Getting some straight facts during B.C. elections

I’ve received a fair bit of email lately from New Westminster and Vancouver homeowners concerned about what aggressive heritage policies in those cities are doing to property values.

In September 2015, Vancouver city council designated all 315 homes in the First Shaughnessy neighbourhood built before 1940 as heritage properties, protecting them from being demolished. Some residents — upset by Vision’s assault on their property rights and concerned about declining property values — sued the city, but their claims were rejected by the B.C. Supreme Court.

Now, New Westminster council is considering establishing a similar heritage designation for the Queen’s Park neighbourhood and some residents there, concerned about Shaughnessy’s experience, are putting up a fight.

This was what this column was going to be about until I stumbled upon something even more interesting.

One of the claims made by anti-heritage-zone homeowners in both cities is that B.C. Assessment, which assesses values for all B.C. properties calculating property taxes, reduced the assessed value of the pre-1940 homes in Shaughnessy as a result of the heritage designation.

“The lack of any clear rules and always in fear of the ‘heritage zealots’ trumping logic has caused a crash in the values of all of the properties in First Shaughnessy, including the post-1940 houses,” wrote Robert Angus, a semi-retired engineer who lives in one of the affected properties.

“B.C. Assessment has recognized this even though the politicians may not have yet been informed, by reducing the assessed value of all pre-1940 houses by 12 per cent. ... (S)ales of houses in First Shaughnessy are down by 80 per cent over the last six months.”

I wanted to confirm, so I called B.C. Assessment, where I stumbled upon the more interesting issue.

I was told by a B.C. Assessment spokeswoman that she couldn’t answer my question because the entire civil service had effectively been muzzled as a result of the provincial election. What?

Working my way up the bureaucratic food chain, I was directed to Matt Gordon, the assistant deputy minister for corporate priorities and communications operations, who explained the civil service tight-lips policy that he oversees.

Gordon said that the policy is designed to ensure that civil servants remain impartial during election campaigns by not saying anything publicly that could be perceived as critical of the policies being advanced by the various parties during the writ period. During campaigns, he said, government spokespersons will only direct journalists and other citizens to previously published information.

While I can understand why officials should not offer opinions on, say, the financial wisdom of the Liberals’ Site C dam, the NDP’s plan to eliminate Lower Mainland bridge tolls, or the Green party’s promise to ratchet up the carbon tax, I think they go too far in refusing to release basic facts. How land values in Shaughnessy, for example, could affect the outcome of the provincial election isn’t clear.

One would think that basic facts about government are most important during an election period, when issues are being debated.

Gordon said communications staff work hard in advance of the writ being dropped to publish “fact sheets” on government policies. As well, they will also comment during the writ period on urgent matters such as the softwood lumber dispute or public health emergencies.

He said spokespersons can be “over-cautious” at times in holding back non-controversial facts in their efforts to maintain civil service impartiality, saying that he would ask someone to get back to me about whether property values did fall in the First Shaughnessy heritage zone.

Just before deadline on Thursday, I got a call from Jason Grant, the acting vice-president of assessments for B.C. Assessment. He confirmed that B.C. Assessment did apply a 12-per-cent downward adjustment on land values on 315 properties in First Shaughnessy this year over last because of the heritage designation. That doesn’t mean values fell by 12 per cent — a quick review shows they went up — only that the increases were lower than they would have been without the designation. “It could be different for next year,” Grant said.

Don’t you just love a straight answer? It’s something for New Westminster residents and politicians to consider as they ponder whether to create a heritage zone for Queen’s Park.