Glen Clark: Local governments too often see capital as "free"

Interesting comment from Glen Clark in an online discussion forum (in response to a question of mine):

Glen Clark: 
I think that, for government, capital is often seen as 'free' and that all the scrutiny is on operating costs. The focus is on reducing labour. What is missing on the capital spending side is the 'payback' analysis. This is something business does every day. Clearly, if someone looked at the BC Place roof with a few to getting the best return, it wouldn't make the grade.
Posted
 

LA's rail transit expansion has some similarities to Metro Vancouver

I read this article about a large rapid transit expansion in Los Angeles in the New York Times over the weekend, and smiled at this quote by a transit planner:

“They have been pushing rail expansion for decades now,” Mr. Rubin said, “and it has not had much of an impact in terms of increasing transit ridership. The big problem is that these are very, very expensive, and we wind up spending so much money on building these rail lines that there is not enough to operate bus service. So we wind up cutting back on bus operations and then raising fares, which drives the riders away.”
Posted
 

New progressivism as seen by Nick Clegg. Perhaps some lessons for BC?

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in the UK, gave a rousing, broad-ranging summary of how he sees "new progressivism".  Focused on outputs -- the level of social mobility, the quality of schools, the freedom given to individual citizens to make choices -- and not on inputs such as the absolute size of government, his short speech gives a good overview of a political centre that I think Canadians, and particularly British Columbians, are inherently looking for.  It's about a 30 minute speech but is worth a listen.

Posted
 

NV City quickly moving to exchange energy efficiency for additional density in single-family neighbourhoods

I just sent this note to Mayor Mussatto and members of Council.  This is an innovative idea but it should not be implemented without broad input and discussion.

Update:  links to the proposed bylaw and staff's report on it.

Dear Mayor Mussatto and members of Council:

I am writing to ask that the Public Hearing on Bylaw 8122, Additional Density Provisions for Residential Development for Four Storeys and Under" be postponed to allow for further public input and review, particularly by the City's Advisory Planning Commission (APC).

City staff have, for the last year, been careful to keep APC apprised of work being done by the Energy Efficient Buildings Working Group in terms of proposals for institutional, commercial, and industrial buildings and all residential buildings over four storeys. 

We discussed them in the APC meetings of September 9, 2009, October 14, 2009, and in meetings on January 13, April 14, May 12, June 9, July 14, August 11, and September 8, 2010.  Each staff update described, in increasing detail, only the proposals for institutional, industrial, commercial, and larger residential buildings; we provided comments and suggestions at each step.  At many of those meetings, some planning commission members asked whether similar proposals were on the way for smaller buildings; we were told that yes and that they would be presented to APC.

I was therefore surprised to see, that after a year discussing the provisions for larger buildings, that those for single-family homes were presented directly to Council and sent immediately to a Public Hearing without the input of the APC or, from what I understand, other City committees such as the Advisory Design Panel.  The contents of the proposed bylaw are not even available on the City's Public Hearings web page (http://www.cnv.org//server.aspx?c=1&i=40).

While, as an APC member, I voted in favour of the provisions for larger buildings, that approval in my mind does not automatically extend to all other buildings, particularly for every single-family home in the City.  Given the effect of this bylaw could perhaps be (I don't know, I have not yet read the bylaw) an increase in the cost of development or maintenance of single-family homes, and/or increasing density in single-family neighbourhoods, I think the City would benefit from the usual process that involves more public input and the City's advisory committees.

Yours sincerely,

John Jensen

Posted