| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Petition against condos signed by tenants at 12 buildings:
| Quote: | From: "hong chen" <ordinaryhappiness@yahoo.com>
To: <editor@bccondos.ca>
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,
Alice |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our letter in support of the petition:
| Quote: | From: <editor@bccondos.ca>
To: "hong chen" <ordinaryhappiness@yahoo.com>
Cc: <editor@bccondos.ca>
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 Alice,
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No to Galleria
'No more leaky condos': UEL resident
| Quote: | murray <lmm789@yahoo.ca> 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.
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 |
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.
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 |
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Asbestos-related illnesses and 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Enlisting suipport from 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). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Replies in order of receipt:
| Quote: | From: <Webmaster@wd.gc.ca>
To: <editor@bccondos.ca>
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | From: "DM" <DM@hc-sc.gc.ca>
To: <Editor@bccondos.ca>
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our reply to Minister Emerson:
| Quote: | From: editor@bccondos.ca
To: Bourgeois-Doyle, Dick
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:34 AM
Subject: E-mail to Minister Emerson
Excellent! Thanks very much.
Ed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:01 pm 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 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. |
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...)
Last edited by editor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:23 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
Click here for a pdf of the reply from G. Scott Baldwin, Vice-president of Development.
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 (a) to require Polygon to do so or (b) 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.
Last edited by editor on Wed May 25, 2005 11:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 10:52 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) |
Last edited by editor on Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:39 pm 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) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
