Author: Patrick Johnstone

Post-Election Idea #1

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

The recounts and brokering are ongoing, and I’m pretty sure none of the Provincial leaders read this blog, so I’m just going to spitball a few big ideas that make for interesting conversation and would support (in my mind) a strong Green-NDP alliance that could rule for a full term. I’ll put these out in a couple of short posts.

Idea 1: Andrew Weaver as Minister of Electoral Reform.

If anyone is interested in the stability of a true coalition, it could be forged by giving Weaver an interesting cabinet post. Environment is an obvious choice, but I think he wold quickly run into conflict, and would perhaps prefer to be “holding their feet to the fire” on that file instead of being the one getting burned. I suggest a better place for him would be leading the move to get big money out of politics and reforming the voting system.  These are two goals Horgan made clear were also his priorities during the election, making it their point of connection.

Placing Weaver in charge of a non-partisan commission to develop and support the promised referendum on a better voting system should shore up support across for the proposal once presented. We really don’t know what that looks like now, but no-one is more motivated to make some form of proportional representation work than the Greens (with all due respect to the alleged SoCred resurgence).

Reforming party fundraising is also something that was at the centre of both Weaver’s and Horgan’s campaigns. Weaver is the one leader who walked the walk on this during the campaign (ending his own Party’s corporate fundraising six months before the writ dropped), and as such may be in the best position to develop new guidelines. It will be interesting to see how donation limits, tax credits, and third-party campaigning will be managed during this conversation, as there are some potentially thorny constitutional issues related to what some would consider a restriction of free speech.

For any progress to be made on these files, the government will need a couple of years of stability, which will require the Greens to commit to supporting the NDP on budgets and other matters of confidence. This may require a commitment on expanding the carbon tax and health and education funding, issues that will likely be fought strongly by the Liberals. However, I would love to read this tweet by John Horgan from the day after the election as a bit of pre-negotiation:horgan

LMLGA 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

The day after the election that isn’t over yet, most of your City Council carpooled up to Harrison Hot Springs to attend the annual meeting of the Lower Mainland Local Government Association. It was a packed 2-1/2 days, but here’s my quick summary of what we got up to while representing New Westminster.

The LMLGA is an “area association” that operates under the umbrella of the Union of BC Municipalities, and acts as an advocacy, information sharing, and collaboration forum for a large area, stretching from Boston Bar and Pemberton to the US border, including all of the communities of the lower Fraser Valley and Howe Sound. It represents a large, diverse region comprising dense urban centres, resort municipalities, and the majority of BC’s farms. For an organization centered around Greater Vancouver, it has a strong and effective presence from the Fraser Valley and Howe Sound regions, which makes for an interesting rural/urban mix.

The meeting has three components: the typical convention-type workshops and networking sessions, the Resolutions Session where the membership votes on advocacy issues, and the AGM with all the budget-approving and electing-officers fun.

I attended several workshop sessions, but two stood out for me, both which will probably blow up into stand-along blog posts:

“Running a City like a Business” was a discussion of this oft-used, but poorly understood phrase. The discussion seemed to revolve around the idea that local governments are not “customer focused” enough, which presumes that business hold a lock on customer service (ahem… United Airlines). The discussion seemed to also focus too much (IMO) on delivering Economic Development service, which boiled down to (and I paraphrase) “treating businesses in a business-like manner is good for businesses”, which seemed like a banal argument.

What I found more interesting was the discussion of how cities manage risk, compared to your typical business. As a rule, local governments are incredibly risk adverse, and have a structural resistance (throughout Councils, Staff, lawyers, and their policies) to trying something new just to see if it works. There was also some thought-provoking ideas around how slow Cities are to evaluate their performance and course-correct – something an effective business needs to be constantly doing to remain effective. I think everyone recognizes there are good reasons why these two characteristics exist (think about the effort we put into public consultation), but at times we may use this conservatism as accepted practice when perhaps a more dynamic approach to change would work.

“FCM–RAC Proximity Initiative” was a wide-ranging dissuasion of proximity issues between rails and communities, and between port-related industrial activity and other land uses. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Rail Association of Canada have created a set of development guidelines that local governments may use to reduce the noise, vibration, and safety impacts of rail operations on nearby residential development. Not many cities have yet picked up these guidelines, but they are a useful guide that deserve a closer look. At some point soon I am going to write a ranting blog post about working with the railways, but that would take us pretty far off the rails (1) today, but I will summarize by saying that being a good neighbour sometimes requires more action than strictly following the letter of the law, and good neighbours meet each other half way.

There were 27 resolutions debated at the meeting, and the majority of them passed. They ranged from asking the BC Government to change the building code to require outdoor fire sprinklers on balconies for 4-story wood-frame residential buildings (passed) to a request that the province start up a Municipal Lobbyist Registry to provide transparency and accountability at the local government level that already exists for the provincial and federal level (also passed).

The three most hotly-contested resolutions were remarkably diverse topics:

Criminal Records Checks for Local Government Elected Officials This resolution called on the Provincial Government to make criminal record checks part of the nomination process for those seeking local government office, reasoning that many people volunteering or working for local governments are required to provide these checks, but us elected types have no such duty. The arguments against wondered what problem we are trying to solve, raised privacy issues, and suggestions that this would create a barrier to participation in electoral politics for those with minor offences or those who had long-ago served their debt to society. The resolution failed.

Varied taxation rate for the Residential Class Currently, all residential properties within a local government taxation zone have the same “mil rate”, and inequitable increases in assessed property values results in unequal taxation – essentially people in apartments pay less into the system than those in single family detached homes, though they consume the same amount of the things taxes are meant to pay for – roads, fire, police, parks, etc. This resolution called for a split of residential tax classes to “single family” and “multi-family” – much like Industrial zoning is currently divided between “light” and “heavy” industry. The counter argument was that this created unforeseen complications, and that unequal representation may result in this being used to incentivize single family houses at the cost of denser land uses. The resolution failed.

Right to Dry The request was for a change to the Strata Act to make it illegal for Strata to forbid the drying of clothes on balconies of strata buildings. This was a surprisingly controversial issue not because of a fiery debate (some spoke of it as an energy saving measure, others didn’t want to take rights away from Stratas) but because of the long process of having a standing head count vote, including a proxy voting controversy(!), that ended with the resolution losing in a tie vote. Such is democracy.

Finally, the AGM went smoothly, with the new executive including a wordy and swarthy new City Councillor for the City of New Westminster as the newest Officer at Large. Because I have so much free time…

larrycurlymoe

E Day +1

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

What a crazy Tuesday night.

Since I already declared my biases and my opinion that active participation in democracy requires more than voting, it should surprise no-one that I spent a very long Election Day knocking on doors to Get Out the Vote in a potentially close riding. I was then, like many others, up until the wee hours trying to glean every bit of information out of what I was seeing on the TeeVee. It was exasperating, exciting, exhausting.

The only thing we know at this point is what we don’t know about how this is all going to play out. But I don’t know a lot, so I may as well write my thoughts.

For the NDP, it is hard to not feel like this is a win, if not as big a win as they would have liked. Based on the direction of polls in the last week and the apparent campaign strength of the Liberals, getting close enough to force the Liberals to put their hubris away is a positive result. As critical as some people (including myself) were of parts of the NDP campaign, the benefit of hindsight may suggest they knew exactly where to put their resources, and where the wins had to come. With essentially the same vote as last election, they are within a whiff majority. Because of the wonders of gerrymandering, it was assumed by some that the NDP would need to poll 3-5 points ahead of the Liberals to get a majority of seats, and the strategy of concentrating on “winnable” ridings and holding what they had instead of spreading themselves too thin almost paid off.

For the Greens, there is good news, if unrealized hopes. The (potential) hung parliament puts them in a position of delicate power, and only time will tell if Weaver is nuanced enough to wield it effectively. However, if their goal was 4 seats and Official Party Status, they have fallen short, and may again struggle to put together the resources they need between elections to be as strong a voice as the electorate is suggesting they want. There was some excellent campaign work by some local teams (including here in New West), and that will probably pay long-term benefits electorally, but they still have much work to do before they are ready to run a true province-wide campaign and escape the stigma of being thought of as potential spoilers for other “more likely to win” parties.

As always, their best bet is still supporting the introduction of some form of proportional representation, only now, they have a clear pathway to get that done.

Christy Clark put on a brave face in her “victory” speech, but she was a loser here. Going in, she had every reason to believe this would be a great election. The “Economy” (within the narrow confines of how she defines it) is going great, they had by far the most campaign money available to them, and an almost unlimited amount of pre-election taxpayer dollars to get their message out. They had the endorsement of all major media outlets, the polls were going their way… it was their campaign to lose.

Regardless of who holds the balance of power after the recounts and brokering are done, the Premier has lost a lot of her inner circle. Suzanne Anton, Amrik Virk, Peter Fassbender, Naomi Yamamoto. The Holy Trinity of DeJong, Polak and Coleman will hold up her right flank, and it seems Wilkinson is a natural to replace Fassbender as the Minister of Taking Out the Garbage, but there is no doubt her inner circle is damaged.

The best she can hope for right now is that final counts flip her a riding or two, and she takes a razor-thin majority into the house. If this happens, we will see a very different Liberal Party, because they will need to be all present for every vote (no sick leave, no vacations, and dear God, no-one die!) and may even, to make passing legislation work, need to work across the aisle and collaborate a bit to avoid chaos. Of course, the same applies if the NDP string together a razor-thin majority or cobble together a coalition. Or we could all be doing this again in September when the current budget runs out.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. We really don’t know what the next couple of weeks will bring, but it should be an interesting lesson in civics.

Voting for…

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

I have written a few things about this election, and recognize that (perhaps reflecting our social media environment) much of it is about what I am voting against. This post I’m going to avoid all of that and speak only about what I am voting for have already voted for.

I voted for change. Real change that can start on May 10th.

I voted for a leader that works with a team and speaks with people. One of my first impressions of John Horgan at a rally last year was that he called attention to his team. He talked less about himself and more about the accomplishments of David Eby, of Melanie Mark, of Judy Darcy. A good manager (and really, that’s what a Party Leader is) is one who gives his team the tools they need to get their work done, and supports them in that work. In watching his interactions with his team, that is exactly the kind of guy John Horgan is. He also speaks to – and listens to – people, no deposit required. He does not turn away from a dissenting voice, whether giving a heckler at a public event a chance to speak his peace, or following up with a party supporter like me when he makes a campaign promise I don’t support. I want my province and its government to be well managed, and John Horgan seems to me to be the kind of manager I would work for.

I voted for a balanced and costed platform that doesn’t over promise, but delivers solutions to critical issues on a realistic timeline. Real change includes a long-overdue coordinated provincial approach to day care that will ultimately result in a universal $10/day plan. Real change means turning electricity planning and rate forecasting back to the BCUC, the independent agency of subject experts working specifically to keep politicians from milking BC Hydro for short-term benefit. Real change means investing in health care to bring residential care up to the government’s own established standards. Real change means a respectful and accountable approach to Truth and Reconciliation that goes beyond lip service. Real change is attainable, starting next week. Time to stop putting it off.

I voted for a stronger democracy. We need campaign finance reform, reducing the influence of corporations and unions on the way our province is run, and reducing the cost of elections by reducing the money available for all of those noisy attack ads. We also need electoral reform, so that a vote for the party you want is more meaningful even if your party cannot form a majority. These changes can be delivered in the next term, moving BC from the “wild west” of elections to a modern, functional democracy.

I voted for a party that will support our region by putting our region’s biggest issues at the front of their platform. The Mayor’s Council (a diverse group of NDP, Liberal, and Conservative politicians) have made a clear choice this election, endorsing the NDP approach to regional transportation, including supporting the 10-year vision for transportation investment. I cannot help but believe that our affordable housing file will be better managed under David Eby, who has been the most passionate and pragmatic political voice on this issue for the last 4 years. The opioid crisis needs to be treated as the public health emergency it is, not with sympathy and naloxone, but with the resources needed to save lives and get people out of the cycle of addiction.

I voted for a party that will represent the diversity of British Columbia. The NDP are running a group of candidates across the province that represent the diversity of the Province. We also need a party that will measure our economic success not by increases in wealth for the most fortunate, but by how that wealth invests in the future of the province. A minimum wage that provides dignity, removing punitive cuts to those with disabilities, investing the seismic upgrading of schools, returning to the business of supportive housing… the list goes on. We are a rich province, we will continue to be a rich province because of our wealth of resources (natural and human) and our fortunate location in the evolving world. It is time we started acting like a wealthy province and invest in our people.

I voted for a great MLA. Judy Darcy is someone I am proud to support. She works hard, she works collaboratively, and she treats all people with respect. She is loud when she has to be, and is quietly collaborative when that approach is needed. She is supremely optimistic about her city, about her province, and about the positive role of government. I have seen her work hard in New Westminster, and speak loudly in Victoria. She has brought positive initiatives to New Westminster, even while in opposition. I know she will work just as hard for us when she is in government, and New Westminster will have a voice in Victoria that will be heard.

Most importantly, I voted. Please get out there and vote for the result you want to see.

Council – May 1, 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Our Council meeting on May 1st was another long one, as a large number of delegates came to speak to the proposed Heritage Conservation Area for Queens Park. Again, if this proposal moves forward, it will be going to Public Hearing, so do not take Council’s cautious approach to responding to delegates’ direct questions as disinterest, but more an acknowledgement that there is still much discussion to have in the neighbourhood and community before Council makes any decision here.

The regular agenda began with a couple of presentations and reports.

Arrival of EVO Car Sharing in New Westminster
This announcement is important to New Westminster because it supports the policy goals of our Master Transportation Plan by reducing vehicle reliance in the City, encouraging active transportation choices, and making transportation in our city more affordable for more people.

The presentation and report outlined the various ways Car sharing support these goals. Every car-share vehicle correlates with the reduction of 5-11 private vehicles, reducing the need to accommodate cars through parking and road space. For many users, it is more affordable than owning a car, and supports increased use of transit, cycling and walking. I was amazed that there are already more than 500 EVO members in New Westminster, before they even brought any cars here.

The following items were Moved on Consent:

Request for License to Occupy – Quayside Community Board
The QCB has a large yard sale / festival in the summer, which brings in merchants from around the region to activate the boardwalk. The construction ongoing on the waterfront has created a bit of a challenge for them, and there is an underutilized space at the west end of the Quayside. Although the property is owned in partnership with Metro Vancouver, staff have been working with the QCB to provide a one-day license to allow their merchants to park their vehicles there during the boardwalk sale. Liability and licensing issues abound, but it sounds like all three partners are on side here and have worked through most of it.

1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street: Official Community Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to Allow a 78 Unit Residential Development, Park and Road Dedication – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
This large family-friendly development in Queensborough will have a variety of housing forms, and result in road and park dedication to the City. Council moved to give the OCP and RZ first and second reading, and send the project to Public Hearing. I’ll hold my comments until then.

The following items were Removed form Consent for discussion:

Provincial Property-based Taxes in the Metro Vancouver Region
This is a report for information, you can read it here. Short version: people living in the Metro Vancouver pay more taxes to the Provincial government, in raw numbers and per capita, than the rest of the province. This is especially true of school taxes where the Mil Rate is flat across the province.

Street Naming Bylaw for ‘Mabel Street’ in Queensborough – Bylaw for
Three Readings
I am in favour of this motion, and am comfortable moving forward with this naming, but took the time to suggest to my Council colleagues that the Street Naming Policy that underlies this choice needs to be updated.

Perhaps this conversation can wait until we hear back from staff on the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (following on our April 10th motion), but as a rule our street names disproportionately acknowledge the European settler experience, and probably fail to recognize the diversity of our history.

As a point of discussion, it may be interesting to discuss why streets named after men generally use surnames, and streets named after women fall to the given name…

630 Ewen Avenue (Affordable Housing Project): Housing Agreement
Principles – for Endorsement
The city is working with a not-for-profit to develop a small supportive family housing project in Queensborough. This agreement will set out the conditions under which the housing operates, the duties of the operator and rights of the residents (above and beyond those in the Residential Tenancy Act) which make up the “supportive” part of the housing. Council endorsed these principles.

Queen’s Park Universal Washroom Design
Times change, and how we design public buildings change with them. The concession stand in Queens Park needs replacement, as do the attached bathrooms. The new model for these types of facilities on BC (although this has been standard practice in large parts of Europe for a long time) are to make them “gender neutral”, with secure toilet booths open to either gender attached to a common sink/washup/baby changing area. This reduces a variety of barriers, especially with kids and others who need supports to use public facilities, and assures that the rights all persons are protected.

Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area: Full Draft of Conservation Area, Administrative Policy, and Design Guidelines
This conversation followed more than two hours of public delegations, mostly on the topic of the proposed HCA. It is clear there are a variety of opinions and a lot of deeply felt convictions about this proposal. Unfortunately, there are also a variety of “facts” being provided, which makes the conversation challenging. We have more work to do.

This report, however, outlines some of the most important aspects of the HCA proposal, as it details the actual process through which permits and approvals would be managed under the proposed HCA, and also provides a draft of the Design Guidelines that would become mandatory under the HCA if approved.

Council was not able to discuss the Design Guidelines in detail, as we had only received them on Monday, and wanted some time to dig through them and have a fuller understanding before we approved them. That discussion will happen in an Open Workshop on May 8th at 4:30 in the afternoon. It will be open to the public as are all Council meetings.

There is some detail in the report, and if you are concerned, you should rely on the report and not my necessarily reduced summary here, but the draft policy looks something like this:

For houses built before 1941 (about 500 of the 700 homes in QP), the house would need a Heritage Alteration Permit (“HAP”) prior to demolition, construction on the front of sides of the house (parts visible from the street), or changes in the roofline. Internal renovations require no extra permitting. The proposed changes would be evaluated based on a transparent “checklist” to determine if the changes would significantly alter the heritage of the neighbourhood, and whether alternative approaches to meeting the owner’s zoning entitlement could be found.

Staff would review these applications, based on a transparent and clear set of standards, and would deny or approve the permit. If the owner is denied a permit, they would be allowed to appeal to Council, who would make the final decision.

All construction on the visible front of the house and replacement buildings would need to meet the Design Guidelines established under the HCA, as approved by staff.

For all other houses, an HAP would only be required for new construction or subdivision of the property. Demo permits and renovations would not require an HAP.

Staff have tried to develop a fee structure that is fair to all residents of the City, and reduced the cost for renovation vs. demolition, in order to further encourage renovation of heritage homes. The process has also been designed to operate as transparently and quickly as possible, with most permits only taking a couple of weeks to get through the process. The evaluation standards and guidelines have been developed though guidance from the Heritage Commission, Technical Review Panel, and Heritage Working Group, but they will not be involved in the review of individual applications.

In the few cases where it will be required, the appeal process will add time – getting on the agenda so Council can have the final say creates scheduling delays – but by delegating authority we simplify the process and make the entire process work faster, more transparently, and at a lower cost to the City and less stress for the homeowner.

Again, these proposals are going to be going to a Public Hearing in June. Best if you let Mayor and Council know what you think through e-mail.

231 Twelfth Street (Gas Works Building): Site Safety and Demolition Process
The building belongs to the province, and the owner is asking us for a demo permit. The building is in terrible condition, and needs to be removed for public safety reasons. It is unfortunate, but the time to save this building was 20 years ago, and it clearly was not a priority. We can move on and start looking at re-purposing this piece of land, which starts with us getting out of the way and giving the province the room they need to remediate the industrial site.

As a City we don’t own a lot of land that isn’t already completely programmed, this is an opportunity for us to acquire a valuable piece of land that links lower 12th to the Brow neighbourhood.

We wrapped the evening, as always, by addressing a few Bylaws:

Official Community Plan (Land Use Designation Amendment) for 1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street Bylaw No. 7916, 2017 and
Zoning Amendment (1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street) Bylaw 7917, 2017
These Bylaws to support a multi-family development in Queensborough was given two readings. The project will be going to Public Hearing on May 29, 2017. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Street Naming (“Mabel Street” in Queensborough) Bylaw No. 7902, 2017
This Bylaw to name a new street in Queensborough after Mabel Bowell, Queensborough’s first school teacher, was given three readings.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (1023 Third Avenue) Bylaw No. 7871, 2016 and Heritage Designation Bylaw (1023 Third Avenue) No. 7872, 2016
These Bylaws to support he building of two stacked townhouses and refurbish and protect a heritage home on Brow of the Hill, as discussed at the Public Hearing on November 28, 2016, were adopted. They are the law of the land.

Downtown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax – Primary Area Bylaw No. 7911, 2017
Downtown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax – Secondary Area Bylaw No. 7914, 2017
Uptown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax Bylaw No. 7912, 2107
These Bylaws that allow us to collect taxes on behalf of the City’s three BIAs were adopted. Adjust your behaviors accordingly.

Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7913, 2017
This Bylaw that sets our property tax rate increase for 2017 at 2.98% was adopted. The bill will soon be in the mail.

The cost of everything

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

For regular readers of this blog (Hi Mom!) and my social media feeds, my biases this election have been made pretty clear. I have gone on at length over the last couple of years about the public policy reasons I think we need a change in Victoria, from transportation to affordable housing to regional planning and climate/energy policy. Six years into this, my initial hopes that the Liberals under Christy Clark would surprise everyone and govern to the centre have been dashed. Then tossed under the wheels of a bus. A bus recently set on fire.

To quote another notable Conservative leader, “An election is no time to discuss serious issues”, and a myriad of public policy issues in this province are clearly too serious for our major media outlets to give them headline treatment. However, the fact this following headline is not the biggest (or only) issue in this election suggests our democracy is not as healthy as we would like:

headline

We are at the point where even the most ardent of Christy Clark supporters are not bothering to battle the perception that she, and the party she leads, is corrupt. The recent strategy to paint their opposition as similarly (if not equally) corrupt is evidence of this: they cannot deny their own record or the public perception, they just hope to splash around enough mud that everyone looks dirty.

There is no point going through the exhaustive list of ethical issues this government has faced. From the illegal stripping of teachers contracts that was defended for 12 years all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada before they had to admit they were wrong (although, they never admitted they were wrong) to the shady sale of BC Rail and resultant police investigation and hush-money scandal broken by a guy who is now a Liberal Candidate(!). There are the number of blatantly false statements on the record regarding RCMP investigations, one resulting in a death. We had triple deleting of e-mails, “Quick Wins”, a Party ED indicted for corruption in Ontario., we had Bloy, Virk, Grayden, and Boessenkool. The list goes on.

When is the last time you saw a televised debate where the moderator was comfortable reading a list of ethical failures and asking the leader of a governing party, straight out: After all this, how can we trust you? Clark’s answer was, in essence, “it doesn’t matter“. That alone should lose an election.

All this aside (and that is a lot to toss aside), Clark cannot escape the public’s realization that she is bought and paid for, that decisions being made are based on donation received by her party, and by herself though a tidy little fundraising dividend (that is also resulting in a police investigation). It may be the oldest axiom in politics that you “got to dance with them that brung you”, and there are varying levels of truth to that idea. I’m an elected official, I received donations from people, companies, and unions towards my campaign. I know how sensitive is the suggestion those donations come with strings, and do everything in my power to avoid conflict of interest.

However, rarely in government are these strings so laid bare as with the current BC Liberal Party. The recent report by Dermod Travis connects the dots between the donations given to the BC Liberals and the variety of benefits afforded to those who are in the Millionaires Club. From avoiding charges in the biggest environmental spill in Canada’s history to sweetheart infrastructure deals and continued access to target bears at $30,000 a pop. It is banal to read through, and it is easy to see why Clark is not even trying to mount a defense.

None of this, I note, is policy related. Nothing here is directly linked to the serious job of governance. If defeated, Christy Clark will potentially have no governance legacy at all, except a closet full of skeletons that have long since spilled out and filled the room.

But, electorally, what does it mean?

Here we are with 10 days to go, the polls show the election is still too close to call. The Postmedia Newspapers of Note are dutifully reporting BC Liberal talking points in attempt to paint the opposition as angry or creepy; social media bubbles are keeping all but the most trolly of us away from hearing different opinions, and everyone is wondering if the Greens will be spoilers, and if so, for whom? Somehow the idea of re-electing what is (according to media from New York to Los Angeles) a fossil-fuel embedded kleptocracy of the first order, is not out of the realm of possibility. Not only is this not front page, it is hardly a story at all. We are so saturated in corruption, that we have lost our sensitivity to it.

I think this government deserves relegation to the penalty box for a bunch of public policy reasons. I am more bothered by the idea that a government, so demonstrably crooked that they won’t even bother denying it anymore, actually thinks that doesn’t matter to the electorate. What really keeps me up at night, though, is that they may be right. As someone who (perhaps naively) works every day to further better public policy and the democratic process, I don’t even know what that means.

Council – April 24, 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

We had another daytime workshop in Council this week, discussing some details of the proposed Heritage Conservation Area for Queens Park. There is a lot of work to do, and some more discussions to have (based on the bombardment of e-mail I am receiving on the topic), but we expect that issue to come to a Public Hearing in June, so I suggest you watch the video if interested, and I’ll save my comments until the public hearing.

As it was the last meeting of the month, we started with a Public Hearing on two projects:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7907, 2017 for 1002, 1012, 1016 and 1020 Auckland Street
This is a new multi-family development on a challenging site in the Brow of the Hill. The now-vacant lots have a high slope, but are in a great walkable location near downtown and lower 12th. The proposal has 13 townhouses and 75 apartments, the majority of which will be 3- and 2-bedroom, which puts them above the minimums in our Family-Friendly Housing policy.

The Design Panel and Advisory Planning Commission approved the project, the Neighbourhood Association raised no concerns, and the 6(!) people who replied to the 6,700 (1) mailed out invitations to the open house similarly raised no concerns. We receive no written submissions, and the one person who came to speak to the development was not opposed, but did raise a valid concerns about parking issues for his very constrained lot across the street that I hope Engineering can address.

Council moved to refer the application for Third Reading, which Council approved in the regular meeting immediately after.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7833, 2016 for 518 Ewen Avenue
This is a simple re-zoning of a single lot in Queensborough to match the zoning of the adjacent properties and in compliance with the Queensborough Community Plan. We received no submissions and no-one came to speak to the matter. Council moved to refer the application for Third Reading, which Council approved in the regular meeting immediately after.

The Regular Meeting started with us moving the above Bylaws to Third Reading, followed by a Opportunity to be Heard:

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00624 for Royal Columbian Hospital (330 East Columbia Street) – To Vary Front Yard Setback for New Mental Health Care Building
The RCH expansion is a big project, and this is a minor variance required for the Phase 1 building. There are two relatively small protrusions form the main building that will stick into the setback required by zoning (the minimum distance allowed between any building and the lot line). These two encroachments will in no way impact the pedestrian or other transportation realm around the building, wont impact any other land owners, and will not result in a significant reduction of greenspace (as other parts of the building are set much further back from the setback.

We had one written submission opposed to this DVP, with no reason given for that opposition, and no-one came to speak to the application. Council moved ot approve the DVP.

The following items were moved on Consent:

Festival Grant – Appeal from Philippine Festival Society
This being Canada 150 year, festivals organized on July 1st have a few unexpected budget constraints. The PFS came to the Festivals Committee and made a compelling case for an increase in their budget, and demonstrated an ability to also address their budget constraints with increased sponsorship. As there is some room left in the Festivals budget due to the cancellation of another funded event, the committee recommended that this request be approved. Council agreed.

22nd Street Bus Exchange Upgrades Public Art Proposal
The pedestrian realm around 22nd Street Skytrain will see a modest, but much overdue, upgrade this year, thanks to TransLink. In consultations with the City, some ideas around introducing Public Art have been brought to TransLink, and a collaboration is in the offing! Our Public Art Advisory committee likes the idea, has some money in the Public Art Fund, and will be helping coordinate this partnership – a great way to leverage or modest PA budget to greater gain. I’m looking forward to what they come up with, we could use a little public space enhancement in the area!

Front Street Mews – Proposed Public Realm Enhancements
So much work has been going on down on Front Street, and the merchants down there have been so patient going on down there, I am glad we are finally seeing the end of the disruption. However, we are also looking forward to a much improved public space, and even collaborating with the Downtown BIA on some events down there this summer. Again, I want to thanks staff for again showing creativity and vision, and for the BIA and other partners for being great partners! Summer is almost here!

Downtown BIA Parcel Tax Bylaws No. 7911, 2017 and 7914, 2017;
Uptown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax Bylaw No. 7912, 2017
These are the official Bylaws that authorize the City to collect a parcel tax on behalf of the Business Improvement Districts in Downtown and Uptown, so they can offer the programs they do to their members. We moved to approve them going to three readings.

2017 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7913, 2017
With our Financial Plan update done, and in preparation for sending our official Tax notices and documentation to the Government, we have to pass a Bylaw officially approving our property tax levels for 2017. As anticipated, they are going up by 2.98%, meaning the City will collect a total of $75.5Million in property taxes this year. A good primer on what a 2.98% increase across the board means to you based on your assessment change since last year is available here (from last year, so adjust the numbers accordingly).

European Chafer Management Program Update
The grass-munching buggers seem to be back with a vengeance this year, and the best way for you to manage them is to not have grass, but instead plant planet-friendlier things in your front lawn. The second best way to manage them is to have really healthy deep-rooted grass that isn’t overwatered. The third best way to manage them is to use nematodes, and the City will help you pay for nematodes, but there is a process. Follow the links here if this option is right for you, because timing is everything for nematode application.

The following items were removed from consent for discussion:

Anvil Theatre Piano Purchase
Theatres usually have pianos, I get this. Great performers require great pianos, I also get this. Staff have asked Council to approve the purchase of a $215,000 piano for the Anvil Centre Theatre. I don’t get this.

It may be possible that this is the right piano for the Anvil, and that its purchase is important, but I was not convinced of this by the report I received. For a purchase of this size, especially a sole source, I need to see a business case around how it will improve our operation, and how this source and this piece of equipment is the best way to address the need.

Council did not approve the request, and have sent it back to Staff to make a better case or come up with a different plan

Repeal the 1903 Curfew Bylaw
I am glad that youth and unescorted ladies are now able to roam the streets at night. Adjust your behavior appropriately.

Official Community Plan Review: Summary of Draft Official Community Plan Feedback and Discussion of Land Use Designation for Glenbrooke North
This report provided some response to the last round of public consultation on the OCP Land Use Designation map, and some public feedback received outside of the formal consultation process.

The report was great, and showed broad general support for the direction of the OCP, and also pointed out that OCP consultations in New West suffer from a common problem: there is a general underrepresentation of people under 35, renters, young families – just the kind of people we recognized as being most in need of more affordable and more diverse housing choices. Still, the overall message in this last round is clear: we need to provide more housing choice and are either on track, or slightly behind, where we need to be when it comes to accommodating family-friendly housing

This is why I have concerns about the changes proposed in this report (as I did about the changes on Fifth Street). These changes take away those things we need the most: flexibility in housing forms in family-friendly neighbourhoods, and potential for increased affordability in those neighbourhoods. For these reasons, I proposed instead designating these areas Residential Ground Oriented. This would allow the maximum flexibility for current landowners, and provide the most potential for sensitive lower density infill like laneway houses, cluster houses, and small townhouse developments. I appreciate the feedback from the residents, and think Ground-Oriented best represents the balance between allowing flexibility for current owners and still providing impetus towards greater housing choice.

The majority of Council did not agree with me and the designation for the area was rolled back to Single Family Detached.

The OCP is an ongoing process, and we should see a Bylaw ready for Public Hearing by the end of summer.

We then went through our usual Bylaws shuffle:

Downtown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax – Primary Area Bylaw No. 7911, 2017
Downtown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax – Secondary Area Bylaw No. 7914, 2017
Uptown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax Bylaw No. 7912, 2107
These three bylaws that allow us to collect taxes on behalf od the three BIAs was given three readings.

Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7913, 2017
This bylaw that formalized the 2017 property tax rates for the city was given three readings.

Narrative

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Elections are about campaigns, and campaigns are about narratives.

This is what makes the silly little story of Christy Clark and her posse ducking out of the Sun Run after the start-line Photo-Op interesting.

Photo-Ops are as much a part of a modern campaign as fundraising and debates. Showing up for a big public event like the Sun Run seems like a smart idea: Get a number, don some running gear, look like you’re part of the crowd, be relatable. Ducking out of an event after the photo-op is also not a surprising a move, so why was this duck-out a big deal for Christy Clark?

Because it fits the narrative that the opposition NDP have sucessfully placed around Christy Clark: she can’t be trusted, she’s crooked, she’s an opportunist and a cheater.

Showing up for a running race with your race gear, then diving out of the race before the end doesn’t smell genuine – it seems a bit like you’re cheating. You want people to think you put in an effort, you got photographed apparently putting in the effort, but you didn’t actually put in the effort. You lied to those people you were trying to relate to. Its sneaky in a way donning the hardhat at a construction site isn’t. It feels dishonest. It fits the narrative.

However, if there is a more interesting story coming out of the Sun Run Photo-op, it has to do with this photo:
samsunrun

Sam Sullivan has a tradition of showing up near the end of the Sun Run and sending high fives and encouragement to the runners as they go by. It’s a way for him to participate in the biggest annual event within his riding, and he has done it for years. Sure, it is Photo-op, but it connects with people, it feels genuine, and therefore it’s pretty cool. So it is perhaps apropos that Christy Clark didn’t bother to run far enough this year to share a high five or photo with Sam Sullivan. This, unfortunately for Sam, fits the narrative of his invisibility and ineffectiveness as an MLA.

I don’t think there’s another MLA in the province that has been as disappointing as Sam Sullivan. Love or hate his politics, this man was a champion for his City, with a vision for a more livable Vancouver, and an understanding of its role in the region. A politician with his resume (the former mayor of the biggest city in the province!) and his passion would be expected to have a prominent seat at the table in any provincial caucus. Instead, the most common hashtag used in the social media around his work has been #InvisibleSam. In the Christy Clark caucus, as in Cristy Clark’s British Columbia, there are winners and losers. Sam, along with the the smart and competent Moira Stilwell, also from Vancouver, is definitely on the wrong side of that equation. As a result, Sam has sat silently on the back bench during the public transit and transportation boondoggles, has been invisible during the overdose crisis, has been missing during the housing crisis. All of these issues that are so important to his riding, that disproportionately impact the City for which he served as mayor, that threaten his own vision for that City, are the issues he failed to meaningfully adress.

I don’t feel good picking on Sam about this. I’m sure he is as frustrated about this situation as any of us, because I do believe he cares about Vancouver, and I know he understands the public policy that can make his City better. However, this is about the leadership of Liberals, and the inability push good public policy forward within a Caucus system that is based on punishment and reward and appeasing donors. That is the narrative of Sam. At least Stilwell has the guts and the dignity to get out when she can, and call this government what it is:

moira

Fortunately, in this election Sam is running against Morgane Oger, a passionate advocate for education in a riding where BC Liberal failure on that file has resulted in a school deficit, even as the neighbourhood booms with an influx of young families and professionals – the type of mixed-use higher-density family-friendly development that Sam Sullivan himself supported when he was Mayor. It seems he cannot (or will not) speak out from his MLA seat, even as his government chooses to undermine the vision he helped create for his City. Morgane is running from behind, in a riding that will be tough to win, but if you are in Vancouver I hope you can find a way to help her get a seat in Victoria. She has a long history of speaking out for what is important to her and her community, and False Creek (and the rest of Vancouver) could use some of that right now.

How can we expect Sam to now speak up for his community, when he can’t even get a photo-op high-five from his own Premier?

Regional Vision(s)

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

With a busy schedule at the city, and so much election-related angst and chatter and tension and fluff, I found a way to be inspired and challenged in the most positive way on Thursday.

The City Program at Simon Fraser University and the SFU Centre for Dialogue hosted a constructive dialogue on the topic of the Regional Plan, or more on the very topic of regional planning in a Metro Vancouver context. The guiding questions for a compelling 4 hour conversation were:

Is this vision of “Cities in a Sea of Green” still appropriate? Will it sustain us for the next half century? What are the issues our vision must address if it is going to continue to serve the region?

In the room were about two dozen regional leaders from academia, activists and community conversation leaders, planners new and old, and a couple of elected types, both new and old. I would love to list resumes, and attribute quotes (there were many great quotable moments), but the program was run under Chatham House Rule, in order to facilitate freer dialogue. There will be reporting out via the City Program, but what that looks like probably depends on where this new dialogue leads.

In as short a summary as I can muster, my read of the feeling in the room was that the vision and the resultant Regional Plans have served the region well, even as the populations rise, the economy boomed and busted, our economic drivers shifted, and public transit replaced freeways as the ideal connector between city centres. However, there are many flaws in its applicaiton, and many of the current crises challenging the region (affordability, transportation, increasing social alienation) have at least partial connections to the vision itself. The consideration of keeping this vision or developing a new one needs to be measured against its ability to adress our new pressures. There was a broad consensus that this is the time for the Region to be having this conversation, as the pressures right now feel large enough to shift the region in pretty fundamantal ways. I was driven to think about our beautiful, admired, and unique region as being on a precipice.

Instead of trying to summarize the entire diverse conversation here, I would like to touch on just a few points that really hit me.

The conversation we prefaced by a report by a small group of grad students from SFU that looked at the history of regional planning in Greater Vancouver, and the pressures on the current plan:

?

The historic timeline was interesting. A few burgeoning communities collaborating on water and sewer systems in the first half of the last century prefaced an initial dabbling in regional landuse planning driven by the disastrous flood of 1948, but the first comprehensive regional growth strategy emerged in 1966 (where the vision “Cities in a Sea of Green” was first codified). This vision was still of town centers (Vancouver, Surrey, New Westminster, Langley, etc. separated by greenspace and agricultural lands, tied together by freeways, as was the ethos of the day.

The complex history since this time has involved complex relationships between the province and the local government leaders – and there were great forward moves (The 1973 establishment of the ALR, formation of the GVRD, the 1975 Livable Region Plan and 1996 Livable Region Strategic Plan, the 1998 formation of TransLink) and equally important slips backwards (Bill 9 in 1983, which abolished the regional planning function, the 2007 stripping of local governance of TransLink). Tried as I might, I couldn’t correlate the emphasis on regional planning with anything (resource industry boom-bust cycles, global economic shifts, housing prices, Canucks playoff runs) except with the name of the party forming government in Victoria.

That is part of a larger theme that became common: any plans made by the region for the region exists in a larger context of federal and provincial politics and how larger forces look at the purpose of our region.

It was noted that when Simon Fraser introduced the idea of the river that bears his name to the European colonist social media, there were more than 20,000 people living along its banks between Musqueam and Kwantlen. In a very literal sense, he was the first Gateway project planner. His goal was to push a route for hinterland commerce through to the coast, occasionally stopping to seek the permission of the people living there, but not overly concerned with whether that permission was granted. Two hundred years later, the Gateway has other leaders, but the mandate is little changed. As such, the story of the region can be told as a long series of carpet-baggers pushing past the locals for profit. The livability of the region, the ecology that supports it, the local food web and cultural values of the residents are no more important now to the National Enterprise of getting hinterland resources to tidewater than they were in 1808.

It would be ridiculous to equate our current planning frictions the centuries of cultural genocide that took place in North America; the point is only that the fundamental pressures have had similar vectors for a couple of centuries, even at massively shifting scales. There is no reason to asume that founding narrative will change now, and the best laid local and regional plans will fail if the important decisions that shape the region (Port Mann and Massey Bridges spring immediately to mind) are driven by different people working on a completely different plan.

In the end, the strongest feeling I had coming out of this event was (I sure hope @MsNWimby isn’t reading this) a desire to go back to school. To be sitting in a dialogue with people much smarter than me, bringing disciplines together and sharing compelling ideas that force me to shift my own assumptions about a topic so close to my heart was the most fun I have had in a few years.

Why can’t Facebook be like this?

Council – April 10, 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

We had a long night on April 10th, as often happens when we have open delegations on an important issue like the Heritage Conservation Area for the Queens Park.

For some of us on Council, we started at 8:30 in the morning with a Canada Games Task Force meeting, so this Monday was spectacularly long. Recognizing that there were ~30 delegates, Council for the most part avoided getting into long discussions with delegates, even to the point where we left some questions hanging somewhat – but we do that to assure everyone gets a chance to speak before midnight. As the two topics of most concern (the OCP and the plan for creating a Heritage conservation area in Queens Park) will both be going to Public Hearing, and there are conversations ahead about that, please don’t take our lack of conversation as a lack of interest in the presentations!

We started the evening with our annual signing of the Parcel Tax Roll:

Parcel Tax Roll
There are a number of properties in the City that pay a little extra tax than everyone else, through the Parcel Tax System, These are members of the Business Improvement Areas (for whom we collect a tax, then turn it back over to the BIA so they can use it to fund their business development and support programs) and some special assessment areas, where neighbours have requested some works and were willing to pay for that specific works (like enclosing a drainage ditch in Queensborough). These are all voluntary programs decided by a special vote of the neighbourhoods.

Every year we need to officially list the impacted properties and let them know what their special charge is, and this provides them, Council, and the general community an opportunity to make any corrections or alterations of the roll. We received no complaints of comments from the impacted property owners this year, or from the general public. So the roll was passed without much fanfare.

Then we began our regular meeting, which started with presentation of the Heritage Week poster contest winners (arguably the cutest Council Meeting of the year) before we got down to business. The following items were Moved on Consent:

Official Community Plan: Draft Development Permit Areas and Design Guidelines
As part of the ongoing OCP work, staff and our external consultants have been working on draft Design Guidelines to inform how the development of new buildings in the City will fit into the existing neighbourhoods. Development Permit Areas are tools Cities can use to facilitate and/or restrict the shape, form, and character of buildings within those areas. There are examples in this report of proposed guidelines for multi-family residential forms in the Brow of the Hill and Sapperton that are lower density than high-rise or even medium-rise buildings, there are examples from employment lands, and a discussion of how development around the Brunette River will meet the requirements of the provincial Riparian Areas Regulations.

There is a lot to chew on here, and the detailed report (the draft form of which I liked to above) is pretty complex. From here, it will go to the Advisory Panning Commission, and will be wrapped up in the bigger OCP Public Hearing process. Council moved to support this path forward.

425 Columbia Street (Columbia SkyTrain Station): Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption by TransLink and 200 to 700 Block Columbia Street and Front Street: Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption by Metro Vancouver and 1400 to 1500 Block Stewardson Way and the intersection at River Drive and Stewardson Way: Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption by Metro Vancouver
All three of these are applications to do work outside of regular banker hours that will require some noisy equipment. The first because you can’t work in the SkyTrain guideway while trains are going by, the second is sewer work that needs to be done on Sunday night, because that when sewer loads are low enough, the third is being scheduled to reduce traffic flow impacts on Stewardson Way. Council approved all three.

809 Fourth Avenue: Application for Strata Title Conversion
This unique development on 8th Street at Fourth Avenue preserved three heritage homes by moving them over a bit, and built a multi-family mid-rise next door, with shared underground parking for all of them. The intent all along was to operate the three houses as Strata ownership, which requires this application process.

Asset Management Strategy Update
The City has more than $1Billion in physical assets like pipes in the ground, street signs, vehicles, buildings, etc. They are all depreciating, and will all need to be replaced or renewed eventually, some long after they have depreciated to “zero value” on paper, some at accelerated rates due to heavy use, obsolescence, or changing needs in the community. We are required to cost that depreciation as part of Public Service Accounting Board standards, but like all governments, there are still some areas where we are reactive to replacing infrastructure (find ways to pay for it when we need it) as opposed to proactive (planning ahead for when assets need to be replaced). Council has identified an Asset Management Plan as one of our priorities. This report is staff giving us a framework on how they are going to achieve that goal.

It is no secret that New West has a bit of an infrastructure deficit: our infrastructure is aging faster than we are replacing it. However, this is true for pretty much every city in Canada, and comparatively, we are actually far ahead of the average or median Local Government. This is due in part to our being a compact city (avoiding the externalized costs of sprawl) and because density increases have allowed us to invest in new infrastructure required to facilitate that growth. Still, a fully integrated Asset Management Program should help future councils better plan and adapt for the changing needs of the City.

This isn’t sexy work, and it is hard to cut a ribbon on an Asset Management Strategy, but the City will be stronger and more sustainable in the future for us doing this work now.

2017 Spring Freshet and Snow Pack Level
Surprisingly, it still looks like snowpack levels across the province are around or below average this year, so the risk of flooding related to the Spring Freshet remains low. Snowpack is only one measure of flood risk – a long cold spring that preserves that snow followed by sudden warming and rains that accelerate melt can still cause problems, but all things being equal, we are less worried this year than in some others.

Environment Advisory Committee (EAC): Master Recycler Pilot Program
The EAC is recommending Council ask staff to support this program, which trains people in multi-family housing to be “recycling champions” in their strata or rental complex. Recycling rates in multi-family housing lags behind that in single detached households, and this type of education program has proven successful in other jurisdictions. The small cost ($3,000) of supporting this program can be absorbed in our solid waste budget, and should result in higher rates of recycling, eventually reducing our solid waste costs. Council moved to support the program.

Railway Community Advisory Panel: Regional Railway Inclusion in Brunette Avenue Interchange Discussions
The RCAP recognizes the City and Railways should be working together to address issues that impact both of our operations, and the potential Brunette Interchange project definitely falls under this category.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Community Garden at City Hall
A simple request by an established community group (full disclosure – one I used to be the President of!) to place community gardens on the expansive green space in front of City Hall has expanded somewhat.

Staff made the reasonably point that gardens placed in such a high-profile location need to be well designed as they will, like it or not, represent a bit of the “Face” of the City. They have come up with a clever design that works well with the natural slope of the land, and will integrate with some further planned improvements in the area.

There are actually two things going on here – the Community Garden being developed by the NWEP and managed in partnership with the New Westminster Community Gardens Society, for which the NWEP is fundraising and developing, and the park improvements that City has decided to do to support and enhance the Community Garden and City Hall Lawn. Council has already voted to support the former, and this report more addresses how we will make the latter happen.

12 K de K Court Boulevard Trees
This report resulted from a request to remove or otherwise manage trees that are planted in a location that negatively impacts their views. The initial request was for the City to remove or replace the trees, and this obviously raised concerns related to our newly-adopted Urban Forest Management Strategy. Staff has worked with the residents to develop a pruning schedule that can address the resident’s concerns without risking the health and vitality of the trees.

We then had a long Public Delegation and Presentations part of the meeting is not something I usually report on here, as they rarely result in us making big decisions, but rather guide future decisions (which I will report on then). I will say that the topics of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations and Heritage Conservation Area are both creating a buzz in the community, I will be blogging about them separately very soon.

We then addressed a couple of Regular Agenda, items:

Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area: Round 2 Public Consultation – Report Back
The conversation here is clearly moving to the next phase, as several months of work in developing guidelines and potential policy directions (based on earlier phases of consultation with stakeholders, the public, and Council) were sent out ot the greater community for feedback. Invitations to the open houses were mailed directly to every household in the Queen’s Park neighbourhood, including links to the online survey, and based on the large number of e-mails in my inbox (both in favour and expressing concern for the draft regulations), a large number of people are paying attention.

Again, I am going to have to hold off on a lot of discussion of this until the Public Hearing, but I do want to encourage people to talk to their neighbours, to get informed, and to let Council know how you feel about the regulations as drafted. This has been a long process over the last couple of years for the citizen Working Group and more than 20 years for heritage advocates in Queens Park. There are Heritage Conservation Areas in many jurisdictions in BC, some more successful than others in balancing the desire for heritage protection with the need to accommodate growth and change.

Demolition of the Pattullo Bridge
It has been discussed before, and will be again, I’m sure, but the topic of what happens to the existing Pattullo Bridge when a replacement is built is not something the City has much control over. TransLink has been pretty clear that the bridge is nearing the end of its useful life, including the underpinnings and foundations, and removal of those pillars from the river is probably required.

That said, I could dream is the City retaining parts of the bridge that are self-supporting and over City lands to create a type of elevated platform or park. These conversations have begun, but it is way to early to say if this is a viable plan. Stay tuned.