Hardwick's motion to lower housing targets is finally up for speakers and then debate and voting. The first speaker says he has received a copy of the motion as amended by Hardwick...

WHICH IS ACTUALLY REALLY MESSED UP.

I specifically asked for it and didn't receive a copy.

Hardwick is proposing a "strike and replace" motion...eventually. So the motion that was publicly distributed is not even going to be up for a vote.

She said she would do this two weeks ago and STILL hasn't made it public.

I really appreciate that the Mayor is bringing this up as an issue. It is essentially anti-democratic.

She is putting forward a motion publicly, getting it seconded, and then planning in advance to strike and replace the entire motion. So the public gets NO NOTICE AT ALL.

But apparently Hardwick's buddies get notice in advance...but the general public doesn't.

THIS

IS

GARBAGE

The Mayor is raising a point of order to have this nonsense, secretive process ruled out of order. GOOD FOR HIM! Thanks @kennedystewart!

This isn't even the first time she did this. When I went to speak to her motion about "authenticating" residents I had to wait two days and many hours to speak. But as soon as it came up for a vote she brought a strike and replace to rewrite the whole thing.

So I wasted hours to speak to a motion that was never actually going to be voted on by council: Hardwick had a rewritten motion ready to go, it was just secret.

This is a deeply disrespectful attitude towards the public by @CllrHardwick . It's governance by closed doors.

The next time Hardwick brings up how important "consultation" is, remember this.

Today: SHE gets consulted. HER BUDDIES get notice.

But not you, and not me. The rest of us are in the dark.

If you follow me on twitter you probably know I think the obsession with "consultation" is a big problem in local politics. It's the rallying cry of the delayers and the obstructionists.

But democracy demands notice.

These housing targets are important. And Hardwick is trying to fiddle with how staff do this in secrecy, behind closed doors, without even giving the public the SLIGHTEST CHANCE to even look at what she's trying to do.

This is a disdainful, anti-democratic way of governing.

When this motion 1st came up 2 wks ago Hardwick said she would rewrite the motion and put it up on her Facebook. Here is the letter I wrote to council about it then. Note that I specifically asked for the revised motion.

Some apparently got a copy, but I didn't. Who decides?

The motionn was ruled in order, as I understd on basis that the secret rewrite isn't actually before council yet. However, Chair Carr cautioned the speaker to speak to the motion as it was made public through due process; it is not due process to speak to a non-public version.

Write Motion A with lots of garbage, and Motion B with slightly less garbage.

Submit A through due process, give public notice.

Let public waste time arguing about A.

At the very last minute, with literally no notice to public, replace A with B.

Is this proper governance?

Again, yay to the Mayor for bringing up the rental vacancy rate. That is the sort of metric we should be looking at when we're considering how much housing we should allow to be built.

(And wow talking about "allowing" housing to be built really bums me out.)

Carr is now letting speakers supporting Hardwick's motion to go much over their time. It was so bad the clerk had to intervene.

lol the current speaker identifies these as the root causes of the housing supply: restricted land supply (aka if only we could sprawl moar); building skytrains (???); overseas money, some illegal and from communist countries; and taxes.

He mentioned he's owned his Vancouver home for 20+ years (maybe 30+?) so I'm guessing he's made over $1M+ of tax free gains just by sitting on land. Probably also hasn't had to compete for a rental place anytime recently!

ah now he's just going on about how terrible towers are

so

yeah.

"Not just communist oligarchs -- working families should be able to own a cottage with garden lot in Vancouver."

Remember: there just isn't enough land in Vancouver for every household to own a home. For this to happen we would have to reduce the population by like 2/3rds.

Is this a good time to bring up that the motion that Hardwick intends to put before council and be voted on starting in just a few minutes is still secret and hasn't been made public? #vanpoli

Sorry I'm not a happy Pete so I'm hurrying and misspoke: there is ABSOLUTELY PLENTY OF ROOM for everyone in Vancouver to have a home. PLENTY.

There is NOT enough room for everyone to have a *detached house*, because of how extremely inefficient those are. https://twitter.com/pwaldkirch/status/1265792238254088192

Current speaker is Andy Yan. The Mayor asked him: "Do you think we have too much darn housing in Vancouver?"

Yan's answer: "Who are we trying to house?"

Me, I'm extremely sceptical of people who think they get to decide who deserves to live here and who doesn't.

By not building sufficient housing we're acting like gatekeepers, saying only some get to live here (and when there's a housing shortage those "some" = the wealthiest).

I am extremely suspicious of self-appointed gatekeepers to our city.

The Mayor then asked Yan who he thinks will build housing for families that make less than $50k.

Yan had no substantive answer at all. "That's one of the big questions going forward" was about it.

How now Kirby-Yung completely mischaracterized the Mayor's question and was rebuked by the chair.

Ok, we're back after a break...and we start with Hardwick trying to "strike and replace" her motion. With something that hasn't been made public through the normal process.

The Mayor is requesting for a ruling as to whether the strike and replace motion is in order.

Chair Carr says: it's the same item as originally posted; "we all understood there would be a change"; "I do believe public notice was given for the motion on the floor";

"I sympathize with point of view that intended strike and replace review motion that is forwarded to only certain members of the public..."

I'm cautioning councilors that that is not good process."

"More than that, cautioning councilors to do the thorough review before you submit your motions, so the necessity for extensive changes is minimized. That's good process."

"If the change in any way, I thought, was contradictory to the original intent of the motion...

"I would rule it out of order. However, I have examined [both versions], and I find that the language in that is consistent with the intent, subject matter, and what is called for in the motion. Specifically, the subject matter is that it deals with the Vancouver Housing Stratgy"

etc etc etc
so it's in order according to Councilor Carr (who is the chair)

So this is fine in Vancouver apparently https://twitter.com/pwaldkirch/status/1265781735574261761

Now Cr Boyle is speaking abt difficulty of dealing w/ profound rewrites of a member's own motion. "This doesn't feel like a good democratic process at all to me."

"I'm very frustrated about this process."

Thanks Cr Boyle! I'm glad some cnclrs seem to care about public notice.

Here's the public notice btw

this is it. Hardwick's motion. For the first time seeing public light.

This it everything the public knows about the motion council is about to vote on (except for Hardwick's FB page apparently).

That's not the full motion either -- just the part that happened to be put up on the screen. Hardly real notice.

This is an anti-democratic, opaque process. From a councilor who has built a career on demanding more consultation, this is a real slap in the face to the public.

https://twitter.com/TomDavidoff/status/1265833291166302210

Bligh (I think? sorry it's hard just over audio) is saying she appreciates the process concerns, but strike and replace amendments happen.

With respect, this misses the point. Of course amendments -- even complete rewrites -- are a part of normal procedure.

But this isn't that

What is NOT normal procedure is for a councilor to put forward a motion and then sit for weeks on their own completely rewritten version, provide that only to select persons, and then put that rewritten version forward at the very last minute.

That shows disdain for the public.

Ok now we're descending into the usual Vancouver Council Chaos (TM). One part of the motion was ruled out of order (it would have required disclosure of rezoning inquiries I think? Which can't be legally done), and apparently that might render the entire motion out of order.

Who knows though the public can't see the text of the motion or what council is actually considering so it's a MYSTERY

Chair Carr comes back with her ruling: the section that was ruled out of order was discrete and can be easily severed, so the rest of the motion stands. I don't know if we're talking about the whole motion or just an amendment. Who knows.

Council just went through a stretch where several people were talking over each other (mainly MDG) so order is on the verge of completely breaking down again

So now someone is challenging the ruling of the chair (but I'm not sure which one? that part of the motion or amendment to the motion was out of order, or that all of it wasn't?)

MDG is really gumming up the works and talking over people and not letting business proceed now. :(

Yeah, this meeting is going off the rails yet again.

errr sorry haha didn't notice the "ignore the scientists" part of that gif, that's not really relevant to anything. I SHOT FROM THE HIP OK

Chair Carr is confirming for MDG's benefit that a challenge to the ruling of a chair is not a point of order. HUZZAH!

Now Cr Dominato is saying she is also confused and is asking Carr to recap her decision to Boyle's point of order to Swanson's clause in the motion and I'm glad I'm not the only one who has totally lost what is going on.

Ok so...Carr says we are back to the motion that has been "largely amended by Cr Hardwick herself".

MDG has the floor is having a moment of sadness. Saying nothing she does matters? And that we're still waiting for speakers for motions that "are not my own"? I don't know.

HERE'S THE MOTION!

they're about to vote though so READ QUICK if you have any comments for councilors!

Alright, MDG is talking about how she thinks the targets might be revised upwards and she'd support that, so that's good at least. She'll support the revised motion.

Wiebe is asking to refer this to the next standing committee meeting. That would at least let the public have some notice of Hardwick's motion.

That's one of the things that bugs me about this. Hardwick first mentioned that she would rewrite this motion two weeks ago.

If she had just withdrawn the motion, then gave notice of the rewritten version, it would only have been delayed by a couple of weeks at MOST from today.

We're in the middle of a pandemic. What's the urgency with this motion?! Why was it worth using this opaque process?!

I really appreciate Wiebe talking about how he has some questions about this motion and the effects it would have; he needs more information. The process, he says, has been a problem, and is causing speakers for the next motions to have to waste time.

Cr Boyle had a question for staff: we heard earlier this motion would pull staff away from other work. Knowing our financial situation, knowing we can't do everything at once, what work would get delayed to do this?

Staff: We also just got the revised motion tonight who knows

Yep, this motion wasn't reviewed. Surprise! It just dumps a substantial amount of work on staff with a short (July) deadline.

Think about that.

Hardwick likes to position herself as a responsible steward of finances. But this nonsense, opaque process is anything but.

I can't get over that. Staff were clear: it will cause other work to be postponed; but we can't say how much or for how long, because this was sprung on us without review, we don't even know what's in it.

Profoundly irresponsible governance by Hardwick and anyone who supports it

Lawyers like to say that "trial by ambush" is discouraged.

The same principle applies to governing a city the size of Vancouver. I wish this council appreciated that.

Hardwick is now directly contradicting what the city manager just said -- she says this motion would not require any new work. The suggestion that it would require new work "is inaccurate".

But...they said they haven't even seen the rewritten motion?! How can she say that?

Now Wiebe is sick of the whole thing so he is just going to support it and not try to refer it.

But in saying that he repeated Hardwick's line that it won't require any new work. But...that's not what staff said. They said they haven't seen it before just now and don't know.

Ok, Hardwick's rewrite passed, with the Mayor and Cr Boyle abstaining. So the motion has now been rewritten, but not voted on yet.

Now they're going through the many speakers that have been waiting all day (or since 1:30 pm or so in my experience) to speak to the other business.

bUT ThE PRoBLem wItH HeArINGs is wE dON't VEriFY wHEre SPeAkErS LiVe!!!

meanwhile, public speakers listening to this circus, waiting to make their comments:

Swanson will vote for the motion as she's "taking Hardwick's word that staff says this isn't a big deal". Why not...listen to what staff actually said about the motion? That they can't say what work would be put off because they haven't seen it before now?

Ok, after about 2.5 hours of debate on this very productive and useful motion, the question gets called.

The motion passes with the Mayor and Cr Boyle abstaining.

There's plenty of other business on the agenda tonight, but I think I'm done. Another discouraging day at council.

I lied, one more tweet.

We know for sure now that when most councilors go on about "consultation", they don't really mean it. It's selective.

This was a secretive, opaque process. A councilor put forward a motion, then weeks before it came up for debate entirely rewrote it.

That councilor then shared that rewrite selectively. The public never saw it.

This is not the same as the usual amendments that happen after speakers and debate.

Every councilor who gave this process their stamp of approval should really think about whether this is acceptable.