Constructive Thoughts
In Coquitlam, residents claimed a proposed affordable housing development for seniors would increase crime, drug dealing, noise and rats
Peter Simpson takes on the NIMBY forces — and specifically, those who opposed an affordable housing project for seniors in Coquitlam.
LI respect the legitimate concerns of individual citizens and encourage constructive dialogue, but I have little patience for shrill NIMBYs.
ast year, the Bulgarian Home Society of B. C. applied to the City of Coquitlam to convert a two- storey duplex into seven units of housing for low- or moderateincome seniors.
City staff studied the application and gave their blessing, citing a number of reasons, including the proposed project will provide affordable housing for seniors, and will comply with many of the housing policies established in the city’s Official Community Plan.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. and B. C. Housing support the project. SHARE Family and Community Services, a Tri- Cities organization that works tirelessly to place folks in affordable housing, sent a letter of support — “Our experience is that senior renters are respectful of property, pay their bills in a timely manner, and are quiet. They are a pleasant addition to any neighbourhood.”
Given that the size of the building footprint would remain the same, you would think the public- consultation process would be a slam dunk, right? Nope. Enter the NIMBYs, the not- in- my- backyard opposition to this muchneeded housing form.
It appears some residents on and around Marmont Street were fearful that these seniors, all of whom are past the age of 65, might somehow wreak havoc on the neighbourhood.
Residents expressed displeasure in person and by writing letters and signing a petition. They said the seniors’ project “would adversely affect the livability of our neighbourhood,” by increasing crime, illicit drug sales, traffic, noise and rats, while decreasing property values. Can’t you just picture a cadre of menacing leather- clad seniors selling weed from the saddlebags of their tricked- out scooters?
To be fair, some residents had legitimate, supportable concerns, which council and city staff noted and addressed. For example, B. C. Housing will provide oversight services for the redevelopment, including an agreement for funding and operation. Coquitlam will require registration of a housing agreement to ensure the site remains in perpetuity as housing for seniors over the age of 65. The city will also ensure site improvements will be undertaken, increasing the esthetic appeal and quality.
Recently, I discussed this issue with Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart, whom I have known for 20 years. A family man, he was shocked and dismayed by the comments from residents. I admire how Stewart, his council and senior staff handled this somewhat thorny issue.
“I was proud of council. The pressure that councillors face is to find middle ground and to listen to the public, even when the public is wrong and saying things which are completely inappropriate,” said Stewart. “In this case, everyone on council took a united stand. Some residents had legitimate arguments, but ( to) those who said we should not allow renters, council told them they were wrong.”
Stewart said council intends to densify that part of Coquitlam. “We need to include affordable housing in that neighbourhood, and we have developed policy that allows higher densities, including carriage homes. Improving the densities from four units per acre to up to 12 units per acre will help to repopulate the schools, provide more affordable housing choices and support public transit,” he said.
The residents’ petition included this statement: “We are concerned about the type of residents that the affordable housing will bring to the neighbourhood.
The households currently in this area are mostly families with kids. Therefore, we are very uncomfortable with having affordable rental apartments in our neighbourhood.” Wow, do they not realize they’re denigrating someone’s grandparents?
And how would the people who signed that petition have felt if someone had treated them as undesirables when they were considering a move to that community? Frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves.
When the seniors move into their affordable and comfortable apartments, instead of neighbours treating them as intruders, they should invite them over for dinner. It might just prove to be an enriching and heartwarming experience for everyone in the community.
While I had Stewart’s attention, we discussed the broader impact of NIMBYISM and resistance to densification, and how residents rally to try to convince city councils to stop development in their neighbourhoods. We have explored this issue together in the past, and I value his opinion.
I respect the legitimate concerns of individual citizens and encourage constructive dialogue, but I have little patience for shrill NIMBYs. We are darned lucky there are folks who are willing to develop new communities, and municipalities should be encouraged to continue to embrace responsible and sustainable growth. We owe that to first- time buyers, growing families and empty nesters looking to downsize.
Development is a response to population growth, it doesn’t create it. Many thousands of people will move to Metro Vancouver over the next few years, and they will need a variety of housing options. We can’t be building moats and pulling up the drawbridges.
Each housing start creates 2.8 person- years of employment, or to put it another way, 2.8 full- time jobs for one year. Sadly, the state of Washington’s homebuilding industry lost 70,000 jobs during the recession. American municipalities filed for bankruptcy, due in part to the lack of development and the assortment of charges, fees, taxes and levies that new development generated. Two- thirds of planning and permitting staff have been laid off in many cities and counties.
Those U. S. statistics are in stark contrast to the relatively buoyant homebuilding industry in Metro Vancouver, despite the never- ending, supersized helpings of sky- is- falling gloom from Toronto economists. The homebuilding industry in Metro Vancouver generated 53,200 jobs in 2012. Just three years ago, that employment number was only 23,350. We need to find ways to keep this key economic engine purring on all cylinders.
That said, I will leave the last words to Mayor Stewart.
“Metro Vancouver is in a unique position. We can draw a hard line around development, as we have, or we can continue to allow urban sprawl. But if we don’t want urban sprawl, then our neighbourhoods will have to evolve,” said Stewart.
“People must understand that planning principles involve greater densities in our futures. We must respond to housing demand, and anyone who thinks we can ignore housing demand is wrong,” he said.