Watching the second hand of a clock / Letters to the North Shore News

Ben Hecht,  a highly-regarded screen writer ("Some Like it Hot", "The Front Page") and former Chicago newspaper reporter, once observed that, "Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock."

Recently some have been given pause by articles in the North Shore News surrounding aspects of the OCP process.  Here are two 'Letters to the Editor' of the NS News that point to significant aspects of local stories where the NSN reporters and editors overlooked the essential core to the story.
 

To the Editor, North Shore News, May 25

RE: Missing the number on OCP reporting / Denisty, housing dominate OCP meeting / May 22

Dear Editor,
RE: Density, housing dominate OCP meeting, May 22, page A10

In reporting on the OCP Public Hearings your reporter missed the most significant and demonstrated aspect of public support.  By stating that "more than half of the speakers expressed general support for the OCP", the reporter implies that there was only slightly more support "for" than "against".  

A more factual basis is easily obtainable from the DNV's sign up sheets for the hearings.  Of the 69 speakers, 8 made general comments, while 46 spoke in favour, while 15 opposed. 

These numbers clearly demonstrate that the OCP meets with overwhelming support from those who have engaged in the process from across the District.  The majority of those speaking for the OCP couched their remarks in terms of achieving outcomes that direct action towards a more viable and livable community for the greater good.
These wide-ranging aspects of public endorsement were largely missing from your article.

sincerely,
Doug Curran      dougcurran@shaw.ca
 

To the Editor, North Shore News, May 30
 RE: Some other perspectives on LAPs / "Open Space", May 25
NB:  This letter was edited by NS News.  The edited portions of the original are included here in blue italics

Dear Editor,

Your recent May 25th "Open Space" article commented on the diminishing weight given to the "direct democracy" experiment of neighbourhood-developed LAPs within the OCP process.  What has become apparent is that in their narrow local focus, many LAPs are both out-of-date and have become impediments to the broad cohesive perspectives required for effective planning on a district-wide level.

The local activism of LAPs through neighbourhood planning as endorsed in your article, has serious drawbacks when decision-makers mistake activism for democratic involvement.  What arose from many of the LAPs was actually a disguised agenda of local interest groups intent on forcing their own vision on the LAP with little appetite for fully engaging the broader community . 

Overall the LAPs are of varying uneven quality; some are quite good, founded in well-researched goals, while others have resulted in virtual private community fiefdoms that prevent appropriate change and adaptation for the affected neighbourhoods, leading to their eventual stasis and decline.  

This patchwork of LAPs has left the DNV with an uncoordinated set of local ambitions which thwart effective overall planning objectives that would meaningfully deal with the District-wide problems of transit, sustainability and housing diversity that we suffer from now and will become more pronounced over the next ten years.

In the case of Lower Capilano, a number of those involved in the years-long (1996-2006) LAP process fought vigorously against housing policy initiatives within the OCP that they themselves had written into the original LAP.  This calls into question either the understanding behind the original policies, or the commitment to these ideas when the possibility of implementation arises, as now, through the revised OCP.

As many of these LAPs contain irreconcilable inconsistencies, the full acceptance of LAPs into the new OCP would hamstring the DNV in both legal and practical terms. It would enshrine the problems we have at present, not engage them.  It is sufficient that these LAPs will be attached as historical footnotes to the OCP, but they can be nothing more.
sincerely, 
Doug Curran         dougcurran@shaw.ca

Lynn Valley Farmers Market at Library Square

Lynn Valley's Library Square continues to expand its public use with the opening of its regular Thursday "Farmer's Market", running every Thursday until October 25th.  Home baked goods, plants, deli foods, and a wide variety of other offerings allow the community to relax and enjoy some music and a coffee in the midst of shopping and mingling.  Activities such as the Farmers Market help support the overall mixed-use concept behind Library Square, bringing additional customers that support other businesses located there.   http://lvca.ca/2011/05/farmers-market/

Below are a few images from the season's first market on May 18.  The prospect begins to open for a similar Lower Capilano opportunity with a Village Centre as planned under the recent OCP Conceptual Plan.

Unhealthy neighbourhoods play big role in obesity, diabetes epidemic

May 17, Lisa Rochon The Globe and Mail 

The Globe and Mail published a 4 part series on neighbourhoods and personal health (May 16, 17, 18 & 19).  The series portrays the ways in which poorly planned and integrated neighbourhoods promote isolation, obesity and health problems such as diabetes.

Here is an excerpt from Tuesday's article,  "Isolation on the outskirts."


This is the new crisis of cities: Badly designed neighbourhoods are literally sapping people of their ability to live fully.
If, as a newly arrived immigrant, poverty has driven you to the inner or outer suburbs, where you live in a basement apartment or high above the concrete ground in a residential tower, you are far more likely to suffer from type 2 diabetes and its related consequences such as blindness and amputation...

...That’s why some medical researchers and health offices are joining forces with urban planners to design neighbourhoods that are more conducive to activity. Healthy eating combined with increases in physical exercise – walking with the kids to school or biking to the cinema – would help to mitigate the rise in the prevalence of obesity over the last two decades. They say that Canadians need to embrace the Danish model of urban wellness, or suffer a health disaster...

...Given the crisis of deadening urbanity, medical health officers such as Peel Region’s David Mowat are not only dealing with water fluoridation and smoke-free zones, but also the crucial need to design better-connected, more walkable neighbourhoods with access to healthy food at grocery stores and restaurants.

Read more and related articles:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/unhealthy-neighbourhoods-play-big-role-in-obesity-diabetes-epidemic/article2024476/page2/

It's not that I'm passionate, it's more that I'm scared...

A few people have wondered why and how is it, that I have taken on a job that no one asked me to do, to devote so much time and energy over the past year engaged with community issues.  The answer is disarmingly simple, but for those who revel in conspiracies and are suspicious the simple answer will never suffice.  

At different points in my life I have stopped to reassess and reevaluate my life and ambitions.  It has usually turned out to be a fruitful exercise.  Several years ago I began to question how I myself wanted to live in the coming 15 years.  That thinking eventually brought me to the point that i am at today, and the comments below that will be read at the OCP Public hearings.  The surprising thing was, when I actually arrived at this point, I found out I wasn't alone...

Go to the "Gateway Voices" page on this site to read additional letters from some of your neighbours.

May 16, 2011  Comments for OCP Public  Hearings

Comments to Mayor Walton and District of North Vancouver Council

Dear Mayor and Council,

RE: Public Hearings / Bylaw 7900 / 2030 Revised OCP / May 16, 2011

For many years, I like most of my neighbours living in the Lions Gate neighbourhood, stalwartly fought against any development proposal for the former Capwest site.  These proposals, invariably presented to us by sombre men in expensive suits, felt off.  The plans seemed to beckon more to something appropriate to Surrey or Delta.  Exactly what we did want I was never quite sure of myself – it was largely sufficient just to be against something.

As the years have gone by there has been a change in thinking – a change of context and awareness cutting across all levels of stakeholders, planners, municipal officials and administrators, and to a varying degree, residents.  The current OCP process has brought the awareness and opportunities of this thinking right down into our neighbourhood. 

From my personal perspective, this change coincided with changes in how I began to view my immediate life, the manner in which I lived and to what extent I was prepared to do anything about it.   

It has been an extraordinary and at times difficult journey for me.  It has immersed me in a wider understanding of the complexities of building a workable community that works for people across a wide range of ages, and economic backgrounds.

 It has been infinitely rewarding to the degree that many people have joined together to embrace the prospect of a renewed neighbourhood.   It is tantalizing to contemplate an integrated neighbourhood that allows neighbours to celebrate where they live and extend an emotional investment into that place.

These promises of renewal also come with the awareness that we cannot continue to blithely move into the next 30 years in the same manner as we did the past 30 or 50 years.  There is a bill coming – a bill not just for the hard economics of sewer pipe and road repair, but a larger bill for the planet and the social fabric of our urban life.

I for one, do not want to be asked, at some time in the future, what I did to help change some of what we know we need to begin doing and offer nothing but a mumbled shrug.  This OCP plan is a first step to start doing something and even this is the very least we should be asking ourselves to do.

I ask you to take on the role of true leadership and pass the OCP into bylaw.

Thank you.

Douglas Curran                                

"Age-friendly is friendly to all ages" / an inclusive place for Lower Capilano

Recently in conversation with a dedicated resident engaged in community services, the comment was made, "People have no idea what is coming along, the numbers of aged, the need for services and for facilities."

These above remarks lie at the heart of the CGA's goals, but also, as the letter below from Viv Christison of the Lionsview Seniors' Planning Society makes clear, "age friendly is friendly to all ages".
As always, the focus of the CGA is on promoting viable, realistic and socially responsible plans for our community and the greater public good.

Capilano Gateway Association                                                                                       May 2, 2011

C/o 2046 Curling Road

North Vancouver BC V7P 1X4

Dear Doug Curran,

I am writing on behalf of Lionsview Seniors Planning Society, Housing Committee to thank you and your Association members for working so hard toward the creation of an inclusive, accessible and age friendly neighbourhood in Lower Capilano/Marine Village.   Lionsview Seniors Planning Society works to ensure that seniors can continue to live and age well in their own communities and so we wanted to express our appreciation that so many age friendly features have been included in the proposal for the new Village Centre.  

 In particular, we are very pleased to see the inclusion of the following:

·      Services are situated together and are accessible

·      There will be ground oriented shops [and we hope ground oriented medical offices]

·      Pleasant public spaces, green walkways and seating areas are planned

·       Safety through passive surveillance is considered

·      There will be reliable and frequent public transit with transit stops that are conveniently located

·      There is an intention to enable a variety of affordable housing options in areas close to services and the rest of the community

·      The plan includes provision of housing for frail and disabled older people 

·      There will be a centre for affordable community events and recreation activities that can be attended alone or with a companion

·      Employment opportunities are considered

·      Provision of an adult day centre will be explored

In looking over the list of community benefits, only two of the preceding ten are exclusive to seniors.  So, although we speak for seniors, Lionsview believes that a senior friendly neighbourhood is friendly to all ages. 

Lionsview is looking forward to the completion of its seniors’ survey in July 2011.  The survey will provide information on perceptions of the age friendliness of the North Shore.  Perhaps Lionsview and the Capilano Gateway Association could arrange for neighbourhood seniors to review and respond to survey results.   This may be useful feedback to have when you and the District move forward with anticipated community building.

Yours sincerely,

Viv Christison

Viv Christison

Chair, Housing Committee

Lionsview Seniors Planning Society

Copy to Mayor Walton and Council Members

So, a surveyor walks into a bar... / A questionable survey

A central part of my job is to ensure that studies are conducted with rigorous methods.  When, for example designing a survey, it is crucial to ensure that one does not use leading questions or tacitly seek to ensure a specific outcome.  This is a challenging task and one of the reasons it takes education and professional training to carry out credible surveys and not simply obtain a predetermined outcome.

A survey is presently being circulated in our neighborhood, in at least three different versions. Sadly, it meets none of the criteria for a well-designed, open-ended survey.  On the contrary it is very poorly designed.

It seems as if those who designed this survey are not aware that the results will be misleading, by nature of its design. Nor do they seem aware that it is deeply problematic to inject a poorly designed and biased survey into the community dialogue. It is troubling since:

 - no name or organization is attached to the survey, it is unclear who is behind it
 - the questions are leading.
 - the language used to describe the OCP process is colored, and contains factual errors
 - the context is poorly developed
 - the survey does not seek to determine the knowledge level of the interviewees with regards to the
   OCP

The distributed survey reads as a blatant attempt to rally community members against a village centre; for exclusion of Lower Capilano from the OCP; and for a district wide referendum of the OCP.  If those who designed this study wish to convince community members of these three issues, they should explicitly spell this out, rather than tacitly invoking their opinions through a purportedly 'objective' survey.

It would be inexcusable if such a poorly designed, and heavily lop-sided survey was allowed to influence the decision making process on minor issues, let alone matters that are so significant to the community.

Gunilla Öberg
2046 Curling Rd
http://www.ires.ubc.ca/gunilla_oberg/

Revisited / Making ourselves aware

Background to this post
This posting below has been revised following objections from one community leader that my original blog post focused on personality and in doing so diverted dialogue from the key-issues. My original post was written in response to an email distributed community-wide March 29th.

The author of the e-mail has requested that their name be withheld and that their e-mail be posted alongside this posting, such that readers are provided full disclosure and context.


The broadly distributed email of March 29 (purple text below), encouraging residents to attend a Lower Capilano OCP Presentation, contained a number of misleading terms or inaccurate statements, which deflects and averts balanced discussion of the community-developed plans.   As it is essential to clarify and develop context for residents to formulate realistic approaches to the community’s future, the points below touch upon comments or terms from the March 29 e-mail that require examination or clarification:

 “...our single family area”
 This is not functionally accurate. We do not live in a single family neighbourhood.  We live in a mixed form, multi-family neighbourhood that contains high-rise apartments, duplexes, secondary suites and single-family homes.

At least 30% of homes on McLallen Court are functionally "up & down" duplexes.  40% of the homes on Sandown Place are some form of duplex, either Vancouver Specials, or "side-by-side".   Numerous secondary suites exist within the area, with the possible exception of the North Glenaire cul-de-sac, due to the number of slab foundation homes there and 90% of the community presently lives in highrise multi-family buildings.

 “…an additional 1,000 residential units”
With complete redevelopment of the Lower Capilano commercial properties (not just the former Capwest site), the conceptual plan anticipates approximately 40% of new units as replacement for the existing 387 hotel/motel units.   This is for a long range plan that anticipates a 20 year span.  Nor would all replacement units be residential units.  A number of units would consist of single-occupancy seniors rentals and market rental units that would not be sold, but would be used to replenish the dwindling supply of scarce rental accommodation on the North Shore.

“A quick calculation tells us…well over 2000 parking spaces”
No development guidelines anywhere stipulate this level of parking ratios. The “quick calculation” of parking ratios is a little too quick.

Normally the parking ratio near  transit is 1.25 stalls per residential unit, whereas Larco’s 2009 application provided for 1.4 stalls per dwelling unit.  For comparison purposes, the City of Vancouver requirement is 0.9 stalls per unit and West Vancouver is 1.0 stalls per unit. For the community centre, the ratio is 1 stall per 35 sqm. GFA (gross floor area) which equates to 41 stalls and Larco’s application detailed 44 stalls.  Seniors housing, of which Larco planned 45 units, is 0.33 per unit or 15 stalls (seniors tending to not be drivers).

Presently there are over 700 surface parking spaces to service the Lower Capilano commercial properties.  With redevelopment the greatest amount of parking would be underground, not on the surface.  As was pointed out in Tom Lancaster’s March 23rd presentation, this opens up vast amounts of NEW available surface area for parks and public space for the use and benefit of the community.

From these facts it is difficult to imagine how it is possible to reach a figure of 2,000 parking spaces being required, much less to imagine that these would be situated as surface parking stalls.  This is not a reality.

“…score…big tax dollars for their coffers”
As DNV Council tries to prudently struggle with rising resident needs, they attempt to balance demands with the ability/willingness of residents to pay commensurately higher tax property rates.

Financial forecasts from DNV Finance indicate that the single-family homes do not pay their full and actual cost of services.  This burden is largely and disproportionately borne by business – which drives many businesses to look for other jurisdictions that offer lower tax rates.  This drives away much needed jobs for the North Shore.

How would one begin to rebalance the tax base in the future, seeing as the growing segment of the DNV population will consist mainly of seniors, many of them on limited or fixed incomes?  How would one develop a vibrant, demographically-diverse and working age population that supports and services businesses and the local economy?

Why are the tax rates for the City of North Vancouver so much lower than for the DNV?   In large part because it has a more compact footprint, with higher density, fewer kilometers/person of sewer, roads and water to maintain, not to mention the creeks, woodlands and parks.  Why will NV City never want to merge with DNV? Simple. They don’t want the costs and headaches of this widely-dispersed, low population municipality!

If anyone feel that they pay too much in tax now, have a look at the prospects of an aging population of suburban single-family dwellers who can no longer drive or have sufficient density to create viable transit service.  The DNV Finance Dept. will be glad to supply some scenarios based on indepth data on exactly these conditions.

“...those who are hoping for huge benefits ($$) are making themselves heard…”
Being one of those who often speak to these issues,  I assume I am included somewhere in the estimation of those engaged in an imagined “dollars for density” scheme.  For the majority of residents this comment is as insulting as it is erroneous.

What suggestions are there for those who want to create a fully functioning community that allows for local services, or life without the possibility of an automobile?  Or for those whose slab foundation is cracked and are limited to redevelopment of a home that must conform to building form created 60 years ago?

The claim of prospects for “huge benefits” seems to come from people who have very little experience with the economics of small building development.  At the Sept. 1, 2010 meeting of the Lions Gate Neighbourhood Association, an opponent from one end of the room heckled me as I spoke, charging that I was only trying to get "filthy rich", while from the opposite end, someone loudly objectioned that our plans for modest low density development options made no financial sense at all.

Those opposing any change in the neighbourhood are yet to articulate their vision for the future of this community.  The circulated e-mail (below) is yet another illustration of a document that lacks a realistic vision of how to navigate into the future of a changing world. The message seems to be “We don't know what we want, but we know we don't want what we don’t know."

Just saying “No!” to everything will not help us transform our neighbourhood towards a more livable and sustainable community for present and future generations.
Doug Curran

 Original email received March 29:
REMINDER - Important Meeting this Wednesday

Attached is the District notice for the meeting last week, and the one coming up this Wednesday evening, March 30th, at the Grouse Inn.
People should make themselves aware of what's being proposed by the District for our neighbourhood!   At this point, we're looking at an additional 1000 residential units,
100,000 square feet of new retail and commercial space, etc. etc.  A quick calculation tells us that all this new development will require well over 2000 parking spaces - that should tell you how massive this
plan really is.  This is what the District Planning Department has the audacity to call their "village" concept!
In addition to this - there is a push by some residents to upzone their properties - we could have several triplex and townhouse complexes within what is now our single family area. 
For those of us who value this quiet enclave in this corner of North Vancouver - massive changes could be on our doorstep - and soon.  Larco is ready to go with their plans - the District Planning department
is ready to take what little they can get, in exchange for a way to score big tax dollars for their coffers.  The District sees our neighbourhood as one that can give them the money to keep doing what they have done
for years in the District - spend, spend, spend, for the benefit of residents, but not usually those living in Lower Capilano!  When you look at all the facilities, parks, and other infrastructure other areas have, it's easy to wonder why the District is looking hard at our area as a cash cow, and expecting us to take all this density, with all the headaches that come along with it.
The District will do what they have always done - spend the newfound tax revenue everywhere else but in our area!
There were many new boards and displays at last Wednesday's meeting.  After reminding them on Monday that I had been told everything would be up on the District website, some of the material has now been posted.  Take a look, read through some of it, and come with your questions and concerns on Wednesday night.  You can be sure those who are hoping for huge benefits ($$) for themselves are making themselves heard at these meetings.   The District Planners have focused on these residents' support of major redevelopment, to advance their notion of what our neighbourhood should become.  Those of us who hope to stay have a lot to consider.  This is your time to get your point of view known to the District!

Go to the DNV website for the latest available information.  http://dnv.org/article.asp?a=484

As always - give me a call if you wish.

 

Delivering the OCP / Comments for April 18 DNV Council meeting

Earlier today a resident sent me an email asking, “Doug, what is the answer on density, is less better, is more better?”

The question is not as simple as  less is better …. more is better?   What needs does the community have?  What are effective strategies for countering these needs/deficiencies?  What is realistic in terms of financial viability, or of the growing number of seniors, combined with the lack of people of working and family-raising age?

There is some density required in order to make a number of things actually work.  If we can't build more or bigger roads (not an option), then we have to develop better rapid transit services (these are part of the plans).  In order to make transit work we need to alter some of the road paths and width (this requires the cooperation of adjacent businesses).  

Any plan has to be financially viable for a developer to begin and requires that they build to certain density in order to obtain the additional amenities that residents need and want.  If we don 't want to raise taxes then developer offsets are the only means to extract these components for the community.

The existing motels are all aged, losing customers and operating below their level of profitability (break even point is 65-70% occupancy and currently they are operating at 60%).  What will we do with these motel sites if they close and sit derelict?  How will this affect our area?  

One of the central issues with regard to the residential area is this simple fact: None of the four homes that have come up for sale on Belle Isle over the past four years have not been bought by people wanting to live here themselves.  All the people with sufficient money to buy a home for themselves chose to buy elsewhere.  Give this some thought and you will quickly see that the question is more complex than more density or less.

DNV Council, along with a large number of community residents have set themselves to the hard work and realities of creating a viable future for the District of North Vancouver.  All environmental, economic and demographic projections require that DNV Council grapple meaningfully with major issues of infrastructure, sustainability and services for its population in the coming years.   They, and we, have an obligation to do this.  It is not merely a matter of choice.

Failing to do so would be like continuing to charge purchases on your credit cards with absolutely no idea on how to pay them off.  There will come a day of reckoning.

How long into the future would some prefer that DNV Council and planners keep the world and its complexities at bay?