North Shore community associations host town hall with Mayor Little, MLA Chant and MP Beech

Last Wednesday, October 15, community members attended a town hall meeting with representatives of three levels of government, including District of North Vancouver Mayor Mike Little, MLA for North Vancouver-Seymour Susie Chant and MP for Burnaby North- Seymour Terry Beech.

The agenda listed four of the most important topics in the region: the North Shore wastewater treatment plant, housing density mandates, traffic and transportation, and government debt and deficits.  The meeting began at 7 p.m. at the Mount Seymour United Church and was hosted by the Blueridge Community Association, the Deep Cove Community Association and the Seymour Community Association.

Lorraine Harvey, chair of the Seymour Community Association, opened the meeting saying “we’ve organized this meeting because we were getting a lot of feedback from our residents. They had concerns about a lot of important issues and we thought why don’t we just create a forum where we can talk.”

North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant

Seymour Community Association board member Peter Teevan opened the discussion about the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant. He provided background on the issue, saying “the project is years behind schedule and $3.2 billion, which is about 500 per cent, over a budget that is still growing.”

According to Metro Vancouver’s website, the estimated cost for the plant was $700 million in 2013. The updated cost is currently $3.86 billion. The plant will serve over 300,000 residents and businesses on the North Shore, and will replace the existing Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant. The new plant will provide a higher level of treatment essential to meet mandatory federal requirements.

Despite the decision being made by all of Metro Vancouver, the North Shore is carrying a heavy financial load for the ballooning budget: the allocation framework results in an average increase of $590 per year for the North Shore Sewerage Area, while the Vancouver Sewerage area sees an increase of $150 per year, and another as low as $80 per year. The North Shore will be paying for 30 years, while the three other areas involved will be paying for 15 years.

“The failing model of governance in Metro has chosen to charge the North Shore ratepayers for their own mismanagement,” Teevan said. “A decision that will harm North Shore families in a punitive way for three decades to come.”

“We are asking you, number one, please properly fund and enable a right-sized wastewater treatment plant for our current population. Please fund new resident infrastructure growth from either development charges or from general taxation, not our rates. Two, immediately launch an open public inquiry whose authority exceeds any non-disclosure agreements that may be negotiated by the parties in court. And three, rebuild or amend the Metro Vancouver governance model in such a way that the representatives we send to represent us are bound only to be accountable to us, their constituents, and not to Metro itself.”

Mike Little responded by calling it a massive debacle. “This is going to be  a millstone around our communities for decades to come. Our council couldn’t be more frustrated with the situation. Our challenge is we only hold about eight percent of the power at the Metro Vancouver table and so convincing the rest of the table to take on a higher percentage of this is challenging.”

“Metro Vancouver was responsible for the major decisions. It wasn’t the District of North Vancouver. It wasn’t the sub area.They picked the contractor. They picked the location. They picked the building. They are the ones who fired the contractor and so we believe that Metro Vancouver as a whole should actually be taking a higher percentage if not sharing the cost overruns,” Little said.

“Wow, is there ever a lot of variables here,” said Chant. “It’s really very difficult to be in a region and see decision making that you don’t seem to have a whole lot of impact on, as Mike was just pointing out. We need the wastewater treatment plant. That, I think we can all agree on. The one under Lions Gate Bridge has passed its shelf life by quite some time…However, the position we find ourselves in now is very uncomfortable and really tough on the people in our community.”

Referring to the ongoing court case between Metro Vancouver and former contractor Acciona Wastewater Solutions disputing who is at fault for the delays and costs, Chant said “we need to know the answers to the questions. If those answers don’t come out through the court case or through an independent assessment, we will get an assessment done. The province is committing to that absolutely. I speak about this probably every week in caucus, I bring it forward, I say look, we need help, we need help with this.  This should not fall on one community, or on one of the three communities on the North Shore, and there is people hearing. It is being heard.¨

Beech said when it comes to better cost distribution, the fight has to happen at either the municipal or provincial level. In regards to a federal bailout, he said the treasury rules are clear and there is a significant amount of moral hazard if the federal government were to backstop projects all across the country.

“In the same way that Ontario doesn’t necessarily want to bail out the North Shore on wastewater we don’t necessarily want to be on the hook for other major products. Now I did do some research to see whether that was 100 per cent true in preparation for tonight. There is one exception. It was Muskrat Falls. That exception though was based on the province actually going bankrupt if the federal government wasn’t intervening. We’re not necessarily at that stage here.”

Little responded there is a precedent in Canada that could be comparable. “Quebec has an equivalency agreement which means that the wastewater treatment plans in Quebec does not have to come up to the same standard as ours do in the west and in the rest of Canada. And so I’d love to see our provincial government ask for an equivalency agreement…and I’d love to have our federal government agree to it.”

Housing Density Mandates

Chair of the Deep Cove Community Association Catherine Fagerland introduced the discussion about housing mandates. “Responses from all levels of government over the last decade tend to focus on a build, build, build solution, but is that working?”

New provincial housing legislation has changed how the District of North Vancouver develops within its community, taking away some important decision-making abilities from the district.

Bill 44 Housing Statues (Residential Development) Amendment Act, Bill 46 Housing Statutes (Developing Financing) Amendment Act and Bill 47 Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act change requirements around development. They allow for increased density, introduce amenities charge requirements and change the rules for areas close to transit hubs. These new rules allow for higher buildings, more density, and remove requirements around off-street parking.

“Residents have lots of concerns with these housing initiatives,” Fagerland said. “Considering our market economy, government initiatives don’t seem to be providing greater affordability for North Vancouver residents. Zoning that allows increased density increases land value, which inevitably increases the cost per housing unit. Further, new construction is always more expensive. Mike said that once during a campaign speech. So where these initiatives lead to demolition of existing housing, we’re losing more affordable options.”

Little said affordability is a very big challenge and there is no affordability in new developments. He said older buildings have a target on their back because their redevelopment value far exceeds their current value and commended the federal government that has been supporting loans to co-ops to help rebuild.

“We want to see more of it. We want to make sure that the aging facilities in our community are supported instead of knocked down. But I will say that the only way that affordability is being provided is by undesirability. They’re making the units smaller. They’re putting them in a denser package. They’re giving less amenities and support with them. And so that’s how we’re achieving affordability. And I don’t know that that’s a great community building way forward.”

Little expressed concern about proposed provincial Bill 25. “If that gets passed, it means that the most car-centric, remote streets in the community can suddenly have four dwelling units per lot…it also restricts our ability to require the provision of off-street parking…I can’t get behind it, I don’t support it, and I hope that when it comes forward in the legislature that Suzie will vote against Bill 25 so that we can get back to some proper town centre planning,” he said.

“I won’t say that. I’ll say something else,” Chant replied. “One of the parts that you brought up were around infrastructure.” She said the North Shore has seen improvements, such as a new hospital tower, a primary care clinic, a foundry, an increase in family doctors and nurses, and improvements to schools. “So the work is being done around health, around schools,” she said. “It’s very, very tough for a province writ large to work with and manage to make sure that everyone’s got somewhere safe and secure to live and has the health system that they need, has the school system they need. But we are working towards that, always.”

Beech responded to the idea that government measures don’t seem to be making housing more affordable. “Housing is one of those things where you have to measure in decades, because any policy you put in place, that’s how you see it kind of develop,” he said. He added the government has a multi-pronged strategy which includes repairing existing stock, identifying ability for new stock and incentivizing private capital.