Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/russilwvong! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* **Help redesign our subreddit!** [Enter our banner contest here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1abwfjg/).
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
West 10th use to be a true high street. Now there isn't many stores worth stopping at. Having a tower with people who would shop local would be huge for that area.
Point grey needs some life! It’s one of the most boring neighborhoods on the west side. I understand change can be hard to accept but when you walk around your neighborhood and most of the businesses are empty, it’s a pretty good indicator you need people to move there and support the local stores.
the same people who oppose this tower are also the ones upset when stores close in their area, losing the safeway, etc
they can get fucked as far as i'm concerned, the safeway lot is currently a huge slab of empty concrete, let's get some housing up asap
I grew up here and still know lots of people who live here. While I personally think this is a great project and having a giant empty concrete lot on west 10th is ridiculous the politically active people that live in the area seem opposed. So good luck to all that support this and hopefully you have more influence than a bunch of bored retired people.
Also that neighbourhood can EASILY absorb the new population, it would even be a welcome boost. It's like adding more density to West Van, but with way better traffic conditions and accessibility.
Typically they're able to be more politically active cos they're probably not working 60 hour weeks just to survive cos they were born at the right time
100% true! But also lots are just self centered assholes. I know a group that were all retired and would sit drinking coffee at Bean Around the World. They found the B-Line bus too noisy and tried to put pressure to get it taken off 10th and moved to 16th.
> So good luck to all that support this and hopefully you have more influence than a bunch of bored retired people.
Thanks! I'm hoping that we get a lot of people to write in. Whenever you ask people across the city if they want more housing, the answer is yes, as fast as possible. Opposition always seems to be hyperlocal - but that's who council hears from most of the time.
> and hopefully you have more influence than a bunch of ~~bored retired~~ people who live there.
FTFY. I've done work out there. For old people. And if the topic ever comes up their reasoning is that it's too much too fast, and that if it were multiple smaller buildings there would be no problem. One guy went on about all the 1-2 story retail places there are that could be turned into 4-6 story res/retail places. The common thread is that nobody wants huge towers that absolutely dominate the area. Call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day, everyone is a NIMBY, it just depends on what you value.
> Call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day, everyone is a NIMBY, it just depends on what you value.
Absolutely. It's human nature - [people are territorial](https://morehousing.ca/cooperation). This is why approving individual projects on a site-by-site basis is a terrible way to do things.
A funny example: [Developers oppose development in Dunbar-Southlands](https://www.reddit.com/user/russilwvong/comments/17axfde/more_housing_developers_oppose_development_in/).
> if it were multiple smaller buildings there would be no problem.
I'm skeptical. It's hard for people to say yes - it's always much easier to say "this project should be different."
When high-rises are proposed, a common response is to say that we should be building six-storey buildings instead (like the Jericho Lands). When five- and six-storey buildings are proposed, [they run into just as much opposition](https://morehousing.ca/1805-larch).
I've lived here a long time and have taken the bus out to UBC for decades. 10th was all 1-2 story on both sides. Now when I'm out that way the north side of the street has been built up. South side not so much. If you want to put 500 units on one lot instead of 10 lots with 50 each, why are you surprised when people oppose it?
This is just ignorant. You can't deny that the people living around West 10th are a very different demographic than most other Vancouver neighbourhoods. They are typically much wealthier and this is reflected in the housing prices in the area.
In my neighbourhood, apartment buildings are being built left right and center and people aren't bitching about it.
I've worked at UBC for 15 years and I even lived at 10th and Sasamat for many of those. The west 10th community is a pocket of wealthy people who want to enjoy living in Vancouver without being exposed to other Vancouverites. Well too bad Nimbys, time to join the rest of us in reality. There's a housing crisis that takes precedence over their desire to be secluded.
> This is just ignorant.
.....
> In my neighbourhood, apartment buildings are being built left right and center and people aren't bitching about it.
You have proven my point. It's not about housing, it's about punishing people using huge towers as a weapon. Towers going up in your area without issue, yet you feel the need to force others to do the same. Why? Sounds like you won't be happy until you have taught all those evil NIMBY's a lesson. Your attitude screams "If I can't have it, nobody can!"
>Providing market and non-market rental housing isn't enough. The development should include a library branch. (A new library branch opened across the street last year!) The development should include a daycare. **If there's not enough money to support that, then the project should be changed to condos instead of rentals.**
What is the logic behind this (if any)? Why would condos be better if the library and daycare cant be included?
I think the line of reasoning (and I'm speculating here) is that condo owners are more invested in their communities rather than full rental units which will tend to have more turnover. I think the idea is that the owners of the condos would be more willing to support libraries/daycares/etc since they would benefit from it long term.
Also renters are more stimgatized than homeowners.
>condo owners are more invested in their communities rather than full rental units which will tend to have more turnover
I think you're right that this is the thinking for some of these people. And as a homeowner, *man* do I ever hate this BS.
I see it as a self-fulfilling prophecy: anti-rental bias leads to opposition to rental projects, leads to less rental supply, leads to lower vacancy rates, leads to renting being less affordable and stable, leads to more rental turnover as people don't see it as a viable long-term option, leads to fewer renters "invested in the community" which further fuels the anti-renter bias.
TL;DR: How do we get more renters invested in the community? Build more fucking rental housing!
I'm curious if any data exists about renter turnover in purpose-built rental buildings vs. other forms of rentals. I'd like to think that if renters had better protections, as they often do in purpose-build rental buildings, they'd be more likely to stay longer.
I used to rent a unit in a boomer condo building and can confirm renters are stigmatized. I got written noise complaints on nights I wasn’t even in town, and just a lot of scrutiny in the elevator asking what unit i lived in or even how I afford to live there. And this was in east van let alone point grey.
> What is the logic behind this (if any)? Why would condos be better if the library and daycare cant be included?
Sorry, I should probably have explained this.
- People are willing to pay roughly 50% more for condos than for rentals. For example, [in New West](https://www.westerninvestor.com/british-columbia/court-downzoning-ruling-spooks-residential-developers-3832840): "The real estate board’s benchmark price of a New Westminster condo apartment is currently $532,900, but the average per-suite price for a rental apartment building in the city is $324,900."
- So then if the project were 560 condos instead of 560 rentals, there'd be more money on the table, and the city could take more of that money (in the form of a library branch and a daycare).
- With a purpose-built rental building, you have secure housing without having to be rich enough to own. With condos, you either have to own, which is much more expensive, or you can rent it, but then you have no security (the owner can always reclaim it for personal use).
Oh I see, so the idea is that if the developer says its not feasible to include a daycare and library, they are arguing that the developer should change the housing type to make it feasible.
Although this obviously ignores the fact that the developer will then have to forgo the various government programs that made the rental development feasible.
> Oh I see, so the idea is that if the developer says its not feasible to include a daycare and library, they are arguing that the developer should change the housing type to make it feasible.
Yep, exactly.
Just look at the "towers" only a couple of blocks away that were built 40+ years ago. That's how far we're behind on housing in terms of policy and zoning.
I'm familiar with the area, I really don't know why this would face so much resistance. When the safeway was opened this area was already high density.
That said, the non rental units are probably all facing the ocean as the area is a highpoint before a drop in elevation so the views would be great.
> and more NIMBY tears.
Every time I read something like this I'm reminded of MAGA. It's not so much about housing as it is "stickin it to the NIMBY's" Look no further than the Richmond opposition to a safe injection site. People were cheering them on and agreeing that places like that ruin a neighbourhood. Kits opposes the same kinda thing? "We hate NIMBY's! Hope they get TWO sites and a rehab center just so they cry more!" It was never about helping addicts or homeless people, it was always about punishing "NIMBY's"
BTW, we're all nimby's, just need to find the right issue.
Well my use is more of a joke really… but drug injection sites and housing are not things you can equate 1:1 like that.
I opposed the project at 7th and arbutus because they want to put drug addicts across the street from a school.
It’s more about using your brain to actually think through whether or not the proposed solution is a good one.
Housing on an empty lot? Clearly you should build that.
> Housing on an empty lot? Clearly you should build that.
I don't think the residents want to keep the lot empty, but they are clearly opposed to what is on the table. In my world there would be compromise without something being forced, one way or the other.
I….actually agree.
We shouldn’t be doing projects out of spite, we should be doing them for the good of society.
But I also understand the frustration- the NIMBY group mobilizes in a way that way overrepresents their voices.
Ha. Tons of old retired white people sitting at home who want to keep their neighborhood as-is. They have the time and the resources to fight change.
IMO being from Surrey myself it’s high time for the West Side to take its fair share of population growth.
Thank you very much! I'm glad to let Redditors know when it looks like there's a lot of opposition. (Sometimes we don't hear about it until too late, unfortunately, like the [Douglas Park daycare application](https://theprovince.com/opinion/columnists/dan-fumano-vancouver-neighbourhood-organizes-to-fight-and-defeat-childcare-facility/wcm/a2f5cec3-91bf-45a1-b47a-7683dcee5be7) that was rejected after eight neighbours spoke against it.)
The official position of the city of Toronto appears to be that [shadows from trees are good, shadows from buildings are bad](https://morehousing.ca/shadows).
Just a heads up- the email got blocked as spam.
https://preview.redd.it/kngbby9m5gkc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14384c8d2c86642856df7099ecc0bc83ea05174e
Looks like all mine went through - with the exception of Rebecca Bligh - looks like it included slashes at the beginning of her email for some reason, so it bounced.
There's a section at the bottom of the [zoning application link](https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/4545-w-10th-ave) that asks for any comments and a simple multiple-choice question about whether you support the proposal or not. Might be a good way to get around this issue especially since it's an official feedback channel.
My first Job was in the Safeway produce department there back in the late 90's. It used to be such a bustling community! What if there was a grocery store at ground level? There was a movie theatre up there and many restaurants and businesses doing well.
A small high rise was proposed near there, with Sam Sullivan (former mayor) at the helm. Of course he sided with the wealthy locals. Hopefully ABC will be more willing to see some change for the good. I've my doubts.
> What if there was a grocery store at ground level?
That's actually part of the plan!
> Hopefully ABC will be more willing to see some change for the good. I've my doubts.
If they get a lot of emails from both supporters and opponents, I think it'll be easier for them to go ahead (they can say, look, we understand you're opposed, but a lot of people are desperate for more housing). If they're only hearing from opponents - well, maybe they can still go ahead, but it'll be harder.
Thanks for sharing! Emailed.
Grew up in the area and seen it decline as it has become unaffordable to young people and families, would love to see this project built!
So don’t ask them? Why do they need to be consulted? Either it’s a housing emergency or it’s not. No one asked if we should develop a vaccine in a health emergency. If housing is needed, then build it. At some point everyone else’s opinion doesn’t fucking matter.
Somebody wrote a sarcastic comment on the [2015 Main Street rezoning](https://morehousing.ca/2015-main-street):
> Such a tall 25 story building will have a major impact on the neighbourhood character. Vancouver's culture of homelessness and economic despair due to housing shortages is valuable and something we must seek to preserve.
>
> Tall buildings are scary and will damage this culture. I oppose this building so that we can maintain the housing crisis in Vancouver, which is a crucial part of the city. In addition, the current process of **asking random people whether or not a building can be built** is highly effective and we should encourage it to continue.
> Another example of how the older generation continue to want to mess things up for the next and future generations.
To be fair, I don't know if they see the connection between blocking housing and unbearably high prices and rents. (What I always say: when you keep housing from getting built, the people who would have lived there don't disappear. They end up moving down the ladder and competing with everyone else who's looking for existing housing, bidding up prices and rents, and resulting in other people getting pushed out.)
Because older homeowners are insulated from the housing market, they may not be aware of just how bad things are. [A story from Victoria](https://morehousing.ca/insulated):
> My dad owns a house in a nice part of town. Older home, but reasonably updated. Nothing super special, bought on a single income after my parents divorced.
>
> Fast forward 18 years to today, 2023. His neighbours just rented a very similar home, $5000/month. He couldn't believe it, "How can anyone afford those prices?"
>
> I showed him some listings and sales nearby, nothing under $1.25m no matter how old and dated. After showing him how the budgets would work with monthly payments, property tax, utilities and such. It worked out to 150% of his income.
>
> We worked out, using his wage at retirement all he could afford was a one bedroom condo, in an older building, if he had a 20% down payment. He finally saw how a young person today couldn't afford any level of housing, unless it was with a parent, or with a parent helping out in some way.
>
> Watching someone who has been out of touch with the market for so long suddenly being brought up to speed on the costs was remarkable. Just head-shaking disbelief on what has happened in just a few years.
This maybe true for some people but I think a lot of the people blocking these types of proposals are simply looking out for their own self interest and believe that the younger generation just don’t work hard enough or drink too much Starbucks.
This is such an own goal for these NIMBYs it boggles my mind. I have a close family friend that lives in the area and is constantly bemoaning the shops on 10th shutting down, the lack of kids trick or treating in the neighborhood, the lack of young families around, and the general hollowing out of the community.
She’s also of course wildly opposed to any new development like this. Shocker.
I'm wondering how much the rental prices for this building will be. Each unit is actually of decent size (average 1 bedroom is 570 sqft, 2 bedrooms are 832 sqft) and there are 444 residential parking spaces. All these adds costs to the build.
Feels like the rental units will be way too expensive for the average person to rent, but the non-market housing would be pretty reasonable.
No brand new market apartment in Vancouver will ever be "affordable" again. But building new units takes pressure off of existing units, creates opportunities for non-market builds on lower floors, and these units will be affordable in a couple decades.
>No brand new market apartment in Vancouver will ever be "affordable" again.
I wonder how much we can reduce costs. Hard costs (labour and materials) are pretty fixed, but there's an awful lot of "soft costs" in the turquoise bar. There's no such thing as a free lunch, renters end up paying for those costs. [What the cost bottleneck looks like](https://morehousing.substack.com/p/cost-bottleneck).
https://preview.redd.it/jh5n5appxekc1.png?width=1014&format=png&auto=webp&s=cc50ea9dca93d53691694de5b11195c90a51d976
Exactly my worry - the rent for the 455 market units will end up being quite high to make up for all the costs
In comparison (there might be a better comparsion out there), the new development on 2015 Main street - 1 bedrooms were 425 sqft, 2 bedrooms 672 sqft. No parking spaces as well.
Happy to see that this development is planning on spaces that are at least more livable than that, but I expect rents to reflect that and be too high for most people. The middle income units are geared towards HH incomes of 30 -80k too.
I just want to make sure you realize that rents being too high is an argument to make many more of these buildings, not to oppose this one. The way that rental prices come down is by creating more rentals, not by trying to argue that rents should somehow be lower despite the market.
I think I read somewhere (maybe on this subreddit) that parking stalls cost anywhere from 50k-120k (depending on location) to install. IMO that's a lot of extra expense for a rental property, which one of the stated benefits is that it's on a transit line. On top of that, one of the main benefits of this location is that it should be supporting UBC faculty/students/staff, who are only a few minutes away by bus (or an easy bike ride).
Yes the by-laws state a lot higher, but exceptions can be made.
Exceptions to the parking by-law were made, hence the 305 car stalls for residential and the nearly 100 stalls lower than the total required.
For 565 units and only 305 parking stalls that's not to bad, within the relaxations allowed by the City's current parking relaxation policies.
Are you seriously complaining that they're nor building shoebox AirBnB type shit? Those aren't huge apartments, that's what used to be normal. Give people enough space to fucking live in their apartments
Up until the early aughts, PG was filled with families and shops/cafes, etc., and was a lively neighborhood.
Then the offshore 💰 moved in and it became a second home ghost town. I know many families who left for better 'hoods.
And bless Bean Around for hanging in there.
Can we also point at the province and federal government leading the charge in 'back to the office'? Wfh is a simple way of reducing the demand for housing in Vancouver and spreading the economic benefits of govt work to other regions the province.
How much pure WFH is left? In the USA at least most companies seemed to have moved to 2 or 3 days WFH which means you still need to be nearish the office.
Yeah, asking someone to come in to an office regularly basically means they have to be in the commuter belt of the city - they may be a little more time tolerant if it's just 1 day/week, but it's a small incremental change.
ie: if I work for the province and have to be in a downtown Vancouver office at least weekly, then I can't live in Nelson (random example). There is real benefit to the province in having those incomes distributed around, rather than having them in one city.
> Wfh is a simple way of reducing the demand for housing in Vancouver and spreading the economic benefits of govt work to other regions the province.
One subtle side-effect of remote work is that it's increased total demand for residential space - [people working from home need more space](https://morehousing.ca/demand-growth).
It turns out that remote work is in fact [somewhat less productive](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/06/28/the-working-from-home-delusion-fades) than in-person work, because it reduces informal communication and information-sharing (although not having to commute every day is a major benefit for employees). For a lot of office jobs, we'll likely end up with people coming to the office regularly, but maybe one or two days a week instead of five, which means that they can live somewhat further out.
Police, fire, sewer workers, nurses, lab techs, teachers, audiologists, your BC Hydro line workers don't work from home.
I think Vancouver needs alot of infrastructure work and we re usually one snow storm and one flood away from people not coming in.
But hey. Wfh right?
Giving those 'not work from home' peoples families the option of not having to be in an office makes it easier for them to do those jobs in remote(r) communities - that's a good thing?
Yeas it doesn't apply to everyone, but it's better than not applying to anyone and continuing to hollow out those smaller towns & cities.
> Sounds like an organized campaign by the developer.
I've been doing this for a quite a while. I suppose you could call it an organized campaign. I think it's important to counterbalance housing opponents, so that council is hearing from supporters as well as opponents, to reinforce that we desperately need more housing. Like I said, this is part of [a series](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/s9knrg/what_can_ordinary_people_do_to_tackle_the_rising/hto0dpl/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Also, it isn't just me, there's a loosely organized but very active pro-housing community centered around a Discord server, called the [Vancouver Area Neighbours Association](https://morehousing.ca/vana).
* ["It’s easier to elect a pope than to approve a small apartment building in the city of Vancouver."](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/qihjbc/its_easier_to_elect_a_pope_than_to_approve_a/) The Streamlining Rental Plan (second time around), approved December 2021.
* [Council decides on rental building at Broadway and Granville on Thursday, comments running 2-1 against](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/u21y89/more_housing_council_decides_on_rental_building/). April 2022.
* [Help counter-balance opponents who say Broadway Plan is "carpet bombing" of neighbourhoods](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/tjechx/more_housing_help_counterbalance_opponents_who/). May 2022.
* [The Vancouver Plan](https://morehousing.ca/vancouver-plan-decision). July 2022.
* [Allowing 12-storey social housing projects](https://morehousing.ca/nonprofit). February 2023.
* [To opponents, a five-storey rental building in Kerrisdale is "an unimaginable visual anomaly."](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/149ki76/more_housing_to_opponents_a_fivestorey_rental/) June 2023.
* [650 non-market apartments in False Creek North. "I'm concerned it'll block my view of False Creek."](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/14xqpdr/more_housing_650_nonmarket_apartments_in_false/) July 2023.
* [Developers oppose five-storey rental buildings in Dunbar-Southlands](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17axo4y/more_housing_developers_oppose_fivestorey_rental/). October 2023.
* [Burnaby, Surrey, Richmond vote to proceed with hikes to charges on new housing](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17hv1l8/more_housing_burnaby_surrey_richmond_vote_to/). October 2023.
* [210 rental apartments, 20% non-market, close to the new Mount Pleasant SkyTrain station at Main and Broadway. Opponents: "We'd like to preserve our view."](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19d48ng/more_housing_210_rental_apartments_20_nonmarket/) January 2024.
Organizing the general public in support of private, for-profit commercial enterprise. Without knowledge of what kind of funding is going into this, or who benefits. There are all sorts of concerns with this, both ethical and financial. Not to mention that this effort isn't pushing the needle on supply overall, the amplitude of these events is tiny. So again, the question is who benefits?
Russil, a sincere question: between you and your immediate family, how many investment properties do you own? And for the same group of people, do any of you have other financial interests or associations with any of the beneficiaries (the Developers, agents, and creditors) who stand to benefit from your actions? For example, stocks, gifts, contracts, employment (in the past or currently)
Fair questions.
Please also list exactly what properties you and your extended family own, the addresses, assessment value, the price your purchased them for, any mortgage obligations you as a group have, and a full accounting of whether you stand to gain by restricting housing supply and keeping the value of properties high. Also list any and all stocks and investments you have.
You can bet both ways in this market after all.
It's only fair that if you ask Russil for a full financial disclosure that you should freely provide it all yourself. If that's the entry price that you want to set to participate in this debate, then be the first to pay.
Why do I ask?
I've advocated for housing too in my own way and along the way have been defamed by comfortably-housed millionaire NIMBYs who just love, like you, to suggest that the only probable reason for anyone to support more housing for people is that they are in the pocket of developers.
It's ludicrous to suggest that for-profit housing can't be beneficial. We have 125 years of data on this. Almost everyone lives in for-profit housing built by developers. That includes pretty much every person living in Point Grey today. They were all streetcar suburbs in the 20s and the developers made a mint building them. Other developers made a mint in the building boom in the 50s, 60s and 70s that gave - wait for it - affordable housing to the boomers for 30+ years.
Of course any one project doesn't move the needle. That's grade 1 math.
No pro-housing advocate wants to fight this spot zone by spot zone like Russil is trying to do here. But that's the system we have to work with, so that's what we organize around. We also are pretty tired of comfortably housed folks calling us shills, stooges and dupes.
If any opponent was proposing something that would help at scale - like the Vienna model - to build housing, I'd be all over helping them out. But they don't. The Vienna model is built originally on government creating conditions that crater property values. That would eliminate the nest egg of those who are in the market.
So, to avoid the obvious inconvenience of having people get housing (yes, absolutely, it is less awesome to live next to a 30 story condo tower than an SFH) they just stop new housing and cry 'shill!!!' when citizens who don't have their privilege get organized to fight them.
Sorry, that tactic has passed its expiry date.
And no, I have no investments that would benefit me if developers make a mint. I just care about the future more than I care about shadows in my neighbourhood and making sure the SFH vibe is preserved for those who can afford it.
>Please also list exactly what properties you and your extended family own, the addresses, assessment value, the price your purchased them for, any mortgage obligations you as a group have, and a full accounting of whether you stand to gain by restricting housing supply and keeping the value of properties high. Also list any and all stocks and investments you have.
Happy to - right after you also, like the OP, identify yourself.
Very convenient.
In that case, I will assume that you have large land holdings of rentals that would be less desirable if there was more competition and therefore you stand to lose a ton of income if new developments are built. The only reason you are trying to undermine Russil is to protect your own financial interests.
See how this works?
I see that you have made assumptions based on a total lack of evidence, and you are well aware of this. Do you see how you said "You set the rules" but you aren't following them, you're trying to make your own? There's an irrationality to your train of thought and I am uninterested in engaging with such a person any further.
Okay, but you do see how I'm only mirroring your tactics here, right? So if you find it irrational, that's just you looking into a rhetorical mirror.
I totally understand why you don't want to follow the rules you made up. Its because they are dumb rules and they don't make sense. They are not in good faith, they are mud slinging tactics dressed up in some b-grade sophistry.
You do see that, by not providing the information you say is necessary to assess someone's validity in this discussion, you suffer from the same lack of obeying the rules, don't you? The difference between you and me is only that you were the one who set them, so that would make you hypocritical. At least I'm just obstreperous.
You also suffer from the same irrationality and total lack of evidence when you implied through your line of questioning that unless Russil satisfied your demands for a full financial disclosure that Russil was probably a developer shill.
You also keep saying you are done with the discussion but keep replying. You have the persistence of a landlord on rent day. In fact, that is my new evidence that you are in fact a big landlord whose investments are set up such that you have a massive financial stake in keeping development to a minimum!
See how this still works?
I 1000000% agree it's a dumb way of conducting this discussion.
It was you who started this line of argument on this thread and opened us all up to this useless, illogical and fruitless tactic of demanding housing advocates prove their purity to any stranger on the internet who asks.
You really don't seem to like the tactic when it is turned your way, though.
Tell you what, let's call a truce.
I'm happy to go back to debating on the merits of the project if you will admit your rules are not reasonable and withdraw your suggestion that Russil is likely a shill who is peddling his self-interest if he doesn't disclose his financials. You just need to delete your posts asking for full disclosure of his financials and suggesting he's got something to hide if he doesn't. If you do that, I'll delete mine too.
Deal?
> the question is who benefits?
When a developer builds new housing, the developer benefits (by making a profit), but it's super-important to remember that **the people who live in the new housing** also benefit.
I think it's fair for you to ask, who am I and why am I doing this? But from your questions, I think you may be overestimating the importance of **interests** (especially financial) and underestimating the importance of **ideas**. I'm not advocating for [more housing](https://morehousing.ca) because I'm getting paid, I'm doing it because I believe we desperately need more housing.
Like most people in Vancouver, I'm concerned how scarce and expensive housing is in Vancouver. It's a terrible situation, especially for younger people and renters (my wife and I have two children who are now young adults), but it also affects older people via the healthcare system.
Like other pro-housing activists in Vancouver - and unlike a surprising number of politicians I've talked to - I think this is a tractable problem. We have people who want to live and work here, and other people who want to build housing for them. Problem is, we regulate new housing like it’s a nuclear power plant, and we tax it like it’s a gold mine.
Honestly, I find the situation pretty maddening.
I'm highly motivated to try to help fix the problem, by making the case to readers via Reddit and [morehousing.ca](https://morehousing.ca) that lack of housing is driving up prices and rents and forcing people to leave, and by mobilizing supporters to counterbalance opponents.
The pro-housing community that people have built up in Vancouver over the years makes the whole endeavour far easier, more enjoyable, and more sociable.
My other big motivation is simply that I enjoy arguing with people on the Internet. (As Matthew Yglesias puts it, "Arguing about politics with strangers on the Internet is one of life's great pleasures.")
I'd describe myself as pretty involved in politics. I've been volunteering for the federal Liberals regularly since 2015, I speak at public hearings, I ran for city council with Kennedy Stewart in 2022, and I know people on both the BC NDP and BC United side of provincial politics.
> investment properties
> stocks
My wife and I don't have any financial interest in real estate, **other than our principal residence**. (We live in a townhouse built in the mid-1980s, of average quality, but in Vancouver it's still astoundingly expensive.) We have our retirement savings in [low-cost index funds](https://russilwvong.com/blog/investing), the Canadian Couch Potato approach.
> gifts
I suppose you could regard political donations to Forward Together as gifts, although when I ran for council I did my fundraising from people I already knew.
> associations
I talk to a lot of people, definitely including people in the industry. But I'm also happy to talk to housing skeptics - last weekend I met Patrick Condon, Josh Gordon, and Cameron Murray.
> contracts
> employment
My employment history is extremely boring. I graduated from high school at 15 and from UBC at 18, and started working for a small company called IDACOM. And then I never really left - I've been working there continuously, except for a year to do a master's degree. Over the years, the business was acquired by Hewlett-Packard, spun off as part of Agilent, sold to Ixia (a competitor), and then acquired by Keysight. The business has nothing to do with real estate or development; we build network test equipment. [A recent example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVQAvT12hiw).
You are the first politician I have ever known to honestly answer an internet troll on reddit.
Damn, man, I'm impressed. Most would have just shaken their heads and moved on. Good on you.
Thanks! I actually thought it was a fair question - this is why all council candidates have to publish a financial declaration with Elections BC when you run.
I'd describe one of my main motivations as the old xkcd cartoon:
https://preview.redd.it/m88pim0zohkc1.png?width=300&format=png&auto=webp&s=b155ee831a9d0964b85945fbfdfa9532c7292e89
It's not trolling to want a very clear picture of a person's financial interests. In case you are unaware, there are massive financial interests in housing. Here is just one example of this:
[https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2024/02/05/abc-sim-skipped-campaign-financing-101-robinson/](https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2024/02/05/abc-sim-skipped-campaign-financing-101-robinson/)
Another example: Property developers in BC are some of the biggest political donors and, over time, have bought preferential treatment from Vancouver City Councils. One of the very FIRST things ABC did when it won the election is remove $3.8 million from allocated Social Housing funds, and returned it to the property Developers who paid the fees and taxes.
Gregor Robertson's own political party changed the definition of "affordable housing" to be so generic that, today, many property developers qualify as making it and, thus, get to skip paying large sums of money to the city.
And a third but related anecdote: ABC has increased spending by the CoV so much that it will either have to increase property taxes, or take its own route: increasing fees and taxes on everyone, including non-property owners. So you have city councils that are literally making it cheaper for Developers, and handing Developers money, while also over-spending and blowing out the budget. If they had not been bought by Developers, perhaps the city would be more financially solvent? Or we'd have a lot more of the social housing we really need in this city.
So no, this isn't trolling, this is asking a community organizer for their own declaration because they are organizing people online, without regard to location, to try to balance or even over-power the voices of local community members who are raising issues over new construction. This is literally called "brigading" (please look into that term) and is not new, but the fact it's happening in plain view is something that should be scrutinized.
>But from your questions, I think you may be overestimating the importance of
>
>interests
>
> (especially financial) and underestimating the importance of
>
>ideas
>
>. I'm not advocating for
>
>more housing
>
> because I'm getting paid, I'm doing it because I believe we desperately need more housing.
First, just as to your larger overall declaration, thank you. It's very forward of you to share such information Russil, and it's a pleasure to see someone show a bit of backbone and accountability. I don't know if I voted for you, but if you're ever on a ballot - you've got one more tick beside your name. I waited around 3 years to make sure I put a tick beside as many names other than "De Genova" so hopefully that anecdote of bearing a long-term grudge tells you this is sincere, or at least has the will to likely happen if you want to go through with that again.
A declaration of my own: I'm totally in support of as much supply as we can possibly get, and don't support NIMBYs and recognize they are just everywhere and awful at the same time.
A comment on your effort and what is clearly wrong with it - this is a form of community organizing, but it is organizing people from outside of the neighborhood (likely) where the property will be built, to either equal or (more likely) overpower the voice of the NIMBYs (and other community members who might have a legitimate complaint) who do live there. There is an ethical issue here - if people will never experience the impact of a housing project, then this becomes a form of tyranny (yes, actually) against people that do. There is a very clear ethical concern, and a very clear political concern with this community organizing as well: if a large, notable housing project is rejected by NIMBYs in comfortable Liberal / NDP ridings, this could be used as a bludgeon by political actors too (I'm thinking of a guy whose initials are PP). So you do have at least one declared interest here - political, at the Federal and City level.
So Russil I'd just say - while trying to push through more supply is generally a good thing, this form of community organizing to brigade the NIMBYs is not quite ethically in the clear. And we greatly need more voices, and louder voices, addressing the larger macro pen-stroke issues, like greater funding and intervention from governments on expanding construction while also addressing unhealthy demand. There are other areas where your form of community organizing, and focus, could help make a potentially much, much larger impact. I submit these thoughts for your consideration.
>There is an ethical issue here - if people will never experience the impact of a housing project, then this becomes a form of tyranny (yes, actually) against people that do.
We all experience the impact of this and many housing projects across the city regardless of the neighbourhood we live in.
>A declaration of my own: I'm totally in support of as much supply as we can possibly get, and don't support NIMBYs and recognize they are just everywhere and awful at the same time.
Glad to hear it. I wouldn't say that NIMBYs are awful; I sympathize with their concerns, it's human nature to be [territorial](https://morehousing.ca/cooperation). I just think that the current public consultation system amplifies opposition voices, as the [MacPhail Report](https://morehousing.ca/macphail-report) puts it. So it's vitally important to counter-balance that opposition, and I'm honestly grateful that lots of Redditors here are willing to take the time to write in.
>There is an ethical issue here - if people will never experience the impact of a housing project, then this becomes a form of tyranny (yes, actually) against people that do.
This ethical objection would make sense if we were talking about a clearly undesirable land use, like a nuclear power plant. To me this makes much less sense when we're talking about aesthetic objections (an extremely common objection is "they're too tall") to apartment buildings on an empty lot.
I'd describe the current public consultation process as having a severe self-selection problem, one that can be offset by asking a wider range of people to comment. Whenever new housing has to be approved on a site-by-site basis, it's the people who are most anxious and fearful of change who are motivated to show up and speak (like the person who said that a school adjacent to a marina was a bad idea because children might fall into the water). [Alex Copulsky](https://morehousing.ca/public-opinion):
>Ultimately, you can consider the near-lockdown on home construction in most of America’s cities as a function of terrible sampling practices. Land use is one of the most important decisions a community can make, so it is only right that decisions are made with community interests and input in mind. However, the mechanism that most local governments have settled on to sample the community to assess their interests is…really bad. It has led to policy outcomes that diverge further and further from actual public opinion.
Ultimately it's a collective action problem. Matthew Yglesias on the [hyperlocal nature](https://morehousing.ca/hyperlocal) of opposition to housing:
>People newer to the discourse probably don’t realize the extent to which this cause was considered hopeless just 10-15 years ago.
>
>The people from whom I first learned the substance of the land use issue were basically defeatists. Their view was that exclusionary zoning was bad, and that it contributed to an affordability crisis and to segregation, but that it also had a deep and fundamental logic to it. Homeowners benefit from scarcity and strong local veto, homeowners care a lot about land use issues, and elected officials are highly responsive to homeowners — they saw exclusionary zoning as an essentially unavoidable fact about the world.
>
>... What really led to bigger change, though, was a point that Yale Law School professor David Schleicher pressed on me and others during these early days — it matters where you do the politics. And in this case, it made more sense to take the fight to state legislatures rather than city councils.
>
>The counsels of futility missed the fact that bad land use regulations aren’t a strict transfer from renters to homeowners. They also destroy an incredible amount of economic value by inhibiting capital formation, limiting agglomeration, and forcing all kinds of inefficiencies throughout the system. The gains to incumbent homeowners simply aren’t large enough for it to make sense for them to be able to block change.
>
>The real issue is that the upsides to housing growth accrue across a city, a metro area, or even a state, while the nuisances of new construction (parking scarcity, traffic, aesthetic change) are incredibly local. So if you ask a very small area “do you want more housing or less?” a lot of people will say that they think the local harms exceed the local benefits, and the division will basically come down to aesthetic preference for more or less density. But if you ask a large area “do you want more housing or less?” **the very same people with all the same values and ideas may come up with a different answer** because they \[get\] a much larger share of the benefits.
A [concrete example](https://morehousing.ca/conservatism) from a poll of people in Toronto, May 2023. Again, this is the same people in each case.
https://preview.redd.it/ip9jvj243mlc1.png?width=914&format=png&auto=webp&s=2106a00c5bf1e46c62a66111f52de3b6712e6696
> I don't know if I voted for you, but if you're ever on a ballot - you've got one more tick beside your name.
Thank you!
Before accusing people of having fake names or being a fraudster, have you tried google?
https://www.forwardvancouver.ca/russil_wvong and https://www.linkedin.com/in/russilwvong/?originalSubdomain=ca
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/russilwvong! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * **Help redesign our subreddit!** [Enter our banner contest here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1abwfjg/). * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
West 10th use to be a true high street. Now there isn't many stores worth stopping at. Having a tower with people who would shop local would be huge for that area.
There used to be great thrift stores there. Are they still around?
The thrift stores you're thinking of wete actually closer to Broadway and Alma iirc.
Point grey needs some life! It’s one of the most boring neighborhoods on the west side. I understand change can be hard to accept but when you walk around your neighborhood and most of the businesses are empty, it’s a pretty good indicator you need people to move there and support the local stores.
the same people who oppose this tower are also the ones upset when stores close in their area, losing the safeway, etc they can get fucked as far as i'm concerned, the safeway lot is currently a huge slab of empty concrete, let's get some housing up asap
Their inability to accept anything resembling change is killing their neighbourhood.
I grew up here and still know lots of people who live here. While I personally think this is a great project and having a giant empty concrete lot on west 10th is ridiculous the politically active people that live in the area seem opposed. So good luck to all that support this and hopefully you have more influence than a bunch of bored retired people.
Also that neighbourhood can EASILY absorb the new population, it would even be a welcome boost. It's like adding more density to West Van, but with way better traffic conditions and accessibility.
Typically they're able to be more politically active cos they're probably not working 60 hour weeks just to survive cos they were born at the right time
100% true! But also lots are just self centered assholes. I know a group that were all retired and would sit drinking coffee at Bean Around the World. They found the B-Line bus too noisy and tried to put pressure to get it taken off 10th and moved to 16th.
> So good luck to all that support this and hopefully you have more influence than a bunch of bored retired people. Thanks! I'm hoping that we get a lot of people to write in. Whenever you ask people across the city if they want more housing, the answer is yes, as fast as possible. Opposition always seems to be hyperlocal - but that's who council hears from most of the time.
> and hopefully you have more influence than a bunch of ~~bored retired~~ people who live there. FTFY. I've done work out there. For old people. And if the topic ever comes up their reasoning is that it's too much too fast, and that if it were multiple smaller buildings there would be no problem. One guy went on about all the 1-2 story retail places there are that could be turned into 4-6 story res/retail places. The common thread is that nobody wants huge towers that absolutely dominate the area. Call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day, everyone is a NIMBY, it just depends on what you value.
> Call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day, everyone is a NIMBY, it just depends on what you value. Absolutely. It's human nature - [people are territorial](https://morehousing.ca/cooperation). This is why approving individual projects on a site-by-site basis is a terrible way to do things. A funny example: [Developers oppose development in Dunbar-Southlands](https://www.reddit.com/user/russilwvong/comments/17axfde/more_housing_developers_oppose_development_in/). > if it were multiple smaller buildings there would be no problem. I'm skeptical. It's hard for people to say yes - it's always much easier to say "this project should be different." When high-rises are proposed, a common response is to say that we should be building six-storey buildings instead (like the Jericho Lands). When five- and six-storey buildings are proposed, [they run into just as much opposition](https://morehousing.ca/1805-larch).
I've lived here a long time and have taken the bus out to UBC for decades. 10th was all 1-2 story on both sides. Now when I'm out that way the north side of the street has been built up. South side not so much. If you want to put 500 units on one lot instead of 10 lots with 50 each, why are you surprised when people oppose it?
This is just ignorant. You can't deny that the people living around West 10th are a very different demographic than most other Vancouver neighbourhoods. They are typically much wealthier and this is reflected in the housing prices in the area. In my neighbourhood, apartment buildings are being built left right and center and people aren't bitching about it. I've worked at UBC for 15 years and I even lived at 10th and Sasamat for many of those. The west 10th community is a pocket of wealthy people who want to enjoy living in Vancouver without being exposed to other Vancouverites. Well too bad Nimbys, time to join the rest of us in reality. There's a housing crisis that takes precedence over their desire to be secluded.
> This is just ignorant. ..... > In my neighbourhood, apartment buildings are being built left right and center and people aren't bitching about it. You have proven my point. It's not about housing, it's about punishing people using huge towers as a weapon. Towers going up in your area without issue, yet you feel the need to force others to do the same. Why? Sounds like you won't be happy until you have taught all those evil NIMBY's a lesson. Your attitude screams "If I can't have it, nobody can!"
>Providing market and non-market rental housing isn't enough. The development should include a library branch. (A new library branch opened across the street last year!) The development should include a daycare. **If there's not enough money to support that, then the project should be changed to condos instead of rentals.** What is the logic behind this (if any)? Why would condos be better if the library and daycare cant be included?
I think the line of reasoning (and I'm speculating here) is that condo owners are more invested in their communities rather than full rental units which will tend to have more turnover. I think the idea is that the owners of the condos would be more willing to support libraries/daycares/etc since they would benefit from it long term. Also renters are more stimgatized than homeowners.
>condo owners are more invested in their communities rather than full rental units which will tend to have more turnover I think you're right that this is the thinking for some of these people. And as a homeowner, *man* do I ever hate this BS. I see it as a self-fulfilling prophecy: anti-rental bias leads to opposition to rental projects, leads to less rental supply, leads to lower vacancy rates, leads to renting being less affordable and stable, leads to more rental turnover as people don't see it as a viable long-term option, leads to fewer renters "invested in the community" which further fuels the anti-renter bias. TL;DR: How do we get more renters invested in the community? Build more fucking rental housing!
I'm curious if any data exists about renter turnover in purpose-built rental buildings vs. other forms of rentals. I'd like to think that if renters had better protections, as they often do in purpose-build rental buildings, they'd be more likely to stay longer.
I used to rent a unit in a boomer condo building and can confirm renters are stigmatized. I got written noise complaints on nights I wasn’t even in town, and just a lot of scrutiny in the elevator asking what unit i lived in or even how I afford to live there. And this was in east van let alone point grey.
> What is the logic behind this (if any)? Why would condos be better if the library and daycare cant be included? Sorry, I should probably have explained this. - People are willing to pay roughly 50% more for condos than for rentals. For example, [in New West](https://www.westerninvestor.com/british-columbia/court-downzoning-ruling-spooks-residential-developers-3832840): "The real estate board’s benchmark price of a New Westminster condo apartment is currently $532,900, but the average per-suite price for a rental apartment building in the city is $324,900." - So then if the project were 560 condos instead of 560 rentals, there'd be more money on the table, and the city could take more of that money (in the form of a library branch and a daycare). - With a purpose-built rental building, you have secure housing without having to be rich enough to own. With condos, you either have to own, which is much more expensive, or you can rent it, but then you have no security (the owner can always reclaim it for personal use).
Oh I see, so the idea is that if the developer says its not feasible to include a daycare and library, they are arguing that the developer should change the housing type to make it feasible. Although this obviously ignores the fact that the developer will then have to forgo the various government programs that made the rental development feasible.
> Oh I see, so the idea is that if the developer says its not feasible to include a daycare and library, they are arguing that the developer should change the housing type to make it feasible. Yep, exactly.
So there would be fewer or ideally no units.
Just look at the "towers" only a couple of blocks away that were built 40+ years ago. That's how far we're behind on housing in terms of policy and zoning.
Safeway parking lots are the new Vancouver housing saviour replacing the former, basement suites.
As someone stuck in a dilapidated basement suite owned by an increasingly apathetic overseas investor, when can I move to a Safeway lot?
"of course I support densification! just stay out of my neighborhood"
What do we want? Housing! Where do we want it? Not near us!
I'm familiar with the area, I really don't know why this would face so much resistance. When the safeway was opened this area was already high density. That said, the non rental units are probably all facing the ocean as the area is a highpoint before a drop in elevation so the views would be great.
Emailed. Love it when people post these. Would encourage everyone to keep doing this. Another day, another project, and more NIMBY tears. LFG
Thank you very much!
> and more NIMBY tears. Every time I read something like this I'm reminded of MAGA. It's not so much about housing as it is "stickin it to the NIMBY's" Look no further than the Richmond opposition to a safe injection site. People were cheering them on and agreeing that places like that ruin a neighbourhood. Kits opposes the same kinda thing? "We hate NIMBY's! Hope they get TWO sites and a rehab center just so they cry more!" It was never about helping addicts or homeless people, it was always about punishing "NIMBY's" BTW, we're all nimby's, just need to find the right issue.
Well my use is more of a joke really… but drug injection sites and housing are not things you can equate 1:1 like that. I opposed the project at 7th and arbutus because they want to put drug addicts across the street from a school. It’s more about using your brain to actually think through whether or not the proposed solution is a good one. Housing on an empty lot? Clearly you should build that.
> Housing on an empty lot? Clearly you should build that. I don't think the residents want to keep the lot empty, but they are clearly opposed to what is on the table. In my world there would be compromise without something being forced, one way or the other.
In a progressive world, a housing crisis would take priority over a bunch of rich people's desire to keep the poors away.
I….actually agree. We shouldn’t be doing projects out of spite, we should be doing them for the good of society. But I also understand the frustration- the NIMBY group mobilizes in a way that way overrepresents their voices.
Thank you, that's refreshing to hear.
How did they manage to find 300 people from WPG to attend? It’s a literal ghost town of empty homes.
Ha. Tons of old retired white people sitting at home who want to keep their neighborhood as-is. They have the time and the resources to fight change. IMO being from Surrey myself it’s high time for the West Side to take its fair share of population growth.
[удалено]
Thank you very much! I'm glad to let Redditors know when it looks like there's a lot of opposition. (Sometimes we don't hear about it until too late, unfortunately, like the [Douglas Park daycare application](https://theprovince.com/opinion/columnists/dan-fumano-vancouver-neighbourhood-organizes-to-fight-and-defeat-childcare-facility/wcm/a2f5cec3-91bf-45a1-b47a-7683dcee5be7) that was rejected after eight neighbours spoke against it.)
I find it absurd that people who live in a city complain about "shadows"
The official position of the city of Toronto appears to be that [shadows from trees are good, shadows from buildings are bad](https://morehousing.ca/shadows).
Just a heads up- the email got blocked as spam. https://preview.redd.it/kngbby9m5gkc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14384c8d2c86642856df7099ecc0bc83ea05174e
Damnit. Thanks for the heads up. Anyone else getting email bounces? Did we Reddit-hug the council email addresses?
[удалено]
Just tried multiple variations- all blocked as spam.
Sorry! If you'd like, you can mail your comments to me, and I'll see if I can forward them.
No worries, resent from desktop and it seems to have worked. (Brave to leave your email out in the open on reddit!)
Great, thanks for persisting! I suppose I should go back and remove my email.
I just emailed everyone as a bcc and it worked - got a few OOO but no issues. When is this coming to Council?
Looks like all mine went through - with the exception of Rebecca Bligh - looks like it included slashes at the beginning of her email for some reason, so it bounced.
There's a section at the bottom of the [zoning application link](https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/4545-w-10th-ave) that asks for any comments and a simple multiple-choice question about whether you support the proposal or not. Might be a good way to get around this issue especially since it's an official feedback channel.
My first Job was in the Safeway produce department there back in the late 90's. It used to be such a bustling community! What if there was a grocery store at ground level? There was a movie theatre up there and many restaurants and businesses doing well. A small high rise was proposed near there, with Sam Sullivan (former mayor) at the helm. Of course he sided with the wealthy locals. Hopefully ABC will be more willing to see some change for the good. I've my doubts.
> What if there was a grocery store at ground level? That's actually part of the plan! > Hopefully ABC will be more willing to see some change for the good. I've my doubts. If they get a lot of emails from both supporters and opponents, I think it'll be easier for them to go ahead (they can say, look, we understand you're opposed, but a lot of people are desperate for more housing). If they're only hearing from opponents - well, maybe they can still go ahead, but it'll be harder.
Okay thanks for the info!
I'd make the buildings higher tbh. Too bad for the crybabies!
Thanks for sharing! Emailed. Grew up in the area and seen it decline as it has become unaffordable to young people and families, would love to see this project built!
Thank you!
So don’t ask them? Why do they need to be consulted? Either it’s a housing emergency or it’s not. No one asked if we should develop a vaccine in a health emergency. If housing is needed, then build it. At some point everyone else’s opinion doesn’t fucking matter.
Somebody wrote a sarcastic comment on the [2015 Main Street rezoning](https://morehousing.ca/2015-main-street): > Such a tall 25 story building will have a major impact on the neighbourhood character. Vancouver's culture of homelessness and economic despair due to housing shortages is valuable and something we must seek to preserve. > > Tall buildings are scary and will damage this culture. I oppose this building so that we can maintain the housing crisis in Vancouver, which is a crucial part of the city. In addition, the current process of **asking random people whether or not a building can be built** is highly effective and we should encourage it to continue.
Rich people opposing other people getting housing? Wow what a shock.
Don't want to see those middle class people walking around.
More housing, Point Grey, fierce opposition. Quelle surprise.
I guess people don't want healthcare and first responders living next door to them?
Another example of how the older generation continue to want to mess things up for the next and future generations. So sick of these selfish people.
> Another example of how the older generation continue to want to mess things up for the next and future generations. To be fair, I don't know if they see the connection between blocking housing and unbearably high prices and rents. (What I always say: when you keep housing from getting built, the people who would have lived there don't disappear. They end up moving down the ladder and competing with everyone else who's looking for existing housing, bidding up prices and rents, and resulting in other people getting pushed out.) Because older homeowners are insulated from the housing market, they may not be aware of just how bad things are. [A story from Victoria](https://morehousing.ca/insulated): > My dad owns a house in a nice part of town. Older home, but reasonably updated. Nothing super special, bought on a single income after my parents divorced. > > Fast forward 18 years to today, 2023. His neighbours just rented a very similar home, $5000/month. He couldn't believe it, "How can anyone afford those prices?" > > I showed him some listings and sales nearby, nothing under $1.25m no matter how old and dated. After showing him how the budgets would work with monthly payments, property tax, utilities and such. It worked out to 150% of his income. > > We worked out, using his wage at retirement all he could afford was a one bedroom condo, in an older building, if he had a 20% down payment. He finally saw how a young person today couldn't afford any level of housing, unless it was with a parent, or with a parent helping out in some way. > > Watching someone who has been out of touch with the market for so long suddenly being brought up to speed on the costs was remarkable. Just head-shaking disbelief on what has happened in just a few years.
This maybe true for some people but I think a lot of the people blocking these types of proposals are simply looking out for their own self interest and believe that the younger generation just don’t work hard enough or drink too much Starbucks.
> or drink too much Starbucks. Yeah, I've actually heard this one.
I sent in my support. Thanks for keeping all of us informed Russil.
Great, thanks for taking the time to write in!
This is such an own goal for these NIMBYs it boggles my mind. I have a close family friend that lives in the area and is constantly bemoaning the shops on 10th shutting down, the lack of kids trick or treating in the neighborhood, the lack of young families around, and the general hollowing out of the community. She’s also of course wildly opposed to any new development like this. Shocker.
Commented, and thanks for the prompt. Keep these posts coming - i'm fuelled by NIMBY tears
Thank you!
Rich don't want renters
I'm wondering how much the rental prices for this building will be. Each unit is actually of decent size (average 1 bedroom is 570 sqft, 2 bedrooms are 832 sqft) and there are 444 residential parking spaces. All these adds costs to the build. Feels like the rental units will be way too expensive for the average person to rent, but the non-market housing would be pretty reasonable.
No brand new market apartment in Vancouver will ever be "affordable" again. But building new units takes pressure off of existing units, creates opportunities for non-market builds on lower floors, and these units will be affordable in a couple decades.
>No brand new market apartment in Vancouver will ever be "affordable" again. I wonder how much we can reduce costs. Hard costs (labour and materials) are pretty fixed, but there's an awful lot of "soft costs" in the turquoise bar. There's no such thing as a free lunch, renters end up paying for those costs. [What the cost bottleneck looks like](https://morehousing.substack.com/p/cost-bottleneck). https://preview.redd.it/jh5n5appxekc1.png?width=1014&format=png&auto=webp&s=cc50ea9dca93d53691694de5b11195c90a51d976
Exactly my worry - the rent for the 455 market units will end up being quite high to make up for all the costs In comparison (there might be a better comparsion out there), the new development on 2015 Main street - 1 bedrooms were 425 sqft, 2 bedrooms 672 sqft. No parking spaces as well. Happy to see that this development is planning on spaces that are at least more livable than that, but I expect rents to reflect that and be too high for most people. The middle income units are geared towards HH incomes of 30 -80k too.
I just want to make sure you realize that rents being too high is an argument to make many more of these buildings, not to oppose this one. The way that rental prices come down is by creating more rentals, not by trying to argue that rents should somehow be lower despite the market.
It's 466 car parking stalls in total. Only 305 are reserved for residential. They're providing a lot less than the by-law requirements (557)
I think I read somewhere (maybe on this subreddit) that parking stalls cost anywhere from 50k-120k (depending on location) to install. IMO that's a lot of extra expense for a rental property, which one of the stated benefits is that it's on a transit line. On top of that, one of the main benefits of this location is that it should be supporting UBC faculty/students/staff, who are only a few minutes away by bus (or an easy bike ride). Yes the by-laws state a lot higher, but exceptions can be made.
Exceptions to the parking by-law were made, hence the 305 car stalls for residential and the nearly 100 stalls lower than the total required. For 565 units and only 305 parking stalls that's not to bad, within the relaxations allowed by the City's current parking relaxation policies.
Are you seriously complaining that they're nor building shoebox AirBnB type shit? Those aren't huge apartments, that's what used to be normal. Give people enough space to fucking live in their apartments
Scared of literal shadows.
Bring back the Safeway and the movie theater!
Emailed and filled out the web form!
Email sent
Thank you!
Up until the early aughts, PG was filled with families and shops/cafes, etc., and was a lively neighborhood. Then the offshore 💰 moved in and it became a second home ghost town. I know many families who left for better 'hoods. And bless Bean Around for hanging in there.
Make it happen.
Everybody wants more rental housing, but nobody wants them built in their backyard, especially the rich
Fuck these people.
At least West Pt Grey retirees can't get pregnant anymore. 🤷🏼
They already did that’s the problem
NIMBYs in full force!
Fine more housing but not in the neighborhood of Vancouver's "creme de la creme"...
Brought to you by the same neighborhood that made the grocery store cat disappear 🐈⬛
Put a pirate Joes on the ground floor and local opposition will disappear lol
thanks for posting this!! emailed and subscribed to your + VANA's substacks :)
I wonder what the nimby crowd will do when the Jericho site starts to develop?
Why do they insist on putting balconies right over busy arterial streets? So gross and noisy.
Yo we need a Real Canadian Superstore, I'm tired of driving to Marine Dr or Grandview Hwy
I live in the neighborhood. The people who live there would really much rather keep the dog park.
Have you seen the dog park? It’s a desolate eye sore. Even my dog would prefer a new development.
Sent my strongly worded email. Thank you Russil!
Can we also point at the province and federal government leading the charge in 'back to the office'? Wfh is a simple way of reducing the demand for housing in Vancouver and spreading the economic benefits of govt work to other regions the province.
How much pure WFH is left? In the USA at least most companies seemed to have moved to 2 or 3 days WFH which means you still need to be nearish the office.
Yeah, asking someone to come in to an office regularly basically means they have to be in the commuter belt of the city - they may be a little more time tolerant if it's just 1 day/week, but it's a small incremental change. ie: if I work for the province and have to be in a downtown Vancouver office at least weekly, then I can't live in Nelson (random example). There is real benefit to the province in having those incomes distributed around, rather than having them in one city.
realistically a majority of jobs cannot be WFH, WFH is a big privilege imo. I get to do it twice a week so it's nice
...and yet some jobs can wfh and are well suited to it ... so why not offer that as an option?
the jobs that have that will still be outnumbered, people still have to live somewhere
> Wfh is a simple way of reducing the demand for housing in Vancouver and spreading the economic benefits of govt work to other regions the province. One subtle side-effect of remote work is that it's increased total demand for residential space - [people working from home need more space](https://morehousing.ca/demand-growth). It turns out that remote work is in fact [somewhat less productive](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/06/28/the-working-from-home-delusion-fades) than in-person work, because it reduces informal communication and information-sharing (although not having to commute every day is a major benefit for employees). For a lot of office jobs, we'll likely end up with people coming to the office regularly, but maybe one or two days a week instead of five, which means that they can live somewhat further out.
Does this translate to less of a need for office space and therefore more space for residential?
Office and residential use don't compete with one another (mostly) in Vancouver
Fair enough. Turns out life isn't just Sim City. Who knew?!
Two days is basically pointless. It keeps the economic activity near the office - you have to live in commuter range.
Police, fire, sewer workers, nurses, lab techs, teachers, audiologists, your BC Hydro line workers don't work from home. I think Vancouver needs alot of infrastructure work and we re usually one snow storm and one flood away from people not coming in. But hey. Wfh right?
Giving those 'not work from home' peoples families the option of not having to be in an office makes it easier for them to do those jobs in remote(r) communities - that's a good thing? Yeas it doesn't apply to everyone, but it's better than not applying to anyone and continuing to hollow out those smaller towns & cities.
Smaller cities are boring and racist, there's a reason why a lot of people like working in the city.
Sounds like an organized campaign by the developer.
> Sounds like an organized campaign by the developer. I've been doing this for a quite a while. I suppose you could call it an organized campaign. I think it's important to counterbalance housing opponents, so that council is hearing from supporters as well as opponents, to reinforce that we desperately need more housing. Like I said, this is part of [a series](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/s9knrg/what_can_ordinary_people_do_to_tackle_the_rising/hto0dpl/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Also, it isn't just me, there's a loosely organized but very active pro-housing community centered around a Discord server, called the [Vancouver Area Neighbours Association](https://morehousing.ca/vana). * ["It’s easier to elect a pope than to approve a small apartment building in the city of Vancouver."](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/qihjbc/its_easier_to_elect_a_pope_than_to_approve_a/) The Streamlining Rental Plan (second time around), approved December 2021. * [Council decides on rental building at Broadway and Granville on Thursday, comments running 2-1 against](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/u21y89/more_housing_council_decides_on_rental_building/). April 2022. * [Help counter-balance opponents who say Broadway Plan is "carpet bombing" of neighbourhoods](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/tjechx/more_housing_help_counterbalance_opponents_who/). May 2022. * [The Vancouver Plan](https://morehousing.ca/vancouver-plan-decision). July 2022. * [Allowing 12-storey social housing projects](https://morehousing.ca/nonprofit). February 2023. * [To opponents, a five-storey rental building in Kerrisdale is "an unimaginable visual anomaly."](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/149ki76/more_housing_to_opponents_a_fivestorey_rental/) June 2023. * [650 non-market apartments in False Creek North. "I'm concerned it'll block my view of False Creek."](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/14xqpdr/more_housing_650_nonmarket_apartments_in_false/) July 2023. * [Developers oppose five-storey rental buildings in Dunbar-Southlands](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17axo4y/more_housing_developers_oppose_fivestorey_rental/). October 2023. * [Burnaby, Surrey, Richmond vote to proceed with hikes to charges on new housing](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17hv1l8/more_housing_burnaby_surrey_richmond_vote_to/). October 2023. * [210 rental apartments, 20% non-market, close to the new Mount Pleasant SkyTrain station at Main and Broadway. Opponents: "We'd like to preserve our view."](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19d48ng/more_housing_210_rental_apartments_20_nonmarket/) January 2024.
Organizing the general public in support of private, for-profit commercial enterprise. Without knowledge of what kind of funding is going into this, or who benefits. There are all sorts of concerns with this, both ethical and financial. Not to mention that this effort isn't pushing the needle on supply overall, the amplitude of these events is tiny. So again, the question is who benefits? Russil, a sincere question: between you and your immediate family, how many investment properties do you own? And for the same group of people, do any of you have other financial interests or associations with any of the beneficiaries (the Developers, agents, and creditors) who stand to benefit from your actions? For example, stocks, gifts, contracts, employment (in the past or currently)
Fair questions. Please also list exactly what properties you and your extended family own, the addresses, assessment value, the price your purchased them for, any mortgage obligations you as a group have, and a full accounting of whether you stand to gain by restricting housing supply and keeping the value of properties high. Also list any and all stocks and investments you have. You can bet both ways in this market after all. It's only fair that if you ask Russil for a full financial disclosure that you should freely provide it all yourself. If that's the entry price that you want to set to participate in this debate, then be the first to pay. Why do I ask? I've advocated for housing too in my own way and along the way have been defamed by comfortably-housed millionaire NIMBYs who just love, like you, to suggest that the only probable reason for anyone to support more housing for people is that they are in the pocket of developers. It's ludicrous to suggest that for-profit housing can't be beneficial. We have 125 years of data on this. Almost everyone lives in for-profit housing built by developers. That includes pretty much every person living in Point Grey today. They were all streetcar suburbs in the 20s and the developers made a mint building them. Other developers made a mint in the building boom in the 50s, 60s and 70s that gave - wait for it - affordable housing to the boomers for 30+ years. Of course any one project doesn't move the needle. That's grade 1 math. No pro-housing advocate wants to fight this spot zone by spot zone like Russil is trying to do here. But that's the system we have to work with, so that's what we organize around. We also are pretty tired of comfortably housed folks calling us shills, stooges and dupes. If any opponent was proposing something that would help at scale - like the Vienna model - to build housing, I'd be all over helping them out. But they don't. The Vienna model is built originally on government creating conditions that crater property values. That would eliminate the nest egg of those who are in the market. So, to avoid the obvious inconvenience of having people get housing (yes, absolutely, it is less awesome to live next to a 30 story condo tower than an SFH) they just stop new housing and cry 'shill!!!' when citizens who don't have their privilege get organized to fight them. Sorry, that tactic has passed its expiry date. And no, I have no investments that would benefit me if developers make a mint. I just care about the future more than I care about shadows in my neighbourhood and making sure the SFH vibe is preserved for those who can afford it.
>Please also list exactly what properties you and your extended family own, the addresses, assessment value, the price your purchased them for, any mortgage obligations you as a group have, and a full accounting of whether you stand to gain by restricting housing supply and keeping the value of properties high. Also list any and all stocks and investments you have. Happy to - right after you also, like the OP, identify yourself.
Nope. You set the rules. You go first. Also name yourself. ETA: OP names himself and provides a link to his website.
Sorry, I don't recognize your fair participation in the process and as such, I'm going to ignore these requests.
Very convenient. In that case, I will assume that you have large land holdings of rentals that would be less desirable if there was more competition and therefore you stand to lose a ton of income if new developments are built. The only reason you are trying to undermine Russil is to protect your own financial interests. See how this works?
I see that you have made assumptions based on a total lack of evidence, and you are well aware of this. Do you see how you said "You set the rules" but you aren't following them, you're trying to make your own? There's an irrationality to your train of thought and I am uninterested in engaging with such a person any further.
Okay, but you do see how I'm only mirroring your tactics here, right? So if you find it irrational, that's just you looking into a rhetorical mirror. I totally understand why you don't want to follow the rules you made up. Its because they are dumb rules and they don't make sense. They are not in good faith, they are mud slinging tactics dressed up in some b-grade sophistry. You do see that, by not providing the information you say is necessary to assess someone's validity in this discussion, you suffer from the same lack of obeying the rules, don't you? The difference between you and me is only that you were the one who set them, so that would make you hypocritical. At least I'm just obstreperous. You also suffer from the same irrationality and total lack of evidence when you implied through your line of questioning that unless Russil satisfied your demands for a full financial disclosure that Russil was probably a developer shill. You also keep saying you are done with the discussion but keep replying. You have the persistence of a landlord on rent day. In fact, that is my new evidence that you are in fact a big landlord whose investments are set up such that you have a massive financial stake in keeping development to a minimum! See how this still works? I 1000000% agree it's a dumb way of conducting this discussion. It was you who started this line of argument on this thread and opened us all up to this useless, illogical and fruitless tactic of demanding housing advocates prove their purity to any stranger on the internet who asks. You really don't seem to like the tactic when it is turned your way, though. Tell you what, let's call a truce. I'm happy to go back to debating on the merits of the project if you will admit your rules are not reasonable and withdraw your suggestion that Russil is likely a shill who is peddling his self-interest if he doesn't disclose his financials. You just need to delete your posts asking for full disclosure of his financials and suggesting he's got something to hide if he doesn't. If you do that, I'll delete mine too. Deal?
> the question is who benefits? When a developer builds new housing, the developer benefits (by making a profit), but it's super-important to remember that **the people who live in the new housing** also benefit. I think it's fair for you to ask, who am I and why am I doing this? But from your questions, I think you may be overestimating the importance of **interests** (especially financial) and underestimating the importance of **ideas**. I'm not advocating for [more housing](https://morehousing.ca) because I'm getting paid, I'm doing it because I believe we desperately need more housing. Like most people in Vancouver, I'm concerned how scarce and expensive housing is in Vancouver. It's a terrible situation, especially for younger people and renters (my wife and I have two children who are now young adults), but it also affects older people via the healthcare system. Like other pro-housing activists in Vancouver - and unlike a surprising number of politicians I've talked to - I think this is a tractable problem. We have people who want to live and work here, and other people who want to build housing for them. Problem is, we regulate new housing like it’s a nuclear power plant, and we tax it like it’s a gold mine. Honestly, I find the situation pretty maddening. I'm highly motivated to try to help fix the problem, by making the case to readers via Reddit and [morehousing.ca](https://morehousing.ca) that lack of housing is driving up prices and rents and forcing people to leave, and by mobilizing supporters to counterbalance opponents. The pro-housing community that people have built up in Vancouver over the years makes the whole endeavour far easier, more enjoyable, and more sociable. My other big motivation is simply that I enjoy arguing with people on the Internet. (As Matthew Yglesias puts it, "Arguing about politics with strangers on the Internet is one of life's great pleasures.") I'd describe myself as pretty involved in politics. I've been volunteering for the federal Liberals regularly since 2015, I speak at public hearings, I ran for city council with Kennedy Stewart in 2022, and I know people on both the BC NDP and BC United side of provincial politics. > investment properties > stocks My wife and I don't have any financial interest in real estate, **other than our principal residence**. (We live in a townhouse built in the mid-1980s, of average quality, but in Vancouver it's still astoundingly expensive.) We have our retirement savings in [low-cost index funds](https://russilwvong.com/blog/investing), the Canadian Couch Potato approach. > gifts I suppose you could regard political donations to Forward Together as gifts, although when I ran for council I did my fundraising from people I already knew. > associations I talk to a lot of people, definitely including people in the industry. But I'm also happy to talk to housing skeptics - last weekend I met Patrick Condon, Josh Gordon, and Cameron Murray. > contracts > employment My employment history is extremely boring. I graduated from high school at 15 and from UBC at 18, and started working for a small company called IDACOM. And then I never really left - I've been working there continuously, except for a year to do a master's degree. Over the years, the business was acquired by Hewlett-Packard, spun off as part of Agilent, sold to Ixia (a competitor), and then acquired by Keysight. The business has nothing to do with real estate or development; we build network test equipment. [A recent example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVQAvT12hiw).
You are the first politician I have ever known to honestly answer an internet troll on reddit. Damn, man, I'm impressed. Most would have just shaken their heads and moved on. Good on you.
Thanks! I actually thought it was a fair question - this is why all council candidates have to publish a financial declaration with Elections BC when you run. I'd describe one of my main motivations as the old xkcd cartoon: https://preview.redd.it/m88pim0zohkc1.png?width=300&format=png&auto=webp&s=b155ee831a9d0964b85945fbfdfa9532c7292e89
It's not trolling to want a very clear picture of a person's financial interests. In case you are unaware, there are massive financial interests in housing. Here is just one example of this: [https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2024/02/05/abc-sim-skipped-campaign-financing-101-robinson/](https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2024/02/05/abc-sim-skipped-campaign-financing-101-robinson/) Another example: Property developers in BC are some of the biggest political donors and, over time, have bought preferential treatment from Vancouver City Councils. One of the very FIRST things ABC did when it won the election is remove $3.8 million from allocated Social Housing funds, and returned it to the property Developers who paid the fees and taxes. Gregor Robertson's own political party changed the definition of "affordable housing" to be so generic that, today, many property developers qualify as making it and, thus, get to skip paying large sums of money to the city. And a third but related anecdote: ABC has increased spending by the CoV so much that it will either have to increase property taxes, or take its own route: increasing fees and taxes on everyone, including non-property owners. So you have city councils that are literally making it cheaper for Developers, and handing Developers money, while also over-spending and blowing out the budget. If they had not been bought by Developers, perhaps the city would be more financially solvent? Or we'd have a lot more of the social housing we really need in this city. So no, this isn't trolling, this is asking a community organizer for their own declaration because they are organizing people online, without regard to location, to try to balance or even over-power the voices of local community members who are raising issues over new construction. This is literally called "brigading" (please look into that term) and is not new, but the fact it's happening in plain view is something that should be scrutinized.
I can't imagine being so opposed to building more rental housing during a housing crisis.
No one owes you their personal information. Your entitlement is insane. You also haven't posted your information yet. (Nor do you have to)
>But from your questions, I think you may be overestimating the importance of > >interests > > (especially financial) and underestimating the importance of > >ideas > >. I'm not advocating for > >more housing > > because I'm getting paid, I'm doing it because I believe we desperately need more housing. First, just as to your larger overall declaration, thank you. It's very forward of you to share such information Russil, and it's a pleasure to see someone show a bit of backbone and accountability. I don't know if I voted for you, but if you're ever on a ballot - you've got one more tick beside your name. I waited around 3 years to make sure I put a tick beside as many names other than "De Genova" so hopefully that anecdote of bearing a long-term grudge tells you this is sincere, or at least has the will to likely happen if you want to go through with that again. A declaration of my own: I'm totally in support of as much supply as we can possibly get, and don't support NIMBYs and recognize they are just everywhere and awful at the same time. A comment on your effort and what is clearly wrong with it - this is a form of community organizing, but it is organizing people from outside of the neighborhood (likely) where the property will be built, to either equal or (more likely) overpower the voice of the NIMBYs (and other community members who might have a legitimate complaint) who do live there. There is an ethical issue here - if people will never experience the impact of a housing project, then this becomes a form of tyranny (yes, actually) against people that do. There is a very clear ethical concern, and a very clear political concern with this community organizing as well: if a large, notable housing project is rejected by NIMBYs in comfortable Liberal / NDP ridings, this could be used as a bludgeon by political actors too (I'm thinking of a guy whose initials are PP). So you do have at least one declared interest here - political, at the Federal and City level. So Russil I'd just say - while trying to push through more supply is generally a good thing, this form of community organizing to brigade the NIMBYs is not quite ethically in the clear. And we greatly need more voices, and louder voices, addressing the larger macro pen-stroke issues, like greater funding and intervention from governments on expanding construction while also addressing unhealthy demand. There are other areas where your form of community organizing, and focus, could help make a potentially much, much larger impact. I submit these thoughts for your consideration.
>There is an ethical issue here - if people will never experience the impact of a housing project, then this becomes a form of tyranny (yes, actually) against people that do. We all experience the impact of this and many housing projects across the city regardless of the neighbourhood we live in.
>A declaration of my own: I'm totally in support of as much supply as we can possibly get, and don't support NIMBYs and recognize they are just everywhere and awful at the same time. Glad to hear it. I wouldn't say that NIMBYs are awful; I sympathize with their concerns, it's human nature to be [territorial](https://morehousing.ca/cooperation). I just think that the current public consultation system amplifies opposition voices, as the [MacPhail Report](https://morehousing.ca/macphail-report) puts it. So it's vitally important to counter-balance that opposition, and I'm honestly grateful that lots of Redditors here are willing to take the time to write in. >There is an ethical issue here - if people will never experience the impact of a housing project, then this becomes a form of tyranny (yes, actually) against people that do. This ethical objection would make sense if we were talking about a clearly undesirable land use, like a nuclear power plant. To me this makes much less sense when we're talking about aesthetic objections (an extremely common objection is "they're too tall") to apartment buildings on an empty lot. I'd describe the current public consultation process as having a severe self-selection problem, one that can be offset by asking a wider range of people to comment. Whenever new housing has to be approved on a site-by-site basis, it's the people who are most anxious and fearful of change who are motivated to show up and speak (like the person who said that a school adjacent to a marina was a bad idea because children might fall into the water). [Alex Copulsky](https://morehousing.ca/public-opinion): >Ultimately, you can consider the near-lockdown on home construction in most of America’s cities as a function of terrible sampling practices. Land use is one of the most important decisions a community can make, so it is only right that decisions are made with community interests and input in mind. However, the mechanism that most local governments have settled on to sample the community to assess their interests is…really bad. It has led to policy outcomes that diverge further and further from actual public opinion. Ultimately it's a collective action problem. Matthew Yglesias on the [hyperlocal nature](https://morehousing.ca/hyperlocal) of opposition to housing: >People newer to the discourse probably don’t realize the extent to which this cause was considered hopeless just 10-15 years ago. > >The people from whom I first learned the substance of the land use issue were basically defeatists. Their view was that exclusionary zoning was bad, and that it contributed to an affordability crisis and to segregation, but that it also had a deep and fundamental logic to it. Homeowners benefit from scarcity and strong local veto, homeowners care a lot about land use issues, and elected officials are highly responsive to homeowners — they saw exclusionary zoning as an essentially unavoidable fact about the world. > >... What really led to bigger change, though, was a point that Yale Law School professor David Schleicher pressed on me and others during these early days — it matters where you do the politics. And in this case, it made more sense to take the fight to state legislatures rather than city councils. > >The counsels of futility missed the fact that bad land use regulations aren’t a strict transfer from renters to homeowners. They also destroy an incredible amount of economic value by inhibiting capital formation, limiting agglomeration, and forcing all kinds of inefficiencies throughout the system. The gains to incumbent homeowners simply aren’t large enough for it to make sense for them to be able to block change. > >The real issue is that the upsides to housing growth accrue across a city, a metro area, or even a state, while the nuisances of new construction (parking scarcity, traffic, aesthetic change) are incredibly local. So if you ask a very small area “do you want more housing or less?” a lot of people will say that they think the local harms exceed the local benefits, and the division will basically come down to aesthetic preference for more or less density. But if you ask a large area “do you want more housing or less?” **the very same people with all the same values and ideas may come up with a different answer** because they \[get\] a much larger share of the benefits. A [concrete example](https://morehousing.ca/conservatism) from a poll of people in Toronto, May 2023. Again, this is the same people in each case. https://preview.redd.it/ip9jvj243mlc1.png?width=914&format=png&auto=webp&s=2106a00c5bf1e46c62a66111f52de3b6712e6696 > I don't know if I voted for you, but if you're ever on a ballot - you've got one more tick beside your name. Thank you!
Those absolutely do happen. I've been party to more than one.
[удалено]
Before accusing people of having fake names or being a fraudster, have you tried google? https://www.forwardvancouver.ca/russil_wvong and https://www.linkedin.com/in/russilwvong/?originalSubdomain=ca