Hi @PetePallett and @deasislander101! Thanks for taking an interest in my plight! Let's get down to brass tax:

(For those just jumping in, this is a follow-up to this thread: https://twitter.com/gcosteloe/status/1265062133772910592?s=20)

After further review, I believe Councillor Hardwick's motion is trying to do a lot more than you give it credit for. Takes one to know one, but I’m not on City Council.

Okay para by para of the motion:

https://council.vancouver.ca/20200527/documents/pspc4.pdf

Paras 1-3: Background

Para 4 & 5: Councillor Hardwick bases her number on the population growth over the past 20 years. How is population defined by stats can? I looked it up.

Stats Can defines population as "Canadian citizens or landed immigrants with a usual place of residence in Canada.” (2016 Census Explainer). Essentially, how many people who have a home they live in (own or rent).

Councillor Hardwick is arguing that we should base our housing plan on how many people already have homes and not the demand for them. With vacancy around 1-2% she really isn’t counting people, she is counting stock.

This is a nonsensical way to make decisions. Picture this hypothetical:

“How many shelter beds do we need to adequately shelter the homeless?

Hardwick: “The city has increased shelter beds by 1% per year over the past 20 years. We should increase the beds by 1% going forward”.

It’s pretty clear how misguided this is. The number of beds/housing created each year give no information on the demand for them. If streets are full of ever increasing homelessness, you should think about meeting that demand. If prices are skyrocketing and demand is clearly up.

Para 6: a hand wavy argument about more growth coming from immigration as opposed to domestic and that this will magically decrease because of COVID-19. First, no sources for this so not really worth engaging with it.

Second, assuming it is true, could it be…maybe…that growth in Vancouver largely coming from immigration a result of pricing out most Canadians (not to mention Vancouverites)?

Para 7: Demand patterns may change as a result of COVID-19. This is a fair point!

Para 8: Really says it all – “…high targets will … grant significant amounts of density at low price…” It’s funny how this is phrased like a bad thing. Further, here’s the thing about a free market: it manages supply and demand without the need for oversight.

If the City allowed 1 million units to be built next year, they wouldn’t be because it would oversupply the market. But if you let builders build what the market wants then you don’t have to worry about manually balancing it.

Lastly, I don’t see how increasing density and square footage amounts to a revenue loss to the City. That one maybe someone can explain to me.

So to summarize, Hardwick has some valid concerns about demand changing as a result of COVID-19. Most of the other Whereas clauses seem poorly grounded in reality. But let’s see how these are reflected in the motion’s actual resolutions.

A – “Council directs staff to revisit plan to align with historical census data”. As above, the idea of using the population census data to determine housing plans is bogus.

Further, and more deviously, this resolution sneaks in a cut to the plan through the side door. It’s not even that well hidden but is seemed to sneak by @petepallett. https://twitter.com/PetePallett/status/1265113101759848454?s=20

Resolution A, as written cuts the plan for housing by more than half by tying the target to an irrelevant data point. Defenders of the motion should at least have the decency to acknowledge this and try to argue its merits.

B – “Council direct staff to provide historical information”. This is reasonable but you probably could just…you know…ask them. Do Councillors need a resolution to get this sort of info?

C-“Council direct staff to confirm that targets are an estimate and not a requirement”. The wording is weird here, which sets off my Harvey Spector senses. If a Councilor wants to know how staff are approaching a policy they could just…ask them?

But it isn’t just asking how they interpret it, it is “directing them to confirm”. What this really does is direct them to interpret them a certain way. Importantly, it will only work to lower the planned housing, increase it.

D – “Council directs staff to clarify whether the targets refer to net or gross competions”. Sure sounds good. You could also them in an e-mail.
Note though that if the language used in D was put into C, it would make it much more harmless.

E – Sure
F – Sure

Now, Twitter can be a nasty and non constructive place. So to fix that, I’ve gone ahead and revised the motion so that it meets all of the concerns that Councillor Hardwick has talked about without backdooring in a 50% reduction in housing targets. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yimcox570nxpowk/Amended%20Motion.pdf?dl=0

Looking forward to seeing @CllrHardwick these amendments brought to the floor tomorrow! #yvr #housing

@yvryimby @pwaldkirch @ahvancouver @iamkennethchan @j_mcelroy