Excellent account and analysis of the loss of surplus school sites/public land to private development. City Council and Provincial Cabinet undermined a democratic process for economic gain of a few developers and the first buyers, rather than working in the interest of the public, including those who desperately needed affordable housing. A similar process is happening with the renewal of the Zoning Bylaw. City Council and Administration have had extensive consultations with the development industry to create the Zoning Bylaw they want; while the public has been engaged on the margins at a much later stage, with little to no ability to adjust the Zoning Bylaw to achieve the regulations they want. Community people are labelled NIMBY if they express any resistance to the loss of private green space or sunlight to larger buildings. Any regulations to improve living conditions or construction safety are discounted because they are too expensive. So what is needed to change the municipal institutions so that they serve the public interest rather than economic interests? Do we need to give the public more direct power in decision-making? Should municipal governments be required to have a referendum on certain decisions, such as selling public lands?
Many good questions Bev. I agree with you about NIMBY. The term NIMBY is way way over used, and there is alot of research that says so. More broadly speaking the fundamental issue is that over time elected officials led by Ralph Klein and Stephen Mandel and now administrators have given economic interests way more say than the legislation actually defines. With respect to our mutual love of public places, I think the starting point could be things like... requiring more transparency and need assessments while simplifying planner speak and legalese used in knowledge dissemination. And importantly slow down public lands review processes. Bad planning does not make a park emergency on a site that is funded and programmed and used by the community. We need a kind of Citi-slow movement with respect to parks.... I would love to hear more of your ideas of how direct power or referendums could be operationalized.
Excellent account and analysis of the loss of surplus school sites/public land to private development. City Council and Provincial Cabinet undermined a democratic process for economic gain of a few developers and the first buyers, rather than working in the interest of the public, including those who desperately needed affordable housing. A similar process is happening with the renewal of the Zoning Bylaw. City Council and Administration have had extensive consultations with the development industry to create the Zoning Bylaw they want; while the public has been engaged on the margins at a much later stage, with little to no ability to adjust the Zoning Bylaw to achieve the regulations they want. Community people are labelled NIMBY if they express any resistance to the loss of private green space or sunlight to larger buildings. Any regulations to improve living conditions or construction safety are discounted because they are too expensive. So what is needed to change the municipal institutions so that they serve the public interest rather than economic interests? Do we need to give the public more direct power in decision-making? Should municipal governments be required to have a referendum on certain decisions, such as selling public lands?
Many good questions Bev. I agree with you about NIMBY. The term NIMBY is way way over used, and there is alot of research that says so. More broadly speaking the fundamental issue is that over time elected officials led by Ralph Klein and Stephen Mandel and now administrators have given economic interests way more say than the legislation actually defines. With respect to our mutual love of public places, I think the starting point could be things like... requiring more transparency and need assessments while simplifying planner speak and legalese used in knowledge dissemination. And importantly slow down public lands review processes. Bad planning does not make a park emergency on a site that is funded and programmed and used by the community. We need a kind of Citi-slow movement with respect to parks.... I would love to hear more of your ideas of how direct power or referendums could be operationalized.