Response to Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart’s op-ed titled “Collateral Effects of New Provincial Housing Legislation"
The Province of British Columbia has become a leader in housing action, but some are not enthusiastic about the proposed changes.
As we navigate the discourse on housing, land use, and urban planning, one thing becomes evident – the housing debate is far from black and white. It's a labyrinth of perspectives, policies, and public sentiment, all vying for attention in the complex landscape of housing reform.
In the discourse of significant reforms by the Province of British Columbia on housing, development, and densities, Mayor Richard Stewart of Coquitlam has made several claims regarding the recent provincial changes. I reviewed his op-ed and wanted to dissect some assertions.
Local Decision-Making Authority:
"It reduces local decision-making authority."
Counterpoint: The ground-breaking legislation addresses the immediate housing needs and establishes a vital framework for crucial regional standards in decision-making authority. The legislation signifies a monumental shift towards a more interconnected and collaborative approach by recognizing that housing needs transcend individual municipalities.
Relying solely on a tiny municipal jurisdiction will not effectively address the broader regional housing needs. This paradigm shift in Provincial law encourages cohesive regional planning considering the interconnectedness of housing issues across various localities.
Moreover, municipalities remain obligated under Provincial law to develop and approve their Official Community Plans (OCPs). An OCP serves as a comprehensive guide for planning and land use management, aligning with local government goals. The new legislation requires municipalities to update their Official Community Plans every five years. This shift streamlines the rezoning process and focuses residents to participate in broader land use planning work.
By engaging in the development of Official Community Plans, residents have a valuable opportunity to contribute to shaping their communities for the future on a continuous, predictable basis, extending beyond the confines of the typical four-year election cycle.
Funding Amenities and Infrastructure:
"It hinders our ability to use development revenue to fund the community's amen needs."
Counterpoint: Dispelling misconceptions, the legislation is an ally rather than an impediment to municipalities. It provides a robust framework for funding through amenity cost charges, offering cities a versatile toolkit. Municipalities can still charge development cost charges (DCCs) and development cost levies (DCLs) in addition to the new amenity cost charges (ACCs). All of these together are still tools available to municipalities should they choose to use them to fund infrastructure and amenities.
However, thanks to the Province, municipalities must set upfront amenity charges. They can also strategically increase density beyond minimum standards to generate additional revenue. Municipalities still have a lot of opportunities for innovation and adaptability to ensure funding strategies meet their residents' unique amenities and infrastructure requirements.
Development Paying for Growth:
"Development will no longer pay for growth."
Counterpoint: The legislation challenges the outdated notion that development alone should bear the burden of growth. Instead, it introduces a more equitable and sustainable approach, emphasizing the responsibility of all amenity and infrastructure users to contribute.
This contribution can be property taxes, municipal infrastructure loans repaid through property taxes, or amenity cost charges enabled by the new legislation. By shifting away from the 'growth pays for growth' norm, the legislation aligns with modern principles of shared responsibility, promoting a more inclusive and sustainable model for community development.
Infrastructure Investment and Property Taxes:
“Municipalities will have no choice but to cancel the infrastructure investment or to look to property taxes to close that gap."
Counterpoint: In facing funding challenges, the legislation encourages municipalities to make responsible choices. For municipalities, leveraging property taxes should be a viable option to bridge the funding gap. Despite high home prices, the region maintains relatively low property taxes, making it a feasible and equitable solution for sustaining essential infrastructure investments. This approach ensures that crucial projects can proceed without compromising the community's financial stability.
Public Hearings:
"Residents will lose their voice in the development process."
Counterpoint: Acknowledging the inherent limitations of traditional public hearings, the legislation advocates for a forward-thinking, 21st-century approach to city-building.
Traditional public hearings, often skewed towards those with ample leisure time, hinder the swift and inclusive development of new housing. The call for a more inclusive and efficient process aims to democratize community input at the ballot box in municipal elections by developing official community plans, ensuring that diverse voices are heard. Decision-making becomes more transparent and accessible.
Minimum Parking Requirements:
“This legislation specifically limits municipalities’ ability to require minimum parking levels around transit areas."
Counterpoint: The elimination of minimum parking levels must be celebrated as a significant triumph since the legislative change reinforces Provincial transit infrastructure investments.
Municipalities are urged to embrace this shift as it promotes more efficient use of transit infrastructure and aligns with sustainable urban planning practices. This change not only supports environmental sustainability but also enhances the accessibility and functionality of transit systems, contributing to the overall well-being of communities.
Ready-to-Go Projects:
"Ready-to-go projects will stall."
Counterpoint: Provincial standards act as an empowering force for municipalities, providing the latitude to incentivize higher densities while concurrently updating bylaws. Contrary to concerns, there is no hindrance for municipalities to progress and welcome new neighbours. The proactive approach of the legislation dispels worries about stalled 'ready-to-go' projects, ensuring a smooth transition towards higher-density living and fostering vibrant, dynamic communities.
Local Governments as Experts:
"Local governments are the experts in shaping what makes a city or a town a complete community."
Counterpoint: While local governments undeniably excel in various aspects of community management, the severity of the housing crisis necessitated intervention by the Province. Acknowledging this reality opens avenues for collaborative efforts between local and Provincial authorities to address the problem more effectively. By leveraging the expertise of both entities, a more expedited response can be implemented, ensuring that the housing needs of communities are met promptly and effectively instead of not at all.
Conclusion:
It's crucial to highlight the stark contrast in voter turnout between municipal and provincial elections. In the recent municipal elections in British Columbia, a mere 29.3% of eligible voters participated in the municipal elections, underscoring a significant gap in civic engagement. In contrast, the last Provincial election saw a turnout of 53.86%, reflecting a considerably higher level of participation. This substantial variance in voter engagement suggests that the democratic process at the provincial level holds more legitimacy when making decisions and acting on issues that impact the daily lives of Metro Vancouver residents.
Considering the practicality of implementing sweeping changes across Vancouver's 21 municipalities, the Province's decisive action becomes even more justified. If the Province had sought approval individually from each municipality, the intricate nature of the changes and the diverse interests at play likely have resulted in prolonged and challenging negotiations. The current response indicates a measured approach by the Province with bold and timely action in addressing the pressing concerns surrounding housing needs.
The Province's proactive stance aligns with the public's sentiments, emphasizing the necessity for decisive measures to tackle the priority housing issue.
Thanks for this. I'm in Coquitlam now and it's embarrassing to see my mayor and council endorse such knee jerk reactionary talking points. The City does deserve some credit for the work it has done in supporting development but, like Burnaby a decade ago, that's often coming in the easiest places and at the expense of the most vulnerable. Were they truly interested in playing part of the solution they'd be embracing these reforms to streamline processes and also bringing in protections for renters.
And on the turnout point, it's worth noting Coquitlam was well behind the regional average and I think had only 19% turnout. That's no mandate.