“The city planning department is giving a handful of developers permission to build on the waterfront whatever they want, whenever they want.”
Dan Appell — October 4, 2010
“A base height up to 8 storeys above Stewart Avenue is specified for the Medium High Density Waterfront designation. Additional height may be supported as part of a rezoning and development approvals process where a proposed development provides additional amenities . . . “ (Draft Newcastle+Brechin Community Plan)
The city planning department is giving a handful of developers permission to build on the waterfront whatever they want, whenever they want.
The planning department is abdicating its responsibility as planners to the detriment of the whole community. This is so negligent that we must ask ourselves what is the point of having a planning department at all or, at least, what is the point of employing these planners?
Instead of the best planning practices, we are getting a form of bureaucratic fascism that works against the interests of the city, to the benefit of a handful of developers. Why should we pay these people their salaries, benefits and pensions, when, clearly, they are not working for us?
Brechin Hill is an established single-family neighbourhood, valued by its residents for its unique and diverse qualities. Their community has many of the patterns that make a traditional neighbourhood: clear boundaries, a commercial centre (Terminal Mall), a balanced mix of housing, marinas, schools and churches, recreation amenities, shopping and work places.
If Newcastle+Brechin grow at their present rate their population will double by the year 2084. If growth matches the projected growth of the city (8% every five years) then the population will double by the year 2052. This is not a high rate of growth and it is not beyond the capacity of the area to support with only a minimal upgrade to existing services.
The current OCP zoning with only 3 storeys allowed on Stewart Ave. and higher density residential along Terminal Avenue would easily accommodate quadruple the population in the area. The zoning proposed by the draft planning document would increase that capacity for no other reason then to appease a few developers. The rest of the planning document is fantasy construction designed to deflect and misrepresent the neighbourhood plan so that the ridiculous new zoning looks reasonable.
We must control the scale of development and the rate of development to match a realistic projection of growth. We must direct development towards the shopping centre, where access to services do not involve a reliance on cars. And we must protect or improve the amenities which make this neighbourhood a safe and attractive place to live, work and raise families. We citizens have to do this as volunteers, because our so called,”hard working and professional” planning department won’t.
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
Not sure I agree with your point of view. It isn’t out of question to target growth well above what the RGS says, in fact I would encourge planners to look at 12% annually since we live in the best place in this province, still reasonably affordable (in comparison to Victoria and Vancouver) and is in desperate need of in fill growth instead of sprawl. The island is finite and as more population moves here expect Nanaimo and the RDN to be well over 500,000 in 20 years.
The people have got to be planned to go somewhere and with visions like this it isn’t out of the question. The issue is that people generally don’t like change, that’s human nature but it has to happen or our sustainability targets can not be met, which means that provincial funds stop flowing and we spiral further down that slippery slope.
I think vision, planned vision is key to this area for the next 10 years. We can no longer just build something and treat it as a stand alone item – it must fit the rest of the plan. I envision Stewart Ave area to become much like say Quadra in Victoria or even Goldstream in Langford or HWY 19A in Parksville with small shops, professional offices and residential above (6 to 12 stories). Then as this growth continues to Departure Bay, assuming the seawall walkway is ever finished that area may become something similar to the Westend of Vancouver, or West Van or even on a smaller scale similar to Quallicum with again, commercial, professional and residential in clusters (under 8 stories).
Remember that this is 10+ years in the future but without that sort of vision we are lost. One could argue that is the failed aspect of the nodes associated with the Nanaimo OCP since it builds density around the already established retail areas but as these big box stores get hit with a loss of customers (as many will no longer need to or want to drive – again, we are all getting older) this will too transform into something we have yet seen.
Cheers,
Sometimes we confuse “vision” and fantasy.
A 12% annual growth rate is really steep. To give you some perspective, Nanaimo is growing at a rate of a little more than 1% annually.
Nanaimo has no industry to speak of, limited natural resources, and a fairly shallow pool of human resources, which means that a 12% annual growth rate isn’t very likely. We could draw up plans for such an event, indeed the city has, but we would be more productive planning for something more probable.
The city has a draft document of a plan for a community of 10,000 to 15,000 very wealthy people, which does nothing for the 3700 people living in those neighbourhoods now. If the population of those neighbourhoods were doubled the plan would still not benefit the people who would be living there. If the cities “vision” for this area was attempted, then the largest part of these neighbourhoods would decline into slums.
What is the point of planning for such remote and ugly possibility? Planning for a 12% growth rate is like planning for a volcanic eruption. We could have visions of a volcano erupting out of Brechin Hill. We could plan little vegetable gardens in the fields of ash at the base of the cone. We could draw little ring roads spiralling up to the summit. Use the heat to warm our homes. Why not? But what for?
Why not plan for a more likely scenario? Why not plan for the smooth transition from a population of 4000 to 8000 in thirty to forty years. Why not plan for a sustainable community? Why not figure out what is good about this place and plan to make the most of it? That is not a difficult design brief. That would be a plan worth doing, and a plan that could be done.
And if you are going to have a vision, stop imaging buildings and streets in other places. Planning is about people and giving people the freedom to choose a life they find worthwhile. If your going to have a vision, imagine all those people living good, honest, descent lives. Any other vision, is just fantasy.
Brad Pettitt, the Mayor of Fremantle, Australia recently visited Vancouver and made these comments, as reported on former Vancouver Councillor Gordon Price’ blog — (http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/ten-west-end-commandments/ )
Ten Commandments for medium density urban design:
1. Activate the street. There should be an activated frontage every ten metres.
2 Ground floor usages should be diverse meet local needs and be open diverse hours.
3 Frontages should be at the same level as the street with no more than a 30cm step up.
4 Plant street trees and lots of them. They are awfully generous towards dull modern architecture.
5 Mandate a diversity of housing types sizes and levels of affordability. Rich people are boring on their own.
6 Invest in quality public parks and spaces for people to meet and recreate in. Make space for community.
7 Embed high quality and high frequency public transport into the development from the start. Preferable light rail or street cars that create investor certainty.
8 Traffic calm streets so cars are last in the hierarchy.
9 Have it within walking distance of transit such as heavy rail.
10 Don’t obsess over height. It’s not a significant amenity factor if you get the rest right.
At the Charrette every one of these ideas was discussed for Terminal Avenue. Everyone agreed that Terminal Avenue was the best location for a High Street.
What seems to be forgotten when discussing building heights and mandating diversity, we have to remember the owners of the lots and current buildings. Not everyone wants six story buildings end to end up Terminal or down Stewart. They want different types of buildings with some individual residences and some multi family. Some want commercial on street level and apartments upstairs. Some will be hi-rises and some will remain the same as they are today, 60 years in the future. Wall to wall six storey buildins is not a pleasant sight and I don’t want it anywhere in the City. I find the 3 storeys on commerical street to be too high, but them I am just an average citizen, not a honky designer that thinks I have the right plan for everyone else.
We are unlikely to see much growth ; not without good jobs.
All Nanaimo is doing is to compete with other areas across Canada to try & draw their retirees.Don’t forget, retirees have a limited shelf life & don’t work.
Another limitation is water ; we don’t have enough water to supply the numbers that Wyatt Earp wishes.
Building on the waterfront also denies the masses access or enjoyment of that resource; hardly a community building idea.
George. You were expressing a reasonable opinion for discussion right up until pulled on your humble “average citizen” armour and threw stones at a “honky designer”. Do you really think this added anything to your comment?
My use of ‘honky designer’ and ‘average citizen’ are just as useful in expressing my thoughts as the posting of the name of people that talk about Vancouver, which leads to the impression that Nanaimo should be more like the city overseas. Trust me that people here don’t want Vancouver, they want exactly what we have, while we have people that think we need to be like Venice and other European cities that are too big and in no way resemble the City I like in.
Every single post I have placed here is my reasonable opinion and quite honestly, I wish those that want 6 story buildings congesting up and down Stewart, Terminal (both Avenue and North) and all along Bowen Road, would just move away to cities that already have it. Most of us like this city the way it is and while there are going to be some growth, the movement to the above is, again in my opinion, just stupid!
Amen, George. Let’s plan this city to be the best of what it is, not the worst of something it isn’t.
George, we’ve all been guilty from time to time of uhhh… intemperate language and I’m sure you agree our central points of view are better expressed with more… let’s say moderate language. I can certainly speak for myself here and say I have very much valued your contribution to these discussions. On that note, I would say to Dan that in honour of the people slaughtered in the streets and in extermination camps in the 1930’s and 40s in Italy, Spain and Germany, let’s have a moratorium on the use of the descriptive “fascist”.
Ya don’t like my words? Gee Frank, you keep sending away the few you have.
Frank: While I object to ad hominem personal attacks it is perhaps too delicate to censure those who may use strong language in putting forth their opinions. Dan’s use of the term “fascism” to describe what he sees as corporate and authoritarian may or may not be apt, but as fascism is a political philosophy, it did not slaughter anyone. In fact, if one examines the record in early days Mussolini “made the trains run on time” and Hitler “built the autobahn” and they were widely celebrated. It is in its later stages as rationalism eventually and inevitably runs up against humanity that the problems arise. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Delicacy is not synonymous with decency.
It’s to state the obvious that popular usage in the living language far outweighs the clinical dictionary definition. We’re stuck with associating it with unspeakable brutality — you or I or Dan or the dictionary can’t change that.
My entire concern is incendiary language damaging our arguments and making it too easy for City Hall to ignore what it is eager to see as an irrational and unreasonable fringe. I have shared here a concern of my own that I apply to my own posts and comments — as the topic seemed to come up when issue was taken with George referring to a “honky designer”. There is no attempt at censure and delicacy is not the point at all.
Let’s not forget that both Hitler and Mussolini had big plans to remodel their respective capitals. Based on both of those plans, I think the general consensus is, fascists should not do urban planning.
We can if we use our brains rather than our gut emotions.
I don’t believe that there is a political movement or a western religion that is not tainted by the same brush. Are we also to eschew using their names for this reason? Certainly we stand today at the brink of confusing Islam and terrorism and there are those who would be very happy to see this happen. I hope that none of us are among them.
I believe George meant to write “hooky designers.” I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have anything against white designers or planners just because they are white. “Hooky” is how I read the word because of its context.
I, on the other hand, meant to use the word “fascist,” because it is appropriate.
Let me tell you a story of my experience at the charrette for Newcastle+Brechin Hill. I was working with a group of people drawing on maps, discussing ideas, and encouraging each other’s efforts. There was a lot of energy in the room, and the spirit of collaboration was very inspiring.
At one point I stepped back from the table to get a better view of our effort. As I stepped back, I bumped into our MLA, Leonard Krog. He was so enthralled will all the commotion at our table, that he didn’t notice me. I think I stepped on his shoe. Of course, I apologized, but I got the impression that he still didn’t notice me. Then he said, “This is amazing. This is grass roots democracy at its very best.”
That statement kind of fell out of the sky and landed in front of me. It helped me appreciate the moment even more, and it reinvigorated my efforts for the rest of the weekend.
We left all our production in the hands of the so called “city planners,” with the hope that our efforts would be reflected in the subsequent open house. The following open house, a couple of months later, turned out to be a profound disappointment. Whatever insights had been gained during that weekend charrette where lost. Ideas where stripped bare of their substance, and the progress we had made was cancelled by one giant step backward.
We went from “grass roots democracy at its very best,” to bureaucratic fascism at its most inept.
These so called “planners” belittled our effort, they’ve ignored valuable input, and they came up with a document that is pure crap. As far as I’m concerned they deserve to be insulted at least. Believe me, If I had any sort of power at all I wouldn’t bother to insult them. I would just have them fired.
I could come up with many names to describe these so called “planners”, and I think all of them would be a fair representation of their “professionalism.” I settle on “fascism” because Krog’s words echo in my head, and reveal the starkest contrast between what was, what could have been, and what we got.
I happily defer to your arbitration on this Dan. ‘Nough said. And, as you know I share your frustration with the arbitrary and disconnected and arrogant decisions being made by the Planning Department with Council’s support — and complicity. Are there the seeds of political organization and activism in these neighbourhoods that could lead us to a badly needed overhaul at this City Hall?
“We went from “grass roots democracy at its very best,” to bureaucratic fascism at its most inept.”
Apt description Dan. This is what you get when a few with a vested interest and the ear of those in power get involved. We need not look to far back in Nanaimo’s history for examples, Cable Bay, Sandstone and everyones favourite Conference Centre.
well, we live in a great place and more people will find that. No industry, maybe but neither did or does Surrey in the 1980’s. The plans there were for 2% growth and after looking at the 11% growth they have experienced over that period it isn’t a question of not happening, it is a question when will it happen. We need to stop looking at the past and start thinking about the future. Whether the planners can do that or not, who knows but I stand by my projections.
the City Planning Department is over due for an overhaul!!!!
http://thecanadian.org/k2/item/192-rafe-addiction-growth
It’s not going to happen!
We cannot afford it.
The average consumer is in debt & cannot afford it.
The Municipal Government is in debt & cannot afford it.
The Provincial Government is in debt & cannot afford ti.
The Federal Government is in debt & cannot afford it!
Surrey grew on cheap money that is no longer available as did many other Municipalities ; including Nanaimo.
We,taxpayers, can barely afford to pay off the white elephants we already have without adding new ones(infrastructure)
Nanaimo should be happy that we have failed developments such as Cable Bay & Sandstone otherwise we would have huge infrastructure costs & no development/return on our tax dollars.
One has only to look at the USA (our largest trading partner) where the Chase Manhattan Bank is offering 30 year mortgages at 4.5% . This says a lot on how they expect the economy to improve!
Expect & plan for many years of mediocre growth & we will all be better off.
I am agreeing with Lizzie and Melvin. There is no point in planning for an unlikely event, such as incredibly steep growth. The plan won’t create the growth, and even if the growth was that steep we probably wouldn’t have the resources to execute the plan anyways.
Not to belabour a semantic point, but I do wish Melvin had used some other modifier for growth instead of “mediocre.” Growth is high, low, or medium, but it doesn’t need to be value laden, In fact, growth, has no real value anymore; economic or otherwise. We no longer can create wealth from growth. This community plan for Newcastle+Brechin Hill is a good illustration of this.
The plan, to put it as simple as I can, is to take a little bit of the wealth from each those people living in that community now, and giving that wealth to a handful of developers who want to build on the shore. Its not creating wealth. Its just making a few people wealthier at the expense of everyone else.
Do these developers turn around and invest their new wealth in the community? Why should they? They are free to spend that money in any part of the world they want. They can go buy themselves another view. The community and the city might grow in population, but nobody left here would grow wealthy. We don’t have the resources to create wealth.
To over-argue this point: One of the wealth creating resources we would need is capital; which we would be giving to a few developers who would be free to leave the city, taking their wealth anywhere. This is not smart planning move.
Instead, if we leave the wealth in the hands of the many people who live in that community, we would have a much better chance of retaining that wealth as investment in the community and the city.
One of the most important pillars supporting sustainability is the idea that people must be able to invest in themselves. It is this kind of investment that creates wealth. The cities’ plan for this neighbourhood actively discourages people from investing in their homes, their properties and themselves, but removing a key component of the communities economic security. This why this is such a bad plan; a horrendous plan, an immoral plan, a thoughtless, and gutless plan.
Now, if we can’t create wealth from growth, we can create wealth from improved efficiencies. There have been a couple of recent TED podcasts that talk to this; see:
Tim Jackson’s economy reality check-Tim Jackson (2010)
Nic Marks: The Happy Planet Index-Nic Marks (2010)
These podcasts reinforce a view that I have maintained for a very long time now. I believe that the only true value of urban planning is to argue for improved efficiency in all urban forms. When urban planners fail to do that, they fail all of us completely. In the case Newcastle+Brechin Hill our planning department has failed us completely.
And Melvin is right – even with “mediocre growth,” “we will be better off.”
So if what the author is suggesting has merit, it would seem you can only logically conclude the planning dept. is either incompetent or corrupt and are being paid off to make so many decisions that favour a few developers. I see no other answers, except one:
The other possibility is, is that the author is the one who is advancing an opinion which may or may not be correct. It could be the author is incompetent or is advancing an agenda which serves other financial interests opposed to such development.
The author could indeed be incorrect in his assumptions but to suggest an ulterior motive , by the author, is ‘pushing it’ to say the least.
…………….
Re.. it would seem you can only logically conclude the planning dept. is either incompetent or corrupt and are being paid off to make so many decisions that favour a few developers.
…………..
There have been thousands of ‘developer dollars’ spent to ‘entertain’ Councillors & staff; thousands that were visible.
There are those , myself included, that believe that developer dollars are akin to icebergs where 4/5ths remain unseen until it’s too late.
Have you ever considered just how many times the OCP has been ammended in favour of a developer?
I would suggest every time ; I cannot remember any ‘notable ‘ ammendment application that was ever turned down.
Melvin I beg to differ. To suggest that someone has an ulterior motive is hardly pushing anything if you don’t intimately know the person and that they indeed have no agendas.
For example, people opposed to high rises along the waterfront, may really be motivated by the fact they currently own ocean view property, which will have their view blocked by the erection of a large building.
Amending the OCP in favour of a developer could indicate nothing more than a poorly conceived OCP which should not be considered an inflexible document.
After all, what may have seemed like a great plan 10 or 20 years ago, may simply not be a viable plan today in light of current conditions etc.
Experience and history has taught me, that there likely is a reason behind most political moves which are never really apparent.
I agree Melvin… My take is that it’s more a matter of an imbalance than corruption. One voice that needs to be at the table is the development/construction industry. The problem is that other voices that are just as key are underrepresented or not represented at all. It is the responsibility of City Council and the professionals in the Planning Department to welcome the developer — they do what they do (they create, they build, they make money)and they’re smart enough to be politically involved — and say to them now let’s get busy with the neighbourhoods, the social activists, the First Nations, and hammer out a plan that makes progress on some of the goals of the City’s Official Plan. Sounds kind of Utopian doesn’t it? But we have to start demanding it. There has to be a stop put to meeting only the short term commercial objectives of the developer at the expense of other important goals under the guise of creating a few construction jobs or pie-in-the-sky fantasyland economic development.
The imbalance seems to be on the verge of collapse.
By the way, I’m part of the development industry, and I have a voice.
I’m not opposed to development, in fact, I’m entirely for it.
Also, I have some skills as a planner, and I’m not opposed to planning. I am opposed to bad planning, thoughtless planning, stupid planning, or no planning at all. This is what we have now.
The result is a net loss to the city as a whole. We have a planning department that perpetually reinforces a false sense of progress. We are paying our own city staff high salaries to blow smoke up our own asses while they work for the interests of other people.
Its both incompetent and corrupt, but we are OK with it, until our property, or our livelihood, or our taxes are affected. So long as all the crap is happening in another neighbourhood, to someone else, or will hit the fan at some future date, we don’t get involved. We only are outraged, when the city offends against us. That is why we have such terrible planning, my friends, you allow it.
Interesting comment.
As someone in the development industry just what do make of the relationship between Council & staff, the developers & the OCP?
BTW; your last comment of “you allow it” is not quite true.
When the alternative voting method was used to stop the annexation of land in the RDN & have it brought into the City which was actually a vote to stop the Cable Bay development ; Council ignored the 7000 signatures of the opposition , cirumvented the decision & allowed the rezoning.
Similar moves have been made by the RDN directors after losing unfavourable decisions to alternative voting initiatives.(
The OCP was recently revised almost entirely for the benefit of certain developers. The community aspects of the plan are there for show or when they happen to mesh with the interests of developers.
This is why “density” is emphasized over sustainability. There are some aspects of density which coincide with the community wide interest in sustainability, but a simple application of increased density favours the interests of almost all developers, almost all the time. Thus, you see arguments for towers by the waterfront supported by a need for increased density, instead of a need for sustainability.
The “towers by the water” issue is a very good illustration of the special relationship between certain developers and council and staff (this speaks a little bit to the corruption issue). All the towers that have been built by water have been built by way of exceptions to either prevailing zoning or plans. Pacifica and the yet to be built Insite tower were even offered relief from some development fees. The planned Port Place Tower was allowed special zoning. It conforms to the OCP, because we changed the OCP to conform to it. The developer who wanted to build towers in Maffeo-Sutton park was offered free land. If you’re a local developer and you want to build a three story high development along the waterfront, then you will have to jump over some very significant hurdles, but if you want to build a 24 story tower by the water, the city is going out of its way to make that as easy as it possibly can.
Also, In most other cities, building by the water requires meeting some very high architectural design and construction standards. Standards, which do not exist here.
Furthermore, in the draft document of the Newcastle+Brechin Hill Neighbourhood Plan the city is creating a special marine zoning which allows three developers the right to build towers up to 8 stories above Stewart Ave. (10 to 11 stories above the shoreline) without any further consideration. No other residential zoning in the city is so lenient. These few developers are been given a gift, nobody else can get. Why?
To put this in perspective: If I wanted to build an 8 story residential structure on Terminal Avenue, I would have to begin the process by applying for a rezoning. The same structure on the sea side of Stephen Ave. will be able to go right to the development permit stage.
Anybody, who understands planning even a little bit will tell you that a tower on Terminal is far more advantageous to the community then a tower on Stewart. Almost all the risk, and all the costs of developing on Terminal Ave. are borne by the developer. Almost all the risk, and a considerable amount of the costs of the same building on Stephen Ave. are borne by the property owners in Brechin Hill. Why do the developers on Stephen Avenue get special consideration?
There is a very close relationship, between developers and city staff, and I think at times some could argue that it weakens the “arms length” distances required for proper professional objectivity. At the very least, it weakens the negotiating position of city planners.
However, there is a very, very close relationship between those few developers who want to build towers on our water front and city staff. The “very special” relationship (I’m speaking to “interested citizen’s” comment below) goes well beyond ethical standards of conduct for urban planners, because it asserts the very immediate and specific interests of a very small group of people, over the long term interests of the whole community.
Just as the OCP is a community plan in name only, so is this plan for Newcastle+Brechin Hill.
As for my comment, “you allow it,” I may have been too general. But, let’s keep in mind, the same people who recommended all those waterfront towers, authored the OCP revision, who blinked or looked the other way on the Cable Bay and Sandstone issues are still in positions to wreck havoc in Brechin Hill. If it was up to me, their careers in this city would not have survived the conference centre fiasco(s).
Am I being too impatient? How much more “f”ed up do we have to be, before we say enough?
“Its both incompetent and corrupt, ”
Can you offer anything other than your opinion to support this claim?
See above.
There is a lot to be said with the saying..
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck ; chances are it is a duck!
If we require a legal opinion on everything life throws at us we are in tough shape.
Many times those in disagreement with Council have been closed down because they could not dot the i’s or cross the t’s & thus been sent packing even though they had good reason to differ.
I have seen the Mayor & Councilors intimidate those who would disagree with them ; with veiled accusations of slander.
Granted some Civic decisions are made by those with much more information at their fingertips & with much more experience behind them.Having said that ; many decisions are made on opinion & self interest.
Again; Council are courted to influence decision making.
The latest such courtship revolves around the Bermuda based Island Timberlands who entertained certain Councillors who are thought to be supportive of a proposal for a waterfront development adjacent to the ‘nearly dead’ Cable Bay development.
To which I say; quack quack!!
Sunny Dan
What standard do you apply to determine incompetent? Are these people not qualified for the positions they hold, or do YOU just disagree with their decisions?
Define your use of the word corrupt, to me is suggests taking graft and the like??
It does seem curious that those with all this collective wisdom about how things should be done, and how incompetent those in power actually are …… have never been able to gather enough public support to put them in a position to actually change anything.
Wonder why that is ? ? ? ?
I’ll give a hint to my own question …. we have listened, we have considered and frankly we don’t see you as an alternative.
The proof of that is demonstrated at the ballot box.
Interested Citizen,
For your benefit, I will repeat myself:
“However, there is a very, very close relationship between those few developers who want to build towers on our water front and city staff. The “very special” relationship (I’m speaking to “interested citizen’s” comment below) goes well beyond ethical standards of conduct for urban planners, because it asserts the very immediate and specific interests of a very small group of people, over the long term interests of the whole community.”
I can’t explain this “relationship” by applying standard practices of professional urban planning.
Can you?
I feel that Interested Citizen is fishing so that he/she may protect a ‘special relationship’ developer!
Also re; we have listened etc & don’t find you as an alternative!
The alternative did not receive $15,000 or more from Cable Bay lands to fight an election; this is just one example of one donation to one candidate over one project.
Melvin,
It takes more than $15,000 bucks to win an election. Kipp spent almost nothing. If the alternative has something to say, they need to say it a lot more clearly than they have in the past.
No, I am not fishing, I am simply wanting to know why Sunny Dan’s claims as to how things need doing are any more valid than decisions being made by duly elected officials.
To suggest that developers are buying off public staff, is certainly believable. If a case can be made, get the police involved, take up a legal fund and launch a lawsuit.
In this day and age, it seems less believable that officials are not being paid off, it is merely a matter of what special interest groups are doing the paying.
Regards the Cable Bay lands, I have NO interest there whatsoever, however, I never heard a compelling argument by the ‘opposed to everything crowd’ as to why this development should not go ahead. In fact, I engaged Mr. Pattje at great length and was totally unconvinced by his arguments.
“Opposed to everything crowd” an all encompassing description to marginalise those who have , more often than not, genuine concerns ; but may not be capable of articulating the facts .
As someone actively involved with the fight against the Cable Bay development I can assure you that most people I met of like mind were quite up to speed on the subject & had made well informed decisions.
As to the $15,000 contribution to finance a Councillor in an election; again $15K is the tip of the iceberg!
If , considering the last Civic election, we consider the monies spent on pro Cable Bay candidates; including support from the print media, the signs from the McKinnon print shop etc the total spent would be quite considerable.
Melvin,
Having genuine concerns does nothing to convince me, that your concerns are valid.
Having Sunny Dan say that the planning department is in the pocket of some developers, if true, should be the subject of police investigation. If he has something to back up his claims, he should insist the police investigate. Take it to the press, of course they are concerned with libel laws, and rightly so. So, he needs more than his say so, that something criminal is afoot.
Saying I am marginalizing by using a derogatory description, begs the question, what is Sunny Dan’s, calling the planning department criminal do for the discussion?
It is far too easy to say that money from the pro Cable Bay camp bought the election results……get through to the 60% who don’t vote and money will matter little.
Of course you have to have a message that is believable, and that is where you are falling short, like it or not.
Just because Sunny Dan does not agree with decisions made by planning staff, and his saying so, convinces me of nothing. It does nothing to give me reason to find his opinion valid over city planners being paid to do their job.
Interested Citizen,
The unfair and unhelpful characterization of different points of view as being “opposed to everything”, aside… as far as Cable Bay is concerned, fair enough that Councillor Pattje’s arguments didn’t sway you but you might want to also review the views of SmartGrowth BC, former Vancouver Co-director of Planning Anne McAfee, architects and Urban Planners Trevor Boddy and Franc D’Ambrosio and for that matter the opinion of our own Director of Planning Andrew Tucker who said that the resulting disincentive to the development of inner city sites such as the Assembly Wharf Lands, Quennell Square between Albert and Frankly and the DND lands across from VIU was “the most compelling argument against” the elimination of the urban containment boundary and the sprawling development of the greenfields across the city’s southern extremity.
This disincentive to develop the inner city, because you are developing an upscale community at Cable Bay, I simply do not understand.
The people who can afford, and who would buy the housing at Cable Bay, would be interested in a development on the DND lands?? That argument simply makes no sense. The lifestyle that a Cable Bay development has to offer could NEVER be replicated on the DND lands.
That is simply an absurd argument.
Now, if the Cable Bay development is going to be subsidized by taxpayers, that is a different matter. Prove that point, and I am all ears.
But telling me the people wanting to live in a gated community with their own marina and golf course, want to live in Harewood, is just a joke.
“Upscale” development next to a active pulp mill!
Not a chance.
Golf courses and marina’s aren’t usually associated with government funded slums.
Interested Citizen…give me a minute while I skim off the dismissive descriptives: “makes no sense… absurd argument… just a joke”. Ah, thanks, now I think I can begin to divine your point. And it makes some sense. The proposal to create a golf course community for wealthy Albertans at Dodd Narrows seemed like a reasonable business proposition. Though in an economic climate that’s now a distant memory…
The amount of residential and commercial build-out that was added to the original concept took the project into an entirely different realm. What I think Planner Tucker meant — though you should certainly ask him yourself — Andrew.Tucker@nanaimo.ca — was that to accommodate whatever finite population growth and economic development was in store in the near and medium term for Nanaimo it could reasonably be argued that investment should first be directed to those inner city sites the servicing of which would cost far less than that of the outlying areas.
According to Glen Brower ,of Cable Bay, it was Andrew Tucker that first suggested densifying Cable Bay rather than developing 5 acre lots.
This suggestion has or had multiple problems.
If this is supposed to be a reason to jump on the ‘stop Cable Bay’ bandwagon. Once again it fails. What exactly was going to be the extra tax burden to Nanaimo taxpayers for this development. Unless, it was just so much BS it was presented as cost neutral to Nanaimo taxpayers.
Unless the anti-Cable Bay crowd have something more than emotions to substantiate their claims, they will never likely be seen as a real alternative to the status quo.
While skimming dismissive descriptives deal with Sunny Dans, ‘incompetent and corrupt’ dismissives for city hall staff.
If he can’t actually prove these claims, he really needs to put up or shut up. Don’t you think?
Or is it just certain points of view you wish to dismiss??
You really should check out the background of the Cable Bay inner circle before making such a judgment.
The project was little more than a ponzi scheme from day one.
Their last similar project in Drayton Alberta whilst toted as a gated community was finished as a trailer park & 9 hole golf course!
Okay, interested citizen, I will walk you through this.
We, taxpayers, hire urban planners to apply their skill and knowledge on our behalf. We pay their salaries, and benefits.
For whatever reason, these planners have decided to work against the interests of us taxpayers and for the benefit of a few developers.
They still represent themselves as working for the city, even though they are in fact working for a small set of developers.
As far as I know these planners are not doing anything illegal, but they are definitely working well beyond an ethical, professional standard.
Now, I am well aware, that not every planning decision favours a developer, and not all decisions that favour a developer are counter to the interests of the community. But, every decision must be argued, fairly, by the people we hire, as to its ability to protect or progress the interests of the whole community.
Remember a developer can hire people to argue for his or her particular interests. If, we taxpayers, do not have people who are willing to do the same on our behalf, then we taxpayers are become nothing more then slaves to someone else’s will.
In the case of Bechin Hill, I agree with the neighbourhood, this plan does not progress or protect the neighbourhood’s interests, and I, personally, don’t believe that this plan protects or progresses the interests of the city as a whole. It only serves the interests of a few developers.
I know this is a bit unfair, because the city’s plan is still in draft stage, and I am one of the few people who has had access to it. I know it is difficult for others to judge the validity of my arguments. However, I am not payed to do this. I am not doing this for the benefit of my health. I am doing this, only because the city is working against the cause of fellow citizens to produce a neighbourhood plan in name only.
Until I am convinced that what city planner’s are planning for Brechin Hill is good for that community, and respects the fact that taxpayers are paying for this, I will maintain my position.
We taxpayers do hire urban planners …. agreed. We then also ELECT officials from amongst our numbers to see that our interests are being protected.
Your statement that:
“For whatever reason, these planners have decided to work against the interests of us taxpayers and for the benefit of a few developers.”
… requires you to offer more than your personal opinion, if it is to be taken as fact and not just the difference of professional opinion.
I would also wonder, if your opinion is based on fact rather than just your opinion, then why are the elected members of council not taking steps to remedy the situation?
I would suggest that you put together a presentation, and take it to a televised city council meeting, then council and the press could no longer claim ignorance, should further investigation prove your opinion.
Playing devil’s advocate, why would I believe that Brechin Hill residents are interested in doing anything but preserving their views, and hence property values? Would the higher density housing along the waterfront, not benefit the whole city by improving the tax base?
If my suggestion were correct, then it is you and the Brechin Hill group that are working counter to the best interests of Nanaimo taxpayers as a whole?
Interested Citizen-We taxpayers do NOT hire the urban planners.All City senior personnel were hired by Jerry Berry with input from his select inner circle.Yes,we pay their salaries and benefits but have ZERO say or influence in what they determine what is best for Nanaimo,whether it is ,or isn’t.
All very feisty and argumentative “Interested Citizen”. Why won’t people on blogs use their real names? Even from inside the fortress of your pseudonym, will you at some point sketch out for this discussion the case you would make in favour of the Cable Bay project, the neighbourhood planning process Dan is addressing, and perhaps examples of where you would say City Hall and the Planning Department put interests other than the short term commercial interests of a developer in the forefront of their decisions? I think a reasonable argument in these areas could be made, even I guess anonymously… I’d genuinely like to hear it. It could lead to better, broader discussion.
Sorry if I am not part of the ‘yes and amen’ crowd usually attracted to your blog.
I have made some valid points as someone seeking the truth. I am not an apologist for Cable Bay, I simply don’t see the point of blocking the project on the basis it hinders development of land within the city not suitable for the same type of development.
As to the opposition of building a swanky, gated community with it’s own golf course and marinas, occupied by Canada’s wealthy. Frankly I just don’t see the downside. Nanaimo’s future it would seem hinges upon attracting people with wealth they have created elsewhere, as God knows, we are doing nothing to generate wealth here.
In fact, any wealth that could be generated developing the waterfront, seems to be opposed by a small group who simply wants to protect their current views of the water, from their own properties.
I have not seen Sunny Dan offer anything to prove that he is not simply disagreeing with another professional’s opinion on how planning should proceed.
Since he is the one making claims of incompetence and corruption, it falls to him to prove his point, not to me to disprove it.
I have yet to hear him make anything approaching a reasonable argument to prove his opinion, is nothing more than ‘his opinion’.
Professionals disagree all the time. Accountants and lawyers would likely head that list, not to mention teachers etc.
Just because one does not agree with the other, it does not follow that one has to be incompetent or corrupt, does it?
It would seem , to me, that a major problem facing development in Nanaimo is it’s inability to attract developers that are well enough financed to carry out their plans.
We have had far too many developers that came here attracted by cheap land & easy money.
The easy money has gone & the cheap land is too expensive to service without the good will of the taxpayer.
Development fees never keep up with actual costs to the taxpayer.
AT this time Nanaimo needs to upgrade it’s water supply .
$75 Million for an updated purification system & $25 million to $75 million to increase the water supply .
As I have said before ;we are broke & have already mortgaged the future it’s time to slow down & re think what we can realistically expect of ourselves & our City.
Poaching from other areas of Canada,for immigration, is not a solution it just moves the problem around.
As far as I know, nobody in Brechin Hill is opposed to developing the waterfront in front of their view as residential. In fact, they are arguing for a continuation of the zoning as established in the OCP. The developers asked for more then that, and the city planners gave it to them. This is not an opinion. I really would like to know why.
If you could tell me, please, go ahead. Open my eyes.
I will be presenting to council when the opportunity arises.
As for my opinion, well, I think I have shown that it is informed. I haven’t been wild in my accusations, but I am alarmed. I’ve become increasingly alarmed, as patterns have emerged since the Conference Centre fiasco(s). I don’t want to revisit the past, largely because the problem in front of me is, by far, the largest I’ve ever faced, but the past does inform me. And I have had enough.
My objective is to change the way we do planning in this city; change it forever, and for good. For now, I have to figure out what is beyond repair, and throw it out, then I have to fix what can be fixed, then I have to replace the stuff I removed with stuff that works better. Actually, all of that has to happen concurrently. I’m doing this because I know I can’t sit around hoping things will get better, especially when all the evidence in front of me suggests things are not getting better.
“The developers asked for more then that, and the city planners gave it to them. This is not an opinion. I really would like to know why.”
When you ask them, what do they say? When you question members of council, what do they say?
Comment:
Making statements that planners and council are incompetent and corrupt on one hand and then saying they are not doing anything illegal, nor can I prove incompetence on the other;
is the kind of ranting that the average citizen simply tunes out. If you have a legitimate case to support your claims which would suggest strongly that planners are being paid off by developers in order to get favourable decisions, then make a reasoned, rationale case and as a citizen present it to the RCMP and ask them to investigate. That is the only way such an issue can be addressed. Obviously no one is going to admit to illegal activity unless they are actually exposed.
On the matter of incompetence, it would be helpful to offer some kind of peer review which would support your opinion, which as I have said before, at this point seems like one professional, disagreeing with another, and not a case of incompetence.
In any case I would suggest, if you wish to truly engage the larger percentage of the eligible voters who for the most part, have tuned out, you need a different approach.
That of course is nothing more than MY opinion which may or may not have merit.
Interested Citizen, I think you have given me some very good advise. Thank you.