option for "not at all"; | No | No | Unsure | This survey seems to be very pointed towards how the Town already feels about this legislation. For instance, the options about how this will impact me only had negative options to choose from. What about the positive options? For this reason, I think this survey and its results are not valid. |
| 192 | wealth give away; | Yes | Traffic;Parking; | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 193 | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic; | No | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;There is no side walk on our street and the street side is jammed with cars every evening not great for the walking people ; | No | No | No | Slums and a glut in rental |
| 194 | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;We desperately need more housing; | Yes | Parking;Traffic; | No | No | Unsure | |
| 195 | The form choices all seem negative, we need housing; | Yes | Again seems biased; | No | No | No | This is a first step to bigger changes still needed, too much back and forth and gov bureaucracy. By the time this is set in stone we’ll still need to increase our targets and density, get on with it already. |
| 196 | More housing for people who desperately need it; | Yes | Allow more housing to be built faster; | Yes | No | Unsure | |
| 197 | Traffic; | Yes | Parking; | No | No | Yes | |
| 198 | It affects us in many ways both positive and negative ; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Members of our household do | Yes | Yes | It’s unfortunate that councils through the province have created this issue. |
| 199 | Cutting down ancient culturally significant Gary oak trees; | No | Zero thought for need for increased industrial land which is already lacking and showing up on farmland with an alc not able to enforce rules; | No | No | No | The whole thing is undermining the complicated work of each unique municipality and wasting all the the residents past tax money developing community and environmental plans. And what about the already over worked staff in every municipality trying to reconfigure |
| 200 | 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 | If approved we will lose control of our beautiful neighborhoods and become slum neighborhoods |
| 201 | Increase business in the neighborhood; | Yes | Not affected. I have a ebike.; | No | Yes | Yes | |
| 202 | Traffic;Parking;Depression; | No | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Depression; | No | No | No | Community planning should be used to lead the development process. Developers only care about money, not community design or long term wellbeing of residents and neighbours. In 20 years, our communities will be unrecognizable: dense with structures and vehicles. Air, noise, and light pollution from a city of cars is not an ideal future. We’re at capacity now, please take this opportunity to propose a better path forward to solve problems. Quality not quantity. Existing neighborhoods could be transformed to preserve limited greenspaces |
| 203 | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Traffic; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | Unsure | Taking away these choices from the municipality is essentially cancelling municipal democracy. Since at the municipal level is where I see democracy functioning most openly and freely, this change amounts to a severe weakening of democracy in BC. |
| 204 | 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 | Provincial government must participate in making rents affordable as the private sector is not able to do it. |
| 205 | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | Unsure | More density will require more services (schools, recreation, mobility options, etc). Continue to plan and action these required assets by use of ACC’s DCC’s or other municipal financial tools |
| 206 | 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 | These changes, if/when enacted, will have a detrimental effect on the current community. We have been inundated with new increased density housing which is going on at present throughout View Royal. As a long time resident this is not the type of community I wish to live it. |
| 207 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Reduced quality of life, aesthetic concerns, impact on property value, community and social disruption ; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | No | Unsure | |
| 208 | Increases my options to develop property, awesome; | Yes | Parking congestion is less of a problem than housing costs; | No | Yes | Yes | Help everyone who can build as much as they can... No reason to hold back. Nimby sucks |
| 209 | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;Greenery, schools, unattractive buildings; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Yes | No | This legislation seems poorly thought out. We choose our home location because of the privacy, greenery and quiet family community and I feel a lot of this will be lost if there are 6 unit dwellings thrown in randomly. One suite per house is reasonable, maybe two in certain situations but not five. |
| 210 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Noise levels, diminished privacy; | No | Traffic;Parking;Illegal parking on boulevards in View Royal is already an issue; | No | Yes | No | This proposed legislation does not address the REAL issue of AFFORDABLE HOUSING but is essentially a red herring for political expediency and is an affront to the democratic process. Zoning regulations are the life blood of a municipality and the only means to control growth and shape the community to the benefit of all residents. View Royal council must take a stand to defend this process and not allow the province to dictate zoning regulations. |
| 211 | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Disruption of neighborhood; | No | Parking;Traffic; | No | Yes | Unsure | First of all, I think the current zoning in View Royal is too rigid. I had been told that my 7200 square foot lot was too small to be divided, when I see all kinds of houses built on less than 3600 square foot lot. So part of the reason for the legislation was to streamline the complex zoning that we have in place. However, the province in my opinion has done this poorly, without recognizing several complex problems that the legislation will cause - e.g., cars have to be dealt with, and street parking on unpaved streets is not acceptable; infrastructure should be paid for by those benefiting from it (altho there is provision in the legislation for infrastructure levies on the part of municipalities); and increased population density will need parks, roads, and other services provided by municipalities. Affordability is a Canada-wide issue - all medium to large cities in English Canada have escalated housing costs, partly because of macro-economic issues, (rising costs, lower wages, principal residence capital gains tax exemption) but the west coast has a special distinction because of our mild climate: we don't need to pay high property taxes for snow removal so the slack has been taken up by mortgage payments. In other words our capital costs for houses are higher than the east because our operating costs are lower - people can and do afford higher mortgage costs. I know that my property taxes would be 2 to 3 times what they are here if i lived in Ontario. I will be writing to my MLA about this poorly thought out legislation. |
| 212 | More people can have a place to live; | Yes | It will be more convenient for people who to take transit; | Yes | No | Yes | Please provide a real library or pool within View Royal. This could be done by: charging fees to new development; raising property taxes; and seeking provincial grants. |
| 213 | More housing options in locations where I can live without a car. Slower housing cost increases as more supply is available.; | Yes | Lower density homes can use off-street parking, multiplexes will likely still have some parking where it's in demand. People who prefer transit can live closer to it, and support increased transit capacity.; | Yes | No | Yes | The options in this survey are leading and/or unclear. If people select "Yes, traffic will be affected" are they saying it will get worse (assuming more people with cars) or better (more people living closer to transit who may no longer need a car). More housing supply will slow the ridiculous pace of housing cost increases, density will make providing services to people more efficient, and local businesses benefit from having more people nearby to patronize them. Both young people (moving out to live independently) and old people (downsizing to have a smaller home to take care of, lower costs, and cash out equity) benefit from a diversity of housing options. |
| 214 | Better and more affordable housing options available ; | Yes | Hopefully it will increase need for transit use and result in better transit service which currently is substandard in victoria; | No | No | Yes | Just because a property can develop doesnt mean it will. But it would provide more optiin to age in place, multigenerational housing, and more units and actual affordable housing options which ate desperately needed |
| 215 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Lack of infrastructure: water, sewer, emergency systems, roads, schools. Fire hazards. Transient neighborhoods. ; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Safety. Narrow roads with increased street parking will caused increased restrictions for emergency vehicles. ; | No | No | No | Homeowners will continue to take advantage of high rents. Foreigners will continue to purchase multiple properties for their personal gain or for their future retirement. This legislation is not designed to alleviate the affordability issue of hard working taxpayers. It is a band-aid being introduced by politicians who don’t know what to do, and want to make a problem temporarily disappear. Politicians who want their name attached to a policy. What is Eby doing personally to help with the situation? How many rooms in his house us he opening up? How many additional vehicles will be parked in the street in front if his home? We do not have capacity! Stop housing all of the non-taxpayers. Send them back to the province/city where they came from. |
| 216 | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Reduced regional biodiversity. Available services like schools, hospitals, fire and policing, access to nature, crowding in park land/ trails, recreation centres, etc.; | Yes | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Need other amenities to enable this transition to car free living.;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | I ride my bike | No | No | |
| 217 | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Parking;Traffic; | No | No | Unsure | |
| 218 | Biased survey. This is good news; | Yes | This is not factually correct.; | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 219 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Environmental concerns for protected areas on the gorge waterway. This is a designated bird sanctuary.; | No | Not yet sure how this this will impact us; | Use - but not during peak times | No | Unsure | This is a broad strokes initiative that applies "across the board" to thousands of unique communities and situations across the province. The unintended consequences will potentially be vast : e.g. costs for infrastructure (upgrades and retrofits required for transportation-roads & sidewalks, transit, water, sewers, etc.) emerging issues - off street parking, and environmental issues (increased congestion, stress on sensitive waterways and protected areas - creeks, the gorge waterway, etc.). At the same time, there is no guarantee that the initiative will address the issue of the "missing middle." Will it result in reasonable & attractive housing options for those currently unable to get into the housing market? Or will it merely be another way for a few (developers or current homeowners) to buy and develop property (or, in the case of homeowners, subdivide their property at a profit)without putting more affordable housing options on the market. I believe a phased in approach with some well-planned pilot projects, that include community and municipal input, is a much more intelligent way to proceed. |
| 220 | Increased taxes for infrastructure; | Yes | Parking; | No | Yes | No | |
| 221 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;environmental impact - loss of trees, habitat, etc; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;mobility challenges for disabled, lack of access for contractors, etc; | No | Yes | No | Goal is for development profits, with no attention to the environment, under the guise of "housing affordability" which will not be the case..... |
| 222 | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | Traffic; | No | No | Unsure | |
| 223 | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Over development greed by corporate developers ; | No | Traffic; | Sometimes but more often before the pandemic | Yes | No | What happens when the baby boomers die off and/or the economy crashes? In the USA Corporations are buying up houses and properties to develop and pushing up the cost of housing. It’s also starting to happen in Canada. Not sure if this is that we should welcome more people when we have had not enough doctors in View Royal for a long time. |
| 224 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Enjoyment of personal property; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Enjoyment of private property; | No | Yes | No | The provincial government continues to erode and destroy the property rights of citizens many of its current actions will be ineffective |
| 225 | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;loss of trees; | No | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;damage to grassy boulevards when people park on them because there's nowhere else to park; | I might if I was travelling during peak times | No | No | Southern Vancouver Island has the best weather in our country. Therefore, there's no way that we can build our way to more affordable housing |
| 226 | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | Purely political solution for optics. Decades of slow housing starts cannot be solved by 'quick fixes'. |
| 227 | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Parking;Traffic; INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS, power, sewage, garbage , schools, transportation services , taxes and neighborhood makeup; | No | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Parking;Traffic; | No | No | No | Increased QUANTITY of low cost housing BUT WITH GREATLY INCREASED COST AND / OR INCONVENIENCE to others , environment damage, increased carbon footprint , fire protection, insurance , taxes, power grab by Provincial Gov't , loss of rights of municipality, reduction of democratic process. Loss of freedom fought for by Canadians giving their lives in military conflict. . It appears that much of the problem is due to peoples expectation of entitlement , ballooning of government bureaucracy and related policy and procedure . Streamlining and reduction of bureaucracy , policy and procedure would help solve many problems ; reduce many taxpayer costs . |
| 228 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Yes | No | |
| 229 | Traffic;Parking;Property values; neighbourhood character; | No | Parking;Safety for pedestrians, kids playing etc on narrow streets; | No | No | Unsure | While not certain that the legislation will have the desired result, I believe something needs to be done. The opportunity now exists for View Royal to get out ahead of this and develop plans and processes consistent with the intent of the legislation but in a way that maintains the positive attributes of this municipality. I am concerned that there is a lot of misinformation being thrown out about what the legislation might mean - and nobody really knows what the result will be. I would like to see the Mayor, Council and Town staff convey the facts as they are currently known and not feed the rhetoric. |
| 230 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;lack of democratic choice; | No | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Yes | No | It is senior government responsibility to provide conditions for adequate housing. They should be doing more to provide low cost housing which will inevitably lead to a general lowering of rent and home ownership costs. |
| 231 | Each application is unique; | No | Chaos ; | No | No | Unsure | The NDP Government is acting as a totalitarian dictatorship passing laws, mandates and policy changes on the whim of special interest groups and developers. One crack that overides the OCPs will turn into a cavern of Developer owned Municipalities. This is dangerous Legislation for any Vancouver Island Community, JDF included. |
| 232 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Yes | No | I don't think people who need affordable housing will be the winners with this legislation. More likely it will be developers. |
| 233 | 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 | |
| 234 | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | Yes | Traffic; | No | No | Yes | The official community plan should take into account a more dense, walkable group of neighborhoods, with access to amenities, groceries, shops, and transit. |
| 235 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Loss of nature; | No | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;risk to cyclists; | No | Yes | No | Climate change is coming and our best defense is an intact ecosystem: trees lessen the impact of floodwaters; soils support food security; weeds in the ditches support bees; fungi keep the water clean. The significant loss of ecosystem that comes with this legislation will not only destroy the natural world, but also increase human suffering in the years to come. |
| 236 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic; | No | No | No | It will only give profits to builders. |
| 237 | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Safety, limitations of job access (for jobs that require a car (healthcare, EMT); | No | No | No | |
| 238 | Traffic;Parking; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | |
| 239 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;lack of consideration for developments to blend in with adjacent established single-family homes; | No | Parking; | my kids use public transit regularly | Yes | No | I attended the public open house on 23 November 2023 and I appreciate the energy and time that it took council to organize this event. There are some aspects of the proposed legislation that I do agree with, but I also share many of the concerns expressed at the meeting. I do like the ban on short-term rentals, which has been taking existing housing stock away from long-term residents for too long. And I like the way it creates an incentive for developers to stick with the OCP, by adding certainty and streamlining processes for proposals that “build to the plan”. My main concern however, is that if a newly proposed development is OCP compliant, there does not appear to be any process for municipalities to work with developers to minimize lost greenspace and urban trees, and ensure that site-specific building designs blend in with existing established neighborhoods. The location at which we reside is close to properties that are likely to be redeveloped, and if done well, redevelopment and densification in our neighborhood could be wonderful. But if developers propose ‘cookie cutter’ densification with no thought to site-specific design, and council is forced to approve this (or has no role at all) it could well ruin our little corner of View Royal. My understanding of our current (2011) OCP is that it is still a long way from being “built out” and that combined with new developments underway or in the pipeline, View Royal is already planning to grow significantly. I am concerned that the proposed legislation requires updates to OCPs regularly (5yrs?) using “robust, standard methodology for calculating long term housing needs” It worries me that we’ll be |
| 240 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Lack of trees, and too dense. ; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Pits neighbours against each other for parking space; | No | No | No | Not only am I against all of these proposed changes but I am very opposed to the lack of democracy. People weren't consulted, there was/is no interest in finding out how the public feels before bringing forth these Bills. If these Bills are passed, Democracy will be further reduced because there will be no Public Hearings if the application meets the OCP. In my experience, even when we're told something meets the OCP it does not. These Bills reduce Municipal control, and eliminate any input the Public might have. They will cost the tax payer more for infrastructure upgrades and Municipal debt repayment. Our land taxes will increase due to higher Assessments (based on the best possible use for the land). That in turn will raise housing prices and and reduce affordibility. I am SO against this proposed legislation. |
| 241 | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;No room for bike lanes; | No | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | Yes | No | No | This legislation will not result in affordable homes. Just gulags. |
| 242 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Schools, urban forest cover, loss of privacy...construction noise and traffic; | No | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking;Traffic;green boulivards become parking lanes or mud hole in the winter ; | No | No | No | I see this legislation as a political headline grabber based on the ill-concieved notion that banging in 4 to 5 dwellings of cookie cutter designs throughout established stable neighbourhoods is going to miraculosly solve the housing demand . It wont, but it will generate a lot of negative discussions. |
| 243 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Parking; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | No | No | |
| 244 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Traffic; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | |
| 245 | 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 | |
| 246 | Fire;Traffic; | No | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | No | No | |
| 247 | Traffic;Parking;slow commute; | No | Parking; | No | No | No | |
| 248 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking; | No | No | No | |
| 249 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Availability of health care; | No | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | So far new density is mostly market-priced. Focus first should be on below-market and CMHC affordable with all govts. and public participating. This is simply dictatorship. It is gross interference in bit municipal and individual property rights. Strata amendment opens doors to investor landlords and disadvantages hopeful end-users. Out with the NDP. |
| 250 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Yes | No | There needs to be serious consideration given to long range implications, green space, and an aging population. There will be more vehicles, not fewer. Ambulances and fire equipment need to be able to access ALL areas without further endangering lives. The province is trying to limit family size and lifestyle while giving developers free reign to ride rough shod over every place in the province, not just View Royal. This is as case of too much government in our lives. We choose to live in a community for a reason, not to be over-governed and dictated to by either developers or government. |
| 251 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Parking;Traffic; | No | No | No | |
| 252 | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Infrastructure ; | No | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic; | Yes | No | No | |
| 253 | Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | No | No | |
| 254 | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | Yes | No | |
| 255 | Raise Rent; | No | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | Yes | No | No | Poorly thought out laws. Leave zoning to the towns, the province can't do it. |
| 256 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Traffic;Parking;Safety Risks for Pedestrians and Cyclists due to denser traffic, on-street parking and nil or inadequate sidewalks ; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Again ,SAFETY RISKS for pedestrians and cyclists; Safety should never be forfeited; | No | No | No | Affordable housing will result only from Government subsidized projects . Use 520 Normandy Road 68 new condos as an example; - . Saanich Municipal Council gave the Developer the gift of a 67% Parking Variance, pretty well guaranteeing on-street parking on a road narrower than a country lane , with a Kiddies Park in the immediate proximity; so no proper concern for Safety Risks , and despite the Developer withdrawal of even his token 10 /10 / 10 promise to create sub-market renting , Saanich Council approved it , under the Urging of a letter directly from Eby . |
| 257 | Traffic is already backed up.;Traffic; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;This town has no curbs. Parking will make the town into a big mud puddle. Stupid idea.; | Not regularly but frequently, about six trips per week. | No | No | Was question 13 a joke? Stupid to even think this will make affordable housing. |
| 258 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | How will electric cars charge if there are no off road parking spots?; | Yes | No | No | |
| 259 | Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | No | No | |
| 260 | Lack of infrastructure; | No | Parking;No sidewalks, parking blocking streets; | No | No | No | |
| 261 | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Traffic; | No | No | No | 1. Housing need is not the same as housing demand. We need to identify housing needs. 2. Much of this crisis comes from federal immigration levels... a city the size of Calgary is created every 2 to 3 years. 3. The 'solution' to this crisis is being driven by the development lobby. They need to be reined in. |
| 262 | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking;Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | No | No | |
| 263 | Traffic;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Parking;Traffic; | No | No | No | |
| 264 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Parking;Traffic; | Yes | No | No | |
| 265 | Concerns about drinking water availability and sewage/garbage capacity; | No | Parking;People filling all the adjacent streets near the new places with cars as we have already experienced here; | No | No | Unsure | This legislation is something that should have been discussed with the union of municipalities and included in an election mandate. It should also have been open to public input. |
| 266 | This is very leading - what about positive affects? Single family developments are the least efficient for infrastructure, infill doesn't mean taxes will go up. Municipal revenue will increase with increased density.; | Yes | This is very leading with only negative impacts.; | Yes | No | Yes | Hopefully, the increased density will support better transit. I'm glad I live in a province that is working to solve the housing crisis. I live in Saanich, on the boarder of View Royal and would be embarrassed to be a View Royal resident with a council that is resisting change, refuses to be part of the solution, and is trying to spread fear. It is good that the Province is forcing municipalities to zone for enough housing to meet future needs. The survey implies that increased density will result in increased taxes. When many studies show that higher-density neighbourhoods actually subsidize single-family sprawl. For example, in Ottawa: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/urban-expansion-costs-menard-memo-1.6193429 Adding density to single family neighbourhoods would allow for more efficient use of infrastructure. |
| 267 | 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 | Unsure | highly disagree with how this is being forced through with no public consultation. seems undemocratic. |
| 268 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Access to infrastructure and services ; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | No | No | |
| 269 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Environmental impacts, wastewater impacts, drinking water impacts, public transit access, overloaded infrastructure, developers pocketing profits but not increasing affordable housing, loss of community connections ; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking is already a problem, Environmental impacts, no requirements to build/fund sidewalks in unsafe pedestrian areas, lack of parking is an equity issue discriminating against mobility challenged people who may require personal vehicles rather than public transit; | Yes | No | No | This is a terrible idea that is simply an election ploy to grab votes. It will have developers pocketing even more money hand over fist with no requirements to decrease housing prices. It would have been better to start by legalizing existing suites, and then work with municipalities to find solutions unique to their areas that fit within their OCP. But if the government really wants affordable housing, they should be footing the entire bill and running purpose built rentals, because under the current Tenancy Act rules, people can't afford the risk to be a landlord, they only stand to lose because the rules favour tenants to the extreme. That was the start of the rental problem, and why everyone prefers to be an Airbnb, because that is the only way you actually have rights as a landlord. |
| 270 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Overloaded infrastructure if the developers are not required to contribute. Break up of neighborhoods resulting loss of community. Environmental concerns. ; | No | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Parking;Parking is already a problem with the developers trying to get away with not providing them in order to pocket more money. This offloads the parking problem to other areas. This does not stop people from buying cars, only causes friction with neighbours.; | Yes | No | No | This is a terrible idea put forward by a premier who will be unaffected by these changes because he lives in a protected area. The right way to go about this is for government to build purpose built rentals and running these themselves because people cannot afford to rent out places due to the highly biased residential tenancy regulations where all of the risk is on the landlord's side. Destroying current planned communities does not help. |
| 271 | Traffic;Parking; | No | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | No | |
| 272 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Quality of community with to many people ; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;We have minimal bus service; | No | No | No | This will change the livability in communities |
| 273 | Parking;Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Change in neighborhood property values (increased tax); | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | No | Unsure | I don't think this legislation (re:increase density) will effectively increase supply or affordability. I think it over steps by assuming jurisdiction from local government. I think more mistakes will be made than problems solved. |
| 274 | 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 | Unsure | |
| 275 | 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 | |
| 276 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased tensions and noise from too many people in a condensed space. Yes, it can be done but it doesn't mean it always works well.; | No | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Extremely concerned regarding lack of sidewalks in our area and the safety of pedestrians having to using roadway.; | No | No | No | Affordability doesn't even come into the equation with this new legislation. As always, the new builds are not affordable to those of low income, fixed incomes, young people starting out in life, those with disabilities, etc. It is a joke to even think otherwise. I do not support this legislation. Slamming it through without any thought to common sense planning or realistic affordability is a serious issue. |
| 277 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Parking;How will electric cars charge if they have to park on the street?; | Yes | No | No | |
| 278 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;It will increase land value and housing costs; | No | Parking; | Yes | No | No | The government should not take zoning away from municipalities. |
| 279 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Parking;High density housing without any parking is a foolish idea.; | Yes | No | No | |
| 280 | Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | No | Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways; | Yes | No | No | |
| 281 | Traffic;Increased taxes for infrastructure; | No | Parking;Where will the people that live in the new homes park? They will certainly own cars.; | Yes | No | No | Poor legislation. Why not just tell cities to build more housing "or else"? Now we must vote the NDP out. |
| 282 | 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 | |
| 283 | Overcrowded schools; | No | Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;This is a bad policy for View Royal.; | No | No | No | There is no affordable housing in this new legislation. |
| 284 | Too dense.; | No | Parking;Just a big mess. Don't do this.; | Yes | No | No | |
| 285 | Parking; | No | Parking; | Yes | No | No | |
| 286 | Parking; | No | Parking; | Yes | No | No | |
| 287 | Traffic;Parking;Public safety; | No | Traffic;Parking;public safety; | No | No | No | This legislation is outrageous and goes to upend decades of careful local planning involving public particpation. |
| 288 | Traffic;Parking;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Will reduce quality of life with noise, excessive density and added crime in the neighbourhood, to name a few.; | No | Traffic;Parking;Concerns about sidewalks and roadways;Increased taxes for infrastructure;Excessive density, noise, pollution, crime, loss of quality of life, etc.; | No | No | Unsure | I’m personally outraged at the proposal and feel government will have even more problems and lawsuits if it goes through. We live where we live for a reason. QUALITY OF LIFE! No one wants the added density. The peace and quiet will turn into utter chaos and there will be substantial loss of quality of life. People who cant find a place to live here can move to a more affordable area without ripping up our properly zoned lots. I’m ashamed of the government officials that voted this in. You have no idea the damage this will cause on multiple levels. JUST STOP! |
| 289 | Not sure; | No | Parking; | Yes | No | No | |
| 290 | Increased taxes for infrastructure;Makes all local planning redundant.; | No | Parking;We don't have room to park all cars on the street. ; | No | No | No | This should have been focused on AFFORDABLE housing. |
Page 82–113
Extracted from: 2023 12 12 Committee of the Whole Agenda - Agenda - Pdf