Residential Development

Municipal Red Tape

The following was posted by The Fraser Institute:

District of North Vancouver, Vancouver lead the Lower Mainland in red tape for new residential development

Release Date:    June 23, 2015 - 

VANCOUVER—The District of North Vancouver and the City of Vancouver are the most regulated municipalities in the Lower Mainland and consequently the most difficult in which to build new housing, according to a survey of homebuilders released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian policy think-tank.

“A large body of research has shown that onerous regulation stunts the homebuilding process and contributes to rising home prices. With housing affordability being a major issue in Metro Vancouver, the results of this survey indicate that red tape at some Lower Mainland city halls is deterring development and likely contributing to the affordability problem,” said Kenneth Green, Fraser Institute senior director of energy and natural resources.

New Homes and Red Tape: Residential Land-Use Regulation in BC’s Lower Mainland, compares jurisdictions across Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley on several categories of red tape (construction approval times, timeline uncertainty, regulatory costs and fees, rezoning prevalence and the effect council and community groups have on development) based on the experiences and opinions of industry professionals.

In an aggregate ranking of 10 municipalities (municipalities that garnered sufficient numbers of survey responses), the District of North Vancouver comes out as the most regulated municipality earning low marks in construction approval times (16.1 months compared to the Lower Mainland average of 11.2 months) and in the percentage of residential development requiring rezoning (95 per cent versus an average of 68 per cent).

The City of Vancouver ranks worse than the Lower Mainland average on all indicators, except in rezoning requirements, and scores particularly poorly with regard to regulatory costs and fees. The study finds that, to get approval for construction, a typical residential developer in Vancouver spends $38,333 per individual dwelling unit (30 percent more than the region-wide average) before a shovel even hits the ground.

Conversely, in Burnaby — which shares a border with Vancouver —homebuilders report an average of just $17,542 in costs and fees despite the fact that both cities have no choice but to build ‘up’ to grow.

“There’s a school of thought out there that higher costs and fees are associated with greenfield development. In other words, municipal governments require more money to service the new areas of development and to build new infrastructure. We found no evidence of that in our survey,” Green said.

“Instead, it appears that we’re seeing a form of NIMBYism where council and community opposition to residential development is strongest in municipalities with higher dwelling values — like on the North Shore and in Vancouver. That doesn’t bode well for housing affordability in the region.”

The City of Abbotsford finished as the least-regulated municipality, followed by Burnaby, Coquitlam and Surrey.

*Lower Mainland Regulation Rankings (from least regulated to most regulated):

    Abbotsford
    Burnaby
    Coquitlam
    Surrey
    Richmond
    Maple Ridge
    Langley Township
    City of North Vancouver
    Vancouver
    District of North Vancouver

* This aggregate index only includes municipalities that garnered sufficient numbers of survey responses

November 2017 Update

In 2017, NAIOP awarded Abbotsford "The Most Business-Friendly Municipality" by NAIOP (a Commercial Real Estate Development Company). 


REIN (Real Estate Investment Network) announced also, last November, that Abbotsford was the 2nd best city in British Columbia to invest in, with respect to real estate.

"YOUR WORSHIP"

A Feudal Practice

Worship, (noun) (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (preceded by: Your, His, or Her) Brit a title used to address or refer to a mayor, magistrate, or a person of similar high rank

   Should the practice of referring to elected officials (i.e. mayors) as “Your Worship” be continued? Some argue that the practice be discontinued on religious grounds, as expressed recently by G. Peachey; that the term is reserved for addressing our Creator God. I have never heard anyone use it that way, nor have I ever referred to God as “Your Worship”, but when used as a verb, it has for me always denoted an action directed towards God.

   Used as a noun, however, it does not convey the same meaning for me. I will, however, suggest that it should be discontinued on other grounds, which speak more directly to its origin, dating back to the feudal era. At that time, there was a wide social and economic disparity between the peasants and their landlords, who were obliged to provide safety and justice in return for the peasants’ labour. These landlords not only provided security, but also ruled the feudal lives of the lower-class serfs.

   It was in this relation of landlord-peasant, where subordination and obedience was demanded and accepted, that the landlord was addressed as “Your Worship”, signifying a higher-ranking status. Following the industrial revolution, society moved from a feudal to a capitalist order, and in this environment, landlords were gradually replaced by appointed, and later, elected mayors in the English political context. Notwithstanding a total social revolution and structural change, mayors continued to be addressed as “Your Worship”, particularly in the English world.

   Canada has inherited its parliamentary system of government and judicial system from Great Britain. Many of the practices, titles, and terminology associated with both continue to be found in our country. With respect to the title, “Your Worship”, it specifically has its origin in a society and political structure that reflects inequality and subordination. Using that term in a democratic society in the 21^st century is questionable, and if we are to discontinue using it for that reason, I would certainly agree. In fact, I would support the position that it’s unacceptable. Our mayors are elected representatives and “servants” of the public, as are all elected officials. Let’s resolve to discontinue its use, but for the right reason.

REJECT "GROUPTHINK"

Reject “Groupthink” on November 15!

   AbbotsfordFIRST (AF) has put forward five candidates as a group of representatives (“Groupthink”) that it wishes to send to the Council table to represent our community’s interests. From the very start (August), when the first press release was issued, to this last week before election, AbbotsfordFIRST has presented a platform on a variety of issues, containing some unsupportable statements of fact.

   AbbotsfordFIRST and its candidates have maintained a stubborn refusal to acknowledge those factural errors, not to mention an unwillingness to make corrections when the errors were pointed out. One example will suffice. Its website states that the City has been without an Official Community Plan for three years. In fact, the Community Charter stipulates that every municipality must have an OCP, and each year a bylaw is passed renewing our OCP. That fact was communicated by email, in person, and several weeks ago at the All-Candidates Forum. Yet, a stubborn persistence continues to stay with that message: this week’s 16-page flyer (page 11) perpetuates that error, and its website has not been corrected. This reflects stubbornness, bordering on arrogance, of not willing to be held accountable, both individually and as a party.

   Abbotsford is the third most culturally-diverse community in B.C., and its economic base is similarly diverse. The citizens of Abbotsford not only need and deserve to be well-represented at the Council table, but also to have a council of approachable and accountable individuals. There is no place for party politics (Groupthink) at the municipal level, and certainly not in Abbotsford. I have expressed my views on the matter on more than one occasion; both mayoral candidates also have strong views on this matter - Henry Braun has expressed his views in a blog - The Importance of Independent-Thinking And Principle-Based Decision-Making - and I know that Bruce Banman has a similar view.

   This is not a personal plea, but a general plea to elect 8 independent voices to the Council table on Election Day – November 15^th!

If you agree, please circulate this among your acquaintances.