| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: No more LEAKY CONDOS at the University Endowment Lands (UEL) |
 |
|
No more leaky condos:
Stop the destruction and re-development of affordable, dry, rental housing on UBC's Endowment Lands
For background see GVRD-UBC Joint Committee Meeting minutes of April 21/04 approving community consultations at The Endowment Lands and an article by Kerry Gold from Chuck Davis's The Greater Vancouver Book here. Here is a key excerpt from Gold's story:
| Quote: | The University Endowment Lands will undergo perhaps its greatest change in the next 20 years as density climbs and a large, new community develops. But the wide open shores of Point Grey Peninsula make the area one of the Lower Mainland's most cherished locations, and opposition to development of market housing is already brewing.
The 202 hectares that comprise the provincially administered University Hill contain housing that ranges from low-rent student accommodation to $10-million mansions. There are 2,400 full-time University Hill residents living on the fringes of UBC campus which is located in the southwest corner of the peninsula. UBC has a student population of 35,000 and a residential population of 800 already living in a 10-hectare development called Hampton Place. Once UBC transforms a proposed 100 undeveloped hectares into more market housing, up to 12,000 more people could live on the campus. For the purposes of the GVRD, the entire area is known as electoral area A. (See Electoral District A at the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) website here). |
Our first message to the UEL governing body:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: bog@unixg.ubc.ca
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 1:58 PM
Subject: Causality btwn leaky condo mold and human illness
Re: DP Applications No.5/04 and No. 6//04,Condominium/Townhouse Developments at Allison Rd.
Lots 1 & 2, Block 99, DL 140, Plan 3064 and Ltos 5,6, 7, Block 96
Ankenman Marchand Architects
Hello Board of Governors,
We're a local leaky condo consumer advocacy website just over a year old at http://www.bccondos.ca, and while we were preparing a letter intended to block the two dvpmt applications listed above, we received a msg from Health Canada that has changed our tenor somewhat.
Here is the e-mail msg we sent yesterday afternoon to the Suzuki Foundation in response to the Health Canada missive: (See both messages at our Toxic Mold forum).
I'm still at work on my letter to you regarding the two dvpmnt applications but you may expect to hear from me again before the week is through. I would be most grateful if you would forward information regarding public mtgs and presentation procedures to editor@bccondos.ca. I'm sure many of the some 42 families in danger of being displaced by this re-development will want to have a word with you.
Thank you for your kind attention. We look forward to hearing from you.
Editor@bccondos.ca
http://www.bccondos.ca |
Photos:
The location:
The developers' sign:
The residents' sign:
See the story, Kings Road residents plead case as wrecking ball looms, by Naoibh O'Connor dated Aug. 30/04 at the Courier.com:
| Quote: | Shabby and neglected may best describe the exterior of the row housing units along Kings Road, located in the University Endowment Lands. But that hasn't stopped renters from rallying to preserve them from the wrecking ball.
Orca West Developments Ltd., which recently bought the land on which the homes sit, wants to build condos in their place, sparking complaints about the vanishing affordable housing stock in the community.
"We all put up with the rundown stuff because the neighbourhood is so rich," said Pam Rogers. "It saved me at a time when I was a single parent and student."
She moved in eight years ago, paying $1,000 a month for a 1,000-square-foot home. Roommates helped pay the bills while she was at school. Now a researcher at the Arthritis Research Centre, she has no desire to find other accommodation because she's cemented strong friendships with her neighbours.
It's that kind of sentiment that prompted her and roughly 40 other residents to plead their case before members of the UEL's advisory planning committee Wednesday afternoon, although the committee has yet to make a recommendation to the UEL manager.
Five separate buildings currently house 42 units on the property. The proposed new condos are expected to cost buyers slightly more than $200,000 for 500-square-foot units, while 1,100-square-foot ones will cost between $400,000 and $500,000.
Rogers says the smaller size is not sufficient space for families and the larger size is nowhere near affordable.
"The whole community is going to be monocultural," she argued, insisting only the wealthy few will be able to afford the condos. "I believe in diversity-it builds the best communities."
According to Rogers, people like the area so much that six couples who divorced continue renting separate homes in the neighbourhood for the sake of their children.
Chris Ros Kelley, another tenant, is also troubled by the prospect of the close-knit neighbourhood being torn apart. Some have already left. "Developments happen everywhere and you can't stop it but you have to give consideration to affordable housing," she said. "This is a good old-fashioned, borrow-a-cup-of-milk kind of neighbourhood."
Kirsten Bevelander, who lives on Kings Road with her husband and three kids, says the community is already breaking apart as tenants look for alternatives in the face of the impending development.
"It's been heart wrenching watching neighbour after neighbour moving away," she said.
Although several families have asked to buy one of the five buildings and possibly turn it into a cooperative, Rogers said the developer only offered to sell it finished at market value.
Now tenants want a moratorium on the development permit decision until the UEL's new official community plan takes effect next April-a development that will increase renter representation on the nine member advisory planning committee from one to three.
Rogers said even though renters make up half the 1,200 residents of UEL's population, their numbers are not reflected in the current committee's makeup. Six committee members are property owners and two own commercial property.
Rogers believes the committee, the manager of the UEL, and the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, which oversees the UEL, should pressure Orca West to include affordable housing in its proposal.
Ministry spokeswoman Marisa Adair said the UEL manager will take the committee's recommendation into consideration, along with existing bylaws and design guidelines, before rendering his decision. If it's not in the renters' favour, they can appeal directly to the minister, Murray Coell, she said.
If the development goes forward, Adair said, tenants will have six months to vacate.
A call to Orca West was not returned by the Courier's deadline. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1035#1035
Last edited by editor on Wed May 26, 2010 5:19 pm; edited 8 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Petition against condos signed by tenants at 12 UEL buildings:
Note: Many thanks to UEL Works Superintendent Steve Butts, who circulated the following flyer Feb. 1/05:
| Quote: | Are you having problems parking on the weekends now that the Galleria Presentation Centre has opened for business? Our parking problems may have only just begun! Where are the construction workers of the new development going to park? Has the UEL thought ahead? Judging from the parking mess made by the Galleria people - probably not! We need to make sure that UEL administration are planning ahead - i.e. signage, parking policies, and enforcement for the current parking problems and the possible future problems.
Contact Steve Butt at 604-660-1810 ext. 27 or Stephen.Butt@gems9.gov.bc.ca by e-mail |
| Quote: | From: "hong chen" <ordinaryhappiness>
To: <editor>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 3:47 PM
Subject: DP Application 5/2004 Lots 1 and 2, Block 99 DL 140 Plan 3064, etc.
Hello,
I am one of the tenants living in the village area of University Endowment Land (UEL). I came across a letter you placed in the building at 2222 Allison Rd., and I would very much like to be updated on your progress in blocking the developments.
As I understand, the deadline to submit objections to the UEL office is July 23 regarding the application for Lots 1 and 2 (Block 99) DL 140 Plan 3064. The deadline to submit objections regarding the adjacent lots will be a week or two later (30 days after notice).
The deadlines are crucial, since once the approval of the application is granted, it is almost impossible to reverse.
The tenants living in the surrounding 12 buildings have already signed a petition, which was been hand delivered to Bruce Stenning at UEL office at 5495 Chancellor Boulevard on July 19, 2004. The buildings include 2222 Allison, 5600 Dalhousie, 5642 Dalhousie, 5658 Dalhousie, 5662 Dalhousie, 5688 Dalhousie, 5506 Kings, 5514 Kings, 5518 Kings, 5542 Kings, 5543 Kings and 5565 Kings.
The petition strongly objects to the development overall, citing severe economic, social and environmental damage the development will bring to the community. Further, it states the long-term detrimental effects high- density developments such as these will have on the unique natural beauty of the area.
The petition objects specifically to the design feature of parking entrance ramps for Lots 1 and 2, which are proposed to be off lanes via Dalhousie Road. The lanes are very narrow and already highly congested. Turns are sharp and visibility for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are blocked by buildings. The lanes are traditional community pathways, and the safety of the community should be everyone's top priority.
The design also introduces unnecessary noise and pollution to the neighborhood, whereas the ramp entrances could simply be off existing roads of Allison or Kings.
The residents on Kings Road directly affected by the developments are actively working toward delaying and hopefully blocking the developments. If you are interested, I would be happy to connect you to them.
Thanks for your efforts to preserve the community, and best regards,
Hong |
Our letter in support of the petition:
| Quote: | From: <editor>
To: "hong chen" <ordinaryhappiness>
Cc: <editor>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 5:24 PM
Subject: DP Application 5/2004 Lots 1 and 2, Block 99 DL 140 Plan 3064, etc.
Hello Hong,
Good to hear from you. We're pleased to learn of your petition and the objections raised by tenants at no less than 12 surrounding bldgs. Please go to our Watchdog Forum to view various letters and concerns regarding condo development on the Endowment Lands. We will, of course, publish any replies we receive from the board of governors. Thank you so much for writing.
Editor@bccondos.ca |
No to Galleria
'No more leaky condos': UEL resident
| Quote: | murray <lmm789> wrote:
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: l murray
Subject: Halt further development of leaky condos on Endowment Lands - URGENT!
To: bog@unixg.ubc.ca
Re: (The Galleria) DP Application Nos. 5/04 and 6//04 Condominium/Townhouse Developments at Allison Road,
Lots 1 & 2, Block 99, DL 140, Plan 3064 and Lots 5,6, 7, Block 96, Ankenman Marchand Architects.
Dear UBC Board of Governors,
The democratic process has truly failed us when real estate developers are permitted even to entertain the possibility of decimating the west end’s last vestige of dry, comfortable, reasonably spacious and affordable rental units that include large communal green areas for children front and back in favor of yet more high-priced, high-density condominium rabbit-hutches almost certain to leak.
While I appreciate the immense profitability of strata titles rhythmically passed to unsuspecting consumers unfamiliar with B.C.’s unresolved leaky condo debacle, it must be clear to a sophisticated board of governors that this province does not yet have the construction expertise to build this type of multi-unit housing, nor is there an appropriate legal scheme in place to assist owners or professional managers, for that matter, in their repair and maintenance obligations, which are considerable with this type of construction even when it’s not leaking. Consider the track record for this type of development on the Endowment Lands alone. Local rumor has it that even the most recent construction on King’s Road already has leaky windows.
After more than 20 years of building failures, it’s no surprise than an insurance crisis continues to plague the housing industry. Many strata corporations undertaking major repairs are now forced to self-insure. Huh? Owners subsidizing a risk all but four insurance companies won’t touch? The answer to this question may lie partly in the settlement the province obtained recently in its claim against local architects for more than 270 multi-unit co-ops now leaking, but also in the minutes of the Second Review of the Homeowner Protection Office by the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations last November, when it was revealed that claims against new home warranties under the Homeowner Protection Act are expected to climb and soon.
Here is an excerpt from those minutes, the full account of which is available online here:
With respect to expected incidence of warranty claims, the witness reported that the Office anticipates claims to rise as the number of new homes built under the five-year and ten-year warranty coverage increases. He noted that the majority of homes built with the mandatory “2-5-10 insurance coverage” (two years of coverage on material and labor; five year protection against building envelope failure, and ten years against structural failure), have only recently come onto the housing market. Hence, the HPO foresees a greater number of claims as the five and ten year warranty coverage approaches expiration. (emphasis added)
Note: While these predictions also take into account single-family dwellings, a cursory glance at the Lower Mainland’s housing landscape indicates a preponderance of condominium development.
To fully appreciate the bleak future of these multi-unit complexes, the board should examine a document entitled, S478-95 Guideline on Durability in Buildings Structures (Design), published by the National Standards Association in 1995. I was finally able to locate a copy at Vancouver Public Library’s Central branch, though it’s not available in the stacks. You have to ask for it at the reference desk on the fourth floor.
The guidelines explain in plain language that a 10-year warranty describes the durability expectation of what are merely temporary structures - not housing, which is normally intended to last 25-50 years without the need for major repairs. Yet despite all the best practice guides for the construction of wood-framed housing in a coastal climate published since the Barrett Inquiries, a disproportionate number of multi-unit developments are unable to meet even the temporary 10-year guideline, although developers usually price each unit at a rate you might expect for a permanent dwelling.
In view of so many failures, could those of us affected by the Allison Road proposals then examine at least the technical building audits from similar projects by the applicant(s) to determine whether the few building standards remaining in this province were actually met? Might we also compare records of maintenance expectations for each building estimated at the time of completion with authoritative reports on the state of each development today? Building envelope repairs are a lengthy, noisy and costly hazard not just for owners but for everyone within their vicinity.
Governors acting as fiduciaries surely have a duty to be concerned with the track record of both developers and architects making applications for construction within the Endowment Lands, though I appreciate the difficulty of such an investigation. Even today, it’s unclear whether the Architectural Institute of British Columbia, (AIBC), conducts disciplinary proceedings or penalizes in any way members whose designs fail to meet the requisite standard of care. Neither of the provincial associations of building professionals appears to be tracking building performance. Nor does the industry’s fondness for shell companies and holding companies assist in the effort to uncover history.
When I examined the materials at Ankenman Marchand, there was nothing but a phone number to recommend the company. However, AIBC provides its own listing of the firm, including various building awards it has garnered, a somewhat dubious achievement in view of the Coalition of Leaky Condo Owners’ many photos and case studies of building failures over the years. For a current sample of now infamous housing award winners, click on Trafalgar Mews, Portrait of a Winner, here.
Perhaps the most serious inquiry I have with respect to the two proposals concerns public health. At least one of the buildings slated for destruction may contain asbestos, the dangers of which are now well documented. What impact, if any, has asbestos had so far not only on affected tenants but on residents within reasonable proximity, and what assurance do we have against further risk posed by re-development?
I also understand that Health Canada is preparing publication of a large report describing various links between mold found in leaky buildings and certain respiratory illnesses. Even the possibility of such a finding should preclude developments at risk of producing those effects at least temporarily until the industry has had a chance to study its implications.
Ultimately, the question is, does the board have discretion to withhold approval for these developments? If so, I urge you to reject the applications in question and any others like it on the Endowment Lands until:
(a) multi-unit housing complexes similar to the ones proposed in the applications start showing evidence of quality design and construction beyond B.C.’s laughable statutory warranties; that is, they must be shown to be at least as good as the buildings currently affixed to the property, and
(b) multi-unit housing complexes that meet the above criteria also contain a reasonable number of affordable rental spaces as well as handicapped-accessible units of a number coinciding with the province’s disability statistics.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours truly,
L.M. Murray
Toronto Road |
| Quote: | Note: Many thanks to Hubert Lai, Acting Vice-President of External and Legal Affairs at the University of British Columbia, for his note to the author regarding Endowment Lands bureaucracy and who has responsibility for the permitting process. This letter, along with a link to this forum, was then forwarded Aug. 12/04 to:
Bruce Stenning,
University Endowment Lands Manager,
5495 Chancellor Blvd.
Vancouver, B.C.
V6T 1E2
E-mail: bruce.stenning@gems6.gov.bc.ca. |
Add your comments to the University Endowment Lands (OCP) Official Community Plan Residential Development Feedback Forum.
| Quote: | Asbestos-related illness / litigation:
For more information about asbestos and related illnesses, click on Lawyers and Settlements, our favorite class action website. This site will put you in touch with a lawyer in your area, assess your claim and even seek potential plaintiffs.
|
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1036#1036
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:57 am; edited 10 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Our effort toward suipport from local Musqueam Band:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: webinfo@musqueam.bc.ca
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 10:00 AM
Subject: Halt development of more leaky condos on the Endowment Lands
Hello Musqueam Band,
We're a consumer/advocacy website at http://www.bccondos.ca devoted to B.C.'s leaky condo debacle and we seek your assistance in blocking further development of high-density housing on the Endowment Lands until our crisis in substandard home construction has been properly resolved. It seems patently wrong-headed to approve more of the type of construction at the greatest risk of failure when the industry does not yet have a proper procedure in place for tracking building performance.
Leaky housing an ecological disaster. In addition to toxic molds often present in leaky buildings, re-development poses a threat of the release of asbestos, a substance whose dangers are now well documented.
We enclose a letter we received from a resident near two buildings slated for re-development. You may follow the responses to it if any, at our Watchdog Forum.
Thank you for your kind attention. We look forward to hearing from you.
Editor@bccondos.ca
Enclosure: (See letter to UBC board of governors from L.M. Murray above). |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1040#1040
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:13 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Our e-mail enlisting support of the Assembly of First Nations and the five recent federal appointees from B.C.:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 10:41 AM
Subject: No more leaky condos
Hello Assembly of First Nations, Ministers Owen, Dosanjh, Emerson, Chan and Gov't Senate Leader Austin,
We're a consumer/advocacy website at http://www.bccondos.ca devoted to B.C.'s leaky condo debacle and we seek your assistance in blocking further development of high-density housing on the Endowment Lands until the provincial crisis in substandard home construction has been properly resolved. It seems patently wrong-headed to approve more of the type of construction at the greatest risk of failure when the industry does not yet have a proper procedure in place for tracking building performance.
Leaky housing is not only a financial but an ecological disaster. In addition to toxic molds often present in leaky buildings, re-development poses a threat of the release of asbestos, a substance whose dangers are now well documented.
We enclose a letter we received from a resident near two buildings slated for re-development. (See letter from L.M. Murray to UBC board of governors above). You may follow the responses to it, if any, at our Watchdog Forum.
In addition, we would like to draw your attention to the following comments from one of our visitors regarding GST rebates. (See message of May 6/04 from Dennis Pinvidic also at this forum).
Thank you for your kind attention. We look forward to hearing from you.
Editor@bccondos.ca
http://www.bccondos.ca |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1041#1041
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Replies in order of receipt:
| Quote: | From: <Webmaster>
To: <editor>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: Confirmation of Inquiry / Confirmation d' enquête
(Le français suit)
Thank you for contacting Western Economic Diversification Canada.
Your message has been received by the Web site administrator. If necessary, we shall respond as soon as possible.
Thank you for your interest and comments.
_________________________________________________________________
Merci d'avoir communiqué avec Diversification de l'économie de l'Ouest
Canada.
Votre message a été reçu par l'administrateur du site Web. Une réponse vous
sera acheminée dans les plus brefs délais, s'il y a lieu.
Nous vous remercions de votre intérêt ainsi que de vos commentaires.
_________________________________________________________________
Western Economic Diversification Canada - Diversification de l'économie de
l'Ouest Canada
Government of Canada - Gouvernement du Canada
********************************************************************************
This is an automatic notification, please do not respond to this email.Ce
message est un avis qui vous est envoyé automatiquement, vous n'avez pas à
y répondre |
| Quote: | From: "DM" <DM>
To: <Editor>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 11:02 AM
Subject: Thank you for writing / Merci de votre message.
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your message. Comments and questions are forwarded to specific areas within Health Canada for consideration or response. We appreciate your interest.
Nous accusons réception de votre message. Les commentaires et questions formulés sont acheminés à divers secteurs de Santé Canada pour examen ou préparation d'une réponse. Nous vous remercions de votre intérêt pour ces questions. |
| Quote: | Western Regional Office
(Alberta - British-Columbia - Yukon)
Canadian Heritage
4th floor - 300 West Georgia St.
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6B 6C6
Tel.: (604) 666-0176
To: WRO-PCH@pch.gc.ca
Acknowledgment
Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to use our departmental Web site.
Your views are important to us and will be given every consideration. |
| Quote: | From: Bourgeois-Doyle, Dick
To: ' editor@bccondos.ca'
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 11:31 AM
Subject: E-mail to Minister Emerson
This is to inform you that a copy of your Friday 23, 2004 e-mail to the Minister of Industry has been sent to the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) for information.
As you known, the NRC Institute for Research in Construction (NRC-IRC) supports the development of the National Building Codes and has, thus, followed the condos issue from this perspective and role. I am therefore conveying this correspondence to the institute to ensure that the work of your website stakeholders is known to it and that points raised therein can be considered.
Sincerely,
Dick Bourgeois-Doyle
NRC-Ottawa |
Stephen Owen, Minister of Western Economic Development et al replies:
| Quote: | From: ccorresp@cmhc-schl.gc.ca
To: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 3:16 PM
Subject: response to your recent electronic correspondence of July 26, 2004.
September 9, 2004
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to your recent electronic correspondence of July 26, 2004, addressed to the Honourable Stephen Owen, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Sport), regarding the development of high-density housing on the University of British Columbia (UBC) Endowment Lands. The office of Minister Owen has referred your correspondence to me for consideration.
I wish to advise you that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has no involvement in the development of the UBC Endowment Lands, and as such, has no jurisdiction over these matters. I would, therefore, encourage you to continue your dialogue with the UBC Board of Governors.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to tell you what the federal government has been doing to assist owners of moisture-damaged condominiums in British Columbia.
An agreement was signed between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia in 2000, in which up to $27.7 million of federal aid would be accessible to affected homeowners through the Province's Homeowners' Reconstruction Loan Program. The full amount of $27.7 million has now been paid to British Columbia for this purpose.
Since 1995, CMHC has spent more than $1.5 million on research and information transfer to help find solutions to the moisture-damaged building issue. With respect to mortgage loan insurance, CMHC Approved Lenders are able to approve a number of special arrangements to assist borrowers on a case-by-case basis. CMHC allows borrowers to add their interest-free repair loans onto their existing CMHC-insured mortgage without incurring a loan insurance premium. In doing so, they have the option to repay their mortgage over 40 years.
The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) can assist low-income households to undertake eligible home renovations, including repairs to water-damaged building envelopes, provided that their home has a modest market value.
In addition to the actions outlined above, in July 2003, a package of additional assistance was announced, which includes a more integrated and flexible approach and enhancements to the current financial assistance available to housing co-operatives in British Columbia that are experiencing moisture damage. These measures which may cost up to $10 million, build on the work already undertaken by the federal government, through CMHC, to find workable, affordable solutions to these problems, which are unique to British Columbia, and to ensure co-op members continue to have access to quality affordable housing. To learn more about these enhancements, I suggest you contact Mr. Fleuri Perron, National Team Leader, Leaky Co-operatives, at the British Columbia and Yukon Business Centre of CMHC, at 1111 West Georgia Street, Suite 200, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6E 4S4, or by telephone at (604) 737-4066.
Your concerns relating to the Homeowner Protection Office (HPO) should be directed to Mr. Ken Cameron, Chief Executive Officer, Registrar of the HPO, P.O. Box 11132, Royal Centre, 1055 West Georgia Street, Suite 2270, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6E 3P3.
Also, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rebate on new and substantially renovated homes is a tax policy matter. As such, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence and my reply to my colleague, the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Finance, so that he may be aware of your views on this matter.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Joe Fontana, P.C., M.P.
c.c. The Honourable Ralph Goodale, P.C., M.P. |
...and our thank-you:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: ccorresp@cmhc-schl.gc.ca
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: response to your recent electronic correspondence of July 26, 2004
Many thanks for your considered reply. We will post it immediately at our Watchdog Forum, where you can read a few of your political colleagues' views on the matter. We will post any subsequent exchanges from the National Research Council, Minister Goodale, the Suzuki Foundation and others at this forum. Check back soon for updates.
Ed. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1040#1042
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:27 am; edited 7 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Premier Gordon Campbell replies:
| Quote: | From: Minister's Correspondence CAWS:EX
To: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 2:42 PM
Subject: Health consequences of leaky condos - Health Canada establishes the link
Ref: 106114
Concerned Citizen
E-mail: editor@bccondos.ca
Dear Concerned Citizen:
The Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier, has asked me to respond to your e-mail of July 13, 2004, regarding health consequences of leaky condominiums. As Minister responsible for housing, I am pleased to respond. I apologize for the delay in replying.
I would like to first take this opportunity to address some of the key points raised in the material you provided. With respect to consumer protection issues, the Homeowner Protection Office (HPO) is the provincial Crown Corporation established to strengthen consumer protection for new home buyers and improve the quality of residential construction in the province. This is done through licensing and home warranty insurance, research and education, and financial assistance to owners of leaky homes. We are confident that these responsive measures are providing improvement in the quality of residential construction and an increase in homeowner protection in British Columbia.
I share your concerns about the adverse health outcomes due to exposure to indoor mold and appreciate being informed of Health Canada's research in this regard. The health and well-being of residents of subsidized housing with premature building envelope failure is an important issue. You can be assured that every attempt will be made to attend to the needs of residents during the repair process.
I am forwarding a copy of your e-mail to HPO and BC Housing for their information. Thank you for taking the time to write.
Yours truly,
Murray Coell
Minister
pc: Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier
Ken Cameron, CEO, Homeowner Protection Office
Shayne Ramsay, CEO, BC Housing |
Our good faith reply to the reply:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: Minister's Correspondence CAWS:EX
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Health consequences of leaky condos - Health Canada establishes the link
Many thanks for your considered reply. While we do not share your confidence in the Homeowner Protection Office, we understand that there have been some personnel changes, which may lead at long last to some initiatives that address the leaky condo debacle at the root. We understand the federal Industry Minister has forwarded our quite technical concerns regarding durability guidelines and energy-saving standards to building scientists at the National Research Council. We will post any messages from them at our Watchdog Forumhere so please check back for updates. We have also had another CBC reporter sniffing about the premises lately who may poke a response from Dr. Suzuki on the mold-adverse health link. Again, we will post any exchanges at Watchdog. Thank you again.
Editor@bccondos.ca
http://www.bccondos.ca
Tracking the leaky condo crisis because building experts who should won't. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1050#1050
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:34 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, a thousand times no:
No again to still more flimsy, rabbit-hutch housing
From: l murray
To: bstenning@hq.marq.gov.bc.ca
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:12 PM
Subject: No more Polygon leaky condos at UBC - or anywhere
Please post attached message at UEL materials.
lm
Encl:
| Quote: | January 19, 2005.
Mr. Bruce Stenning
Manager, University Endowment Lands
5495 Chancellor Blvd.
Vancouver, B.C.
V6T 1E2
Re: DP Application 13/2004
5740 Toronto Road and 5725/5745 Agronomy Road
Polygon Development 154 Ltd./Glenlloyd Park - Market Housing
Application to construct two (2) four-storey condos (124 units) plus underground parking
AND
to further reduce essential community greenspace to accommodate private balconies.
Dear Mr. Stenning,
I have reviewed this latest application for still more small, overpriced condominiums with both astonishment and horror. First, I am astonished that Polygon is still permitted even to entertain the notion of development in the wake of its many, many residential fiascos littering the Lower Mainland. Case in point: The Delano on W. Fourth Ave. (See <a href=http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=153&sid=a2de63b47bc97ec7cdd97963026ee701">link at http://www.bccondos.ca Under Tarps as well as the 28 hits for 'Polygon' that came up Jan. 19/05 at the Search Judgments database of the B.C. Superior Courts website -- a daunting track record, to say the least, and that list is incomplete.
What assurance do you have that this proposed development will be any different? Surely there is no penalty in asking.
What assistance will governors and the Advisory Planning Committe provide when the poor suckers often from out of town who buy into these 'corporations' realize what they really bought was equity in a toxic wet mess an inexpert strata council never planned for? What will you do when they storm your offices, demanding a meeting?
What is the legal duty, I wonder, of the planning committee and an experienced, educated board of governors armed with a well-funded legal affairs dept. that includes Dennis Pavlich, author of one of the foremost legal textbooks on condos in this province, to address B.C.'s ongoing leaky building crisis, at least on the endowment lands? When does an epidemic trigger, for example, a duty to warn the innocent?
This type of development simply has not been successful here. I notice just today the familiar blue tarps up across Toronto Road at the quite new Acadia Park development (see photos below). I also note yet another housing conference, this time in Japan in September, 2005, to discuss strategies with respect to residential failures throughout the Pacific Rim. How can we solve the problem if planning authorities are allowed to keep ignoring it?
It's particularly discouraging after so many years of leaky, substandard design and construction in B.C. that there is still no plan to permit even something as basic as the registration of a technical building audit on title. Nor do we have any provision for reserve fund studies. My concerns in this regard are well documented in my letter to you of July 12/04 and in my submission this fall to the proposed official plan.
Second, how many of these proposed rabbit-hutches will be either affordable or handicapped-accessible? The UEL is not exempt from district requirements to accommodate each of those sectors in a reasonable manner; that is, to an extent commensurate with demographic projections. Anything less is unacceptable and many of us are prepared to go to some length to ensure those obligations are met. Aren't ANY of the applications you receive devoted exclusively to one or the other of these sectors?
Finally, no, no, a thousand times no to any reduction of community greenspace to make way for private balconies. A diverse community (one with children, seniors, persons with disabilities, students and workers) is best served by the wonderful community grass yards that have allowed us to know and interact with one another here, especially children, in a safe and meaningful way. They knew this in the 1940s and '50s. It still works.
It's a tragedy that you have already allowed the development at Allison Road to destroy a neighborhood. When did it suddenly become OK to evict a community just because a developer wanted to squeeze every last dime out of a property? How will you feel when the replacement Galleria units start leaking?
If I am wrong and Polygon can give reasonable assurance that this proposed development will provide housing that meets CSA durability requirements for residential construction, please tell me. Until then, for goodness sake, step back and consider the devastation this company might very well bring to the UEL.
Yours truly,
L.M. Murray
5567 Toronto Rd. |
Polygon replies:
Our wandering watchdog who authored the above letter opposing the Glenlloyd development proposal, received a reply from Polygon which was kindly forwarded to us by e-mail. Many thanks to Polygon and to all our watchodgs.
We have come to distrust terms like 'new generation' when it comes to housing construction standards and protocols. Will they even meet the basic CSA S478-95 Guideline on Durability (Buildings), we wonder?
While we appreciate the developer's initiative in monitoring and devising a maintenance/inspection plan, there is still nothing in the condominium statute to require Polygon to do so or to require the strata council to follow it. What if the majority of council decides the plan is too costly or time-consuming? Unless the law requires otherwise, the majority is at liberty to avoid inspections, cut corners on maintenance and disregard sound advice as ours did.
Add your comments by clicking here on the University Endowment Lands (OCP) Official Community Plan Residential Development Feedback Forum.
Note 1: Here is the reply from B.A. Stenning to our watchdog's letter above:
| Quote: | Jan. 28/05
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of objection regarding the above captioned Development Permit Application. I have sent a copy of your letter to the applicant for their information. You raise a number of objections to the proposed development, however the only objection that can be considered is the objection to the requested variance to reduce the required front yard setback. The other objections you raise are outside the purview of our Bylaws or considerations.
At the end of the thirty (30) day application review period this application will be referred to the UEL Advisory Planning Committee for their consideration and recommendation. I will include a copy of your letter in the material I send to the Advisory Planning Committee and advise you of the date, time and location of the meeting. |
Note 2: We received notice of a PUBLIC MEETING regarding the Glenlloyd Park proposal at University Chapel, 5375 University Blvd., on Feb. 8/05, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
Acadia Park
Photos taken Jan. 20/05
Sign and map:
Under Tarps:
(We also noted the familiar whine of a pump...)
NOTICE OF MEETING
Feb. 10/05 at 7 p.m., University Chapel, 5375 University Blvd.
Public Hearing on the new Official Community Plan (OCP)
View the plan and related documents here.
From the hand delivered notice Jan. 27/05:
| Quote: | Any persons who deem they are affected by the proposed plan and who wish to register an opinion may do so by attending the meeting or by writing before Feb. 10/05 to:
Manager, University Endowment Lands Administration Office,
5495 Chancellor Blvd.
Vancouver, B.C.
V6T 1E2
...This hearing in public is structured in a very formal way. Anyone wishing to speak will be given the opportunity. Note that there will be no discussion or responses to comments and/or questions. If you are interested in speaking at this Hearing in Public, please contact Bruce Stenning at 604/660-1808 prior to noon on Feb. 10th to be added to the speakers' list. You can also register to speak at the meeting. All comments will be noted in meeting minutes. The minutes of the meeting will become part of the recommendation that is sent to the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1052#1052
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:46 am; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
UBC condo boom creates school crunch:
We note with dismay the above story aired on CBC Radio One's Early Edition May 25/05, which further demonstrates the UEL's typical lack of proper planning when it comes to condo development. Here is a brief excerpt of the story:
| Quote: | VANCOUVER – The rapid growth of the population near UBC is forcing elementary and high schools on the University Endowment Lands to close their doors to new students. There are already seven portables at the local high school. And about 100 elementary students who live near the Point Grey campus have to bus or be driven to other parts of the city.
The principal of University Hill Elementary says he's not sure condo developers are telling buyers their kids can't go to school in the neighbourhood. "I have gone to some of the open houses out here to see how many might be sending children our way and it's always a substantial number," says John Beach. "Sometimes they're surprised to learn that we're full."
The overcrowding problem isn't about to ease. The population of the UBC area is expected to double in the next 15 years. |
Click on the headline above for the full story.
See also the comments by Gerard Charlton, Secretary of the Dunbar Residents Association, in the January, 2006 issue of V6T Community News:
| Quote: | ...My understanding is that planners and developers should have been involved in the consultation process of these developments. There are also civic planning educators out at UBC as well as students completing masters studies in civic planning. Therefore, I have a question: Why are the planners and board of governors now 'surprised' that we can't find space in the schools?
Proper 'proactive' planning for development would include the necessary infrastructure required to sustain a population -- yes, even the children. Many of the children in the UBC catchment are are 'reactively' being 'bussed out' to outlying areas. These numbers are both sizable and increasing. So what are the plans?
Many of UBC's residents -- and those in adjacent communites -- who are now attempting to accommodate the 'excess children's' educational needs feel that Dr. Barer's comments (*scroll down further to the excerpt from Dr. Barer's letter in the December, 2005 issue) about the destruction of the woods for the almighty dollar is an almighty correct assessment. (From "Where are the Planners?" at p. 3) |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1055#1055
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:17 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
How will contractors safely remove deadly asbestos at Galleria condo development going up on King's Road?
Photos from late July, 2005
See Mishandling of Hazardous Materials & Contaminants, Asbestos, Lead, Mould & Fungus, PCB'S by Don Bremner, Restoration Environmental Contractors Ltd., Abcott Construction Ltd. from June, 2000. Here are a few disturbing excerpts:
| Quote: | Everyday in Canada and the United States Hazardous Materials are being removed improperly contaminating the buildings we occupy. The hazardous materials including asbestos, lead paint, mould and fungus are removed improperly, overlooked, ignored or are disregarded by unscrupulous building owners, corporate executives, their representatives, building and property managers because of limited budgets, lack of knowledge, greed or contempt for worker or public health and safety.
The potential high costs of litigation and possible prosecution of building owners, (Corporate Executives, Building Owners, Plant & Maintenance Managers, Property Managers, Architects and Consulting Engineers or their representatives) should be enough of a deterrent but is not. Potentially those owners or their representatives that do not assess the high risk of possible hazards materials prior to renovation or demolition projects can lead to personal and corporate exposure and liability.
In most cases, General Liability Insurance and Errors and Omissions Insurance policies DO NOT cover Pollution and Environmental Hazards. Most General Contractors rarely carry any environmental and pollution coverage. (emphasis ours) |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1056#1056
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:19 am; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
UEL resident not fooled:
More condos going up 'where trees once stood - not in the forest!!!'
We were pleased to find the following letter published on p. 3 of the V6T Community News December, 2005 issue:
| Quote: | Letter to Editor re: Trees
I read with some interest the infomercial, A Village in the Forest Called Westbrook in the November issue of V6T Community News.
I don't understand why no one is sounding the alarm over the innocuous line in the write-up beginning, "Trees will come down..."
Let's face it. The truth really is that there will be a 'village' constructed where the trees once stood, not in the forest!!! Who does UBC think they're fooling??
The fact is, they are now planning on razing one of the last few decent-sized wooded areas left at the university - for just what we were all waiting for, more condominiums!!!! (bold, italics and underlining added)
The lure of the almighty $ continues, with the environment, and therefore all of us, losing.
As the editor of this paper, perhaps you should have been pointing this out to inform the population of Vancouver just what our esteemed UBC is up to rather than simply sweeping it under the carpet.
Dr. P.G. Barer
Vancouver |
For the full picture of construction development at UBC/UEL, including the *lightning speed of the approval process, start with Cranes flying for academic/residential growth spurt by Hilary Thomson in UBC Reports Sept. 2/04. Thomson provides an overview of plans as well as project summaries along with the name of the developer responsible for each proposal. Visitors unfamiliar with the cast of players may view their extensive leaky condo litigation histories at the Courts of B.C. Search Judgments database. (The terms, 'Polygon leaky condo,' yielded a whopping 199 hits in our search Dec. 6/05. 'Intracorp' netted 10, but note in the style of cause in Strata Plan 1816 v. North Fraser Holdings Ltd. the various names used by Intracorp throughout the country). Hope Polygon has better luck with Promontory, its sold out 14-storey highrise in a neighborhood called Hawthorn Place, than it did with multi-unit low-rises like the oft-remediated Delano, the 'poster child' of our Under Tarps forum. Hope, too, for the sake of owners at sold out Chancellor House, that Intracorp has learned something about building since the gruelling battle it gave condo owners in Strata Plan 1816, supra
For more information on community initiatives and consultations, see UBC Properties Trust, University Town, University Neighborhoods Association and UBC's mysteriously constituted Community & Land Use Planning Team. We will try to find out when and how this last group was appointed. Please check back for updates.
| Quote: | | *Note: What is perhaps most disturbing about these initiatives is the fact that they have been approved at a time when all the UEL neighborhoods are undergoing a radical political shift, including a shift in the make-up of the governing planning authority. See Official Community Plan links and materials above). |
We are always pleased to receive comments from our visitors. Any thoughts on development at UBC? Send your comments to editor@bccondos.ca.
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1057#1057
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:03 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
But what if these ones leak, too?
Might UEL planning authorities - whose approving powers were about to shift radically - be liable for buyers' losses?
Maybe, but it might be tough to prove. See The tort of abuse of public office by Timothy P. Leadem, QC posted at the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) website Nov. 1/01. Here is an excerpt describing the intent hurdle:
| Quote: | From the plaintiff's perspective, the subjective mental element of the tort presents the most significant challenge. This is particularly true in light of the decision of the BCCA in First National. There is a presumption that the acts of elected officials and civil servants have been performed correctly.
If B.C. courts have not done so expressly, certainly there is tacit recognition that the two-part test articulated in Bourgoin and commented upon in Three Rivers is a valid approach in this jurisdiction. Both parts of the test encompass a sense of dishonesty on the part of the public official. Different terms to connote the concept of dishonesty have from time-to-time been employed by various courts. "Bad faith" and "malice" are other terms that have been used to suggest this aspect of the necessary mental element.
To iterate the two-pronged approach taken by the English courts, it is as follows:
(1) the public official acted with malice or intent to injure; or,
(2) the public official knew both that he had undertaken an act for which he had no authority in law and that his act would cause harm to the plaintiff. (Footnotes omitted) |
However, see also Civil liability for administrative inaction and negligent performance of public duty by William S. Clark posted Dec. 9/05, especially the conclusions noted here:
| Quote: | | The scope of civil liability of regulatory bodies appears to have been greatly expanded by the Court's decision in Finney. In my respectful view, the decision would appear to be in direct conflict with the Court's earlier decisions in Cooper and Edwards. And while it is possible to reconcile the two lines of authority, it is noteworthy that the BC Court of Appeal appears to have concluded that the decision constituted a radical change in the law, such that public bodies, charged with a regulatory responsibility, can be found to owe a private law duty of care to the member of the public. If the regulatory bodies conduct can be construed as "reckless," then it is likely that damages will lie, even if there is a statutory immunity provision which seeks to insulate the agency from claims in negligence. (emphasis added) |
We also note Suing and Defending the Government 2006, a one-day seminar on proceedings involving the Crown, scheduled Jan. 27/06 at the Renaissance Hotel in Vancouver, plus the seven hits we got when we searched the terms, 'duty to warn construction defects' at the CLE website Dec. 20/05.
Gosh, it's hard to keep up with so many leaky building litigation updates! Certainly no planning authority in B.C. could argue that the risk of defective housing was not well known when the above developments were approved.
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1058#1058
Last edited by editor on Sun May 31, 2009 3:56 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
STILL MORE names are added to our list of planning authorities:
We were amazed to find still more players and procedures to add to our list in this front page story from the January, 2006 V6T Community News, Pt. Grey Campus, Work Crews Converge on New Subdivision. Here are a few key paragraphs:
| Quote: | The work of converting 100 acres of forest on South Campus into the latest residential development at University of British Columbia campus will begin shortly.
Armed with development approvals from both its board of governors and the board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), UBC awaits only an order of the provincial cabinet in Victoria before directing work crews for real estate purposes.
...The first leasing of land for developments will come in about three months with first construction of actual housing starting in about eight months.
Endowments will flow to UBC with each leasehold agreement signed. |
Yes, and then on p. 2, we found this ad for the same development, which adds to the list further as follows:
| Quote: | South Campus Receives Board Approval
UBC's Board of Governors has given final approval for University Town's South Campus Neighborhood Plan. This follows the GVRD Board of Directors determination that the plan complied with the University's Official Plan.
"We are thrilled by this outcome and congratulate the entire UBC team for producing a neighborhood plan that truly leads the region in terms of its community consultation program and sustainability initiatives," said Dennis Pavlich, UBC Vice-President External and Legal Affairs.
The South Campus plan was subject to rigorous public consultation, which included the formation of the South Campus Working Group. This consisted of stakeholders from various community groups and neighbours, as well as representatives of UBC's faculty, students, and staff. Group members provided relevant community input and reported to their respective groups on plan development. |
Once again, we are left with the same questions:
| Quote: | 1. What are the names, roles and responsibilities of each individual and group with approving authority at UBC/UEL, how much actual control does each have in the approval process and where in the statutes is this authority expressly conveyed?
2. Who ultimately has discretion to reject a development application and what is the legal test for approval/rejection?
3. Where can we find a record of the actual votes taken on each particular development application? |
We'll try to find out in the next week or so. Please check back for updates. In the meantime, something called Vision Fair, a City of Vancouver initiative, is being held at Aberthau Community Centre Jan.28-29/06 to provide a public forum for discussion regarding UBC-area development issues. How much weight, if any, is to be accorded to these comments, we wonder?
Where are the schools and other supporting services?
Still more multi-unit housing development at UBC:
Attend a public consultation on Intracorp. Westbridge Development Ltd.'s proposed 39-unit, six-storey apartment building, including 12 ground floor units on Jan. 31/06, 5 p.m.-7 p.m. at 6050 Chancellor Blvd.
Coincidentally, when we searched the terms, 'Intracorp Westbridge,' at the Court of B.C. Search Judgments database on Jan. 22/06, we netted 22 hits. Among those were a series of applications involving leaky condos. See The Owners Strata Plan LMS 1220 v. North Fraser Holdings Limited et al.. 2003 BCSC 1841 and Strata Plan LMS 1816 v. North Fraser Holdings et al. 2003 BCSC 992.
So what's the real value, if any, of GVRD approval for the South Campus Neighborhood Plan above?
More on the role and responsibilities of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) What?! Still no public authority tracking local housing failures?.
The GVRD replies:
| Quote: | From: Donna Davis
To: editor@bccondos.ca
Cc: Christie Webb ; Norm Hoffmann
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: RE: Any stats yet on leaky condos at the GVRD?
Dear Sir or Madam,
The main role of the GVRD is to deliver essential utility services like drinking water, sewage treatment, recycling and garbage disposal. (Please visit our website for more information: http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/about/index.htm.) The subject of leaky condos does not appear to be included in the many issues addressed by the GVRD. (emphasis added)
Upon performing a quick Internet search on the subject, I noticed that the “The Housing Policy Branch is responsible for developing provincial housing policy, strategies and programs and for providing policy advice on specific issues such as the residential construction industry, leaky condos, housing markets, social housing, homelessness, housing for persons with special needs, and the role of local government in housing.” See this Government of British Columbia website at http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/housing/.
Regards,
Donna Davis
GVRD Information Centre
604.451.6173
604.436.6901 Fax
www.gvrd.bc.ca |
A note of thanks:
| Quote: | From: editor
To: Donna Davis
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:09 PM
Subject: Any stats yet on leaky condos at the GVRD?
Thank you, Donna, for your prompt reply. Yes, we are well aware of both the federal and provincial housing programs and policies, but we are grateful for clarification regarding the actual value of GVRD approval of a number of controversial housing development plans at the University Endowment Lands recently. Most illuminating.
Ed. |
| Quote: | Note: GVRD Chair Lois Jackson recently appointed Vancouver Councillors Elizabeth Ball, a former theatre director, and Suzanne Anton, a former Crown prosecutor, to the UBC-GVRD Joint Committe. According to the V6T Community News March, 2006 issue:
| Quote: | This bodes well for both UBC and the GVRD since relations between them have been strained for two years, mainly over the contentious issue of UBC student housing on Marine Drive overlooking Pacific Spirit Park, which is managed by the GVRD.
In February, these relations came off a low when the GVRD board voted solidly in favor of a UBC plan to build two new student housing towers - one to a height of 17 storeys, the other to 18 storeys.
Prior to the November, 2005 municipal elections in the Lower Mainland, the old GVRD board had insisted these buildings be no higher than 16 storeys, but UBC governors held firm for the greater heights at a January meeting. (p. 1) |
|
View the Pacific Spirit Park Society's submission of Nov. 22/04 against the towers, another anguished cry that fell on deaf ears. Here's a sample:
| Quote: | | A report by a GVRD Planner indicates that UBC's geotechnical study doesn't even address the effect of the towers complex on cliff erosion, only the stability of the towers themselves. This is just one example of UBC's habit of putting its own interests ahead of the public interest. The Wreck Beach Preservation Society (WBPS) went to great expense to perform a visual impact analysis of the towers, and has produced pictures showing how the buildings will tower over the beach. These pictures were circulated to the GVRD Board and clearly caused the Board concern. But wait a minute. UBC answers by saying that the towers will not be visible from the high water mark. Only a fool would define the beach as being limited to the narrow stretch of sand that remains at high water, an area completely enveloped in a canopy of shrubbery. Common sense tells us that the beach is the tidal zone, extending to the low water mark, and indeed includes the water within the vicinity of the beach where people swim. (emphasis added) I dare say that the narrow strip of sand above high water mark is but a fraction of the beach and its amenities. To suggest otherwise is, I suggest, to intentionally mislead. (From p. 2 of 4) |
Scroll down here for photos and a slide presentation of the area the committee found unworthy of protection.
View more samples of the ongoing housing failures that kick-started B.C.'s dubious new failed housing economy.
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1059#1059
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:07 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Residents have until March 31/06 to make submissions
Advisory board seeking comments on its governance strategy:
In our efforts to clarify roles and responsibilities of the now numerous public bodies managing development on the University Endowment Lands (UEL), we were pleased to find Democracy arrives in University Town, a media release of Jan. 24/05 posted at the UBC Public Affiars website:
| Quote: | Residents of UBC’s University Town have elected their first community-based Board of Directors to represent the town’s growing residential population. The January 19, 2005 Annual General Meeting of the University Neighbourhoods Association (UNA) resulted in the election of three new council members, which transfers the administration of the community from the university to the elected representatives. (emphasis added)
Newly elected board members are Jim Taylor, Chair of the UNA and resident of Hampton Place; Mike Feely, UBC faculty member and resident of Hawthorn Place; and Brian Collins, resident of Hampton Place.
According to Jim Taylor, “This is a real achievement for the UNA and University Town. This election legitimizes the UNA as a truly democratic board and legitimizes University Town as a growing and well represented community.”
The UNA board now consists of six directors including three elected UNA directors, two appointed by the university, and one Alma Mater Society representative. The Chair, who is appointed by the board and must be an elected member, has a second casting vote, which ensures that control rests with the elected directors. As University Town’s residential population grows the number of elected officials on the council will increase, diluting the number of appointed directors. This mechanism will ensure a smooth transition of governing responsibilities from the university to the UNA.
Dennis Pavlich, UBC Vice-President of External and Legal Affairs, said, “UBC is very pleased with the outcome of this process. The UNA was initially set up by the university to ensure a governing body to focus and carry responsibility for the services and facilities required to build University Town. With this election the UNA has gained significant independence that will serve the residents of the university community in a democratically accountable way. (emphasis added) For UBC, UNA, and University Town this is an exceptional achievement because it reflects the maturation of the UNA.”
The UNA represents the residents of University Town on community issues including the operation and maintenance of recreational facilities, recreational programming, traffic and transportation, management of parks and green space, parking, infrastructure, and safety. (emphasis added) Funding for services is provided by a Services Levy that is collected as part of the lease agreement that each resident holds with UBC.
This governance structure is unique in the context of Canadian universities because it combines an elected majority with university-appointed representatives who, together, represent the residents of the campus community while working within the authority of the University Act. (See especially s. 27 Powers of board 27 (1) The management, administration and control of the property, revenue, business and affairs of the university are vested in the board).
The UNA was incorporated in the Spring of 2002 under the Societies Act of B.C. (sic) (See also Societies Corporate Registry). Pursuant to the University Act the UNA is an advisory body to the UBC Board of Governors. (emphasis added) Currently the UNA has 690 members from a total University Town population of 2,500.
University Town is an integrated community that supports UBC’s academic mission and is transforming UBC from a commuter campus to a work-live community. Eight new residential and mixed-use neighbourhoods will increase the campus residential population to approximately 21,000 residents by 2021 (emphasis added)and will include student, faculty, and staff housing, university-related shops and services, parks, a community centre, a school and a range of public amenities. |
More on the UNA.
More on University Town. When we visited on Feb. 11/06, we found the following notice under Events and Meetings:
| Quote: | OF INTEREST...
UNA GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
The UNA Directors have drafted a document describing what we believe our governance structure is and ought be within the UNA. We invite anyone who has any comments to make on this to provide them to the Directors c/o University Neighbourhoods Office (Email: admin@myuna.ca) by March 31st, 2006. The document is for the purpose of this consultation, in draft, although we have tried to be as careful as we can in preparing it.
The Directors |
Of particular interest in this five-page document is section five, set out as follows:
| Quote: | 5. The Directors are responsible for general policy and in guiding or making neighbourhood and community wide decisions where:
5.1 intervention is necessary to ensure equity;
5.2 the decision touches upon the Director’s fiduciary or other legal responsibility;
5.3 the issue involves institutional to institutional relationships such as the UNA and the University, surrounding communities, GVRD, etc.; and
5.4 where community wide monies are being spent. |
We'll try to find out how much authority, if any, volunteer directors will have with respect to development applications. Please check back for updates. In the meantime, we note the newly created position of UNA Executive Director:
| Quote: | One of the world’s most interesting developments in residential community-building is happening right here at UBC. Interwoven with the University itself is the creation of a ‘university town’ - a new mixed use and sustainable community that already has 3,000 residents and ultimately will have 20,000. Its setting, facilities, and events offer rich opportunities to create a unique lifestyle – truly a very special place to live (see www.universitytown.ubc.ca).
The University Neighbourhoods Association (UNA) approximates a municipal council for the local areas on campus, promoting the creation of a vibrant, sociable, safe and diverse university town community at UBC (see www.myuna.ca). It has now reached a stage in its growth where it seeks its first Executive Director. This role will be responsible for providing vision and leadership to the organization and for overseeing the daily operations of UNA regarding services, facilities, programs and events, finances, and related issues.
You should have a university degree (probably business-related) with several years of relevant experience, possibly in an association, municipality or service business. You combine creativity and imagination with strong management skills in finance, policy development, and program implementation. Above all you’re a natural communicator and relationship builder, who will enjoy working with a diverse group of constituents and stakeholders.
This chance to shape a landmark community represents an intriguing challenge and a great opportunity for personal growth in a special environment. Please e-mail your resume to Western Management Consultants, quoting file 08544, at: search@wmc.bc.ca, or telephone Richard Savage or Ann-Britt Everett at 604 687 0391. |
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1062#1062
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:10 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Still skin-diving the depths of UEL planning authority:
Who's really in charge of approving applications for so many unwanted developments?
The September, 2006 issue of the excellent V6T Community News provided more clues to our still unsolved mystery regarding UEL planning authority. Here's the latest rant, this time from students:
| Quote: | | Students at the University of British Columbia want more say in running campus. They want, for example, more seats on at least three top boards - a new seat to go with the two seats they already have on the 21-member UBC board of governors; a seat on the UBC development permit board (which grants permits for non-institutional' developments), and a seat on the board of the UBC Properties Trust (the real estate development arm of the university). They also want "revision of the current campus planning and development consultation process in a way that is more inclusive, more transparent, more accountable, and more meaningful to student stakeholders." (emphasis added) (From Students Seek More Say in Running Campus on p. 1) |
We couldn't agree more. Or is it simpler than we realize?
Could it be that just one person signs off on all UEL housing proposals?
To confuse matters, we also found the following comments in a letter to the editor from Dennis Pavlich, Vice-president, External and Legal Affairs, UBC, in the September, 2006 issue of Vancouver Magazine:
| Quote: | | UBC did not "pave paradise" to make way for this much needed student accommodation. This project will not eliminate or even reduce the amount of green space at UBC. In fact, UBC is increasing both the amount and the quality of green space will now be in a much more useable configuration than the generally narrow strips of lawn, in large part between parking alleys, that existed on the site prior to the construction of the student residences. While there were approximately 160 trees on the site prior to the commencement of construction of the Marine Drive Student Residences, at project completion the site will be home to about 280 trees. |
More on the fruitless community effort against the ugly done-deal towers, which may not be any better than the other new, leaky highrises we track at our Under Tarps forum.
Tell us more about those trees, especially the 79 that disappeared in April, 2006:
See UBC accepts blame for cutting down trees at cbc.ca/news dated April 25/06:
| Quote: | The University of B.C. says it was a simple mistake when a work crew felled 79 trees on the edge of Pacific Spirit Park. But two civic politicians think the action was more than a mere error.
"I remember about a year ago or two years ago a request came to the GVRD to actually allow the cutting of those trees to increase the viewscape and then all of a sudden it happened – exactly the same trees," said Greater Vancouver Regional District Director Hal Weinberg.
His colleague Tim Stevenson went so far as to question why police have not been called in to investigate.
UBC's manager of external communications, Brad Foster, said it was "really just a matter of our crews not understanding clearly where the borders were" when they cleared a swath about 15 metres into the park. Foster said the university accepted full responsibility for the mistake and would co-operate with the GVRD to make amends. He added that the illegal cutting was a result of the clearing of windfall behind UBC's Museum of Anthropology. |
We'll keep probing UEL governance issues as they pertain to rampant condo development. Please check back for updates.
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1063#1063
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:12 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently, we're not alone in our concern over who really is approving so much development:
Endowment
UEL Ratepayers Association Newsletter
November, 2006
| Quote: | ...Naturally, development of housing on the UBC Campus is another large issue. The development by the university of a large stock of market housing is something about which we have had little say, and arguably, little influence. The UEL Ratepayers Association has membership on various UBC committees, such as the Community Liaison Committee. This provides us with some familiarity with issues before they hit the ground and with opportunities to communicate with our large neighbor. We believe that good communication makes good neighbors.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District has expressed dissatisfaction with the way UBC's development and permitting is self-policed by UBC and overseen by the GVRD. The GVRD has proposed solutions for fixing these difficulties with UBC which go far beyond UBC and potentially implicate the way the UEL is administered. The UELRA thinks that the GVRD is overreaching in trying to find practical solutions to this perceived structural problem.
The provincial government has also entered the arena of change in the UEL. The province is about to propose that UEL ratepayers should consider some policing costs which have hitherto been paid for from general public funds. If the province goes ahead with this plan, it will mean a 10 per cent tax increase for all of us. (Excerpt from p. 1, signed Bob Kasting, President, UELRA) |
A public open house is scheduled February, 2007. We'll continue to follow the story there. Please check back soon for updates.
More about the UELRA and other governance issues at the Official Plan website .
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1064#1064
Last edited by editor on Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
