This is How it is - Like Lipstick on a Pig
July 26th Final Day of Hearing – West 8th and Arbutus
The stream for the last day of the public hearing about CD-1 Rezoning: 2086-2098 West 7th Avenue, and 2091 West 8th Avenue on July 26th, 2022 is here.
The 6th Hearing Day in a Nutshell
Shayne Ramsay of BC Housing and City planner Chee Chan decried, "Use it or lose it! Any changes go against the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).”
Chee Chan explained the consultation process and got rushed off the podium by planning director Theresa O'Donnell.
We weren’t necessarily asking the public to say 'you get to choose this or this.' We want to say 'this is how it is,' or 'this is how people are doing it.'(1:35:37)
Councillors Dominato and Carr tried to make a Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) building into a residential care facility through amendments, but were told to 'explore' by Theresa O'Donnell.
Councillors Dominato and Bligh tried to change the interior structure of the building through amendments, not understanding after 4 years in Council that this is done BEFORE a public hearing. They were both told to 'explore.'
Amazingly, Councillors Hardwick and Boyle agreed on something.
Cllr Hardwick: The use of the word ‘explore’ is the same as ‘ignore.’ The language is weak and is missing the points and efforts the residents have made through the many nights. (4:03:23)
Councillor Hardwick had tough words for Councillor Dominato's many amendments.(3:41:01)
Making superficial or cosmetic changes to a product in a futile effort to disguise its fundamental failings. I’m really concerned that we haven’t heard what we’ve heard over these many days…The phrase that I’ve described is ‘putting lipstick on a pig.’
Councillor Boyle had a Freudian slip on her true character while trying to prevent Councillors from reading staff answers to their questions and a timely return of Councillor De Genova from picking up her child over the dinner break.
I wasn’t intending anything conniving. (1:55:36).
Also true to form, against any non-public school, Councillor Boyle voted against Councillor Carr's amendment to have a flashing light at the West 7th and Arbutus intersection where pedestrian flow will dramatically increase once the terminal subway and bus loop opens beside it.
Councillor Fry gaslighted a neighbourhood, stating that their worries were in their heads and they really were listened to.
Councillor Wiebe wanted this project in Kitsilano, as it would be perfect for someone like his hard to house step-brother who burned down his place in the DTES.
Despite Councillor Jean Swanson claiming to have an open mind at the beginning and the end of the hearing, proved otherwise with a barrage of points of order against speakers.
Every Councillor that voted for this rezoning to go to public hearing voted in favour of the project. Those that were against a public hearing voted against it.
Don't blame the public for the length of this hearing. Blame City staff that created the Broadway Plan and chose this location, and the City Councillors that couldn’t manage their biases and followed unelected staff's direction.
For more details, see below.
Particulars of the project
The West 8th and Arbutus building is a 129 single unit rental property covered by the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA). Despite so much discussion on services, it is not a health care facility. There is no standardization or uniform requirement of services in a supportive or social housing building.
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between BC Housing and the City of Vancouver stated that 300 single person units of modular housing would be built in Vancouver, with the City selecting 4 sites on the east side and one site on the west side (17:27, 1:24:47).
In this RTA building, couples and families are not allowed to live together.
Originally meant only for the ‘hard to house,’ the composition is ever-changing to improve the optics.
Planner Chee Chan stated that any changes to this building would be against the MOU (22:55) and changes would put funding for these units at risk (23:34).
If it was sent back to staff, it would have to wait more than 12 months due to zoning by-law, which could be waived in exceptional circumstances (23:55).
At the time of application, zoning for the site was for a 6 story building, with no public hearing required. Planner Derek Robertson stated that 70 wood frame single unit modules could have been built here (42:44), whereas Chee Chan had suggested 70 to 90 single units (53:48).
Chee Chan stated that staff came up with the particular unit number based upon the site (i.e. confident that Council would up zone the area from 6 to 15-20 story 100% social housing under the Broadway Plan (1:10:15)). Cllr Kirby-Yung had called him out on the timing of the application to take advantage of rezoning of this (53:48).
Planner Celine Mauboules said the removed 11 units from this building could be added to another site (1:08:48).
After initial evasiveness about whether a change in built form would affect the MOU with the builder (30:04), Cllr Hardwick got the answers. Nomodic had been selected to be a consultant for the modular technology (Nomodic1 is the preferred installer of Nexii2, a company affiliated with former Mayor Gregor Robertson), but there had been no procurement of a builder, unlike the King Edward and Knight location (1:15:52).
Buildings up to 6 stories tall use wood modular construction, whereas higher buildings require a switch to steel structure (1:17:50).
Despite being told on Day 1 of the hearing that the public could not be involved at the Development Permit (DP) stage, the Development Board approval allows people to speak for up to 5 minutes, like a public hearing, according to director of planning Theresa O’Donnell (44:00).
The issues most important to those impacted by this project were dismissed
A ‘dry building’ and criminal background checks to exclude violent residents were requested from this area containing multiple vulnerable populations, including young children, the elderly, people with disabilities and women in abstinence-based recovery at Sancta Maria House (see The Marginalization of Abstinence-Based Recovery and Shayne Ramsay Can’t Man Up).
The over-sized, out-of-character building on an under-sized lot overwhelms and divides the neighbourhood.
Theresa O’Donnell acknowledged the lack of ‘neighbourliness’ of the building, but she and planner Derek Robertson thought this could be addressed at the development permit (DP) stage (58:00).
Cllr Boyle implied that making this building a ‘dry residence’ would put this project at risk (1:07:17). Planner Celine Mauboules, a homeless activist with DTES leanings, stated (1:07:36):
Staff’s professional opinion is to not limit the kind of tenants that can move in to meet the needs of the neighbourhood.
No limits on tenanting allows the operator to have a diverse mix in the building.
Other municipalities, such as Victoria, have been able to enforce requirements for a dry building and tenant screening for a history of violence34
Sancta Maria House was the clear loser with the process dictated to them (1:14:42) and no one to champion a neighbourhood agreement (1:31:19). Planner Celine Mauboules said that the City would work with operator MPA and BC Housing to communicate with Sancta Maria (1:31:56) and would support MPA to build trust with the neighbours (1:38:27).
Note how the activist planner would ‘mediate a one way communication’ to Sancta Maria House, but not listen or do anything for them.
The final day of the hearing was a disappointment, as it clearly showed:
what the Councillors were made of,
their profound deficiencies in not hearing what people said, and
what they thought were solutions to what they thought they’ve heard.
Councillors Carr, Dominato and Bligh were delighted that their aspirational amendments were degraded down to the level of staff ‘exploration,’ meaning nothing would come of them. Both Cllr Boyle (4:00:18) and Cllr Hardwick understood the meaning of ‘explore’ was to ignore (4:03:23).
Even Cllr Sarah Kirby-Yung had to say (6:15:53):
The changes we’ve put on the table are cosmetic and won’t address the concerns.
I’m just disappointed.
Regardless of the rhetoric about use it or lose it funding by Mayor Kennedy Stewart (3:30:07) on July 25th and Shane Ramsay on July 26th (8:19), or the revelation that BC Housing’s supportive housing program was over-subscribed whereas women’s transitional housing was inadequate (8:44), (1:23:43), the Councillors that wanted this project to go to a public hearing voted in favour it, and those that did not, did not.
The hearing process didn’t change or open anyone’s mind.
On the Yes side
Cllr Swanson
Cllr Jean Swanson, who claimed to have an open mind at the beginning and end of the hearing, was openly oppositional to anyone disagreeing with drug use in the neighbourhood and created an unprecedented number of points of order against speakers. For example: June 30, 2022 (28:04), (1:06:27), July 25, 2022 (1:47:54)
Both Councillors Swanson and Boyle were enamoured with a 2017 paper by Dr. Julian Somers and peppered speakers with inane questions about this paper until Dr. Somers revealed that it had irrelevant results (see Dr. Julian Somers – Recovery Oriented Housing).
Cllr Boyle
Cllr Boyle, who described this hearing as ‘toxic’ in her Sep 8th debate with TEAM candidate Bill Tieleman, voted Yes.
Cllr Boyle grandstanded that any type of suggestion would put the project at risk (3:20:16, 4:25:27) including her own suggestion to add 11 units back (1:10:35), and that this housing was needed for those encamped on East Hastings Street (see The Meaningless Words).
Cllr Boyle showed her true colours by trying to shorten the dinner break and push the vote, knowing that Councillor De Genova needed to leave to pick up her child from the babysitter (27:51) and that most of the Councillors hadn’t read the late to be delivered staff answers to their questions (1:51:42).
Cllr Boyle stated: I wasn’t intending anything conniving. (1:55:36)
Showing her pettiness and prejudice against independent schools, she harped on Cllr Carr’s amendment for a pedestrian crossing flashing light at West 7th and Arbutus, suggesting that it would be queue jumping over public schools and that need could be reviewed after the subway station opened. Engineer Paul Storer, known for city bike lanes, was unimpressive in giving answers (5:30:48). Cllr Boyle was the only one to vote against the flashing light.
Cllr Carr
Cllr Carr voted Yes, since her favourite phrases are passive house and deeply affordable. As a GREEN party member, she has never passed on a concrete and steel tower.
Despite this hearing receiving 1561 submissions in opposition and 542 in support, Cllr Carr did not declare that ‘democracy had spoken’, unlike what she did on April 26th, 2022, with the 1477 West Broadway rezoning for a 39, now 40 storey, tower with 607 in support and 409 in opposition . (April 26, 2022 1:31:38)
Since the onset of the Vision era and overlapping with her 3 terms in office, Cllr Carr stated: Homelessness has become more of a crisis than it was 13, 14 years ago (5:40:52).
Cllr Carr had trouble writing her amendment correctly and had to rewrite and try again.
It wasn’t a surprise that her amendment dealt with a flashing light at Arbutus and W7th (4:48:01 and 5:29:34), since she tried selling this to the local school principal as a concession for the plan (see The Meaningless Words).
To her credit, Cllr Carr recognized that traffic in the area is a current problem and would be even a larger problem in the future. This greatly contrasted with planner Chee Chan not wanting transportation needs to be tied to this project (25:37), as he expected fewer vehicle trips to the area because of the subway (not credible, 26:19), that the school could apply for the City of Vancouver crossing guard program (parents are already stationed at 3 corners of the school at pick up and drop off, 26:43) and there were no concerns for emergency vehicle access on 7th Avenue (26:54). Cllr Carr’s traffic amendment was passed.
Cllr Wiebe
Cllr Wiebe, after delivering a tone-deaf line of questioning to Sancta Maria House, (see The Marginalization of Abstinence-Based Recovery) on July 25 5:03:28, it was clear that he had no interest in the project accommodating the neighbourhood, but rather the neighbourhood accommodating the project.
People taking a recovery path and choosing to be abstinent from drugs and alcohol were marginalized in the City of Vancouver.
Cllr Michael Wiebe was heavily influenced by his issues with his ‘hard to house’ step-brother and was uninformed, that after a year of many SRO fires in the DTES, that there is a limit to what supportive housing can support (1:36:50, 5:51:18) 5
We really struggled as a family to find a place for my step-brother to live. He burnt his place down in the DTES and we struggled and I think a place like this near my family home would make a significant difference and will for so many families.
Cllr Fry
Cllr Fry was not a surprise to vote Yes. He was hesitant to extend the same solar access considerations given to public schools to independent schools under the Broadway Plan, until he was reassured that it would not affect this hearing.
Cllr Fry’s solution to public concerns was an amendment to an amendment (3:41:56):
A requirement that BC Housing will ensure the supportive housing operator establishes a Community Advisory Committee that use all reasonable efforts to include representatives specifically from St. Augustine’s School, St. Augustine’s Parish, and Sancta Maria House, neighbours, BIA, and other community members.
Describing Cllr Fry’s closing comments was troubling until reading the Scientific American article ‘Understanding Gaslighting’ by Paige L. Sweet.
Gaslighting feeds off social vulnerabilities and stereotypes. It entrenches existing power imbalances while fostering new ones.
Cllr Fry acknowledged that parents and residents thought the process failed them, but stated that it didn’t fail them because amendments and commitments were made and that this should provide proof and comfort to folks that have been worried.
This process is a mess. It didn’t have to be this way.
Cllr Fry blamed social media, but not the track record of the City of Vancouver or BC Housing, for entrenching fear.
This process didn’t need to be this way. Issues should have been addressed by a competent, independent-thinking Council before pushing this project through at a public hearing, a hearing where City staff told us ‘this is how it is’ and most Councillors couldn’t be bothered to listen, since they had made their decisions months ago.
With his life centred in Strathcona and the DTES, Cllr Fry’s idea of ‘normal’ in Vancouver comes with societal dysfunction and decay, and hence, he cannot relate to those that don’t want that lifestyle (6:03:37).
Cllr Fry’s condescending attitude was more disturbing than the incompetence of Cllr Dominato, who is explored next.
Cllr Dominato
Cllr Dominato voted Yes after tabling a number of amendments and making statements that she may or may not vote in favour of the project. Later she stated that she was disappointed in the process, that people were let down, there was polarization and that she knew it had to come to a public hearing. She was influenced by her experience of sitting on the board of the Kettle Society for 6 years (6:05:46).
After 4 years on Council, Cllr Dominato did not learn what a rezoning hearing is about and how to write an amendment. You cannot make a list of demands that BC Housing will fund and provide a number of health care services when it is a housing organization. If you want mandated services in place, you rezone for a health care facility, not a RTA building. The content of this amendment was degraded to an ‘exploration.’
Cllr Dominato did not realize that adding a social enterprise retail space was a major structural change that could not be added through an amendment (4:10:56). Even party colleague Cllr Kirby-Yung called it an aspirational amendment and that meaningful changes could have been made at the referral (4:13:47).
The third amendment recommended a change to the unit mix by price, which Mayor Stewart said was a substantive change that would require a referral back to staff (4:23:15).
Cllr Bligh
Cllr Bligh thought she could introduce other funding streams into this building so that some single modular units could be substituted with other unit types (5:06:20). In the end, Theresa O’Donnell patted her on the head and used the word ‘explore’ just as she had done during the Vancouver Plan when Cllr Bligh wanted to establish size standardizations for different types of units.
Cllr Bligh believed that this exploration was reflecting public feedback (5:28:20) and that she was able to control something through amendments (5:46:28).
Cllr Bligh was naïve and did not understand that the majority of the speakers did not trust the City planners (5:47:48):
We are putting a lot of faith and trust in our director of planning and staff team to do that in good faith with the applicant. Yes, that takes a certain amount of trust. I’m quite confident that we do have the right staff team in place that have listened, that have filled this gallery, that has listened to all this feedback and knows that this Council does not make decisions lightly.
She went on with her single mother story at the Montessori daycare previously in that location.
I’m moving back into that neighbourhood. I’m going to support this to be a positive integration…I will show up, elected or not, for the community and the school, that the concerns are not left high and dry, that the public feels that they’re going to have a voice and role to play (5:49:20).
On the No Side
Cllr Hardwick
Cllr Hardwick was concise and decisive with her questions and commentary on the built form, suspect contract agreements with consultants, superficial and meaningless amendments and inadequate addressing of public concerns (30:04, 1:15:52, 3:41:01, 4:03:23, and 5:56:11).
Cllr Kirby-Yung
Cllr Kirby-Yung was clearly concerned about the lack of recovery focus in the building (55:14, 1:42:07) and the treatment of people in opposition to the project (56:14, 3:49:54).
This is unsurprising because Cllr Kirby-Yung had tabled a motion on Dec 19, 2018 called ‘Improving Resident Participation at City Council’6:
Hearing from residents of Vancouver and providing residents the opportunity to speak to City Council on civic matters is an important and fundamental aspect of our democratic process.
Cllr Kirby-Yung was alarmed at staff’s flippant written answer to a question about safe consumption sites attracting drug dealers: unaware of any evidence that private space would attract drug dealers. She was aware of drug deals happening outside of windows at 205 Kingsway through the Community Advisor Committee (CAC) meetings and calls to the Marguerite Ford building (1:44:43).
Cllr Kirby-Yung was concerned that lack of acknowledgment of concerns prevented mitigation of crime. Planner Celine Mauboules didn’t see how consumption sites would attract criminal activity (1:45:50) and that the City was there to support the operator (1:46:38).
Cllr Kirby-Yung understood that Council had a duty to represent the community, that problems could not be corrected by amendments and that there needed to be a major change to the model of housing, the supports and good neighbour agreements (4:33:38, 6:12:59).
Cllr De Genova
The most persistent councillor to seek answers on July 26th was Cllr De Genova. She wanted to know the vacancy rate for women and families looking for transitional housing. Planner Celine Mauboules did not have that information (1:11:19).
Cllr Melissa De Genova asked specific questions about staff consultation with the VPD on this project (1:12:04) and received evasive answers from social planner Liza Jimenez. It was revealed that neither the City nor the VPD actually discussed a possible spike in calls in the first 6 months of the building opening (1:13:01).
Cllr De Genova wanted answers as to why there was no CAC at the Yaletown Overdose Prevention site (OPS) and pressed Sandra Singh from Arts, Culture and Community Services for answers (3:38:22). Sandra Singh stated that no CAC was directed or recommended for the site. She did not know if VCH would agree to that. There had only been a community dialogue group by BC Housing for the hotel conversions into housing for those camped in Strathcona Park (3:43:16, 4:02:12, 4:04:28).
Sandra Singh was incorrect in assuming that VCH would not agree to a CAC or some type of agreement, because VCH had entered into a Good Neighbour Agreement with the community for the Clark and 1st Avenue Detox Social Housing project7.
Cllr De Genova was alarmed at Cllr Boyle’s attitude towards St. Augustine School about a flashing traffic light at the intersection of West 7th and Arbutus (5:36:39):
It’s saying that public school students are more important than students that go to an independent school.
I’m quite troubled and concerned by comments that I’ve heard of it being an either or, from taking from one area and giving to another, when I think all children’s safety should be considered equally. And I have to say I’m quite offended by some of the comments that have been made.
Councillor De Genova’s closing remarks were as follows (6:08:38):
Council, if we go forward with this application, we will lose the trust of the community. Families need housing just as much as people this housing’s prescribed for. Homeless people are vulnerable, but so are toddlers, school-age children and mothers and all parents with complex care issues who are trying to get clean. They’re vulnerable people, too.
As other Councillors have shared certain experiences or stories, I can say that I have extended family that I’ve taken care of their children while they’ve been in treatment. I’ve been told, “My kids would have ended up in the system if it was for you and your husband.” But that being said, I feel for people who have difficulties, trying to hide their issues and don’t seek help for them, because they are afraid that they will lose their families. So my heart goes out to those who support and those who are clients of Sancta Maria.
And I want to say that I am for this Council to ask yourself if you feel if you’ve shown good leadership and helped the divisive issues, and rolled up your sleeves (in reference to Cllr Fry’s closing remarks). You know, to help the residents we’re still here for in the area of Yaletown where the OPS went up. I’m a big supporter of the Four Pillars approach, and with this Council I’ve supported many mobile overdose prevention sites. But in that community we knew it would be divisive. We promised them dialogue and it never happened.
So, how can this community count on us to provide something when we didn’t even provide it to another community. That concerns me. In fact, many people have reported that most Councillors who supported the OPS, they haven’t called them back, even though they promised to follow up.
We had Covenant House against that OPS write to us, but we moved forward.
And as the only member on Council with professional experience working in the non-profit housing sector, hoping to develop housing models actually, I can tell you that this isn’t the best way forward, in my opinion. We don’t need to ghettoize people. We don’t need to label people as NIMBY’s or YIMBY’s. There are other ways forward.
A vote against this project isn’t about ‘against supportive housing.’ It can be about to do better for the vulnerable people who need housing and the community who’s counting on us to work with them and not dictate to them.
My voting record on housing speaks for itself. And I have consistently supported housing across our city. But I won’t do it at the cost of setting this project up for failure. And I am concerned that we’ve already had divisiveness, Council, and I don’t think we’ve shepherded this through or shown this leadership. Because this won’t come back to us. We’ve put this on our staff’s plate now if this passes. And I won’t be a part of that. I think people who live in this project and the surrounding community deserves better. I’m including people at St. Augustine’s Parish and School.
I also want to lastly thank BC Housing, James Forsythe and Shane Ramsay, who came and spent his time after 22 years and hasn’t spoken at a public hearing, but I really do appreciate your words and I have supported many of your projects. And we’ve all come together to ask BC Housing to deliver funding and you’ve always stepped up and done enough. The City of Vancouver and I really appreciate that. And I want to thank our City staff who spent countless hours on this, as well, in planning and engagement. I appreciate what we’re all trying to accomplish and I hope we can move forward together along with the community and create a model that would work better for everyone. Doesn’t seem that the vote is going to go that way tonight, but tonight I’m going to vote for something better for everyone, including people who are homeless and vulnerable and deserve better than to be stigmatized as I can see them being in this neighbourhood if we move forward with this project as is.
Thank you very much.
Take-away points from the Arbutus and West 8th Rezoning Hearing:
The City of Vancouver’s and BC Housing’s consultation processes are fraudulent. Do these entities have official definitions for public consultation? As best said by Chee Chan, planners are just telling you how it is. And then Cllr Fry gaslights a neighbourhood, stating that social media entrenches fear and that the process really is working for them.
Most City councillors are not able to relate to and accept resident concerns and are pre-occupied with their own biases.
City staff and most City councillors are not interested in publically supporting an abstinence-based recovery lifestyle. Most are supportive of maintaining existing lifestyles while on drugs.
Despite what was said on the first day of the hearing that the public cannot be involved in the development permit stage, the Development Board approval operates like a public hearing and people can speak for up to 5 minutes (44:00).
Many City councillors have an inordinate amount of blind trust in City staff.
A precedent has been set for a building layout without appropriate setbacks and proportions in Kitsilano. This can be replicated elsewhere in Vancouver.
City planners associated with this project have acted in bad faith. There is no acknowledgement of the co-impact of this project and the terminal subway station on the neighbourhood. As per the Vancouver Charter, City staff are not held responsible for their actions. This is exemplified by the non-management of the public realm surrounding the Seymour OPS. Cleaning up street feces and needles does not resolve the problems of public defecation or open drug use.
a. Chee Chan, who only wanted to review the application in isolation from the subway station and neighbourhood, and marginalized any concerns over traffic, stating that more people would be travelling by subway and that West 7th was wide enough for emergency vehicles (25:37)
b. Celine Mauboules, who doesn’t believe in representing residents of Vancouver, but only non-profit entities and BC Housing. Any adverse changes to the neighbourhood aren’t the City’s or the non-profit’s problem, because they are only responsible for the building and not the surrounding area. She is in favour of introducing people with substance use or behavioural disorders into neighbourhoods for diversity. For neighbourhoods that are deteriorating, CAC’s can become involved with the clean up of street feces and needles8 9.
c. Theresa O’Donnell masterminded the Broadway Plan to create a second downtown and replace 500 blocks containing the most affordable and largest apartments with concrete towers, further diminish greenspace and make no plans to accommodate more schools or community centres. This is the same Theresa O’Donnell that wanted solar access protections only for public schools, but not independent schools, and 100% solar access exemptions for 100% social housing projects like this one (see Response to Dan Fumano).
There is bias against independent schools and/or non-unionized entities at City Hall.
Based upon City staff performance on this project development, DO NOT VOTE for any civic party wanting City staff and VAHA to redevelop the City for social housing without any Councillor or Vancouver resident oversight. Governance is already an endangered species.
‘Improving Resident Participation at City Council’, pages 4-5, https://council.vancouver.ca/20181219/documents/pspc20181219min.pdf
Clark and 1st Avenue Detox Social Housing project, page 12, https://council.vancouver.ca/20190220/documents/phea20190220min.pdf
I was amused while reading this and thoroughly disgusted at the same time. City Hall needs a clean sweep.
Green Cllr Wiebe earns $96,000 and up as a Cllr.
He s also the owner of Vancouver's Eight ½ Restaurant, as well as an investor in the Portside Pub, and has been investigated for non declaration of Conflict of Interest related to those businesses.
Wiebe's Eight ½ Restaurant was one of the first 14 businesses to receive temporary patio permits from the city. (literally days after).
Yet Wiebe seeks to offload his troublesome step-brother onto the supportive housing community.
He even declares that this same brother had been rendered homeless, bc of starting fires in DTES.
The supportive housing building planned for Arbutus/7th in front of an elementary school, he said, would be great for his brother bc then he would live close to Wiebe.
(Without Wiebe disbursing a cent.)
Talk about City Hall being your own private piggy bank.