Opening the door to more commemorative crosswalks

The most famous of all crosswalks.

After I delivered the following speech at Council in Committee yesterday, most councillors indicated that, while they did not want to start a process to create a new policy for allowing commemorative crosswalks and other forms of public messaging, they would be open to considering one-off applications, just as they did for the rainbow crosswalk last fall. I take this as progress, because last fall most councillors seemed to suggest that they considered the rainbow crosswalk to be the one and only such installation that they would support, and, anyway, some predicted that the approval of the rainbow crosswalk would not generate any new requests for other crosswalks. A presentation just a few weeks later, by Brad Chase, Indicated otherwise. It will now be interesting to see what sort of proposals for commemorative or celebratory crosswalks emerge. Here is the text of my speech:

Last fall  -- after the majority of council directed staff to install a rainbow crosswalk in the city, and, later, further directed staff to use the unique, six-colour motif, first developed as a sign of support for the  gay-pride movement, for that crosswalk -- a gentleman named Brad Chase made a presentation to Council in Committee
He asked that we consider installing more crosswalks to show our support for other causes – specifically to signal our opposition to hate crimes against victims of discrimination – everyone from Jews and Catholics to First Nations and the homeless.
He also presented some design options for various groups (including one depicting poppies, to celebrate the service of our Veterans. I think it’s important to say now that, while I understand Mr. Chase’s intention, I am quite certain that veterans would not want to see images of poppies being trodden upon and driven across.).
At the time, I made some generally supportive comments in reply to Mr. Chase’s presentation, but Council in committee did not formally reply and no direction was given to staff. Since then, Mr. Chase has communicated with council, asking about what action would be taken in response to his presentation.
I believe, that to be fair, council should now give Mr. Chase an answer. And I believe that this answer should be that council will instruct staff to begin a process to install other memorial or celebratory crosswalks – a process that, unlike that which led to the decision on the first cross walk, will include full and meaningful consultation with the people of Coquitlam.
Now, some on council may argue this is not necessary, because they have already adopted a one-size-fits-all crosswalk. To support this argument, they may point to the original contention, made by the crosswalk proponents, that the rainbow crosswalk has become a universal symbol of acceptance.
However, the logic buttressing this argument crumbled when one of the proponents herself told committee that a second crosswalk was needed to support transgender individuals, and then later told the press that a specific gay-pride motif was needed for the rainbow crosswalk – and not just one depicting a general rainbow.
I believe council was aware of the resulting messaging problem, which is why it unanimously supported the installation – adjacent to the crosswalk -- of signage reading, “Diversity Lives Here.”   
But clearly, as Mr. Chase has demonstrated, that didn’t do the trick. Some of us warned that the adoption of one, issue-specific crosswalk would open the very door that we saw Mr. Chase walk through, but the majority rejected this argument.
It’s worth noting here that last summer, Chilliwack city hall received a request to install a rainbow crosswalk somewhere in that city’s downtown. Within a week, the city received a request from a Chilliwack Pro-Life group to install a “pro-life crosswalk” depicting “painted crosses or infant feet.” No doubt seeing where all this was heading, Chilliwack council responded by creating a new policy directive to deny all requests to decorate any crosswalks.
Also noteworthy is the fact that Coquitlam council’s longstanding no-proclamations policy used to be seen by council as a de facto no-decorated-crosswalk policy, as well. But that understanding was turned on its head last fall, and now council is at – not a crosswalk – but a crossroads, facing a choice:
Does it refuse Mr. Chase’s request and all similar future requests, and by so doing attempt to cling to the fragile rationale in support of its initial decision?
Or does council recognize that, to be reasonable, fair, equitable and democratic, it should entertain new requests. And, to support this, that it should employ an open, reasonable, fair, equitable and democratic consultation process – just as it did two years ago when it developed a new Cultural Displays Policy.
I believe it should adopt the latter course and embark on a meaningful public-consultation process to develop a more inclusive crosswalk and issue-messaging policy. This consultation should involve community groups, the general public, and council’s own advisory committees, including but not limited to the Multiculturalism Advisory Committee and the Universal Access-ability Advisory Committee.
Who knows what great ideas they will come up with, not only for crosswalk themes but also messaging themes? After all, the celebratory message “Diversity Lives Here” captures only a small part of what makes Coquitlam great. In fact, in and of itself, diversity is actually a rather hollow thing. To fill it out –to bring it to life – one surely needs  charity and kindness, love and respect, and courage, wisdom, and justice – all of which are certainly worthy of celebration!
So, I ask my fellow council members: what road do we take?

What Do Higher Property Values Mean for Taxes?

With all the discussion, misinformation, speculation and confusion about the impact of soaring assessment rates on property taxes, the City thought it was a good idea to public this detailed explanation and offer it to local news outlets. I agree and I hope it calms some of the nerves out there!

COQUITLAM, BC, Jan. 10, 2017 - A higher assessed property value is usually good news for property owners – it means the value of their investment is going up.

But does a higher assessed value also necessarily mean higher property taxes? Not exactly.

When a city plans its budget for the year, the amount it needs to collect (revenue) is based solely on the services it plans to provide (expenditures). Let’s say this amount is $100 million. No matter how much property values go up or down, the City still only needs to collect $100 million to do its job for the year.

In a separate process, the BC Assessment Authority, a provincial body, determines the value of all properties across the province, based on factors such as age, location, size, improvements and the value of recent nearby sales.  The City is not responsible for property assessments, however the City is mandated by provincial legislation to tax the homeowners based on the assessed value of their property.

These two processes come together when cities set their tax rate (sometimes referred to as the mill rate): the calculation that determines each property’s share of the cost to run the city that year. If average assessed values go up, the tax rate goes down to compensate. The opposite is true if values decrease. But in the end, working from the example above, only $100 million is collected.

2017 Tax Increase
In Coquitlam, the 2017 tax increase for the average residence is 2.48%, which is in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI).   As the cost of maintaining service levels continues to rise, the City is constantly striving to find efficiencies in the provision of services, as well as other sources of revenue. As such, this is the lowest tax increase in 25 years.

What this means is that if your home’s assessed value went up by the average (33%), your taxes will go up 2.48%. However, if your assessed value increased by more than the average, your taxes will increase by more than 2.48%. However, it still won’t increase at the same percentage as your property assessment increase. Similarly, homes with a below-average increase in their assessment could find themselves paying lower taxes than last year.

Homeowner Grant 
The Homeowner Grant is a provincial grant outside of the City’s control, but the City is responsible for administering the Grant on the province’s behalf. The Homeowner Grant assessment threshold was raised in 2017 to $1.6M at which point the grant is gradually reduced by $5 per $1,000 value.  Therefore depending on your property assessment, you may not lose the entire grant, just a portion of it.

Municipalities share the publics’ concern about the need to ensure the Homeowner Grant remains available as the assessed value of B.C. real estate continues to rise and we will continue to work with the province on this issue.

Any questions related to your property assessment should be directed to BC Assessment Authority (1-866-825-8322).  The deadline to appeal your assessment is Jan. 31.

For information on property taxes in Coquitlam, visit www.coquitlam.ca/propertytaxes.


Media contact:
Rhonda Anderson, Revenue Services Manager
604-927-3920

In my books, the biggest city issue is....

City Council gave unanimous approval to the first readings of the 2017 budget bylaws this past Monday. The Tri-City News' coverage (most of which is not yet online) focused on our policies and usage of reserve funds. My focus, however, was on a more pressing issue. Here is the text of the speech I delivered.

Graphic: City of Coquitlam

The first readings of the budget bylaws are traditionally accompanied by statements from the mayor and councillors about the general state of affairs in the city and the specific level of such things as tax rates and municipal spending. The mayor has very adroitly covered all of this ground and more in his address.

And I want to declare now that I agree with him that the budget before us tonight is well worth supporting. I am especially pleased that, for the eighth consecutive year, the rate of increase has declined; this year it’s 2.17 per cent, the lowest in 25 years.

While there are parts of it with which I don’t agree, on the whole it strikes a commendable balance between, on one hand, provision of needed services and amenities, and, on the other, the sort of fiscal responsibility that our residents expect of council.

I am proud to be part of a council that takes its duty in this latter area seriously. Ours is a council that, unlike so many other political bodies, works hard to avoid political gamesmanship, posturing and pandering; instead, it really does focus on doing the best for the whole community – making decisions based on principle and strong policy, rather than on prejudice and political pressure. And that’s a very good thing.

I must point out, however, that, while having sound budget policies and practices is absolutely central to the work that we do here – and, moreover, that it is, in fact, the foundation upon which is built the entire edifice of services that the city provides – it actually isn’t the single, most pressing issue that concerns me…. and confronts us all.

The issue isn’t the tax rate; it isn’t the level of government services; it isn’t the numbers of workers on city payroll; it isn’t parks, arenas, tennis courts, artificial-turf fields or a museum; it isn’t laying more pipe and filling more potholes; it isn’t water quality, air pollution, or safe streets, either.

Those are all areas of importance. But, surely, the most pressing issue is one that affects us, literally, where we live. It’s housing affordability.

The measures that council has taken over the past few years --- and will, one hopes, continue to take in the years to come – will be a critical part of this council’s legacy.

This council has long stated that the primary responsibility for providing “deep affordability” rests with the two senior levels of government. Nevertheless, through adroit use of the city’s re-energized Housing Affordability Fund, the city is set to do its part in this crucial area. Especially noteworthy is our support of the Talitha Koum housing project.

To be clear, though, housing affordability has always been an issue for lower-income individuals and families. On the other hand, the now fully-emerged crisis that is upon us now is a more contemporary phenomenon – the large gap between what middle-income earners can afford and what the market demands they pay.

Consumers have had to adjust their expectations. Many looking for a single-family home have had to set their sights on a townhouses or condo. Those who might, in a more affordable market, be looking to buy a condo now might, instead, look to rent. And so it goes.

The single most important thing the city can do to assist those in the market is to facilitate the construction of new housing, whether it’s for sale or for rent.

That has certainly been a main focus of mine over the five years I have spent on council, and I am pleased to say that, in most cases, it is a focus that is shared by the majority of council. Whether it’s approving townhouse developments on Burke Mountain, Condo Towers in the city Centre, rental projects in Burquitlam, or subdivision of lands in Maillardville, this is a good thing.

Yes, amelioration of adverse community impacts must always remain a concern, but I believe our paramount responsibility in the face of an unprecedented crisis is – and must continue to be -- to keep a clear focus on making good land-use decisions that lead to the creation of more places that people, young or old, poor or rich, single or married, can call home.

Our curling decision made for wider benefit of the community

This past Monday, I was part of a solid majority* of Coquitlam Council members who voted in favour of a series of recommendations from our Parks, Recreation and Culture Department that, foremost among many measures, will see the amalgamation of Coquitlam curling with the Port Moody club. Here is part of the speech I made in explanation of my decision:

A large audience that attended Council on Monday.

I want to thank the scores of curlers and hockey families who contacted me, both in person and by email, to let me know about their opinions on the plan before us tonight. Thank you. Thank you because those contacts certainly demonstrated to me that there are many people in Coquitlam who are passionate about sport, and want – as I do --  to see it grow and thrive.

As well, the volume of communication certainly underlines the importance of the decision we will make tonight – a decision that must be made not just for the benefit of curlers and skaters but also for the benefit of the wider community to whom council is ultimately responsible.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the curling-amalgamation plan has developed into the Number-One issue of the year. This certainly speaks to the high level of well-being we have in this community. We are extremely fortunate to live in a place where the sort of problems that ravage so many other parts of the world simply don’t exist. This gives us the luxury to spend time and effort on things like our sport and recreation policies.

This is not to diminish the passion and interest that the curling community has shown over the past several weeks, but I mention this in order to more properly frame the issue—an issue which is ultimately about how best and how fairly to allocate resources among a prosperous populace.

It was the great Irish statesman and orator Edmund Burke (after whom Burke Mountain is named) who said, “All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.” I think he’s correct. And, in the final analysis, the decision, on how to allocate ice-rink resources by facilitating the merger of Coquitlam curling with Port Moody curling, centres on this concept of compromise.

It’s important to note that this concept carries within its meaning the idea of cooperation, and of give-and-take. Of course, we don’t compromise our principles. They are resolute. But we should always be prepared to re-evaluate our policies and practices in the light of new information and changing circumstances.

And, as I’m confident that those of us who have been involved in successful negotiations have learned, a spirit of generosity or even magnanimity can be key to success.

And so, with all this in mind, I will cast my vote tonight for what I think will be best for curling and hockey, to ensure that they remain strong and vital activities in our community -- and that curling, especially, has the critical mass needed to propel it well into the future. I will also cast my vote for what I think is best for all our city’s residents, to whom we on council are responsible, and from whom we receive the charge to make the best use of their hard-earned tax dollars.

My vote will also show that I support co-operation between communities, economical use of scarce resources, and fiscal prudence, while at the same time setting a path that, I am confident, will help build a better Coquitlam.

*Council considered four motions; votes on some were 7-2 in favour, and on others were 8-1 in favour. 

Some context, please, Mr. Horgan

Housing affordability and its associated issues, including "demo-victions," comprise one of the most pressing economic and social issues in the Lower Mainland. Little wonder, then, that the opposition New Democrats have mounted a campaign for more government action on the problem.

BlueSky's proposed development on Foster, east of Clarke.

It might help their cause, however, if they picked a more suitable example of demo-viction malfeasance than the one they highlighted in Coquitlam earlier this week.
In fact, the example they showcased, the big BlueSky Properties Inc. development on Foster Ave. in Burquitlam, could and should be held up, not as a dramatic example of corporate greed and provincial government inaction, but as a heartening example of corporate responsibility, successful community engagement, and enlightened municipal policy.
Here's the story.
As part of its housing-affordability campaign, the New Democrats staged a press conference earlier this week against the backdrop of the aging apartments in Coquitlam that will be demolished to make way for the BlueSky development at North Road and Foster Avenue.
Supported by NDP MLA Selina Robinson and one-time NDP candidate and current Coquitlam Councillor Chris Wilson*, NDP leader John Horgan pointed out that the apartments are slated for demolition to make way for condo towers that are coming as part of the densification of Burquitlam now happening in anticipation of the arrival of the Evergreen Line early next year.
With reportedly scant reference to the specific details of the BlueSky redevelopment, Mr. Horgan declared, "People and families are scrambling to find affordable rental housing here in Coquitlam and across the Lower Mainland, and they aren't getting any leadership from Christy Clark. People want to know why the Christy Clark government has not acted to protect renters and increase the number of rental homes in this overheated property market."
Fair enough comment on the provincial level. But, on the municipal level, the suggestion that old rental buildings are demolished with little regard for the future of the tenants is completely off base.
In fact, the BlueSky development is notable for the developer's care and attention to ensure that the renters in the existing 112 units are cared for. The company's commitment to this was so thorough that the development proposal won the support of both the Burquitlam Community Association and the Tri-Cities Homelessness and Housing Task Group.
The 873-unit project will eventually comprise three condo towers boasting 816 for-sale units (many of which will, of course, be put on the rental market) and a purpose-building, five-storey, 57-unit rental building, in which rents will be similar to the rents in the existing complex. (Please click here to read the full Coquitlam staff report on the project.)
Furthermore, with Coquitlam's Transit-Oriented Development Strategy and (then-old but since-updated) Housing Affordablity Strategy guiding them, city officials worked with BlueSky to ensure that several other important steps were taken to assist in the relocation of the existing renters who would not find space in the new rental building or one of the condos. The company:

• Hired an on-site rental relocation coordinator.
• Instituted ongoing communication and meetings with tenants, including relocation information.
• Provided tenants with a six-month eviction notice, rather than the provincially required two months.
• Promised to waive multiple months' rent, rather than the one-month required by law. Two months' rent would be waved if the tenant relocates within four months of receiving notice; three months' waved if relocation takes place between four and six months after notice is served.
• Offered any tenant or member of their immediate family the opportunity to purchase a unit within the BlueSky, or any Bosa Properties development, with 12 months' worth of rent going towards the down-payment on their new home.

The press release accompanying Mr. Horgan's news conference said he believes, "fair tenant relocation policies are needed, and the province should lead. Standards for requiring relocation plans for tenants and replacing demolished units need to be in place around the province, not just in some communities."
Fair enough.
But it would have been infinitely more informative (if somewhat less dramatic) for him to have pointed out that the "fair tenant relocation policies" he is calling for already exist in the very community in which he chose to voice his concerns.

(*Unlike Mr. Horgan, Mr. Wilson provided some contextual background to at least one news outlet, as evidenced by this story.)

Much-needed playground upgrades coming soon

The news, made public at last Monday's Council-in-Committee meeting, that Tanglewood and Hampton Park playgrounds would have their equipment replaced this year, at a cost of $50,000 and $25,000 respectively, was certainly long-awaited and much-appreciated.

These photos, which I took last weekend, show the sorry state of repair into which Tanglewood, for one, had fallen. I am sure the neighbourhood will be very pleased to learn of the coming upgrade.

You can view the full report on Parks Infrastructure by clicking here.  That report also has some exciting graphics showing the design concepts for the new playground at Como Lake.

As well, you can find additional photos of from Tanglewood and Hampton.

Looks like our parks crew will have a busy spring and summer (as usual)!

Kwikwetlem formally claim Riverview, Colony Farm

You might have heard or read that the Kwikwetlem First Nation has, this week, formally claimed a portion of southeast Coquitlam. The KFN announced last summer that it intended to claim the Riverview lands, and now it has followed that up with a formal claim, filed with the Supreme Court, for Riverview, Colony Farm and other associated areas.
I don't plan on commenting on the claim, but I thought it would be useful to share the exact text of what the KFN is saying about its claim. So, here is its press release:

Kwikwetlem First Nation title case aims for fair relationship

VANCOUVER, Feb. 9, 2016 /CNW/ - Today, Kwikwetlem First Nation (KFN) filed an Aboriginal title and rights and Charter claim with the Supreme Court.

KFN has filed this claim as a part of KFN's continuing efforts to ensure its title and rights over key areas in its traditional territory are properly recognized and protected.

KFN is a small community, with a traditional territory based around the watershed of the Coquitlam River. KFN's traditional territory has seen significant development over many years, which is expected to continue.

"Our community has worked hard to be consulted and meaningfully involved in decisions about the planning and management of our land for years," said KFN Chief Ron Giesbrecht. "Although governments have taken some steps to involve us in making decisions about how our lands will be used, we do not feel our title and rights interests are being taken seriously. Given there are limited processes for resolving Aboriginal land claims for a small Nation like ours, this claim is the next logical step."

The claimed title areas in the case filed today amounts to less than 1% of Kwikwetlem's core territory, and includes the following lands, and their surrounding areas:

• Colony Farm Forensic Psychiatric Institute Lands. The Province of BC is the fee simple owner of this area, and it is managed by Shared Services (previously administered by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation).
• Colony Farm Regional Park. The Greater Vancouver Regional District operating as Metro Vancouver - is the registered owner of this area.
• Riverview Hospital Lands. The Provincial Rental Housing Corporation is the fee simple of this areas. It is managed by the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

KFN believes that the case will help to ensure it is meaningfully involved in decisions made about its lands, a process highlighted by the Supreme Court of Canada, which called for a consent-based decision model in its 2014 Tsilhqot'in decision.  Chief Giesbrecht stated: "We hope that the government will follow the advice of the Supreme Court of Canada and negotiate a fair and respectful resolution to our claim, which will allow us to build a strong future for our community."

Support from other organizations
BCAFN Regional Chief Shane Gottfriedson
"Our First Nations have always hoped by supporting a meaningful consultations, that it will build a bridge of understanding towards reconciliation and partnership. Our Aboriginal title and rights should be respected and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations supports Kwikwetlem First Nation and urge BC Government to build a relationship that benefits true reconciliation." 

President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
"I applaud Kwikwetlem First Nation's declaration of their inherent Title and for protecting their Rights. It is vitally important for KFN to be truly involved in the management of their territory not as an interested stakeholder but as respected Title holders. The BC Government can no longer pretend KFN Title does not exist nor treat our inherent constitutionally-protected and judicially-recognized Aboriginal Title and Rights as an inconvenient checkbox of doing business in our respective territories."

SOURCE Kwikwetlem First Nation

For further information: Media contacts, CopperMoon Communications, Laura Taylor, laura@coppermoon.ca, 604 336 8771; Richard Truman, richard@coppermoon.ca, 778 929 1662

Diversity, and then what?

When it comes to the sort of ethnic, cultural and racial diversity of which our country and our community are so proud, can there be “too much of a good thing”? The answer is “yes,” according to Martin Collacott, Canada’s former ambassador to Syria and Lebanon, whose opinion was featured as the “Letter of the Day” in the November 30 issue of the Vancouver Sun.

Is Collacott correct? It’s a timely question, not only for Canadians to consider, but also for Coquitlam residents to ponder as we continue to welcome new immigrants into our community on a regular basis and, more notably, also await the arrival of Syrian refugees in the coming months.

Results from "I love Canada because..." mural.

Collacott acknowledges that the increased diversity this country has experienced in recent decades “has made Canadian society more vibrant and interesting in some respects.” However, he continues, “too much diversity can create major problems.” This “has been amply illustrated in the case of more than a few European countries that have begun to discover there are limits to how much diversity they can absorb without harming themselves.”

Canada’s diverse composition may, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently said, be “our strength,” but Collacott answers that diversity is not an unqualified good, in and of itself.

Looking at the question from a common-sense point of view, Collacott makes a good point. Consider the question this way: We may say that “variety is the spice of life,” but there are limits to the sort of variety sane persons will subject themselves to.

Whether it’s in our choice of what we wear (comfortable and warm in winter, not irritating and cold) or what we eat (nutritious and delicious, not poisonous and disgusting), we have boundaries.

Similarly, while we may say that we embrace diversity, most of us would not want to live in a truly diverse community filled with, for example, unrepentant members of Pol Pot’s murderous Cambodian regime from the second half 1970s. Or, of course, with unrepentant members of ISIS. (And, for the most comprehensive look at what ISIS is all about, please click here to see a story from The Atlantic magazine.)

When diversity works in Canada it is not because of the simple fact that the country accepts diversity, and neither is it because of the celebration of diversity; rather, it is because of the fact the new Canadians reciprocate with a commitment to fit into Canada. It’s called integration, and it’s a vital and too-often unacknowledged part of the Canadian success story.

Coquitlam Canada Day activities.

Coquitlam’s official position on diversity is one of unalloyed acceptance, inclusion and celebration. You can read the policy by clicking here. It’s great as far as it goes. But even the city’s own Multicultural Advisory Committee, of which I am vice-chair, is acting of late as if there is more to multiculturalism than celebration of diversity.

Consider, for example, the committee’s successful 2015 Canada Day display which was the subject of a report to council-in-committee on November 23. The display went beyond the usual “tell us where you are from” interactive display and, instead, asked participants to write a message on an “I Love Canada Because…” mural.

For the record, six top themes emerged – natural environment, people, values and culture, safety, family, and general satisfaction with the country. City staff also presented a word cloud, shown at the top of this blog, to illustrate the predominant themes. You can read the full staff report by clicking here.

The real import of the mural is not so much in the answers it found, but in the question it asked: Why do you love Canada? The question springs from an implicit understanding that diversity is a two-way street, that “We’ll accept you, but you have to buy into what Canada is all about, too.”

This represents a real and important maturation in the development of multiculturalism in our country. It’s not just about celebration of diversity. And it’s not even abut embracing the more advanced concept of “inter-culturalism,” which encourages cross-cultural understanding.

Rather, it is about identifying and celebrating those values that we hold in common—the values that are not signs of our diversity but of our unity. And that’s a good thing.

We're Number Three in BC!

We were all excited to learn earlier today that BC Business magazine had named Coquitlam as #3 in its new list of "Best Cities for Work in B.C." Here is the magazine's press release:

BCBUSINESS UNVEILS FIRST-EVER “BEST CITIES FOR WORK IN B.C.”

Coquitlam's Lafarge Lake.(Photo by me)

Burnaby B.C. –

BCBusiness editor-in-chief Matt O’Grady is excited to announce that Coquitlam has ranked #3 in BCBusiness’s inaugural list of the “Best Cities for Work in

B.C.”

The exclusive list was developed in concert with Environics Analytics, weighing seven

economic indicators to reflect the health of a city’s job market: income growth, average

household income, population growth, unemployment, labour participation and the

percentage of people with degrees and taking transit.

“Developing the first-ever list of this kind in B.C. has been an extraordinary project,“

says O’Grady. “We expect the results to attract a lot of attention and provoke a lot of

discussion across the province.” The driving force behind the Best Cities project,

BCBusiness associate editor Trevor Melanson, adds: “This ranking will undoubtedly be

considered controversial by some, but there’s appeasement in the fact that, no matter

how we sliced the data, the ranking came up mostly the same. High income and

population growth, low unemployment—all the indicators we measured tended to go

hand-in-hand.”

The top 10 cities in BCBusiness’s 2014 list of Best Cities for Work in B.C. are:

1. Fort St. John

2. North Vancouver

3. Coquitlam

4. Burnaby

5. Dawson Creek

6. New Westminster

7. Langley

8. Richmond

9. Surrey

10. Vancouver

A complete list of the top 36 cities as well as details on the methodology and supporting

stories on the impact of LNG, what cities are booming and declining, and why Metro

Vancouver will always dominate the list’s Top 10 can be found in the January 2015

issue of BCBusiness – available online at BCBusiness.ca/BestCities and in the iTunes

store now and on newsstands as of December 31st.

About BCBusiness

Published for more than 40 years, BCBusiness is British Columbia’s foremost business

authority and the most widely read business publication in the province. Focusing

exclusively on business in British Columbia, BCBusiness provides unparalleled behindthe-

scenes coverage, chronicling major deals and putting faces to the major players.

BCBusiness is published by Canada Wide Media Limited, the largest independent

publisher in Western Canada.

Contact Information:

Media Inquiries:

Holly Pateman

T: 604-637-3472

E: hpateman@canadawide.com

'Real consultation is crucial'

A good-sized audience at Summit community centre for the meeting.

As I reported earlier, my Burquitlam speech on Tuesday centred on truck routes. My speech at tonight's Chamber all-candidates meeting at the Evergreen Cultural Centre will be about yet another, very specific subject. Stay tuned. 
Meanwhile, here are my notes from my opening address at last night's Westwood Plateau Community Association all-candidates meeting--a meeting that went off very well. My speech was fairly general, hitting on my usual themes:

Hi, I'm Terry O'Neill, and I’m seeking re-election to Council.

My background in journalism and volunteering taught me the importance of standing up for what you believe in, and for working hard to support others.

That’s why I helped found the Eagle Ridge Residents Association. And that's why I'm proud of the role I played on Council in shrinking tax increases over the past three years. I certainly intend to continue keeping a close watch on the bottom line if re-elected.

I also hope you give me the chance to build on the successes I helped initiate in the area of democratic reform. Real consultation is crucial!

As Coquitlam keeps growing, we need councillors with good judgement and solid experience to ensure that services and amenities keep pace. You can count on me to work hard and be prepared, so you receive the high-quality government you deserve.

And one more thing: As an independent candidate, I am not beholden to any slate, team or party. Instead, my priority is you, the taxpayer, the voter, the citizen. That's my promise, and you can count on it!

Towards an affordable housing-affordability strategy

A proposed Bosa project that would replace old rental units.

Last night, Council gave unanimous approval to a draft Housing Affordability Strategy, an action that sends the HAS into the public realm for comment and consultation. I seconded the motion because it is important to hear what the community -- taxpayers, homeowners, renters, activist groups, industry, etc. -- has to say about the issue. 

My vote doesn't mean that I support all possible initiatives spelled out in the HAS. On the contrary. I'll explain why.

The Provincial government says each municipality must have an affordable housing strategy, but doesn’t specify what is in that strategy. Local governments are given a variety of tools to address housing affordability challenges through the Local Government Act and Community Charter.  The City of Coquitlam does not have the mandate or capacity to build and operate affordable housing. 

However, the City does have a role in promoting the creation of affordable housing in the community

Approaches can and do vary. There are essentially two models: One exemplifies activism, expense and something I call “up-grabbing”,  the opposite of downloading, in that it willingly takes upon itself responsibilities that are more properly the federal or provincial governments’.

Activism is exemplified by Victoria, for example, which boasts a Civic Housing Fund, a Regional Housing Trust Fund, a Social Housing Permissive Property Tax Exemption, a Secondary Suites Incentive Program, has issued two development permits for the creation of private sector low income rental suites and signed 11 housing agreements that either limit restriction on rentals (in the case of strata projects) or create rental units and rent restrictions for a prescribed period of time. And it has even bought old motels and converted them to housing. But none of this is cheap. An average of $1.34 million a year for three years ending 2010. That’s about $4.1 million.  

Another model is exemplified by the City of Langley. It issued a paper in 2009 discussing a wide range of possible actions, but in the end chose a responsible, and taxpayer-friendly model  to: 1.      Support Density; 2.  Encourage the creation of secondary suites; 3.  Maintain tough regulations on the conversion of rental stock to condominiums.

Keep in mind: property tax is the least-fair, least-equitable way to tax people. It is not based on one’s ability to pay, but on the assessed value of the home you are living in. Yet, an interventionist, up-grabbing approach to housing affordability has the ultimate effect of putting more of a burden on the shoulders of property-tax payers, instead of on the shoulders of the consumption or income taxpayers—the sort of tax collected by the provincial and federal governments.

There are a great deal of good, common-sense, non-burdensome options lists in our proposed new HAS. See page four of the document for the broad outline and 16 to 26 for details.  For example, the proposed Rental Housing Strategy is, as I interpret it, basically a continuation of existing policies which – while placing quite a burden on developers, also seeks to find a balance with a general public concern to protect displaced renters.  What it doesn’t do is compel a re-developer to replace, one-for-one, every purpose-built rental unit that is lost to redevelopment, which is something that at least one Coquitlam councillor/mayoral candidate is calling for. (And, anyway, every economist and expert that I have talked with, says that buildings in which condos are sold end up having upwards of 40% of their units put on the rental market.)

And so, what are the possible burdens to the taxpayer of Coquitlam? Most come down to the Affordable Housing Fund.  Page 19., 3.1.4. 1.  Many on council want to expand the affordable housing fund, skimming off a portion of density bonus, with no cap. I oppose this; it should be capped.

The draft strategy asks the public to  “consider other options”  to add to the fund. What might those be:  Massive infusion into AHF through other sources such as proceeds of sales of city land, is the leading one.

Thankfully, no one is suggesting hiking property taxes!  I oppose this, and I urge voters to ask each and every candidate where they stand, and further, to ask them, why they think it’s fair to the already overburdened residential property taxpayer to deny them the benefits of such potentially redirected monies, when there are so many other options that the city can and should take. Such proceeds can and should be used for general well-being, such as land-sales reserves or maybe even directly for capital costs of new cultural or sport facilities.

We must also watch closely to ensure that working families, who are just barely able to put together enough money to afford a downpayment on a new condo in Burquitlam, for example, aren’t pushed out of the market entirely because the cost of their unit is hiked as a result of a neighbouring project escaping some civic charges because it is promising to provide cheap housing to low-income families. That’s simply not fair.

On the other hand, 1.2.4 on page 21 – “considering exempting rental floor space form maximum density allowances…” seems a less-burdensome, more-equitable alternative.

There are a great many other options and ideas in this report, and I urge the public to get involved in what I hope will be a full and fruitful discussion about this important such.

We need a grounded, responsible Housing Affordability Strategy, one that is rooted, not in a sky’s-the-limit attitude towards redistribution of public money, but in respect for all citizens – be it the young couple looking to put down roots, the working-class family endeavouring to make ends meet, or the newly-retired homeowner on a fixed income.

.

Crime and the Evergreen Line: No new Transit Police

Evergreen Line construction. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

Today's Vancouver Sun and Tri-City News each have stories about an interesting report, prepared for the Transit police, about the possible impact of new Evergreen Line SkyTrain stations on crime rates around the station. In short, the study predicts no increase in crime rates.
That's fine as far as it goes, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the report. However, neither the stories nor the report itself tell the whole story.
First point: Even though the Evergreen Line will add six new stations to Metro's rapid-transit system, and even though an additional 70,000 riders will use the system once the line opens in the summer of 2016, the Transit Police force will not add a single new officer to its force in response to the opening of the new line.
Chief Officer Neil Dubord confirmed this fact with me in a telephone conversation I had with him earlier today. Instead, the force will realign its services to establish what Dubord calls "hubs of safety," at "high-visibility points" at which Transit Police, Transit security personnel, and SkyTrain attendants can cluster, and from which they can quickly respond to reports of problems.
For the Evergreen Line, the "hub of safety" will be at the Lougheed Station. "It's almost like a hub and spoke [system]," Dubord told me.
Fair enough, and I'm sure these hubs will be staffed with high-quality professionals. But I hope this doesn't mean that Coquitlam RCMP will be forced to respond to incidents that have heretofore been handled on existing lines by Transit Police. If Coquitlam Mounties are, indeed, called into action in such circumstances, it will undoubtedly increase the City of Coquitlam's costs and will thereby represent a downloading of costs onto municipal taxpayers.
Second point: Note that the report talks about crime rates, with an emphasis on rates. Given that populations are already increasing rapidly around planned Evergreen Line stations, and that the populations will continue to increase once those stations are open for business, we will undoubtedly see an increase in the real number of actual crimes committed in and around those stations if the rate stays the same--which it is predicted to do.
Moreover, experience with other rapid-transit systems suggest there will be a high number of quasi-criminal or near-criminal disturbances in and around Evergreen Line stations.
Bottom line: the number of real crimes will increase because of population growth around Evergreen Line stations, 70,000 new riders a day will use the Evergreen Line, but authorities are adding no new Transit Police officers to the system.

Truck-route traction

Please bear with me, because this is going to take a few minutes.
You might have heard or read about the big controversy surrounding Council's late-July decision to approve, on a two-month trial basis, a full truck route along the north end of Mariner (essentially, the big, twisting hill from Como Lake to Dewdney Trunk Road) and along the full length of Como Lake Avenue. 
Council did this by a 6-3 vote (with Mayor Stewart, Councillor Brent Asmundson and me opposed) even though there had been no public consultation and the GM of Engineering said he couldn't recommend it.
Council took the action following several long and lengthy meetings with Coquitlam Concrete owner Jim Allard, who aggressively pushed for wide-open truck routes through Coquitlam to help his trucks avoid traffic congestion caused by Evergreen Line construction and also to take a more direct route to the Centennial Secondary construction site from his Coquitlam River-area operation on Pipeline Road.
The issue was on a slow boil through the summer until candidate Teri Towner distributed a pamphlet earlier this month alerting the residents to the decision. Then all hell broke loose. The folks in the affected area were of one voice: No Way!

Coquitlam Concrete owner Jim Allard. 

Surprisingly (to me, at least), three councillors who voted for the trial, Lou Sekora, Bonita Zarrillo and Chris Wilson, accused Towner and Mayor Stewart (whom Towner had invited out for a few minutes of door-knocking to see the reaction for himself) of sensationalizing and misrepresenting the issue, but at the same time they could point to no factual error she had made.
Zarrillo and Wilson also alleged that the publicity had tainted the trial-period process--a startling assertion which led me to conclude that they believed the trial period would have been a more authentic one if only people were not aware that the trial was occurring in the first place. It also led me to quip  that they were essentially saying that the trial had been "tainted by the truth." Bizarre!
Anyway, after Councillor Zarrillo said during our Committee meeting on Monday that the trial should be abandoned because of the alleged tainting, I quickly moved just such a motion. I originally had trouble getting a seconder to the motion (Councillor Asmundson was absent on personal business and the mayor can't move or second motions), but ultimately I  found one, and the motion passed unanimously.
To provide some for-the-record context (and, yes, a little bit of "I told you so"), what follows below are 1) a rough transcript of relevant portions (mainly, my comments) of the late-July meeting which produced the original decision; 2) a rough transcript of my comments on Monday. (My thanks go out to the self-described nerd who provided these transcripts to me!)

July 28 meeting of Council

Councillor Wilson: [Moved] That Council direct the Engineer to issue a general temporary truck route exemptions for a trial period ending Sept 30, renewable on a monthly basis at no cost, as follows: Mariner Way between Barnet and Como Lake; And Como Lake Ave. between Mariner Way and Clarke Rd.

[Seconded by Councillor Sekora]

Wilson: So the first trial period would be two months from now to Sept 30, and renewable after that, but it could be revoked at any time if there are problems or issues.

Councillor Sekora: I seconded the motion, but I’d hoped that we went beyond Sept 30, but I’d hoped that it would be at least three months, maybe even a six-month trial. We’re too restrictive with two months... [Comments from other councillors and GM Engineering follow.]

Councillor O’Neill: I’m going to oppose this, not vote in favour of it.  I just still feel that I’m not in any position to judge all the technical things that come into consideration in making these decisions.  I’m not persuaded that it’s an undue hardship for trucks to go a longer route and follow the existing truck routes.

But primarily I’m just not comfortable wading into something where I don’t know have all the information.  I certainly don’t know what the people along Mariner and Como Lake are going to think of this, and I don’t want to wait to respond to the avalanche of criticism about a parade of trucks grinding up Mariner there, and all of a sudden we have to react and there’s the headline, you know, Council does quick retreat from late-night motion to allow truck route. [NB: my predictive powers proved to be perfect!]

We’ve heard that the existing truck routes were based on well-considered criteria dealing with all sort of technical things. I’ve got to believe that. I haven’t seen those reports, but I have to believe there’s been significant time put into that.

If the GM Engineering decides in his wisdom with access to all that information that an exemption is warranted, then that’s fine.  But he has that technical expertise and background, and I’d prefer to be in a position to let him use that.  That’s what the bylaw has done, given him more discretion.

And in a way we’re saying if this motion passes is that, well, we don’t actually trust our GM of Engineering to make the right decision, so we’re going to make that decision for him.  And I don’t want to be in that position either.

[More discussion follows. Council votes 6-3 in favour of the truck route, with Mayor Stewart and Councillors Asmundson and O'Neill opposed.]

September 15 meeting of Council in Committee

Councillor O'Neill: It’s really regrettable that this has become so emotional.

You know, in the first part of my journalistic career, I was quite content to sit back and record notes.

Basically “He said this, she said that”, put it in the newspaper and let the readers make up their minds based on what people said.

Everybody got cynical about the news then, because the news started to be about who said the most outrageous thing, whoever acted the most outlandishly, whoever made the most outlandish charge. So a reporter that doesn’t try to get through this, to find out what’s really going on, is really not doing the job... 

But to get to the nub of the issues, you really have to start saying, Well, does that make sense, is that right, is that wrong? Is that factual, is that not factual?

The number one thing that all of this debate hinges on is the allegation that there was a deliberate or some sort of attempt to stir this thing up and make political gains on it, but I have not seen a shred of evidence to support that and as a matter of fact, one of the people who was so offended and shocked by what’s going on said that, The pamphlet in question circulated was completely accurate but was misleading, (that’s a paraphrase), without specifying which ways it was misleading.

 It has been often said around this table that the process, this trial period has been tainted.

Well, if that pamphlet is entirely accurate ... then we’re in a position where the process has been tainted by the truth! Now how can that be?  How can something be tainted by the truth.

 If this is truthful and accurate about what Council did on the last meeting in July, on a 6-3 vote--allowed this truck exemption to happen on a temporary basis--and if that’s truthful, then how could the truth taint? This is what I just really don’t understand

And I’m disappointed that people think that a process, a trial period in which nobody knows anything about what’s going on or that the public doesn’t know about a trial, would somehow be [the better one].

I would think that if anything were to taint a process, it would be the “cone of silence” that was over the procedure, that was over the trial.  That would have tainted it.  Shouldn’t people have the right to know what’s going on?  Citing from my journalism background again, I’d say Yes.

 And in the matter of setting the record straight here.  From the time I’ve been on Council I’ve been very uncomfortable about moving forward with stuff when I don’t have all the information, don’t have staff reports.

One of the very first things that I got really upset about was something that happened when we were trying to rush through something without, I thought, due consideration.  And that was my point for not going along with this trial period, because I certainly I understood the logic behind the trial period, I understood what people were saying, and I understood Mr. Allard’s point of view as well. [Business owner Jim Allard was pushing for widespread exemptions.]  But I didn’t want to make a decision when we weren’t getting . . . when the engineer involved was not saying yes, this is something that’s valid, it won’t cause traffic disruptions in a new sector, it won’t damage the roads, it won’t be a safety problem and all that sort of stuff.  It wasn’t just [the safety issue I was concerned about, as has been said in committee earlier].

That’s something that the Mayor and Councillor Asmundson may have talked about, I haven’t looked up the record, I’m not going to speak for them.  But I certainly know what my feeling was; my feeling was just, I’m just not comfortable going there.  I know, we’ve got a lot of big hills in this community, and we’ve had truck routes that were set out in the past, I wasn’t persuaded that it was crucial enough for Council to preemptively, without the proper background, to make a decision to, even for a trial period, to override those existing routes, in an area as contentious as Mariner.

So mine was just a matter of process.  It wasn’t a matter trying to say that this would be leading to death and destruction or anything like that.

 And I resent – this is a personal comment – I resent the suggestion that it’s somehow my responsibility to talk my Council colleagues out of a decision that they made simply because they have been receiving a lot of negative blowback on it.

I’m sitting here saying I’m on the side of the angels on this one.  Thank goodness I voted the way I voted.  It was no certain thing.  I’m seeing all these emails and letters coming in and I’m saying These guys have to make their bed and they’ve got to lie in it.

I’m thinking if they see the need to change  this, please go ahead and change it.  I didn’t think any of you would change your mind, but it sounded like you wanted to end it, I din’t think you wanted to change it because you didn’t make a motion.  But I go the impression that you were were ready to change, so I said Ok, good, and I made a motion, and no seconder. And I don’t really get that.

And the fact that there’s so much angst about this.  We didn’t start this fire, folks.  I didn’t start it.  The Mayor didn’t start it, Councillor Asmundson didn’t start this fire.  If the fire was started, the fuel was put there by Council’s decision.  Maybe somebody lit a match to that fuel, but we didn’t put that fuel there, we didn’t start this fire folks... 

 There was a quote from Macbeth: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Well what does that mean?  Well it’s something about human nature.

You find it with somebody who’s maybe trying to explain away a decision. And they’re protesting. No this, no this, no that, no that.

All they have to do is admit that, "You know, maybe I shouldn’t have made that decision. I guess I shouldn’t have made that decision in the first place or taken that action in the first place," instead of accusing this and having that innuendo that and insulting language there.

If you still think you made the good decision, stick to it!  That’s fine.

I wasn’t happy with the decision to begin with, it was more a process thing for me, and I’m still in that position right now.

I told you I had a conversation with Mr. Allard, after this happened, to let him now that I voted against what I thought he really really wanted, because I didn’t want him to find out second-hand. I told him I voted against it. He said “I don’t blame you.  I would have waited until after the big forum at the end of the month with truckers.”  I said “Oh, good.”  I don’t like being shouted at by Mr. Allard any more than anybody else does.  But you know, we all have to live with our decisions, and I thought I’d face up to mine with Mr. Allard, I’ve known him ... seen him in the community a lot. 

And he’s all of a sudden saying “I don’t blame you Terry.”... 

Did you make the right decision or not?  If you made the right decision, stick to it by all means.

In the face of this massive public outcry, stick to it if you think the right decision, and if you think you’ve made the wrong decisions, second my motion and let’s end this right now.  That’s the way I see it.

Councillor Sekora (interrupting the last two sentences): What massive outcry?  What are you talking about?  Massive outcry. You’re drinking your own bathwater!  Massive outcry. Massive outcry, big deal.

[Soon after, my motion was seconded, and council eventually voted unanimously to end the truck-route trial immediately.]