Every now and then, political parties reveal their inner workings. The display is often unnecessary, sometimes embarrassing and always unseemly–particularly during an election campaign.
Van. Courier
Every now and then, political parties reveal their inner workings. The display is often unnecessary, sometimes embarrassing and always unseemly–particularly during an election campaign.
The latest intrigue at city hall involves an empty lot at 58 West Hastings, across the street from Save-On-Meat in the heart of the Downtown Eastside.
Concord Pacific, a real estate development company, wants to build a 160-unit market housing complex on the site. The development would represent much-needed change for a neighbourhood rife with social housing, and help inject dispensable income into an area largely dependent on government handouts.
The city expects to issue a development permit to Concord sometime in the next few weeks, and construction could begin shortly thereafter–perhaps before the Nov. 15 civic election.
The development permit board does not require council approval to give Concord the green light, but the NPA majority–which includes mayoral candidate Peter Ladner–has endorsed the development to demonstrate their free-market bona fides.
“It’s an area where some market activity would be very healthy for the neighbourhood,” said NPA Coun. Suzanne Anton.
Conversely, COPE Coun. David Cadman decried the NPA’s “rush to judgment” and claimed the city has not properly consulted with the Downtown Eastside community about the new development. Cadman wants the development permit board–and the NPA–to chill until they hear more from concerned residents and social hosing advocates.
He may have a point, although any community consultation–involving new condos in a neighbourhood full of poor people–will garner predictable results.
Considering the NPA endorsement, and in light of Cadman’s protests, what does Vision Vancouver–our city’s official opposition–think of the proposed development at 58 West Hastings?
When contacted last Wednesday, Vision Coun. Tim Stevenson said he wasn’t sure–he’d have an opinion after his party’s caucus meeting the following day. Vision Coun. Raymond Louie–a top adviser to Vision mayoral candidate Gregor Robertson–also declined to comment, and Vision Coun. Heather Deal failed to return repeated phone messages.
Remember, this development represents one of the most audacious private housing investments in the Downtown Eastside in recent memory. According to online chatter, social housing activists plan to protest the site.
The only Vision councillor willing to comment was Coun. George Chow, who reiterated his party’s empathy for Downtown Eastsiders before stating that “whether certain developments should have no social housing at all, I’m open for discussion on that kind of stuff.”
Right.
So Vision Vancouver’s position on the proposed development at 58 West Hastings is that they don’t have a position on the proposed development at 58 West Hastings.
But wait. Apparently Vision council nomination candidate David Eby–the fresh-faced onetime Pivot Legal Society spokesperson and uber advocate of social housing–didn’t get the memo.
In a phone interview, Eby quickly denounced the proposed development and the NPA for supporting a strictly market housing complex in the Downtown Eastside. “I think it’s crazy,” he said, before echoing Cadman’s concerns about a lack of neighbourhood consultation.
When informed about his party’s vacillation, Eby made a few phone calls–to Vision media relations man Kevin Quinlan and Coun. Heather Deal (she must screen her calls).
Eby’s findings were revealing.
According to Eby, despite Coun. Stevenson’s earlier claim, there was no caucus meeting on the subject and the party has no official position.
Nevertheless, he’ll officially oppose the development–if he wins a council nod at the Vision nomination meeting this weekend. His nomination, he said, would represent a “significant signal from the membership about where their interests lie.”
Indeed.
For the record, Eby’s wrong about 58 West Hastings. The Downtown Eastside needs more market housing and the proposed Concord development falls within the Downtown Eastside Housing Plan, which calls for a mix of market and social housing in the neighbourhood. However, Eby’s principled stance seems out of step with the shameless side-stepping of Vision Vancouver’s party appariti.
If the official opposition is unsure about market housing in the Downtown Eastside, what else confounds them?
Eby might be better off back at Pivot.
© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
