Link to comment on the Times Colonist website
The text was repetitive and poorly organized. Financial analysis was almost non-existent, yet tens of millions of dollars in tax revenues are being considered.
A commentary by a resident of Victoria with a background in engineering and project management.
After nearly three hours of questions and answers on July 23, Victoria city council adopted a highly controversial bundle of disparate matters, large and small. With a single vote, they followed staff recommendations to:
- Add employment-generating uses of commercial lands in the central business district and Old Town.
- Streamline special events permits for private property.
- Increase height and density for non-residential developments in the central business district (excluding the Inner Harbour district and Old Town district unless subject to rezoning).
- Create a revitalization tax exemption scheme so taxes on improvements to hotels can be deferred for up to 10 years.
- Waive public input on these matters.
Councillors were flooded with public feedback—so much so that mere hours before the hearing, they received correspondence from staff trying to clarify what should have been clear already in their report. What was the source of this confusion?
From the outset, even the title of the staff report, Economic and Employment Land Solutions, engenders suspicion. It obscures the specific matters listed above while suggesting discussion of them is unnecessary—after all, why bother when the “solutions” are there in print already, awaiting only council’s rubber stamp?
Separately, each item might have its merits and justifications. Glommed together in omnibus, they intersect in complex ways that are confusing and hard to disentangle.
No maps were provided. No tables nor diagrams to clarify what was being proposed where.
The text was repetitive and poorly organized. Financial analysis almost non-existent, yet tens of millions of dollars in tax revenues are being considered.
Only Coun. Dave Thompson said he didn’t find the report confusing. “People who have been involved with zoning and CALUCs are receiving misinformation,” he said.
He blamed—of all people—residents who read the staff report and know a little about zoning and development. He then moved that the city deploy its media department to correct them.
Confusion—not misinformation—was the prima facie problem, under-pinned by continuing perceptions of biases towards certain special interest groups, all wrapped in a fuzzy blanket of opacity.
The sole reference cited in the staff presentation was the Greater Victoria Hotel Development Report, authored by Destination Greater Victoria—“the cornerstone organization of our vibrant tourism community” according to its website.
Its contributors, the Victoria Hotel Development Working Group, included the CEO of Destination Greater Victoria, the CEO of the B.C. Hotel Association, both the managing principal and the VP-development of Aryze Developments, and the CEO of Reliance Properties.
The rest were mostly development staff from five nearby municipalities and two representatives of the Ministry of Tourism.
City of Victoria staff were contributors too: The city manager, the (now former) director of planning and development, and the director of community safety and well-being are all listed.
Victoria’s acting director of planning and development is too, and subsequently co-authored the staff report that was presented to council.
How could this document be considered balanced and bias-free? Almost every contributor listed stands to benefit from the growth of the development and/or tourism sectors. No wonder the solutions in the staff report “are recommended with a high degree of confidence.”
Ideally, staff reports are unbiased, clear, well-researched documents that describe context, benefits, costs and—critically—risks, assumptions, and unintended consequences, all drawn from a range of perspectives.
This staff report fell well short.
Risks and consequences are not considered at all: The word “risk” appears but once, out of context; the word “solutions” appears 26 times.
Rather, the staff report expresses certainty and urgency: “We are in a rare window of improvement in the business case for hotel development.”
That rare window is beyond anyone’s control, and it could slam shut in an instant with devastating consequences.
Should the U.S. government see a shift in power this November and become a more desirable place to visit; should U.S. aggression continue to inflate fuel costs and interest rates; should threatened U.S. tariffs come into full effect—any one of these or other landmark events will disrupt the economics of tourism and development in the near term, and likely for years to come.
Is it wise, then, to commit tens of millions in foregone tax revenue through 10-year tax waivers for privately held hotel owners and developers when we have zero control over the underlying economic factors?
The Tresah saga might be instructive here.
Major infrastructure upgrades will be required to support these privately owned developments. Who pays for those? From the staff report: “providing this exemption [shifts] the tax burden to non-exempt properties.”
That’s the rest of us—and council voted to forego public hearings. When asked why they recommend that the requirement for public hearings be waived, staff responded clearly: “It’s our standard practice.”
Couple that with public perceptions of bias towards certain special interest groups, close connections between certain councillors and the provincial NDP government and/or its lobbyists, large and growing property tax increases, dwindling emergency reserves, pet project promotion, rising street disorder and homelessness, and so forth—it is easy to see why so many well-informed citizens are cynical and want change.