Archive for July 2016
3560 Hull Street & 2070 / 2088 / 2090 East 20th Avenue
Coffee Shop Talk on 27 July 2016
The following report attempts to convey the substance of the information provided to a group that attended a presentation on the concept of developing a Cedar Cottage block of approximately 50,000 sq ft (about 1.15 acres) under the City of Vancouver’s Interim Rezoning Policy (IRP). This is the seventh IRP proposal to come forward since 2012. It would be the third to locate within a one kilometre radius — haphazardly centering a massive concentration of experimentation around Commercial Drive and East 18th Avenue.
Molnar Group — http://www.molnargroup.com — Real Estate Investors
Brook Pooni Associates — http://brookpooni.com — Urban Planning & Communications
Blaire Chisholm of Brook Pooni, accompanied by two associates, hosted a group of about twenty local area residents at Commercial Street Cafe for an evening presentation of 12 screens of information. Early on, persons attending were asked not to photograph the screens. Appended is a listing of the titles of the 12 screens, as derived from note-taking, usually with indication of content.
The following matters of interest emerged from the slides and the spoken presentation:
1. No formal inquiry has yet been made to City of Vancouver by Molnar / Brook Pooni
2. The City of Vancouver was said to have
(a) asked the proponent to consider using Interim Rezoning Policy
(b) indicated that 2088 East 20th Ave could qualify for “heritage” potential
3. Blaire Chisholm said she observed the process undergone by the Cressey application for 3365 Commercial
4. Molnar does not anticipate seeking waiver of CAC/DCL
5. “Underground parking for all residents and visitors” would mean at least one underground space assigned
to each dwelling unit and not separable from the rental unit (a response to the Cressey practice of
charging $100 per month for separable parking)
A double-sided flyer for the event concluded with this information:
City of Vancouver’s Interim Rezoning Policy (IRP)
The City’s Interim Rezoning Policy (IRP) encourages the provision of affordable housing options by considering rezoning for sites that meet two criteria: Affordability and Location & Form of Development.
The Molnar Group is considering a project that will offer 100% rental and a range of unit types (townhouses, studios, and 1 to 3-bedrooms). The project is located in close proximity to an arterial road (separated from Victoria Drive by a City-owned community garden). Victoria Drive is part of Translink’s Frequent Transit Network with transit stops nearby and the Skytrain guideway running along the site’s south property line. The IRP is quiet on the form of development adjacent to the Skytrain guideway. The proposal could provide a buffer and transition between the guideway and the single-family neighbourhood to the north.
List of Twelve Screens Presented
1 Hull and Twentieth Proposal [aerial view with parcel outlined in red] 2 The Project Team: Brook Pooni [five corporate entities dealing with communication and urban planning, architecture, landscape architecture / arborist, culture and heritage, and survey work] 3 Molnar [developing real estate since 1969 – several projects listed] 4 Kensington-Cedar Cottage Profile [mainly derived from information provided to City Council at the public hearing on the Cressey plan for 3365 Commercial] 5 Area Context [map showing parks, schools, etc – mention of 850 m distance from Nanaimo SkyTrain station] 6 Site [outline of four parcels comprising the ~ 50,000 sq ft] 7 Rosenberg Residence at 2088 East 20th Avenue [built 1900 – many additions – "granite" foundation – not on "heritage" register – would be relocated] 8 More Affordable Housing 9 Interim Rezoning Policy [project verbally described as "buffer and transition" to SkyTrain 10 Big Ideas [rental apartments, Rosenberg residence as live/work unit with daycare, surrounding pedestrian improvements, courtyard with play area, underground parking] 11 Preliminary Plan [retention of south and north edge poplar rows, low/midrise of five/six storeys parallel to SkyTrain, ground-oriented form at Hull Street end, two townhouse units along East 20th separated by courtyard, interior separation between apartment and townhouse] 12 Tell Us What You Like [two sets of six photos: apartment pictures, townhouse pictures – comment form handed out to participants and then collected]
An appeal to write a letter in support of the No Tower Coalition and its long struggle against the Kettle/Boffo collaboration led to the compilation of the following list of blockbustings. For over a decade now, what calls itself “planning” in Vancouver has turned into a mishmash of naked spot rezonings and new local area plans. Sometimes the two are so entangled that it becomes difficult to determine exactly how an addled egg has managed to emerge from a chicken cooped up in an open house. Consider only the tortuous histories of King Edward Village, Rize Alliance, and Joyce Station Precinct.
Amidst the muddle, one thing remains clear. Developers always push for the tallest possible towers. And planners collude to set precedents that can prejudice future area planning to the greatest extent possible.
Concrete proposals for Kettle/Boffo development will be a salient matter on 27 July 2016 as speakers line up to address the new Grandview-Woodland local area plan.
Council Date Storeys Description 2003 July 24 17 King Edward Village for Kingsway & Knight 2006 Jan 24 22 2300 Kingsway for Norquay 2011 Apr 21 16 8495 Granville (Safeway) for Marpole 2011 July 19 35 8440 Cambie (Marine Gateway) for Marpole 2011 Nov 01 30 Wall Centre Central Park for Renfrew-Collingwood 2012 June 11 22 1401 Comox for West End 2012 Feb 27 21 Rize Alliance for Mt Pleasant 2012 Oct 16 12 955 East Hastings for Downtown Eastside 2016 June 28 30 5050-5080 Joyce (Westbank at Joyce Station) 2016 July 19 12 155 East 37th (Little Mountain) for RPSC 2016 July 27 12 Kettle/Boffo for Grandview Woodland
The following report on Interim Rezoning Policy makes it possible to assess factors that City of Vancouver obscures in its documents.
Norquay is not affected by the “policy” described below due to its mass rezoning of 1912 properties for Vancouver’s second neighbourhood centre in 2010. But the 1577 properties mass rezoned in 2004 for Vancouver’s first neighbourhood centre at Kingsway & Knight are subject to the policy. This discrepancy is only one of the anomalies that taint the initiative.
Eye on Norquay has taken a particular interest in Interim Rezoning Policy, and in similar provisions of the Rental 100 program which has landed units within Norquay. That interest stems from a broader concern for policies which affect other Vancouver residential areas, especially those that lie in East Vancouver.
On 3 October 2012, Vancouver City Council approved an Interim Rezoning Policy for Increasing Affordable Housing Choices (hereafter cited as IRP).
At this stage, the I for “interim” could stand for indefinite, with regard to both policy specifications and duration of implementation.
Public $$$ Handed Out with Little Accountability
IRP and the related Rental 100 program raise huge concerns:
1. The City of Vancouver makes massive financial concessions to developers to build “secured market rental” — presumably “secured” for the greater of building lifespan or sixty years. Since no present Council can “fetter” a future Council, there is no assurance that any project will not be flipped from rental to strata sale at some point in the future.
2. Overall concessions in the form of waiver of DCL (development cost levy) and CAC (community amenity contribution) now run toward or beyond $100 million ($54 million for Aquilini alone). These waivers mean that increase in population comes without corresponding funding for amenities and infrastructure. The result will be a strip-mined public realm for Vancouver.
3. The “affordable” rental scale has imported west side rents into east side projects. This means that developers will concentrate on locations where they can exploit maximized differentials between costs and returns.
4. The supposed affordable rental scale is not monitored, and evaporates at first rental turnover of a unit. After being handed $54 million in concessions, Aquilini has just implemented a fixed-lease approach that will guarantee 100% turnover after one year (see St. Denis). In effect, the City of Vancouver writes the developer a blank cheque.
Problems Specific to IRP
The distinguishing feature of IRP is a de facto rezoning of most of Vancouver with no consultation and no planning. As of 20 April 2016, the policy includes a more detailed mapping. IRP has unleashed widespread speculation and massive land assemblies (see Yaffe).
Unlike Rental 100, IRP can extend off of arterial streets for a distance of “approximately 100 metres” — the length of a football field. Precedent has just been set at 3365 Commercial to push an apartment form into that entire space, contrary to the policy that specifies ground-oriented housing forms for off-arterial locations.
The City of Vancouver has expressed notions of participating with unit owners in future price appreciation of IRP units designed for ownership. The net result is expansion of conflict of interest — the body that controls zoning will self-deal by sticking its own finger into the pie. For about forty years, the City of Vancouver has already served itself in this fashion with the secretive off-balance-sheet Property Endowment Fund.
Six IRP Sites
The current version of IRP states: “As of April 20, 2016, six projects under this policy have been approved or are in process.”
It seems apparent that developer take-up on the policy has been underwhelming. The policy still states:
Once 20 rezoning applications are in process, other proposals will be put on a wait list pending any decision by Council to extend the policy beyond 20 projects.
The six sites listed in the table below appear to be the sites referred to. Passed over in silence by the City of Vancouver is the proposal from Pacific Arbour for a seniors facility on six parcels in the 4600 block on the east side of Dunbar Street. Facing extreme pressure from Dunbar residents, the City of Vancouver rejected the proposal in spring 2013, citing “affordability” concerns.
To extrapolate from six projects in four years, the City of Vancouver may get around to a “review” of the situation about ten years from now. At that point, developers may have plopped a series of one-off experimental projects mainly into East Vancouver. As it stands now, three of the six have landed in the single local area of Kensington-Cedar Cottage.
Only one of the six IRP’s has so far landed west of Main Street. That atypical project, 1037 West King Edward, displays low FSR, low height, and few units. For this, the developer receives huge upfront financial concessions — waiver of DCL calculated at $374,437 and no levy of CAC.
Initial Rents, East and West
From page 13 of report on 3365 Commercial
From page 8 of report on 1037 West King Edward
Site Data Site SqFt FSR Height Storeys Units 1729 E. 33rd 29,587 1.26 37 ft 3 31 3323 E. 4th 36,777 1.45 46 ft 4 54 3120 Knight 17,653 2.08 52 ft 5 51 1037 W. King Edward 19,008 1.48 40 ft 2 - 4 36 3365 Commercial 35,106 2.40 60 ft 3.5 - 6 110 3868 Rupert 29,102 3.60 69 ft 6 112 DCL Waivers 1729 E. 33rd Not applicable 3323 E. 4th Not applicable 3120 Knight $465,476 1037 W. King Edward $374,437 3365 Commercial $1,077,792 3868 Rupert ??? Unit Distributions Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 1729 E. 33rd (Strata co-housing plus 2 rental units) 3323 E. 4th (Life-lease) 8 46 3120 Knight 1 32 18 3365 Commercial 31 38 30 11 1037 W. King Edward 8 12 13 3 3868 Rupert 78 30 4
Council Reports for IRP Rezonings
1729 East 33rd
2013 March 12-13
3. REZONING – 1729-1735 East 33rd Avenue
3323 East 4th
2014 March 13
1. REZONING: 3323-3367 East 4th Avenue (Beulah Garden)
2014 May 20
1. REZONING: 3120-3184 Knight Street
2016 May 24
3. REZONING: 3365 Commercial Drive and 1695-1775 East 18th Avenue
2016 June 23
1. REZONING: 3365 Commercial Drive and 1695-1775 East 18th Avenue
1037 West King Edward
2016 June 21
3. REZONING: 1037 West King Edward Avenue
City of Vancouver Documents on IRP
Final Report from the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability (2 October 2012)
Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy (4 Oct 2012 / 2 Dec 2013 / 20 Apr 2016)
Council Meetings about IRP
3 October 2012
4. Final Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability
3 December 2013
4. Development Cost Levy By-law Amendments to the Definition of
For-Profit Affordable Rental Housing
20 April 2016
2. Affordable Home Ownership Pilot Program
Rejected IRP for 4600 Block East Side of Dunbar Street
Brent Jang. Plan for Dunbar seniors home way up in the air. Globe and Mail (20 Nov 2012)
Naiobh O’Connor. City rejects seniors housing application in Dunbar. Vancouver Courier (6 Mar 2013)
Legal Challenge to IRP / Rental 100 “Affordability”
Carlito Pablo. City of Vancouver to amend STIR and Rental 100 bylaws after legal fight. Georgia Straight (19 Nov 2013)
Bob Mackin. West End Neighbours society wonders what is affordable. Vancouver Courier (10 Apr 2014)
Speculation (Yaffe) and Aquilini (St. Denis/O’Brien)
Barbara Yaffe. City looks to dismantle land assembly. Vancouver Sun (23 Apr 2015: D3
[Brian] Jackson says the land assembly activity that has been accelerating amounts to property speculation. … The activity is likely the result of an interim zoning policy adopted by the city three years ago.
Jen St. Denis / Frank O’Brien. New Aquilini rental tower uses controversial fixed-term tenancy agreements. Business in Vanocuver (8 July 2016)
Related Coverage at Eye on Norquay
Rental 100 Red Flag
Vancouver CAC 2013
Commercial at 18th Ave
Comment on Development Application DP-2016-00101
under RT-11 Zoning
5 July 2016
This standard FuHo design for an RT-11 development is generally acceptable. We note the following concerns:
1. Only two parking spaces are provided. The Parking ByLaw states that parking in RT-11 zones should be one per unit, i.e. three spaces for this development.
2. There is no existing sidewalk along the East 40th Avenue frontage. Construction of this sidewalk needs to be included as a Condition of Development for this application.
Jeanette Jones and Joseph Jones
Comment on Development Application DP-2016-00092
under RM-9A Zoning
4 July 2016
In general, we like this application. Approximately 2/3 of the units are 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom units. The layouts shown at the 2015 pre-app open house (which we presume have not changed) make good use of space. The modern architecture fits in well with the two RM-7 rowhouse projects that have already been approved at 2631 Duke Street and 2759/2765 Duke Street.
The cobblestone around the entry courtyard, the diagonal ramp, and the coloured metal accent panels add visual interest to the exterior of the building. The colour scheme should be reconsidered. The rowhouse project at 2631 Duke Street and the large stacked townhouse development just a block north at 2715 Ward Street, both being built by ConWest, are using an identical colour scheme (black and white with orange accents). The use of a different colour scheme here would add variety to the streetscape.
The green wall and trellis near the entrance to the parking level is attractive. The roof garden will provide additional green space. The 7-foot pedestrian connection on the east side of the building provides at least a temporary solution until the Renfrew Ravine Linear Park is built.
We question the planting of blueberry bushes in front of the building. The smaller plantings that surround them will make it difficult to pick the fruit. But local residents seem likely to try, and may not be concerned about damaging the landscape.
Jeanette Jones and Joseph Jones
Gregor Robertson Upholds Hate Speaker
An Open Letter to Vancouver’s Mayor and Council
On 23 June 2016, while acting as chair of the public hearing on REZONING: 3365 Commercial Drive and 1695-1775 East 18th Avenue, Gregor Robertson upheld and validated a speaker who (1) uttered repeated descriptions of “elderly” persons with contempt (2) advocated discrimination against those persons as a class.
To: Mayor and Council; Councillors Individually; Sadhu Johnston, City Manager From: Joseph Jones Re: Gregor Robertson Upholds Hate Speaker Date: 30 June 2016 [Email Time Stamp: Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:17 AM] Find attached in pdf a detailed, focused, concise, depersonalized account of the ageist hate speech that occurred at public hearing before Council on 23 June 2016. The hate speech was validated by the chair of the public hearing, and has had wider effect. The letter concludes with specific request for remedy. I look forward to receiving a written response from Mayor and Council. After the upcoming long weekend, the first seven pages of the pdf material will be made public as an open letter. Sincerely, Joseph Jones
The open version of this letter does not directly name any persons other than Gregor Robertson (in the capacity of his office as chair of a public hearing), Joseph Jones as the writer of this letter, and Councillor Adriane Carr as the only councillor who has specifically addressed the issue of this letter’s concern. A variant version formally submitted to mayor and council on 30 June 2016 differs in no substantial way other than providing an appended key to Twitter substitution codes that is aligned with a listing of the relevant subset of speakers at public hearing held on 23 June 2016. The concern of this letter is not to engage with personalities, nor with the matters of the public hearing, but specifically to address the issue of one particular constellation of ageist public expressions.
The first public hearing on REZONING: 3365 Commercial Drive and 1695-1775 East 18th Avenue, held on 24 May 2016, was “voided” due to unprecedented irregularities. At the 23 June 2016 second public hearing Mayor Gregor Robertson, while acting as chair, upheld a speaker who was demeaning the “elderly” as a group. Subsequent investigation and analysis of both the mainstream and the social media context reveal that what that speaker expressed was not incidental, nor was it an isolated attitude. About an hour after being validated by Robertson, the offending speaker declared on Twitter that older people “need to die off.” Subsequent Twitter comment included instances of applause for the offender, and aggressive personal challenges to and dismissals of my two at-the-time Twitter comments on the use of hate speech. Those two Twitter observations were not addressed to any individual other than Gregor Robertson. Two CBC interviews with the offending individual (of which there are written, video, and audio records), both before and after the public hearing incident, served to propagate the speaker’s use of ageist invective.
What Is Hate Speech?
The balance between free speech and hate speech often presents thorny issues to courts that have to deal with particular cases. The relevant legislation outlined in Exhibit A clearly says that age is a covered “identifiable group” and that such a group is not to be subjected to discrimination, hatred, or contempt. In general, public discourse seems to show far greater sensitivity toward parallel covered groups, such as those identifiable by disability, origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
The Incidents at the Public Hearing
Discussion of the following incidents relates to transcriptions in Exhibit B.
Speaker 17 complained about how “these debates are dominated by older residents.” Suppose Speaker 17 had used, instead of “older,” an adjective like one of the following: Chinese, Muslim, gay. If an effective chair had reprimanded this off-topic inappropriate language at the outset, perhaps that message would have inhibited the more outrageous speaker who followed.
Speaker 22 on two occasions — at a separation of about one minute, with distinct escalations in content and tone — disparaged “elderly” speakers and called on Council to “ignore” them. Beyond inappropriately going off-topic to single out a particular age group, the speaker selected an exaggerated and pejorative term. Again, suppose the term had been not just Chinese, Muslim, gay, etc., but a more contemptuous expression. Would the chair have tolerated that?
Only after the second occurrence did I audibly interrupt the speaker with the phrase “hate speech.” Robertson responded: “Please respect the speaker — everyone else is.” After a pause, the audience erupted in brief general outcry. The speaker then continued. This was my only utterance toward any public speaker that evening. In the circumstance, I believe that what I did was restrained and justified. Prior to taking action, I observed distress in facial expressions among older persons in the audience.
The Twitter Context
Exhibit C provides in chronological order the content of 26 numbered tweets emanating from 10 tweeters between 8:20 pm on 23 June 2016 and 11:05 pm on 24 June 2016. The selection assembles a core of evidence on what took place during the public hearing and immediately following. The freewheeling ethos of Twitter is not at issue here. This particular social media context elucidates what was happening at the public hearing, and shows some of the consequences of the chair’s lax attitude toward hate speech.
Exhibit C supports the following points:
1. Six of the tweets demonstrate emergence of a particular lobby group that intercommunicated before, during, and after the public hearing. That group has expressed intentions to continue with the same type of intervention into future public hearings, focusing not on the specifics of particular rezoning applications, but simply on the provision of secured rental housing in whatever form at whatever public cost.
02 06 21 22 24 25 (3 by ddd : 2 by aaa : 1 by iii)
2. Nine of the tweets express ageist sentiments.
01 03 05 07 08 10 15 20 23 (3 by eee : 2 by aaa : 1 each by bbb, ccc, ddd, hhh)
3. Three of the tweets manifest a strong degree of vituperation.
05 08 26 (2 by eee : 1 by ccc)
4. Four of the tweets applaud Speaker 22. The later three of these tweets offer affirmation subsequent to considerations of what might have amounted to hate speech.
04 22 24 25 (1 each by aaa, bbb, ddd, iii)
5. Two of the tweets aggressively deride the complaint about hate speech.
20 26 (1 each by ddd, eee)
6. Speaker 22 further indulges in sexist jeer at the notion of hate speech amounting to anything more than free speech.
26 (1 by eee)
At the 28 June 2016 discussion and vote, three Vision Vancouver councillors deplored “divisiveness.” This sort of vague reference to turmoil at the event serves oppression by suggesting that conflict should not exist. Worse, this fuzziness masks and excuses the component of the conflict that qualifies as hate speech. In contrast, Councillor Adriane Carr itemized specifics, including age, but then failed to distinguish ageist hate speech from other forms of verbal conflict. Such a lack of distinction also serves oppression, albeit to a lesser degree.
Actions Requested as Remedy
1. That public hearing chair Gregor Robertson issue a formal statement recognizing the serious nature and implications of this instance of failure to reprimand immediately the use of ageist language in Council proceedings.
2. That Council as part of the same formal statement offer specific assurance that its meeting chairs will exercise full vigilance in monitoring for ageist language in the future.
3. That Council initiate a standard brief protocol to announce, at the outset of every public hearing and at the outset of every potentially contentious public-speaker item at ordinary meetings, that speech disparaging persons under ANY of the hate speech categories — age, color, disability mental or physical, ethnic origin or ancestry, family status, marital status, national origin or place of origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation — will not be tolerated in any degree whatsoever.
Explanatory: The above alphabetic listing for “hate speech categories” combines the lists of terms found in Exhibit A, setting the local British Columbia language first where there are parallels.
Joseph Jones 30 June 2016
Exhibit A — Hate Speech Legislation
The basics are set forth in the Criminal Code of Canada under Sections 318 and 319 titled Hate Propaganda
318 (4) defines identifiable group as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.”
Comment: A key term in 318 (4) is “age.”
Under the subtitle Wilful Promotion of Hatred is stated the following:
319 (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Under the subtitle Defences is listed the following defence that would be most likely in the circumstance addressed:
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true;
Comment: A key phrase in 319 (3) (c) is “on reasonable grounds.”
The British Columbia provincial Human Rights Code [RSBC 1996] Chapter 210 offers similar description under the title Discriminatory Publication:
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or (b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.
Exhibit B — Ageist Comments at 24 June 2016 Public Hearing
2:08:51 to 2:08:54
Speaker 17: How much of these debates are dominated by older residents
2:53:20 to 2:53:25
Speaker 22: This is so clearly a sense of elderly ownership or cheap rental entitlement and young people just trying to make a living
2:54:22 to 2:54:40
Speaker 22: I strongly urge you to absolutely — and I mean this — absolutely ignore the concerns of entitled elderly people ruining the future of our city —
Jones: Hate speech [interjection]
Robertson: Please respect the speaker — everyone else is
Speaker 22: Absolutely —
Exhibit C — Numbered Selection of Tweets in Chronological Order
The two following notes are added to the public version of this open letter:
Except for @jonesj and @MayorGregor, three-letter substitution codes have been consistently assigned to all tweeters involved. The issue is a chair’s validation of use of hate speech, not the existence
of identifiable personalities.
Structure of tweets = Assigned sequence number | Tweeter | Date and Time of Tweet | Tweet Content
01 @aaa 23 June 8:20 pm Most of us YIMBYs are in the antechamber now, marveling at the age split. If you’re under 50 you’re For. #vanpoli [photo]
02 @aaa 23 June 8:55 pm Inaugural meeting of Vancouver YIMBY group. @ddd @jjj @ggg @kkk @lll and @eee
03 @bbb 23 June 8:57 pm Really gripping #VanRE #bcpoli Clearly gen Y affordability vs boomers want density status quo.
04 @bbb 23 June 9:06 pm Wow was that @eee at the hearing? FANTASTIC!
05 @ccc 23 June 10:30 pm 18 is the minimum age for voting. Starting to think there should be a maximum age. How about life expectancy minus 18 years?
06 @ddd 23 June 10:36 pm @aaa @bbb @mmm @nnn @jjj Yeah, this was the best I’ve seen. Thanks everyone for coming out!
07 @eee 23 June 11:11 pm @ddd @ooo It’s 55yr/old+ NIMBYS vs. <40yr/old YIMBYs. YIMBYs wear plaid and have a vision.
08 @eee 23 June 11:13 pm @ddd @ooo YIMBYs are the future. NIMBYs need to die off #YVRYIMBY #VanRE
09 @jonesj 23 June 11:32 pm Several speakers at 3365 Commercial public hearing veered into ageist hate speech while 50+ @mayorgregor … just sat there #eastvan #vanpoli
10 @eee 23 June 11:32 pm NIMBYS in Vancouver are all 55yrs/old+. YIMBYs are all <40yrs/old. We are the future. Become a #YVRYIMBY y’all! #VanRE
11 @fff 23 June 11:46 pm @jonesj R you kidding hate speech and no one said anything
12 @jonesj 23 June 11:57 pm @fff No kidding. Not quite. I shouted «hate speech» at worst offender. Chair Gregor reprimanded no one.
13 @ggg 24 June 8:30 am @jonesj @MayorGregor please be specific
14 @ddd 24 June 8:35 am @jonesj @fff Can you provide a specific example of hate speech? Noting the avg age of the "less housing!" crowd doesn't count.
15 @hhh 24 June 8:54 am @ppp A lot more supporters at this hearing than the 1st go round. Under 40s sick of NIMBYs forcing young people to leave the city.
16 @jonesj 24 June 9:06 am @ggg @MayorGregor See video when available
17 @jonesj 24 June 9:09 am @ddd @fff See video when available
18 @ddd 24 June 9:10 am @jonesj @fff I was there, I spoke, didn’t hear any hate speech.
19 @ggg 24 June 9:43 am @jonesj @MayorGregor I was there and have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe I missed it? Just asking for an example or two.
20 @ddd 24 June 10:54 am @jonesj ~2:54 on vid. You called “the concerns of entitled elderly people (are) ruining the future of our city” hate speech? Hahahaha
21 @ddd 24 June 11:02 am @aaa @jjj @ggg @kkk @lll @eee Vid’s up. [Speaker 22]’s speech 2:52
22 @ddd 24 June 11:02 am @aaa @jjj @ggg @kkk @lll @eee Spoiler: it’s fantastic
23 @aaa 24 June 12:16 pm @qqq @eee @ccc Those against the proposal last night were focused on keeping their remaining ~20 years the same.
24 @iii 24 June 1:17 pm @ddd @aaa @jjj @ggg @kkk @lll @eee Amazing [Speaker 22], thank you!
25 @aaa 24 June 1:19 pm @iii @ddd @jjj @ggg @kkk @lll @eee yeah he’s [Speaker 22] an awesome speaker!
26 @eee 24 June 11:05 pm @ddd @jonesj that was epic. Been laughing ’bout that all day. Man the fuck up Mr. Heckler [emoticon]. Freedom of speech FTW.
Supplemental Exhibit — Not Part of Open Letter Version
This material consisted mainly of an eighteen-line table correlating
Number of Tweets in Exhibit C
Masking Code = Twitter Identity
Position on Speakers List with Name (9 of 18)
A memorial service for Keith Jacobson packed a large gym space at Killarney Community Centre on the afternoon of Sunday 3 July 2016.
In a brief and moving message based on Galatians 2:20, Rev. Mark Chiang from Killarney Community Lutheran Church described Keith Jacobson as an “old-school Christian” who gave a great deal to his local community.
Norquay has benefitted from Keith’s involvement and support. Keith spoke to Vancouver City Council on 4 November 2010 before the Norquay Plan was approved. Some of his words on that occasion were incorporated into a 15 February 2011 Eye on Norquay posting:
Keith Jacobson, president of the Killarney Community Centre Society, characterized 15,000 square feet as “woefully inadequate” — Norquay needs a full-size community centre.
His words ring even more true today. Norquay has seen much growth of population through rezoning since 2010, with zero delivery of corresponding amenity. Keith understood this kind of ongoing struggle.
From the archives, the following piece of document shows that Keith did more than just show up once for Norquay:
If you never had the good fortune to cross paths with Keith Jacobson, here is one poor substitute for no longer having that opportunity:
Vancouver Courier (30 June 2016) A9