Link to comment on the Times Colonist website
After just six months of “public engagement,” the city claims the plan reflects “what we heard.”
A commentary by a former public servant who lives in James Bay.
Someone I know recently described Victoria’s Official Community Plan (OCP) as “landing with a thud.” An apt description for a plan that is deeply flawed and will impart lasting damage.
This plan is the most important document of this administration’s tenure. It will shape Victoria’s future for generations to come. However, this plan promises lasting negative consequences for residents, renters and homeowners alike.
Once passed, the public has no say. Simply put, this plan is bad news.
After just six months of “public engagement,” the city claims the plan reflects “what we heard.” Past OCPs had two years of public consultation and each neighbourhood had its own local area plan (LAP). Now, James Bay, whose LAP is from the 1990s, had a mere two-hour workshop to identify residents’ priorities.
The new plan lumps all neighbourhoods together in a “One City, One Plan” approach, disregarding much of the feedback provided. Many residents who attended open houses and workshops report that the final proposal bears little resemblance to, and in some cases directly contradicts, their input.
The OCP’s proposed upzoning claims to reflect the results of the OCP survey, the same survey that was criticized and even boycotted for its bias. Only 1,457 people, or 1.5% of the population, completed it.
The new plan proposes upzoning across all residential areas, allowing four-storey buildings everywhere and up to six storeys in designated “priority growth areas.” In some areas, buildings as high as 14 storeys will be permitted where there “is an existing context of taller buildings.”
Town centres can see heights of up to 18 stories. This is a far cry from the provincial legislation’s “small-scale multi-family housing of three to four units” in residential areas.
Is this severe jump in the city’s density really necessary? At what cost?
This means that my neighbourhood of James Bay, which already has more than its fair share of density and is already flooded with higher development applications than other neighbourhoods, will see even more higher density development.
Council liaisons Jeremy Caradonna and Matt Dell promised a fairer distribution of density. Instead, this plan disproportionately burdens neighbourhoods that have already contributed significantly.
To provide this level of density and to ensure higher profits, developers have favoured demolition over preservation or conversion of existing buildings. This has devastating effects on our neighbourhoods.
It destroys limited stock of older affordable housing. Research shows that Canada lost 10 affordable units for every new one built over a decade.
Demolition of heritage and historic properties destroys the character of our neighbourhoods and hurts our tourism industry.
Destroying viable buildings is ecologically wasteful and contrary to our climate goals. Material is rarely recycled and ends up in landfills.
New builds require new materials, contributing to more deforestation and emissions.
Casualties of the city’s plan include existing tenants who are displaced and whose lives are disrupted. While some compensation will be provided, it is not enough.
Stronger protections are needed for renters facing demovictions and renovictions and higher rents.
Especially troubling is that none of this does anything to increase affordability. The city boasts about exceeding its housing targets, yet affordability remains a crisis.
By allowing profit-driven developers to define our housing agenda, nearly all new housing is market-priced and unaffordable for average households. Meanwhile, the need for affordability, especially non-market rentals, remains unaddressed.
As Deb Hull recently wrote, the city has the tools necessary to improve affordability but lacks the will to use them. Victoria must prioritize rentals and co-operative housing instead of relying on developers to trickle down affordability.
The proposed OCP encourages the destruction of trees and greenspaces to make way for higher density.
A 137-unit development down my street recently destroyed more than 30 trees on private land along with an entire row of flowering plum trees on public land.
New urban design concepts like minimized setbacks and “perimeter blocks” will only accelerate the loss of Victoria’s urban tree canopy. “Blue/Green networks”, “linear parkways” and private courtyards with newly planted trees cannot replace mature trees.
Development and tree preservation are not mutually exclusive. The city must strengthen and enforce the tree protection bylaw to better protect existing trees on both private and public land.
This is just a sampling of what is wrong with the OCP. If council really cares about Victoria’s future and its residents, it must seriously reconsider these and other issues and make major amendments to benefit people over buildings.
And this time, listen to the people.