The FCRA is proud to participate in the coalition of 24 neighbourhood associations sponsoring this event. We’re expecting mayoralty and city council candidates at the St. James Hall on West 10th.Oct 15 Poster
At a meeting of the Urban Development Institute’s Under 40’s, a panel of young developers complained that seniors with time on their hands were hijacking the city’s planning processes. Wesgroup Properties vice-president Beau Jarvis said: “While the silent majority is running around the seawall in Lululemon tights with a latte and toy poodle, we have a very social-media savvy, fundamentalist, vocal minority that is literally hijacking the cities in which we work”. He said Seniors “pack official comity plan meetings because they have time on their hands while middle-aged and younger people are busy working.”
Agreeing with Jarvis’s comments were Daniel Boffo of Boffo Properties, and Joo Tim Tiah who runs the Vancouver base of his family’s billion dollar Holborn group.
Not sure what Jarvis’s “fundamentalist” term means, but happy to be called media savvy!! These young developers are now threatening to take their family fortunes to cities which are more developer friendly (and younger?)
These comments prompted a series of responses which are quoted below:
“Look, we’re all familiar with the human life cycle. You’re born, you put on some yoga pants, buy a latte and a toy poodle, go for a walk, and then you die. What more is there?”
“I must remain the silent majority because my poodle just threw up on my Lululemon pants and my latte is getting cold in the meantime.”
“Dear Gran: Could you please use some of your overly-abundant spare time and respond in a thoroughly scathing way? I’m far too young and busy making money…”
“Good thing I own a bicycle, because I’m way too old and blind to drive!”
“I’d like to laugh at these witty comments, but I forgot where I put my reading glasses. And while I was looking for them, I forgot what I was going to read.”
“Wait a minute while I grab my pipe and slippers, and try to remember how to spell Patronizing!”
“Wait for me, I have to change my Depends, grab my walker and toddle on over to meet you for tai chi in the park before we protest at Bard on the Beach plans to gravel over Vanier Park!”
And the last word from Gran:
“My walker lost a wheel so I’m grounded till next pension payment. Nothin’ much to do ‘cept go t’meetin’s.
Listen, you young whipper-snapper. When I was your age I had respect for my elders. Damn right. Those walkers and canes are symbols of years of hard work and learning from the best teacher in the world, experience.
If the elders said that historical places are irreplacable, I’d stop and think on that. If they said cities need to be designed for everyone in them, not just the rich, I would mull that over too. If they said that money for social supports is a matter of priorities, I’d pay attention.
If they said that ‘create(d) wealth’ didn’t trickle down, I’d pause and consider. They might just know a thing or two.
Seems to me those things should be political. Seems to me you youngsters should be listening, learning, and thinking for yourselves, not sitting around whining about having your self-serving schemes shot down.”
Marine Gardens is a model affordable townhouse project in Marpole on Marine Drive just east of Cambie St.
Released: September 15th, 2014
Where Is The Missing Land Title For Marine Gardens?
(And All That is Wrong with City Planning)
The land title that would show the City of Vancouver’s acquisition of the property on which Marine Gardens is located, is missing from the BC Land Title Registry. This is significant given that residents have been told that the land was originally donated to the City as a park (Delta View Park) with the stipulation that the trees never be cut. The City plans to demolish the townhouse community, and all its trees, to erect more skyscrapers.
Six years ago, I attended the first of many Open Houses and Public Consultations over the 34 story Marine Gateway project currently being built across from Marine Gardens at Cambie and Marine Drive.
Like most who attended, I was not opposed to development in Marpole, but I wanted it to enhance the best features of our neighbourhood as one of the “more” affordable, family-oriented areas of the city. Most of us felt that the 34 story Marine Gateway project was too tall and completely out of scale with our neighbourhood.
At meeting after meeting, planners trotted out the same project assuring us that we had been heard and that the skyscrapers had been moved back a few centimetres to reduce the shadowing on the local school playground.
It was a textbook example of all that is wrong with the planning and public consultation process under Vision Vancouver. It was a waste of time with our comments ignored while Vision boasted about its unprecedented level of (meaningless) consultation.
It was at one of these first Open Houses that the City brought a model of my neighbourhood with clear plastic skyscrapers overlaying many of the existing structures – including my townhouse community- Marine Gardens.
I advised City planners at the time that I had been told that Marine Gardens was built on land that was donated to the City as a park and that the trees were never to be cut. The development they were proposing would necessitate the complete removal of virtually every tree on the site.
I also advised them that Marine Gardens became a showcase for the United Nations Habitat for Humanity Conference, held in Vancouver in the mid-1970s, and was built as a model community. It became the prototype for many of the co-ops that followed.
I went down to the Vancouver Archives and amongst the sketchy records, was able to verify that Marine Gardens had indeed once been “Delta View Park,” and that in the early 1970s, City Council had stipulated that it must be used for “garden apartments.”
The records were too sketchy to understand how land purportedly donated to the City as park land, ever came to be developed.
In 2007, after more than thirty years of maintaining Marine Gardens, the original developer retired and put our community on the market. It sold for $12.5 million. Four years later, Concord Pacific bought it for almost double the price – $23 million.
At three separate meetings, Concord Pacific’s top executives have advised us that the City pressured them to buy Marine Gardens. With their sweet deal in False Creek where they have a 20+ year outstanding commitment to build a park, with City permits to use the space for commercial purposes (a parking lot, a Presentation Centre, rentals to Cirque de Soleil – even an Olympic Pavillion that apparently paid $1.3 million), all while paying no property tax – it is hard to imagine how they could say no.
Since the City itself pressured Concord Pacific to undertake the re-development at Marine Gardens (the two proposed skyscrapers match what was on the City’s model years before Concord was involved), it can hardly reject Concord Pacific’s rezoning application based on public opposition.
This has created a scenario whereby the rezoning application for Marine Gardens has not yet gone through the democratic process (it has not gone before Council and there has been no public hearing) but we have received a letter from Brian Jackson, the head of the City’s Planning Department, advising us that saving Marine Gardens “is not an option.”
This is a clear violation of Article 566 of the Vancouver Charter which stipulates that, “Council shall not make, amend, or repeal a zoning by-law until it has held a public hearing thereon, and an application for rezoning shall be treated as an application to amend a zoning by-law.”
Recent efforts to obtain the historical land title to verify the story behind Marine Gardens, came up dry. The title search company was unable to find the title we need and says it is missing from the records.
Something is seriously, if not legally, awry with the planning process in Vancouver, and it is showing up all over the City.
And the missing land title for Marine Gardens? Under the circumstances, it raises a lot of questions.
Jillian Skeet is a writer and national/international affairs consultant. She has lived at Marine Gardens for 11 years.
On October 29th, the FCRA will sponsor a meeting of candidates in the upcoming civic election. There will be pre-set questions from the association and an opportunity for questions from the floor.
What would you like to ask:
When will the City demand that Creekside Park is delivered by Concord Pacific?
Are you in favour of removing the viaducts? What is your plan to ensure that removing the viaducts doesn’t have an unmanageable impact on our local streets?
When will we see the community centre including indoor soccer gym and ice rink on the Plaza of Nations?
Let us know your issues. Come on out on the 29th and assess the candidates.
October 29, 2014
Creekside Community Centre
1 Athletes Way
7pm Meet and Greet Candidates
7:30 Qs and As
Reluctance to relinquish small piece of parkland could backfire for Vision at the voting booth. Read more…
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 9, 2014—Justice delayed, court process hijacked. Concord Pacific’s first act as a full party to the community’s dispute with the City of Vancouver is to postpone established Court date.
“The City must be happy that this will be buried until after the November 15, 2014 Civic election. There are significant reported financial contributions by Concord Pacific to Vision Vancouver. We assume the incumbent administration will not want to highlight its partnership with the developer in this legal battle with the community as we run up to November 15,” stated Fern Jeffries, Co-Chair of the FCRA (False Creek Residents Association).
The City’s lawyer’s has just now advised the FCRA that a key person is away on vacation until September 22nd and the City would have been unable to make the long established September 11th court date in any event. “It’s hard to understand this level of disorganization in such a well-paid bureaucracy,” said Jeffries. “The Court Rules say the City’s response was due June 12, 2014. I wonder if I could get that kind of extension on my property taxes”?
On May 21, 2014 the FCRA filed a judicial review application to the BC Supreme Court to declare invalid the City of Vancouver’s decision to allow commercial activities on land zoned for exclusive use as a park. The temporary permit allowing such use had expired on May 16, and the FCRA was asking the Court to disallow any renewal. “Temporary” permits had been in place since 2006. The City of Vancouver then issued yet another “temporary” 3-year permit on July 24, 2014. Accordingly, the FCRA amended its court case, asking the court to quash this renewed permit.
On July 24, the same date that the City advised Concord of the 3-year extension of its temporary permit, Concord filed an application in Supreme Court to be added as a party to the judicial review application. No explanation was given as to why a full month passed between the FCRA filing and the joint actions by the City and by Concord. The Court heard Concord’s application on August 27, 2014.
The FCRA’s opposition to Concord’s application was largely based on concern that they would hijack the judicial process and FCRA would never have its day in court.
On September 3, 2014, the Court granted Concord’s application. Concord’s first act as a full party in this matter is to apply for a postponement. “We likely won’t be in Court on this matter until January,” said Bob Kasting, counsel for the FCRA. He added that there may be numerous other legal manoeuvres initiated by Concord or the City to delay the matter even further.
The City is working with Concord to facilitate the use of the park-zoned land for a television reality show, the Game of Homes. “Concord makes so much money from this property, it is hardly surprising that they are not motivated to deliver the 9-acre park that was part of the 1990 agreement with the City,” said Jeffries.
The 1990 agreement called for 7650 units of housing and green space that included this 9-acre waterfront property. Over 10,000 have since been built and another 1,300 were recently approved as Concord’s “False Creek Central” across from BC Place.
For further information, contact Fern Jeffries, 604-328-7097
For legal information, contact Bob Kasting, 604-879-5952
The FCRA is a member of this coalition of 23 neighbourhood associations focusing on Citizen Engagement in Planning. The Coalition is planning an All Party meeting to enable residents to assess parties in the upcoming civic election on their commitment to citizen engagement.
This important event will be: October 15, St. James Community Centre, 7 pm.
Stay tuned for more details.
In his latest response to the FCRA,Peter Judd now acknowledges that there is no permit between Concord Pacific and the City of Vancouver. Here is his response:
“Ms Jeffries, thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Yes you are correct. The City considers the proposed activity an acceptable use of this site and it is not precluded by the Development Permit issued by the City to Concord for an extension to the current use. The City has issued a film permit for this production per John Greers letter, but there are no other permits in existence relating to this site as we generally do not require Development or Building Permits for film sets.”
His response raises a number of serious issues, now formally conveyed to the City:
“Thank you for your email Mr. Judd in which you acknowledge that there is no “current permit between the City and Concord Pacific”.
However, your response raises a number of serious ancillary questions:
1. You say, “The City considers…” What does this mean? Is this a staff decision? Is this a Council decision? What is the process by which “the City” made this decision? What is the authority by which this decision is made? The City web site notes that new or significant events require Council decision. Is this new use requiring closure of the seawall considered “significant”?
2. What are the criteria by which this is judged to by “an acceptable use”? As you know, the land is zoned for exclusive park and recreation use. Was this zoning taken into account?
3. Is a “film permit” the same as a “Special Events” permit? Mr. Greer’s letter specifies “Special Events”, yet I can find no definition on the City’s web site. Please provide a definition of a “Special Event” . Is a “film set” a “special event” ? Mr. Greer’s letter does not allow any commercial usage, but is restrictive to “special events”. How did “the City” determine that this film permit was issued “per John Greers (sic.) letter?
4. Although this event is on private property, it has significant public impact. Why was no consultation with neighbours undertaken? Again, this appears to be a requirement according to the City’s web site.
Thank you for your attention to this important community issue.”
As usual, we’ll keep web site readers posted. Comments and suggestions welcome!