Posts
During the upcoming discussions of the 2013/14 budget the
city will try and put some costs towards implementation, ought to be amusing.
Disappointed that nowhere in the document is it mentioned
that a core review should happen on a regular basis.Saturday, July 14, 2012
Strategic Plan Finale
Not a huge document by any means but the city will also have
all of the info gathered, surveys, comments etc., if you are interested in
seeing it.
Contribution Conflict
The following is with regards to something that has irked me
to no end for years and that I have posted about before. Now don’t get me wrong here I am not opposed
to development; what I am opposed to is development that contributes little to
the community and the benefit thereof.
Cable
Bay
Vancouver Nanaimo
Video
Development Process Review
Committee
This story and the quoted comment appeared in the D/N just
over a week ago: Council
aims to make development more consistent This guest comment is also of interest as it
talks about the Frank Ney era in Nanaimo and as you can see things have not
changed.
At the end of this I have placed a link to the last council
agenda, pgs 47-50 deal with the above, and to the video thereof. Check out the discussion by clicking on 8 b -
DPRC - Amenity Contributions as well as my comments at question period. The
decisions in the report were made by the Development Process Review Committee,
see link, a committee comprised of council members and those who profit
directly from development.
In a city that is constantly falling millions behind on
fixing its infrastructure; paying 2-3% and growing of its budget towards
interest on debt; lacking funds to purchase large properties for parks, such as
Linley Valley West or now the controversial Pioneer Park and only sees the
paltry sum of approx $165,000 going towards its Housing Legacy Reserve fund
each year, there is a huge need to increase revenue.
Rezoning of properties, small and large, is usually brought
before council and touted as increasing density which is a core concept in the
Official Community Plan. This in and of
itself is a good idea and will ultimately help create a larger tax base but in
saying this the taxes it will create are by no means enough to eliminate the
ongoing deficit caused by the costs to maintaining a large city such as
Nanaimo.
These new ‘policies’
are no different than guidelines that have been used for decades and are a cop
out on the part of council. Huge profits
are made on larger developments; in many cases even before ground is
broken.
A perfect example would be the area of Cable Bay known as
the OceanView Golf Resort & Spa. Land worth about 3 million dollars once
rezoned by a previous council is now up for sale at 60 million. Proposing 2500 homes the community
contribution would be a paltry 2.5 million and if built the value, at an
average sale price of $300,000 would far exceed the 60 million sale price of
the property coming in at $750 million; this without even accounting for the
value of the associated businesses that would surround the golf resort and spa.
Sure Development Cost Charges will help with installation of
sewer and water but will the increased taxes provided by the subdivision pay
for upkeep over the years; I don’t think so.
Nanaimo needs to get more realistic with its community contributions.
Increased density is the catch phrase for
many potential developments,
Another purported benefit the community sees
is that of the community contribution on the part of the developer for the
privilege of density bonuses and potential millions lining their pockets. Sadly, Nanaimo’s amenity contribution is
archaic, nay pathetic, to say the least. Based on $1,000 per unit, these
contributions usually amount to little more than a tot lot.
With rising unemployment, poverty and an
increasing population, the need for social housing, parks, paying down debt and decreasing the tax
burden on its citizens dictate the need for
Nanaimo to do better – $10,000 per unit or 3.333 per cent seems a little more
equitable commitment and while nowhere near that of Vancouver and Langford, it
could see some of those potential profits trickle down toward real
contributions to the community.
Vancouver, Langford, Kelowna and many other cities require a
far greater percentage for community contributions as should Nanaimo. Monies raised through the process, far more
significant if the contribution were raised to 5 or 6 thousand and still quite
profitable for the developer, could actually be enough to add significant funds
to the future purchase of parks, paying down debt, adding to the housing legacy
reserve fund and yes even lowering city taxes.
I am not against development but it must come with a more realistic
benefit to the community. Video
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)