We're back soon for xouncil's public hearing on rental homes at Broadway & Alma.

On the one side we have:

Transit oriented!
Badly needed rental homes!
20% below market!
Zero displacement!

On the other hand we have:

Keeping West Side NIMBYs happy

Let's see what council does!

The meeting started yesterday but unsurprisingly council did not get through its business so here we are, having a public hearing at 3 pm on a weekday. https://twitter.com/pwaldkirch/status/1321256934977138688

Some insight re Carr's "right to sunlight" nonsense from last night: https://twitter.com/andreareimer/status/1321570277843628032

How many different zones are there in this one 4 block square area??!! We have built kludge upon kludge, most motivated by a desire to create ever-increasing property values for incumbent homeowners, and call it "planning".

Some info from staff. The renting vs ownership slide is interesting. The jobs angle is pretty new to staff presentations too I think -- trying to appeal to the NPA I'd guess?

Here are some examples of who could afford to live in this building. (Fry, Swanson, Carr, every bad-faith NIMBY I spoke to at the open house: boooooo!! Get outta here!!)

Staff are also now saying that their analysis of the pro forma shows no land lift with this application.

Staff say ppl at the open house were generally opposed (I was there and I supported, and I know other supporters were there too -- guess we don't count). Main concern: height. Staff have taken those concerns into account in reviewing the process: increased setbacks. NIMBY victory

"contextual fit" etc etc "increased neighbourliness" etc etc

We spend sooo much public time and money mollifying opponents, and it's a total waste. I would bet these changes didn't change a single local homeowner opponent from a "no" to a "yes".

Staff wrap up, applicant waives their presentation. Hardwick has questions of course: "heard no mention here of previous 6 storey application. What happened to that?"

Applicant: submitted 6 floor app in 2016. In 2017 MIRHPP was introduced. Rapid transit funding.

Hardwick: did staff come to you with MIRHPP?

App: site met criteria so we felt it was good fit for MIRHPP.

Sounds to me like MIRHPP is doing just what it was designed to do: encourage more affordability and below market homes!

This could have been 6 floors of pure market rents...or, this building, with 32 moderate income below market homes w/ vacancy control. Which is better? I say the one with below market homes!

Wiebe had some questions about trees, massing, etc.

SKY is up, asking about why not moving forward w/ 6 floors, changes to satisfy neighbour complaints re shading and massing, etc. Disappointed they waived their presentation, she wants more visuals.

I hate this process

Fry is up. Wants to know about them seeking fed funding if application approved. App explains current levels of proposed MIRHPP affordability relies on BC Housing financing. Mayor then explains that current federal funding is all used up, so applications paused at federal level.

Swanson: got a letter from neighbour who says devs use multiple pro-formas, one of the bank, one for the city, etc. Asking dev if they do that. Applicant says only one pro forma.

Swanson: why financing from BC housing rather than bank?

App: lower interest rate than available from commercial lenders, need that to achieve affordability.

Swanson: so that lets you have one more affordable unit?

App: no necessary for whole project, not viable otherwise

Swanson did an "ooHhh" when they confirmed they were expecting BC Housing financing, not sure if it was good or bad.

Carr: storey used to be 10 feet. Somehow that changed. Why so no longer we think of 10 feet per storey? (Great Green priority btw!)

Carr, on to her next question: "Neighbourhood fit. Does neighbourhood fit include height and density of the building?"

The answer brings in the "future policy context" and the Skytrain that is expected to be there one day. Doubt the status quo duo of Carr and Hardwick like that.

The Mayor is up with Q for applicant: pets?

App: yes pet friendly

(hooray!)

MDG: does this meet BC Housing affordability criteria?

App: yes meets and exceeds

MDG: something about CACs

App: ...please repeat the question?

Hardwick round 2: "Did someone say CACs don't increase housing costs?!"

Mayor: uhh is that a question?

MDG: I heard the opposite

Hardwick: oh.

Hardwick: what about West Point Grey vision?

Staff: that doesn't achieve affordability, this project brought under MIRHPP.

Hardwick: want to establish hierarchy.
...wow she really went off on staff there asking a weird and aggressive leading question to staff

Hardwick was trying to get staff to admit that the building does not comply with MIRHPP because it is too tall and does not "transition" to neighbourhood. Staff pushed back but Hardwick is...wow now she's talkign over staff, really not being great with staff imo

Ok public speakers are starting. First speaker is opponent. Doesn't believe MIRHPP being met. West Broadway "not an arterial, turns at Alma and becomes residential". Mirroring Hardwick, these homes do not "transition". "no commercial areas to north or west."

Too high. Parking (as in NOT ENUFF). "Undisclosed liberties taken with this building". Relaxation of commercial parking spaces. People are "disgusted". "Obviously you intend to outlaw automobiles."

Pretty typical example of how for housing opponents cars > people & homes

"I don't know anyone who was consulted about any of these policies, all sleight-of-hand".

Could have built "normal sized affordable units with adequate parking...had all the stakeholders been consulted"

He used up his 5 minutes and gets cut off.

He passes it over to his wife. "Am I up??" She's strongly opposed. "Lived in Kits for over 30 years". "I love this neighbourhood". "Proposed development...does not fit in", not just old but new. "I still look upon this as 17 storeys even though they say 14"

"disrespectful" "environmental and ecological footprint" (this is transit oriented! someday it will be right by a skytrain station! This is the sort of destructive attitude that creates sprawl.)

"impact existing views"

"I really feel this building is not going to fit in."

"lotta housing in burnaby. how much housing do we really need?"

but then goes on to say she supports rental housing for students.

god this whole process is so broken

Speaker 3: "I've been a Vancouver resident for over 30 years" which is usually a bad sign BUT...HE'S A SUPPORTER! YAY!

Notes decline of area. Stagnating. Not making use of intersection to stimulate local economy & beautiful area. Opposition based in anti-change rhetoric.

Speaker: can relate. large project went up next to my home in fairview. was apprehensive. But grew to recognize need for it. We need more density, including in West Side. This is close to major transit, reduce car dependency, close to shops.

Speaker: Vancouverites need to be more "future oriented", talks about his daughter and struggles to find housing. People her age moving as far away as Pitt Meadows. MIRHPP helps, need to weigh benefits rather than just dismissing based on height.

love this guy!

Speaker 4: nearby resident, supports. Rare to see rental bldg like this. Tired of seeing shops close along Bway and 10th. More people will add vibrancy to neighbourhood. Wants to revitalize n'hood, it needs it.

Speaker works for company that owns nearby rental building, has essentially 0% vacancy rate. Colleagues and friends and even his kid's school called him to ask for help finding rental homes, but he can't, it just doesn't exist.

Incredibly difficult to make numbers work for rentals, esp when 20% below market. The financial engineering to make this work more difficult than the structural engineering.

Parking at their rental bldg's is underused.

Carr has a Q: would you consider this if approved to change future building heights? is it precedent setting?

Why ask this rando jeez

He agrees, suggests she ask staff. Does say most people don't notice diff b/w 10 - 15 floors. Impressed by this project's affordability

Next speaker (frequent anti-housing advocate) withdrew. Speaker after that is a local small business owner who is really excited by project, sadly his phone connection is bad and it's hard to hear him.

Says has hopes for Vancouver, wants it to be inclusive, give place to young people. But his connection is lost, they'll try to come back to him.

And hey @LesliBoldt is up to show her support!! Hooray!

Says necessary and valuable to Kits and West Point Grey.

Cont: standing at that B-Line stop you'd never know it was a major transit hub, given lack of pedestrians and activity. Lots of cars pass through but area needs revitalization to attract foot area. Needs energy and stimulus.

Also responds to pressing issue in city: shortage of affordable rental housing. provides many rental homes incl secured moderate. Working Vancouverites in 20 - 40 age range need homes here too. First responders, teachers, chefs, hospitality staff -- can't let them vacate city

Knows some local residents like the low density, like the detached houses. Energy of young working people will bring energy to community.

Great speech!!!

And the next speaker is another supporter! Great stuff. Says becoming a parent changed her perspective on need for more housing in city. This bldg has family friendly amenities, great public transit, let working families move around while reducing carbon footprint.

Unfortunate trend of young people leaving city b/c no longer in reach for them to stay here and live here. This is thoughtful contribution to solution.

Hooray!

Ok, next speaker says we're being "deceived" about purpose of building w this "affordability" talk. sigh. one of those.

Ah and there we go: "doesn't fit residential characteristic". What make WPG are "smaller homes" with "views of the mountains". This isn't "residential"

Ok, I missed a bit while I switched from the stream to the phone line, and we're back to a supporter, yay! (Maybe guy who was cut off before?) Talking about need for Vancouverites to welcome new neighbours. "Ask yourself what's best for the kids, because hope is all we have"

Next: a n'bour who personally supports, but all his n'bours oppose, so wants council to reject. Why? "Too high."

Current zoning for 6 floors. Lots and lots of rental supply coming (narrator: it's not). "Too many liberties" by applicant -- guessing that's a CoVN talking point?

One more speaker before dinner break: @DowntownCharles, a great supporter of housing in Vancouver!

MIRHPP addresses crucial segment of housing spectrum. Moderate income earners need homes or they leave. Employers are struggling to hire, workforce priced out of housing market.

Good quality housing for workers/families needed close to employment areas. City falling short of housing strat targets (ha Hardwick will hate that). Need to close gap on housing targets. This is great location. B'way a well connected transit corridor to downtown and other jobs.

And on that high note, that's the dinner break. Back at 6 pm. Speaker 13 is first up when we get back, there's still a looong way to go before council votes on this. I'm speaker 33 and I'd bet there are lots after me...

Ok, we're back! I missed the first bit but came in to a supporter. Has two kids, looking for 3 bedroom place on West Side, had "hefty rental budget", still struggled, went through illegal suites, ended up finding a place when a friend moved.

(I'm putting together some dinner so I'm not listening closely sorry)

But the next speaker is another supporter, we're doing great Vancouver, outnumbering the NIMBYs so far!

Next, another supporter! Huzzah! This speaker lives a couple of blocks from the site.

hardwick asks whether this supporter works in property dev. She next treats opponents of housing this way.

Thankfully we get to wash that nasty taste down with another supporter!

Hardwick: "you described the building as 'well-considered'. Do you work in design to have a sophisticated understanding..."

A: Yes but not for anything related to this project

So next speaker is a c-c-c-combo breaker and is opposing these homes because it's TOO BIG.

He says something about how MIRHPPs only belong when they're on an arterial in all four directions?!! Know your place, renters and moderate income earners!!

Nice thanks @MelissaDeGenova for asking that opponent whether he worked in prop dev industry. Hardwick's habit of singling out supporters of housing for aggressive questioning is totally unwarranted. Might I suggest though you ask whether they rent out a secondary suite?

heheh this speaker brings up Hardwick's questioning of housing supporters too. The Mayor reminds people that public speakers don't need to answer questions from councilors.

It was a great speech from a supporter!

After that a few people weren't on the line, and then there's an opponent. You got it:

NOT ENUFF PARKING

Too tall etc

This opponent keeps on calling the policy "MIRF". I don't expect people to be intimately familiar with obscure zoning and housing policy stuff but that still tickles my fancy.

Ugh this speaker is I think the one man show behind my so-called neighbourhood group.

Yeah, my "neighbourhood association" and the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods are...not very open. https://twitter.com/pwaldkirch/status/1199054282101649408

He's saying the way to achieve affordability is the "lowest building cost possible" and yeah construction cost is important and I'm no expert but it's one input, and my understanding is the structural stuff costs more or less the same regardless of "luxury" of the building.

sigh another opponent, we're deep into NIMBY land now.

Height, mass, "directly incompatible" with neighbourhood, with "square shape" feels "disassociated" with neighbourhood and city, no "offsetting grace notes, it broods"

Need buildings that "celebrate" neighbourhood, not destroy it. Why propose buildings that will leave "bad feelings". Keep in mind that we've heard from several supporters who live very close -- this is all just code for "give me a total veto".

Ah next is @JordanRossMedia ! His family lives around here, but doesn't think it's a good thing that local ties is some sort of requirement to speak to council about housing (I agree!). He's talking about the racist history of mansion zoning.

Same speaker is saying he would have loved to stay in area, but no options, so has moved to East Van. Lucky to be able to afford market rents there. (This is a great example of how when a n'hood refuses to build new housing...it exports demand to other parts of the city.)

I don't actually know if that was the same @JordanRossMedia actually I just assumed...hope I was right!

Ahhh David Fine is up hahahahahahaha this should be fun

Talking about his "activism in housing" which is...ok. I'll leave that to you to mull over.

Says opposition not about NIMBYism, it's about civic democracy or some such. Saying supporters today associated with dev industry (picking up what Hardwick is leaving down).

"grossly overwhelming" should be "more sympathetic" "wider plan for area" etc

Next up, another local resident. Speaking about extremely low rental vacancy rate; units almost impossible to find; so supports! Need to balance concerns of density w/ benefits to community.

Continuign to talk about how difficult it is for employers to find staff, particularly support staff, "the engine of our economy". Employers needing to look for employees from farther and farther away, but people also don't want to live w/ long commutes.

But long commutes also suck (my words not hers just paraphrasing), so we end up with people leaving jobs after short periods of time. High turnover. Driving essential workers out of the city.

This is *really important*! People who work here should be able to afford to live here!

Her neighbour's hairdresser shouldn't have to commute from Langley. Not sustainable.

Really great to hear!

Here are my speaking notes in case you're curious. I strayed a bit too far off topic with the basement suite stuff so the Mayor had to redirect me back to being on topic I knew I was probably pushing it but Carr's "right to sunlight" stuff was too ridiculous to not comment on!

Anyways the next spkr also complaining that 1 side of the building isn't on an arterial, GOD FORBID. I dunno now she's talking about a garden providing mitigation for shadowing in three directions or something? Ah rationalizing how a nearby 12 floor building is ok but this isn't

Hardwick is in a lengthy exchange with this opponent -- as I gather, the speaker says students would live in the MIRHPP units, which is unacceptable (?). Lots of basement suites, so "below market housing" available (??!!!).

Hardwick now asks this public speaker for the "hierarchy of plans" -- this seems like her latest catch phrase.

Anyways, next speaker is a Vancouver renter who supports! Notes that moderate income renters who would live here will compete with lower income renters.

Need to do everything we can to prevent someone from becoming unhoused. Homes like this also critical for climate response.

If you consider climate emergency to be a priority, must vote for this. (That seems like a direct challenge to Carr and Fry, alleged Greens who routinely vote against multifamily housing and density.)

Really great speech!

Next up: "I'm torn with continual spot rezonings". I agree! Spot rezonings favour large devs and create pressure to maximize use as much as possible, instead of allowing broad and organic med density growth. Let's upzone the whole city!!

oh that's not what she means

This speaker brings up up COVID. Will bring permanent changes; people can choose to live away from Vancouver now (as if that's a good thing! NIMBYism does weird things to people. Once upon a time people took pride in their city and wanted to see it grow and succeed!)

She continues: UBC Students don't need to return. What is difference in taking economics or psychology in person instead of virtually??

this is positively misanthropic

There was an opponent who spoke very breifly but now up is a student who is specifically pushing back on this idea, and how badly her and her friends want to return to class! She's pointing out how Vancouverites are spending huge amounts of money to live in dens, living rooms...

She's knocking it out of the parks, bringing a lot of great facts and analysis. Urging council to build up, instead of out -- more density, less sprawl. Building density is better for transit, reduces pressure on existing housing.

She commutes through here 40 minutes each way every day, can't find affordable housing. Notices empty stores. She has personally struggled to find affordable housing, this project gives her hope.

Compared to this, next speaker talks of "oppressive design".

This opponent is AGAIN bringing up how not all the streets are arterials! This seems to be a new thing: it's not enough for multifamily housing to be on an arterial, it must be surrounded on all 4 sides by arterials!

This opponent is talking about the subway as a person who obviously never uses the subway. Using Sen̓áḵw as an excuse to not build this project -- Sen̓áḵw can provide the homes for lower income workers, she says. Giving away too much to developers, "huge increases in density"

She continues: shouldn't let market rentals subsidize below-market rentals, since market rentals require their own subsidies. Should be subsidized by condos.

Hardwick asks this speaker to elaborate on failure to meet MIRHPP. "Not at intersection of 2 arterials as set out in MIRHPP guidelines?".

Speaker answers: this part of West Broadway NOT an arterial street, it is a "residential street".

this whole way of thinking frustrates me

Another opponent is next. "Another instance of the eye-blinkered, Vision Vancouver approach to increasing density." Council needs to show more respect to "diverse neighbourhood identities". "Jump the gun on possible future transit station".

"Unsympathetic to surrounding n'hood" -- based on her comments, I'd say it's her neighbourhood that is unsympathetic.

Haha now she's citing Dominato's missing middle motion, which...Dominato herself turfed

There is a direct relationship b/w banning missing middle (townhomes, lowrises, etc) almost everywhere, and big towers going up in the few places multifamily housing is tolerated. The Green and NPA failure to see that relationship is a really profound failure of leadership.

Not just a failure of the current Greens and NPA, of course, it's taken decades of deep planning failure to get us into this mess.

Anyways this speaker is "appalled".

Next: "imposingly ill-suited"! That's a fun turn of phrase. If only it wasn't being deployed to deny homes to neighbours.

"It will dwarf everything in the n'hood. Just no way to transition" this. It will "pardon the pun, tower over...the one anomolous structure nearby..."

Impairing "stunning ocean views". Tall buildings belong on high ground, with lower buildings downslope from there.

Hardwick: "very impressed by your commentary". Wants her written comments. HAHAH speaker says she already sent it in twice.

Next up: opposition from a retired architect, noting his many achievements (Concord Pacific Place & Coal Harbour, 2 terms on Urban Design Panel -- claims to have "introduced laneway housing" concept...ok...).

Basically it's all just "this is toooooooo big".

"Precedent of density well in excess of Coal Harbour, Oakridge, the Jericho Lands..." "Will open the floodgates" to any development anywhere, will "destroy Vancouver".

I think people leaving the city b/c they can't afford to live here is what IS destroying the city but

Hardwick asks him if he's familiar with MIRHPP. He says he read the report for this project, but that's it. So no, he's not familiar with MIRHPP.

Hardwick asks him about his experience with "rental products". He says 6 floors "pushes the edge" seems to say that should be max

He says should ask every development in the city to provide 20% affordable housing, but then qualifies that w/ "of any consequence". So conveniently detached houses (which is the only thing we allow to be built on 81% of our residential land) would presumably be exempt.

Think about the implications of that. Detached houses are the most expensive, luxurious, inefficient housing there is. In most of the city it constitutes straight-up mansion-only zoning.

So it's saying, let the richest in our society off the hook for contributing to affordable housing! Only newcomers moving into multifam housing need to contribute!

Totally regressive, totally elitist; the logic of aristocracy. And alarmingly, Swanson seems to be falling for it.

You're not missing much. This speaker brought up "canyon walls". Noted herself that the height of the building has been discussed "ad nauseum" (she's right!) but then...talks about its height.

Getting into storey-trutherism, which I've noticed comes up a lot at these things. People arguing how many floors the building ACTUALLY is.

Anyways, pretty typical stuff. View corridors, the non-below-market units will have too high rents, goes over time and gets cut off.

. @Scott_dLB is up! Talks about how this project particularly interests him, 1st open house he went to was for this in 2017. But absurd that 3 years later city still arguing over what to do here. Since then moved twice, struggled to find rental home.

Scott cont: extremely low vacancy rate. We could talk about the hypothetical perfect project, people can't live in hypothetical homes. They can live in the 193 homes being talked about tonight. Helps w/ housing goals, but also climate goals.

Scott cont: increased residents will help grow the community, support businesses, promote walkability. What kind of city is Vancouver going to be? Does my generation have a home in Vancouver?

cont: Unlike a lot of previous speakers wasn't around to buy into West Side when it was more affordable (zing!!). Over life of bldg 1000s will be able to call this neighbourhood in Vancouver home. They'll add to the community. Vote against this building vote against those people.

Great job from @Scott_dLB !

He's followed up by Larry Benge from the @CoalitionVan , opposing. Sounds to me like he's getting close to mocking previous speakers who are concerned about not being able to live in Vancouver.

The @CoalitionVan really bothers me. He said "we oppose this". Last time I checked, they continue to list my closed-door neighbourhood group as part of their coalition. Said they would talk to me about why, but never did. https://twitter.com/pwaldkirch/status/1224442491060908034

And it's not the only defunct group that the @CoalitionVan lists as a "coalition member".

How many people do they actually represent?

Wiebe has a question for Benge. We heard from BIA and others, this project helps viability of commercial street. YOu're speaking on behalf of n'hood ass'n. What do you say to that, bringing in new families and taxpayers?

B: several opportunities here besides this site

Yeah it's basically just should spread more density around. "Too much time spent on single site". I agree!!!! But the solution is broad, city wide upzoning.

Wiebe: do you think we need to stop current policies and processes till master planning done?

Benge: some affordability can be delivered in existing zoning. serious problems w MIRHPP. Should we stop? ummm. interesting to consider at the least. a moratorium on spot rezonings

Benge cont: Vancouver plan process gets longer all the time. City growing through spot rezonings. Not the right way to do it. (So, yeah, he's basically saying just stop all new housing really, for an indeterminate amount of years.)

Wiebe thanks him for talking to so many people in the community, but...did we? Who does the CoVN actually represent?

Carr's up next, talking with Benge about need for more planning. "So how would you do it?" To get us to point where ppl not just in n'hood but city wide agree

The Mayor has to intervene to say we need to stick to this building. Benge: get groups together in each n'hood, educate them on needs, resources of n'hood, get them to point they can model n'hood, including this site and surrounding maybe 3 - 4 blocks

so yeah turn the city into a bunch of mini-fiefdoms.

They chat about the community vision, ends with her asking him to keep on looking into it. He offers to forward it to her specifically, but she has to remind him to do it after the vote since this is a public hearing.

Not sure what specifically they were talking about, it was deep into neighbourhood association chat territory. He says he'll send it to them all "through the usual channels".

sigh

Anyways next up another opponent. MIRHPP, loss of revenue to city,

Saying city should build affordable housing on city owned land. I mean I agree, but recall that just yesterday staff explained there basically is zero available city owned land on West Side. So "city owned land only" is really "East Side" only.

The inspiring @yvryimby is up! This will provide homes for 163 households that won't compete with other renters across the city. For renters like him, every tenant here is one less he needs to compete with to keep his home.

Cont: went to open house for this project. Spoke to an opponent. Asked why he was opposed to being his neighbour; said you're welcome, "just as soon as you have found a way to earn $300k a year." He was very clear: people who could only afford an apt, people like me, not welcome.

Cont: I spend time in city archives. Can see people fighting basement suites, fighting apartments, fighting housing for decades. This building won't solve that, but it's a start.

Cont: West Point Grey has lowest tenant density in city. If we're going to pick anywhere to build over next 100 years, it should be here.

When we talk about equitable distribution of housing, need to keep in mind WPG successful in excluding new homes for generations.

Cont: surrounded by expensive detached houses and heritage homes with no affordability requirement. Why don't we put affordability requirement that 20% of house must be affordable?

Really great stuff from @yvryimby as always!!

MDG had some questions for him, now Swanson is up. Asking him about dev getting a DCL waiver, "a whole bunch of extra floors, and gov't financing". (Yikes seems like that WAS a negative for her after all.)

. @yvryimby suggests we should be looking to property taxes -- whatever dev is getting is peanuts compared to what nearby landowners have got, and that's tax free.

Good stuff!

Elizabeth Murphy, landlord is...missing her spot.

That gets us to @OwenInVan to show his support! Notes a 13 storey building nearby built 50 years ago. "Guess it's not a big deal, since we haven't heard anything about it tonight!"

Owen cont: Since that building was built Vancouver grown by 50%. If 13 floors, 50 years ago, 2 blocks off B'way was ok, then 14 floors, on Broadway, should be ok today. (It really is amazing how much more willing to build housing we used to be!)

Owen cont: close to parks, schools, beach. Tenants don't deserve to be exposed to 4 directions of the busiest traffic the West Side have to offer. Having a quiet side is a feature, not a bug.

Council should set sights on where 19 projects like this should go next year, then again the year after that. That's where your focus should be. Can't wait till 2024 to make recommendations to make plans etc (he was quoting from the latest report on Vancouver plan, it's bad!).

. @DannyOleksiuk is here to lay some truth bombs on council. Listening to homeowners complain about this building's affordability. "Are we supposed to pretend we don't know what their properties are worth? Are you supposed to pretend"?!!

This is great I can't do it justice.

Danny is not holding back.

He's attacking the systematic structural biases that have generated tremendous wealth for detached home owners. How we spend hour after hour with these elaborate processes scrutinizing 163 rental homes, while million $ houses avoid all scrutiny.

I really liked Danny's speech. I think he said some things this council really needed to hear. Will they listen? I don't know. I hope so. I hope councilors like Swanson and Fry really /listen/ and think deeply about their role in upholding an unjust status quo.

The next speaker indulges in some personal attacks and conspiracy-theorizing about supporters of the building. He goes over time and is cut off. Wiebe asks him about the original 6 floor proposal (no MIRHPP units) vs this one. Speaker rambles.

Wiebe asks: so you'd rather us have the 6 floor bldg w/ no affordable homes?

Answer: I am reluctant to write down the guy's answer because it seemed totally incomprehensible to me? I don't know. I think he thinks the 6 floor building would be cheaper, which is not true?

Wiebe's questions were pretty good haha

Ok, update on speakers...yikes we're up to a total of 65, we're on 58 now.

For a 14 floor apt on a major transit route, right by future subway, in a city with a desperate rental housing shortage.

This next speaker is almost tragically lacking in self awareness. Doesn't like being characterized as a NIMBY, but then talks about how yes her house has gone up a lot in value, but it's not something she did, it just "happened" to her.

Opponent cont: Her and her friends not wealthy, just paper wealth, doesn't translate into extravagant lifestyle, "or whatever".

Friends, neighbours, detractors, I put it to you: if you own a multimillion dollar asset, cash or not, life is different than if you don't.

Oh the joys of local meetings, the next guy's line got turned on suddenly I guess and cut to him just as he was saying "whaaaatt??" to someone haha

Anyways he opposes, cost, congestion, not sustainable development. A professor of biology at UBC.

If you're opposing a 14 floor building on an super busy bus line next to a future subway line on "sustainability grounds" because it's TOO SMALL you're failing badly.

Wonder what his students think of him opposing these homes.

Ah he says they all live on campus now. "It's a boom industry." Funny, some opponents early said UBC wasn't doing anything to build student housing. Guess it depends how you've rationalized you're opposition to new homes in your own neighbourhood.

Anyways Wiebe has questions. Opponent is saying 4 - 6 floors is ok for Broadway. Wonder if he cares that 4 - 6 floor apartments are banned in at least 80% of Vancouver residential land.

He's encouraging walking up stairs, good excercise. (Accessibility not a concern I guess)

Thankfully a supporter is up next. Talking about her experiences as a student, spending time around here. She was lucky -- lived in Fairview. But many of her friends lived far, far way, had very long commutes.

Supporter cont: understand this n'hood hasn't had a building like this in a long time, but that's benefit of MIRHPP: allows things like this.

Uh oh. Hardwick has q: "what prompted you to speak tonight?" Never asks that to opponents to new housing!

The speaker talks about her experiences in area, connection to it, exciting to see growth here, this will be a great addition to neighbourhood, brighten up retail here.

Hardwick: have you ever spoken before to one of these projects?

Speaker: what do you mean "these projects"?

Hardwick: a MIRHPP project? (You should hear how she said that...)

Speaker says yes.

This is really a gross line of questioning from Hardwick. What sort of insinuation is she trying to make?

Haha next speaker pulls a bait and switch! Owns a house a couple of 100 metres away from project. Out of back window will have view of this building, not Jericho Land. BUT HE SUPPORTS! Totally pulled the rug out from under me!

He's great, talking about how he doesn't own the neighbourhood. Limited land use. This building won't meet demand for area. Thinking about his 10 year old daughter. One of the best spots in the world.

Let's not design policy that places interests of minority over benefits to majority. Doesn't expect his daughter to live in single family home. Immigration will continue to rise. Looking at current house prices in Kits, most just can't afford to live there. Ample parking.

This guy is great, just no nonsense tearing down of the NIMBY talking points. Talking about how the nearby parks should be teeming with life; they're not.

6 storeys not enough. Clear that demand outstrips supply in this area. At 6 floors no affordable housing component.

Really great to hear such support from a close neighbour who embraces change and a future for children in this city!

Ok, so it's clear we're not going to wrap up tonight, so now council is figuring out what to do.

Ok, we'll continue past 10 pm to try to finish up speakers tonight.

On to #63!!!!!!

Says he's representing 4 homeowners close to the site but I have no clue what's going on. Ahh here we go: "unacceptable shadowing" there we go

This is weird though -- he says he lives downtown, some sort of designer or something, but he's here to "represent" these 4 homeowners. So is he...a paid advocate?

I...think so? Think he said smth abt being paid to assess situation and setbacks and shadows etc??

Wow that attracted no questions from council. Bizarre. Seems like something Hardwick would have concerns about!

Thankfully the next speaker is a supporter. Short and sweet and to the point.

Next speaker supports too! A renter who notices when going around the city how many detached homes there are, and how expensive they are and how few can afford them. Her and her family recently had to move to Burnaby, staying in Vancouver just too tough.

Likes the design of building. Then learned 100% , then learned of affordability component, just ticks off boxes of what we need. Wants to see more MIRHPPs. No 1 building a silver bullet, but get more of these built, can get something done.

Heard talk of shadowing, change to views, inconvenience of construction, yes pain in the butt, but this will build a strong community, a diverse community. In n'hood w/ mostly single family homes people should be excited. Community made of people of all income levels.

Should be excitement for new buildings. Doesn't get opposition from homeowners. (I agree!)

Next person wants the extra time as a representative of org, but hasn't complied w/ rules (need at least 3 other members present). Aaand get ready for a slideshow people

Oh of course it's Elizabeth Murphy, landlord, here for the West Point Grey org.

Back to the "this is not an arterial" thing, so doesn't qualify for MIRHPP. Broadway "dead ends" there. Serious shadow implications. etc

Says other tall building nearby built in 70s, doesn't conform to today's zoning. Amazingly, she is not saying that as the obvious indictment of today's zoning that it is.

Anyways she gets cut off eventually. She wants them to put up her last slide anyways. nope.

Remember that time her mic was cut off? I'll see if I can find that clip somewhere.

Anyways of course Hardwick has friendly questions for Murphy.

Hardwick again brings up the "hierarchy of plans" and how it's "all part of the matrix".

OH COME ON

Elizabeth Murphy asks Hardwick to ask her, Murphy, a question about the height of the building. The mayor verbally rolls his eyes but Hardwick complies and asks the q

That's actually pretty offensive that Hardwick and Murphy got away with that. Hardwick makes insinuations against some members of the public, then chums it up with her buddies. What a farce that was.

Anyways thankfully Elizabeth Murphy, landlord, is followed up by a supporter.

She's talking about how expensive rents are, how the proposed rents here compare very favourably with what's on the market right now. Reduction of height or density won't make it more affordable.

Speaks of need to sustain local retail, which is struggling to survive.

Still some speakers to go (this one supports!) but I'm signing off for the night. It's been...well, it's been a Vancouver City Council public hearing. So, pretty discouraging!

Vote will probably be tomorrow starting at 3 pm -- I might miss the start! Night all!