Rent Subsidies & Community Contributions

The following are a couple of things I have been trying to push to see implemented.

Rent Subsidies

For year’s Social advocates such as I have mentioned rent subsidies as an easy cost effective means to get the homeless into safe housing. While creating new housing is a component of a ‘Housing First’ Strategy these projects take time and large funding commitments before they even get off the ground.

Nanaimo has an excellent, if costly, homeless strategy that the province has committed to support. The problem with this support is that it hinges on creating new build supportive housing, 160 units, which will not see a tenant for at least 2 – 3 years. Good for the province for actually putting the funding in place but as I say this will take time. Also part of the City’s homeless and harm reduction strategy is rent subsidies but to date the focus has been new build projects.

It is well established that housing the homeless would save the province between $8,000.00 up to $18,000.00 per person per year. Subsidizing rents and getting people off the street and into market based rentals would be relatively quick and the savings to the government would be almost immediate. Once housed the people would then be assessed as to what services they need and costs from frequent use of health services, involvement at all levels of the justice system and use of other services would drop.

A $200.00 monthly subsidy, on top of the income assistance housing allotment would cost $2400.00 per year. Allowing it at all levels of income assistance would go a long way to ensure individuals & families were able to secure safer and more stable housing. The savings to the government would be seen during the first year and would grow in following years so it is almost immediate. If one hundred homeless were housed using subsidies, assuming the total $200.00 per month were needed, would be between $560,000.00 and $1,560,000.00. To me this is a no brainer.


Community Contributions

Lately, in my role as Advocate for Social Change, I have been getting on City Councils case with regards to the paltriness of the community contributions by developers when requesting up-zoning/density bonuses for potential development projects.

My sphere of interest in this is with regards to Social Housing and so when a potential development, of more than 50 units, comes before council I have been encouraging the City to get a real contribution and not just the pittance they seem to be happy with. This year I have brought up the issue of Community Contributions at the February 18th public hearing to have the OCP amended to include the Oceanview (Cable Bay) Master Plan; the June 3rd rezoning to allow 231 unit development in the Stephenson Point Area; and most recently on Aug. 5th at the rezoning to allow a 26 story High-Rise on the Port Place Mall Property (no link to the hearing info or minutes at this point).

The common thread is increased density. Increased Density is the catch phrase for many potential developments, Cable Bay and Sandstone being the largest examples, getting their rezoning pushed through council. Never mind for these two that one could just as easily use the words urban sprawl as the outcome.

Density Bonusing is a system that allows for variations to zoning in exchange for community amenities or beneficial housing. An example, using the Port Place High-rise, would be allowing the developer to increase the floor space, 6 to 26 stories, in his development in exchange for some amenity, housing bonus or the designation of a specific number of units for social housing.

My suggestion at the public hearing was that the first two floors be designated for social housing or the retail equivalent be put to the City’s Housing Legacy Reserve Fund. Currently the Cities Housing Legacy Reserve fund sits at $2,765,046.00 and is only expected to grow by $165,000.00 per year, not a significant increase by any means.

Currently Nanaimo bases the amenity contribution at $1000.00 per door, far too low in my opinion. Amenity contributions should be made more realistic with the goal of adding to Nanaimo’s Housing Legacy Reserve, monies could also go towards purchase of lands for future parks.

An example from another City would be Vancouver’s 20% policy which since 1988 “has required 20 percent of the units in new neighbourhoods be available for the de­velopment of affordable housing.” Langford, with one quarter the population of Nanaimo, has a one in ten policy, not quite as flexible but interesting none the less.

Using $300,000 as an average for a housing unit Vancouver’s model on a cash contribution basis of 20% would be $60,000 per unit. In Nanaimo the $1000.00 contribution would equate to .3333%. Nanaimo doesn’t need to use the same percent base as Vancouver but it should be, at the very least, a more realistic $10,000.00 per unit or 3.3333%. Unfortunately the City is not looking at this though I continue to ‘encourage’, on a regular basis, they do so.

With realistic contributions we should have seen, based on a 3.3% or $10,000.00 contribution, $25 million from the Cable Bay project, another $25 million from the future Sandstone project and $2.3 million from Stephenson point. While this may sound like a lot the potential profits to the developers of these projects are in the 100’s of millions.

In my opinion the City is literally lining the pockets of developers with untold millions of dollars at the expense of the community. I am not against development but it needs to take place to benefit the many not just the few.

With rising unemployment, poverty and an increasing population, the need for social housing, parks and other community amenities dictate the need for Nanaimo to do better. $10,000 per unit or 3.333% 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 towards real contributions to the community and possibly the above needs being accomplished.


Letter to the Editor (edited version published in the Bulletin August 21)

Recent rezoning of part of the Port Place Mall property to allow a 26 story High-rise is touted to benefit the downtown community simply by increasing density, nothing else.

Increased Density is the catch phrase for many potential developments, Cable Bay and Sandstone being the largest examples, getting their rezoning pushed through council. Never mind for these two that one could just as easily use the words urban sprawl as the outcome.

Another purported benefit the community sees is that of a 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 ne pathetic to say the least. Based on $1000 per door/unit these contributions usually amount to little more than a tot lot.

Vancouver requires 20% of units or the equivalent in cash or land go towards future social housing. Langford, with one quarter the population of Nanaimo, has a one in ten policy. Based on a $300,000 average home value Nanaimo’s contribution would be only one third of one percent.

With rising unemployment, poverty and an increasing population, the need for social housing, parks and other community amenities dictate the need for Nanaimo to do better. $10,000 per unit or 3.333% 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 towards real contributions to the community and possibly the above needs being accomplished.

Cable Bay a sham

On April 2nd 2009 a public hearing was held to redesignate 'Industrial' land owned by Island Timberlands to 'Resort Centre' so that the property could be added into the Cable Bay development.

The process of the Cable Bay development has been a sham from the get go.

Brief (I tried) History:

Nanaimo's Official Community Plan went up for its 10 year review in March of 2006;
'Official community plans have been described as the "constitutions of land use regulation." British Columbia Planning Law and Practice by William Buholzer states that this metaphor is:
"… intended to convey the notion that official plans are expected to enshrine principles that are above the daily politics of rezonings, variances, and development approvals. They are meant to govern the overall direction of development and its pace at a policy level without descending into detail, which is left to regulatory instruments such as [zoning] bylaws and permits."
One of the goals of the Ten Year Review is to ensure that the OCP continues to be a policy document that guides the overall growth of the city and is long range in focus. This may require revision of some of the more detailed or specific policies which are contrary to the broad nature of the Plan.' (City Manager Report 2006 -Mar- 18)

During the process of review major developments came to light in South Nanaimo and Cable Bay. Council in its infinite wisdom, despite huge opposition, ammended the OCP to extend the Urban Containment Boundary (meant to control urban sprawl) to the very edges of City Boundaries in order no doubt to accomodate both potential development.

Two new designations, 'Urban Reserve' and 'Resort', were proposed to be included in the revised OCP.

Public Hearing June 19th 2008 re adopting the revized Official Community Plan.

In July the City of Nanaimo attempted to bring a hundred acre section (owned by Cable Bay Developments) of the Regional District into City Boundaries using the alternative approval process. This process allowed no input from residents of the RDN and meant that if you said nothing you were deemed to agree. To have this squashed 10% of voters from the City of Nanaimo would have to sign forms to that effect. With much effort over 8000 signatures were collected and the motion was defeated.

Public Hearing September 4th 2008 re Bylaw No. 6500.001:
The bylaw if adopted will make text amendments to the City of Nanaimo Official Community Plan to provide for a comprehensive mixed use resort development of recreational, commercial and residential uses.

The proposed amendments wil provide for development of a golf course, and residential and commercial uses within the area known as Cable Bay Lands. The new ‘Resort Centre” designation is intended …………………

This bylaw, if adopted, will also add Schedule G to include the Cable Bay Plan as part of the Official Community Plan. ……………

My contention at this public hearing was, how could we redesignate the property to a designation that was contingent on the adoption of revisions to the OCP. I also contended that because the ratification of the OCP had already gone to public hearing we were not allowed to communicate to council with regards to revisions of the OCP after the hearing was held and that because this public hearing for the redesignation of Cable Bay Lands was contingent on the ratification of the OCP we were doing just that.

From the City of Nanaimo website regarding Public Hearings:
Please note: All written submissions must be received no later than 4:00 pm on the day of the Public Hearing, to ensure their availability to Council at the public hearing. Following the close of a public hearing, no further submissions or comments can be accepted by members of City Council, as established by provincial case law. This is necessary to ensure a fair public consultation process and provide a reasonable opportunity for people to respond to an issue.

Now we come to the April 2nd 2009 Public Hearing:

BYLAW NO. 6500.004:
This bylaw, if adopted, will amend Map 1 (Future Land Use Plan) of the "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" by redesignating a portion of 950 Phoenix Way from 'Industrial' to 'Resort Centre' to provide for a comprehensive mixed use resort development of recreational, commercial and residential uses.

Excerpt from the Minute of the Public Hearing

Gord Fuller - 604 Nicol Street - Opposed

Asked Staff to confirm that the 'Resort Centre' designation came into effect with the ratification of the amendments to OCP.

Mr. Tucker corrected the speaker by noting that the redesignation to Cable Bay was the first amendment to the newly adopted OCP. The new OCP was ready for adoption and the Cable Bay application had not yet gone to Public Hearing; therefore, the OCP was adopted with an 'Urban Reserve' designation over the subject property, which was then amended to 'Resort Centre'.

Mr. Fuller stated his belief that if the subject property were to be redesignated as 'Resort Centre' it would be the only property that is legitimately designated due to the previous adoption being against Council policy.

Mr Tucker's statement was false as the original Cable Bay public hearing was on Sept 4th 2008 and the revised OCP was formally adopted on Sept. 8th 2008. I still contend the original public hearing to redesignate Cable Bay Lands to 'Resort Centre' was held illegally and as such if the result of the Public Hearing on April 2nd 2009 is to redesignate Timberlands property from 'Industrial' to 'Resort Centre' it would be the only property that is legitimately designated due to the previous adoption being against Council policy.

Am I just lazy?

Have to ask myself the above question as it has been over a month since I posted anything and yet there is so much going on that I have been involved in. Minimum Standards of Maintenance, Homelessness, Block Watch, SECA, Council Pay Increases, the Downtown Nanaimo Partnership & BIA Renewal and the list goes on.

One interesting tid bit regarding the ongoing Cable Bay issue came up at the Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee on the 17th.

7. Old Business
ii. 950 Phoenix Way (Cable Bay Lands) – PNAC Recommendation

This is one of those times my brain isn't quite in gear. Either Timber Lands or Timber West were hoping to get a recomendation to council for a partnership with the Cable Bay Group. They own some property, zoned Industrial, with a deep sea port that borders the Cable Bay Lands. They wanted to get a portion of it rezoned Resort so they could lease it to the Cable Bay group so they could use it for a couple of holes on the planned golf course as well as give them some space on the waterfront to put in a marina. Good news, PNAC did not fall for it and moved to not make the recommendation to council.

Please, if you have a subject you would like me to comment on let me know

The following are links to some, will add more later, news stories which I had some feedback in.

Activists call for housing

Plan may boost low-cost housing availability

New home for the 7-10 Club

7-10 Club will stay on Prideaux Street

Struggling economy has Nanaimo charities worried


Recently published Letters to the editor (my version not the edited versions published)

Regarding the BIA & DNP

I have been a member of the Downtown Nanaimo Partnership's Housing Design & Development subcommittee since 2002. While I may not agree with everything the DNP has supported in the revitalization of the Downtown, the Convention Centre being one example, I believe they have done a pretty good job overall. As one, if not the only, member working in the Social Service sector I have chosen to work from within the DNP to advocate and educate regarding social issues in the downtown.

Spurred on by Rick Hyne, not a property owner but the minion of one, many businesses in the current BIA's are considering withdrawing their support for the BIA renewal. Mr. Hyne believes that the resultant loss of the DNP, if enough PROPERTY OWNERS are opposed to the renewal, could easily be accommodated by forming a new group. Would he also be alluding to himself being the head of this new group? If that is the case then I really fear for the outcome of revitalization.

Yes the DNP could be more open and accountable but eliminating it is not the answer. I believe the one good outcome of all the recent publicity will be positive change within the DNP and having met Matt Hussman, the DNP's new director, this will happen sooner rather than later.

Shelter closure may leave teens on street

To the editor;

This is just another example of Government bungling and ineptitude. There is no more valuable asset than the youth of a community, they are our future. Society is degrading to the point where more and more youth are simply unable to live at home, not to put blame solely on parenting, but at the same time have nowhere safe to go. Places like Friendship House are a much needed resource in communities and should receive priority funding. As a society we really need to implement more services for our youth, especially those in crisis, as well as looking at more permanent housing.

When I look at the amount of funds the current government has spent to host the Olympics, an event most people in BC are unable to afford, as well as what is spent to bailout corporations defaulting on construction commitments, I have to shake my head at these misguided priorities. In announcing that the government will be running a deficit the Liberals have stated we can expect cuts to health, education, and social services. Wake up folks, an election is coming so use your vote to show where your priorities lie.

Block Watch

I really have to give Doug and Tanya Hiltz credit for the effort and amount of time they have put in working to make the South End a better place. The amount of energy and their obvious commitment is commendable however as I have mentioned to Doug a few times they really need to set up some training, through the RCMP and Bylaws, for members of their group with regards to communication skills as well as the rights of the individuals.

That the BC Block Watch Society withdrew their support should really come as no surprise. Sooner or later, with all the publicity, someone will question where the donations of goods and money that Doug and Tanya receive are going and as the parent group Block Watch Society BC could ultimately be liable for any wrongdoing.

I would suggest that if the group wishes to remain active they form a legitimate society keeping accurate records of receipts and expenditures. Knowing the passion that Doug, Tanya and other members of their group have I would really hate to see anything negative come their way.

Council Pay Increases

Congratulations to Mayor and Council for not going forward with proposed pay raises of 8% and 16% respectively. The decision to tie pay increases to the cost of living was a wise one, especially in these tough times, and shows a level of respect for the majority of people in Nanaimo who will see little or no increases to their own income.

With the failing economy, deficits being proposed by both the federal and provincial governments, tough decisions will need to be made by all. The recent 40 billion dollar economic bailout package by the feds does little for the most financially challenged and while they do propose a billion of that towards affordable housing it is a pittance when spread across the country.

The province has committed over 400 million dollars towards purchasing SRO’s and building affordable housing in the BC., 160 units alone in Nanaimo . With the failing economy and a provincial election looming we need to ensure this commitment is met by all political parties and levels of government.

Recognizing the commitment of our current city council I hope other levels of government will take their lead.

Nanaimo News Bulletin Q & A

Civic election questions from the Nanaimo News Bulletin. My answers follow:

Name: Gordon Fuller

Age: 50

Occupation: Coordinator of Housing ( Nanaimo Youth Services Association)

AKA - Social Worker, Child & Youth Care Worker

Political experience: Define political experience. I have run for council twice but one could also look at sitting on a Board of Directors as political experience. The following is a record of my community involvement

Current (2005)

• Nanaimo 7-10 Club Society – Co Chair
• Friends of Plan Nanaimo – President
• South End Community Association – Vice President
• Nanaimo Neighbourhood Network – Vice Chair
• Nanaimo Citizens Advocacy
• Nanaimo Old City Association
• Neighbours of Nob Hill
• Downtown Nanaimo Partnership – Housing Design & Development Subcommittee
• Working Group on Homeless Issues
• Mid Island Coalition for Strong Communities

Past

• Crystal Meth Task Force
• Nanaimo Alcohol and Drug Action Coalition
• Working Group on Downtown Social Issues
• Mental Health Advisory Council
• City of Nanaimo Nuisance Property Committee
• Nanaimo Social Development Strategy
• S.A.F.E.R Downtown Nanaimo Project
• Community Food Connection
• Food Link Nanaimo
• Action for Diversity Team
• Nanaimo Food Share Society

Why are you seeking election?


It is time for change and I have the energy and commitment to make Nanaimo a better place for all of its citizens. I will bring the same tenaciousness I am known for as a Community and Social Activist/Advocate. I know it is critical that we recognise the importance of a healthy diverse economy in providing meaningful employment and the necessary tax base from which to run our fair city. I am a strong believer in the revitalization of Nanaimo ’s Downtown and most recently took part in the revision of Nanaimo ’s Official Community Plan.



What is the No. 1 issue in this election?

While there are a number of very important issues, homelessness, the economy, etc; I believe the number one issue is electing a council that respects all of its citizens equally and does not demean and denigrate those citizens choosing to speak before council on items individual members of council may not agree with. This was again recently brought home when Mayor Korpan proceeded to do this very thing at the last council meeting an instance witnessed by one of the Bulletin's own reporters. Repairing the divisiveness that this type of behaviour has created over the past few years is paramount.


How do you see the balance between the need for infrastructure/service and the need to keep property taxes under control?

It is a well known fact that infrastructure costs less if the focus is on densifying existing neighbourhoods. Using the downtown as an example, despite there being no DCC'S (development cost charges), the hope is to increase the population of the area by approximately 8000 people. The cost of infrastructure in an already serviced area is far less and is balanced by the taxes generated by the densification of the area. This has the effect of keeping taxes low and, with the increased tax base, not being a burden on existing taxpayers.


Nanaimo has a significant housing/homelessness situation. What do you propose as a potential solution?

This is a no brainer. The only solution to homelessness is to house the homeless. Housing First has become the primary philosophy in North America over the past 5 years, one I have been espousing in Nanaimo for the past 7, and is the one finally taken in Nanaimo 's Homeless Action Plan developed in 2008. With commitment from the city, province and feds this will be accomplished. It is the role of the city to provide land as well as advocate with other levels of the government to provide funding for purpose built as well as market based (utilizing existing rental properties) solutions.



Nanaimo is projected to grow significantly over the coming years. What measures would you propose to manage that growth sustainably and within existing city limits?

The city needs to focus on densifying its built up areas rather than focusing on areas that, with the expansion of the urban containment boundary to the limits of the municipal boundary, are at the edge of the municipality i.e. Cable Bay . This will make for a much more viable transit system, in turn decrease the need for individual vehicles, resulting in added congruent benefits to the environment.



The forestry crisis and wider economic slowdown has hit this area particularly hard. What response would you propose?

I would propose utilizing any such tax breaks or other benefits that are within the cities mandate. I would also strongly advocate for greater involvement of the provincial and federal governments where possible. The city must do everything within its means to protect union jobs and encourage the establishment of a minimum wage geared to the cost of living. While small business may be reticent in agreeing to this due to wage costs the benefits of citizens with greater income is that they will spend more in those very businesses.

Letters to the Editor (part two)

The following are some of my letters to the editor over the past couple years. I have found, since submitting my first many years ago, that this is a means, one widely read, to express an opinion on events in the city and realms further afield. I fully encourage people to write letters to the editors of what some fondly consider our local rags, though don’t be surprised when they appear and are edited by the paper. In one letter I submitted the editor changed one word, eliminated one sentence and totally changed the context of what I was saying.

Re: Alternative approval process

Kudos go out to Beverley Eert and the many others who helped coordinate and volunteer in the gathering of Electoral Response Forms regarding the annexation of Regional District Lands.  As one of those volunteering, both at Maffeo Sutton Park and the FPN sponsored table at Port Place Mall, a number of concerns about the process arose for me.  Cedar residents have no say with regard to annexation of land from their community; this specific process implies that those not signing are agreement with the annexation; the city only had to put a couple notices about the process into the newspapers, yet notice of the parking survey is in the papers almost daily; and, the fear of sanctions, by the city or developer, that was a concern of many of those who would not sign.

For me, I found that equally as many people who signed the forms did so not only because they did not like the potential development, environmental impact and ongoing cost to taxpayers, but because they thought the process undemocratic.  Having collected the required 10%, not including those handed in to City Hall, a number of us will be out again over the long weekend at Maffeo Sutton Park .  I encourage anyone who has not filled out the required form to drop on down and do so.  If Nanaimo City council decides to go further, having failed by this means, let’s hope they do so without exorbitant cost to the taxpayers of Nanaimo by tying a referendum to the upcoming municipal election.

 
Re: Chamber of commerce awareness of homelessness issue

I congratulate Mr. Lobay, and hopefully the rest of the Chamber of commerce, on being aware that homelessness is a complex issue that needs all sectors, social, political as well as business, to be onside when developing solutions for community.  I do however have to correct him on one thing; the city does not as yet have a plan.  What was essentially presented for public input was a plan for a plan and not the plan itself.

Many of us look forward to the actual plan which will hopefully be comprehensive enough to allow us to move forward, leveraging funds from all levels of government to provide the supplements and housing needed to alleviate the growing homeless problem in Nanaimo .  Yes the municipality will have to contribute as well, something they have done in the past, and one hopes the means for doing this will be firmly entrenched in upcoming revisions to the Nanaimo Official Community Plan.

When all is said and done the Homeless/Harm Reduction plan, as well as the OCP, will either guide the way or gather dust as have so many other plans.  As Mr. Lobay says, “solutions can only be developed with collaboration and tenacity.”   As we move forward I sincerely hope the Chamber of Commerce will be tenacious in taking an active role in this collaboration.

Re: Homeless & Harm reduction action plan

After 6 months work and $60,000 spent the citizens of Nanaimo finally had a chance to view what will be Nanaimo 's own "Harm Reduction and Housing First Action Plan."  In my opinion we have taken a step forward in looking at the provision of housing for the City's homeless population but the process itself has been less than community friendly. 

It was decided by Council that the SAFER Nanaimo Committee would be the steering committee for the process.  SAFER, formed as a result of recommendations from the Downtown Security and Downtown Social Response Committees recognizing that "'communication and coordination' between stakeholders will be key to managing the issues of public order and social exclusion in the city centre."  They called for a group comprised of  the RCMP, Bylaw Services, Social Planning, Downtown Nanaimo Partnership, Vancouver Island Health Authority and members of the downtown business & residential communities.  Despite this and after several requests SAFER will not allow representatives of Downtown Neighbourhoods on the committee.

In seeking out input for the action plan City Spaces Consulting interviewed the heads of the three downtown neighbourhood associations with little or no input from the association members.  Two of these groups hold monthly meetings and would have been ideal venues, had City Spaces chosen, for greater community input.  Finally we had the open house; great idea though how much input does one really have at these even assuming they can get there?

 
While I personally think the plan good it relies heavily on the political will of the municipality. With the upcoming public hearing of the revised Official Community Plan it is important for people to know that the OCP contains little on attaining affordable housing.  Unlike the Kelowna , Victoria and Vancouver  Official Community Plans, that have extensive sections on housing, ours is but a page and a half that is wishy washy at best.  I encourage everyone to attend the public hearing, June 19th, and speak out.  I also have been assured that feedback from the public regarding the Harm Reduction and Housing First Action Plan will still be accepted.  The action plan is to be posted on the City of Nanaimo Website, where one can also view the most recent draft of the OCP, and comments can be sent to Brenda McBain – City Spaces Consulting via e-mail at bmcbain@cityspaces.ca .

Letters to the Editor (part one)

The following are some of my letters to the editor over the past couple years. I have found, since submitting my first many years ago, that this is a means, one widely read, to express an opinion on events in the city and realms further afield. I fully encourage people to write letters to the editors of what some fondly consider our local rags, though don’t be surprised when they appear and are edited by the paper. In one letter I submitted the editor changed one word, eliminated one sentence and totally changed the context of what I was saying.

Re: Defiance will not help the Cable Bay cause.

So it appears that Cable Bay Lands Inc. plans to move forward without the RDN Lands and council in its infinite wisdom has given first and second readings to, “redesignate lands, amend the Urban Containment Boundary, and add site specific policy to permit a mixed use comprehensive development within the new ‘Resort Centre’ designation.”  How does one have first and second reading when the new plan for Cable Bay isn’t ready?   How can council make such a decision when it hinges on the outcome of fourth reading, likely in October, to adopt the changes, ie; Resort Centre, to the Official Community Plan?”
 If there is misinformation out there then it is the responsibility of all involved, developer, council, opposition, and newspapers, to provide credible information from which an informed opinion can be based. 
 As for this papers comment that “planning accounts for sprawl and development in the South End will help the downtown.”  This is a prime example of Urban Sprawl, need I remind you that there is room within what was the urban containment boundary for over 35,000 more residents?  Need I also remind you of the impact on the downtown from development in the North End?
 I close with a quote from your own editorial, “It is misinformation of this sort that damages legitimate efforts to question real flaws either in the development process or within developments

Re: Councils process found wanting

At the latest city council meeting I asked the question, “When does a city policy become worth less than the paper it is printed on?”  While this was with regard to how council could even consider Newlook Capital’s attempts to "strata convert" the 109 unit rental apartment building at #1 Chapel St. when city policy sates it will, “prohibit the conversion of existing residential rental buildings to condominium status when the rental vacancy rate falls below 3% in Nanaimo,” further events during the meeting would pose other interesting questions.  Oddly enough, being facetious here, council decided, despite heartfelt pleas from a number of seniors impacted by the potential stratification, to postpone a decision until the middle of September.  Shame!
Moving to further events spoken of, apparently annexation of Regional District Land into the municipality is a non issue, kudos to the 8000 people who signed the electoral response forms and the volunteers who collected them.  The strange part; it appears that Cable Bay Lands Inc. plans to move forward without the RDN Lands and council in its infinite wisdom gave first and second readings to, “redesignate lands, amend the Urban Containment Boundary, and add site specific policy to permit a mixed use comprehensive development within the new Resort Centre designation.”  How does one have first and second reading when the plan for the development won’t be ready for at least a week?   How can council make such a decision when it hinges on the outcome of fourth reading to adopt the changes to the Official Community Plan?”
Looks like we have a lot more than the cost of paper to worry about in Nanaimo? 

Re: South-end park funds called 'waste' of cash

To say spending money to improve a city park is a waste until you eradicate the drug problems shows the predominantly reactive nature of dealing with such a complex issue.  Those who have long lived in the South End, 15 years in my case, recognize the issues with addiction have been going on far longer than since the Hiltz’s have been in the area.  We recognize the problem cycles from good to bad, not only in this neighbourhood but others as well.  A recent example; since the lot behind McDonalds has been fenced in the numbers of people hanging out in the immediate vicinity has dwindled.  While it is true they have simply been moved on, this is all part of the cycle.
One has to laud both Tanya and her husband Doug for taking on the task of organizing a block watch program.  Programs like these are beneficial not just for peace of mind but for the sense of community they bring as well.  However, statements like that made above devalue the hard work of the many others also working to make the neighbourhood the special place it is.  The simple fact is the more families and others use Deverill Park the less likely those practicing illegal activity will want to be seen in the area. 
As long as the province fails to provide enough services for addiction we will always have a problem; as long as landlords, local and absentee, fail to inspect their properties on a regular basis we will always have a problem; and, until we come together as a community we will always have a problem