A former consultant and long-time tenant living in the City of Victoria, raises serious questions about civic engagement process and representation of all residents in policy and land use planning decisions that will have an impact on the future of James Bay, one of the oldest maritime-based neighbourhoods in B.C.’s capital city.
What are the salient issues in Victoria?
Victoria is one of many cities in this country, and indeed around the globe that is grappling with a housing affordability crisis, not to mention a growing multi-modal transportation nightmare. The benefits of uneven growth and redevelopment appear to be creating a windfall real estate appreciation profits, soaring rents, more competition from multiple user groups seeking common use of public space, and an ever-increasing income inequality gap and stagnant wages that cannot sustain the constantly rising skyrocketing housing and transportation costs.
Rapid property value appreciation and rampant real estate speculation favors the existing secure tenured home-owners. The negative impacts of this booming wealth accumulation process can be seen in the displacement of existing households who do not own property. The result of this gentrification trend is that today’s affordable rental units are quickly being replaced with upscale private residential, retail, and commercial complexes. This non-equitable “growth” process prioritizes the needs of existing home-owners and affluent newcomers and tourists over local tenants who represent 60 per cent of Victoria’s housholds.
Will relaxed regulations and rezoning neighbourhoods, (built many decades ago primarily to accommodate single-family homes), into higher-density mixed-use properties increase the supply of more affordable housing? Evidence suggests that where upzoning has been implemented, less than half the anticipated ‘affordable units’ were ever built. The remainder being unaffordable to the majority of local households were justified however on the basis that these more compact, new energy-efficient units reduced carbon emissions thereby satisfying at least fulfillment of pre-determined climate change goals. In this case, meeting environmental targets were given a higher priority than providing housing affordable to all residents.
The outcome of these land use regulation changes combined with the cost of the land, existing condition of the housing stock, and cost of construction, may mean that upzoning will do next to nothing to make the new housing financially viable for the majority of local households with modest to average incomes.
Urban planning and development is changing the face of cities, but it remains to be seen whether these changes will ultimately help, hinder, or ultimately cause harm to the function and shape of neighbourhoods, life of residents, not to mention investors, and property managers.
How do we build a stable, affordable, accessible, equitable, inclusive and environmentally sustainable community?
The James Bay Neighbourhood Association (JBNA) is a non-profit organization, one of 13 neighbourhood associations across the city tasked with addressing immediate land development issues and creating a viable vision for the long-term future of each unique nieghouborhood.
The constitution of the JBNA underlines its commitment to serving James Bay residents, representing their “values, issues, and concerns” regarding land use matters (such as development, amenities, parks and green spaces, transportation and the environment). Surprisingly, the JBNA has not identified what are the commonly held values that form the foundation of neighbourhood development, nor how they are reflected in the decisions taken by the organization on behalf of all James Bay residents.
The JBNA not only “actively represent[s] James Bay at all levels of government with respect to issues affecting James Bay”, but also “provide[s] an open forum for discussion with a view to promoting input into decision-making processes that concern James Bay.”
This community-based organization receives the majority of its financial support from City of Victoria taxpayers through annual grants and special project funds.
Although JBNA acts as the official voice of neighbourhood residents to all levels of government, neither the organization nor its executive are accountable to James Bay residents or to the City of Victoria.
This is somewhat troubling when it comes to addressing controversial public interest matters such as the provision of housing, transportation, and amenities, as well as the formulation of public policy and planning initiatives at the municipal level.
While JBNA is said to represent all James Bay residents, decisions are made exclusively by the Executive or a small group of voting members. In the absence of an annual report disclosing a profile of the JBNA membership, Executive, and Committees, it is difficult to assess whether JBNA voting members reflect a broad demographic of the James Bay neighbourhood, or whether they are biased in favor of affluent, aging, residential property-owners over tenant households, (the latter currently comprise 70% of households in James Bay).
I cannot recall ever seeing JBNA tenants represented on the JBNA Executive, the Community Association Land Use Committee, or other ad-hoc committees. James Bay renters have however experienced significant difficulty raising issues for discussion at JBNA meetings. These include matters such as the loss of existing rental units during a conversion process to strata title properties, large-scale displacement of tenants from four large apartment complexes undergoing renovation, or the impact of lucrative short-term vacation rental units (more than 250 in James Bay), on the availability of long-term rental housing stock during a low-vacancy housing affordability crisis.
A recent request at a JBNA meeting to discuss the possibility of convening an ad-hoc JBNA Rental Housing Advisory Committee was allocated less than five minutes at the end of agenda. The Executive used this time to justify its position that “as the issue of rental housing will be a significant part of the local area planning process, JBNA does not see a need for a separate advisory committee at this time.”
While the City is consulting citizens about its new housing strategy (focusing on accommodating new rental housing projects and preserving aging rental housing stock, or a proposed Residential Rental Tenure zoning policy), apparently discussion on these matters in JBNA is also considered inappropriate. Yet, the same JBNA Directors had no difficulty forming an ad-Hoc JBNA Active Transportation Committee to make recommendations to Council about cycling and cross-walk changes in James Bay, while the City was actively engaged in public consultation on this matter.
Questions for Consideration:
Where is the open forum for discussion by ALL James Bay residents about civic affairs and their concerns as part of the JBNA mandate?
If taxpayers (property-owners and tenants) fund JBNA activities, why aren’t tenant households permitted to participate in the governance of this community organization, and in the local public consultation process related to matters that affect them?
Where are community values of equity, fairness, and inclusivity reflected in the consultations and decisions of JBNA?
If JBNA speaks only for a select group of residents, perhaps their mandate should be revised to reflect their role as a private home-owner lobby group. James Bay residential property-owners should then finance this organization, not taxpayers, and certainly not tenants who have no voice in JBNA.
Mile Zero Mirror 