4 ms·

" were able to simply ignore the irrelevant NIMBYs and incumbent neighbouring homeowners." 1) This is about money. 2) Vancouver has had massive building in th

" were able to simply ignore the irrelevant NIMBYs and incumbent neighbouring homeowners." 1) This is about money. 2) Vancouver has had massive building in the last 25 years, it's transformed the city. Every community has the right to control what it's going to be. If Van residents don't want to continue to jam everyone into skyscrapers, that is their right. 3) That said, this land belongs to a different group, they have special privileges, they can do as they please.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Every community has the right to control what it's going to be. If Van residents don't want to continue to jam everyone into skyscrapers, that is their right. How far does the "right to control" extend? What if Van residents don't want Jews or Black people in their community? What if they don't want poor people? What if they just don't want any more people at all? Do they have the right to do any or all of these things?
- jollybean 5y ago
  "But what if the Grocery Store wants to ban Blacks! We can't have them decide what to carry, where to build, what prices to set!" It's not unreasonable to think about the limits of what kinds of control communities can have, but as you've posed it, it's completely rhetorical. Nobody is 'banning Blacks' from anywhere. The level of hysteria on these kinds of things is creaking into every discussion even when it's mostly inappropriate. Vancouver has a busy city with X homes, Y flats, a certain infrastructure and that's that. If they want to decide to not want skyscrapers everywhere, they can do that, and it has nothing to do with 'banning a group'. 'Tolerant and Progressive' Vancouver has made very material choices that have made living their excessively difficult for people living on the margins, and highly favourable to very wealthy non-citizens who want a place to keep their money safe. Which is their choice, but it's an odd one, more importantly, I don't think communities generally make choices to 'stop poor people', that's not part of the cards, rather policies indirectly do that. If there is a systematic issue at play here, it may be the 'growth mindset' of new world city managers and businesses, all of whom want 'more sales, more revenue, more tax revenue, more leverage, more power' etc. 'to build that thing and provide that service', never really contemplating something resembling actual sustainability.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > If they want to decide to not want [ ... ] As I said in another comment, one of the problems with this approach is the the actual process of decision making for such issues is deeply flawed. The question of who "they" is and precisely how "they decide" is far from simple; the answer is certainly not "the citizens of Vancouver". Retrospectively, I do think that my comparison with bans on various protected groups was a bit silly. Even so, these decisions are not some simple mapping from "the will of the people", and that means that it's not as simple as "they get to decide".
epistasis 5y ago
"Local control" is the same thing as "states' rights" in the US. States' right to do what, exactly? Local control to do what, exactly? In this case, local control is exerted to segregate geographic areas by wealth and income, and to enrich the current land owners, to the communal loss of all of society. Vancouver landowners didn't create the massive value of their land through their labor, they were just speculators. They profit by the economic loss of everybody else, they are rentiers, parasites on the system. If you want to hold on to a piece of land, and keep everybody else out of it, you had better start paying everybody else for that privilege. Land is fundamentally different from capital, different from wealth created by man. Its value comes from either nature, or in the case of Vancouver, by what everybody else has built up around it. Institute a full land value tax, to return to society the wealth that landowners are stealing from society, and you can hold on to your piece of property. But you should never, ever, be able to enter into a contract with other landowners to agree to kee everyone out. That's exactly what restrictive zoning is, and it should be smashed like any other cartel that is robbing the rest of society for the benefit of the few.
- jollybean 5y ago
  This isn't really right. 1) 'Local Control' is not some kind of vast conspiracy to suppress people. There's an almost infinite amount of living space. Not all of it is Prime Vancouver Property. People living in a community can decide if they want it to be New York or Vienna, it's their choice, not yours. 2) "Vancouver landowners didn't create the massive value of their land through their labor" Yes, they did! People of Vancouver, largely made Vancouver attractive to others. That's absolutely the case. They were not speculators they were residents. 3) "If you want to hold on to a piece of land, and keep everybody else out of it, you had better start paying everybody else for that privilege" False! Land ownership is a right, moreover, all of them pay the necessary municipal taxes to support their community. You, as a part of 'everyone else' have absolutely nothing to do with that equation, they owe you nothing. As long as they are not externalizing something negative (i.e. pollution), what they do is not much of your business. 4) "Institute a full land value tax, to return to society the wealth that landowners are stealing from society" - now you're onto a complete separate issue. 5) If there's something missing in your diatribe, it's that vast amounts of land was sold to people who were not even citizens, from money arranged by ill gotten means: we 'outsource' externalizations such as pollution, lack of human rights to other nations, and the totally corrupt leaders of those nations leverage that fact, and bring the money back in one of the only things we can materially sell them, which is land. If you're concerned about housing prices, ban foreign ownership of property, and ban handing out citizenship for people who are not even residents. It only takes a small % of 'price insensitive demand', which provides the only 'confident signal' in a market, in order to really skew a market in one direction. In this case, up. The difference between Montreal and Toronto/Vancouver is that Montreal has a fraction of the foreign investment in housing ownership, and surprise, reasonably affordable housing. The 'language barrier', among other things, insulates them from some of the ravages of globalism. If Montreal wanted to change that, they can, it's their choice.
lwansbrough 5y ago
1.) Good. 2.) Neighborhoods in Vancouver were decided long ago and they mostly developed around racist an exclusionary ideology, these “communities” exist simply to separate the haves from the have-nots. Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth, the city has grown where it can and now the same people who complained are gleefully cashing out on the growth the tried so desperately to disrupt. By the way, home owners are a minority in Vancouver so I suspect most Vancouver residents just want somewhere affordable to live! And since NIMBYs own all the land, the only economically viable developments are high rises! 3.) The land was taken from them and only returned in part after decades of lawsuits. Despite that, the “community” still thinks they deserve to be able to decide what can and can’t be built.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "Neighborhoods in Vancouver were decided long ago and they mostly developed around racist an exclusionary ideology, " Completely false. It's worse than false. " Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth," More complete rubbish. It's hard to read past any of that complete misinformation, but here's some help: Any historical issues regarding segregation 1) have little to do with growth and 2) there's nothing even residual regarding housing today. The population of Vancouver at the turn of the last century was only 26 000 people. It has nothing to do with what Vancouver in 2021. Vancouver's growth has been very consistent since it's inception, which disputes your made up claims about 'conservatives wanting to stop growth'. Vancouver is a city with almost a 50% foreign born population. Demand to live there among 7 Billion on earthy who might want to live there is almost infinite. If Vancouver wants to turn into Pacific New York, that's fine. If they want to keep it mostly homes, that's also fine, it's entirely up to them, not ideologues on the internet.
  - lwansbrough 5y ago
    I was born in Vancouver, I live downtown. You seem to be ill-informed of Vancouver's past, or are deliberately trying to white-wash its history. Take a look at Harland Bartholomew's contribution to Vancouver's city planning[0] or hear from many local historians and experts on the development of Vancouver's zoning and districts[1]. I'm sure it's impossible that Chinatown's relatively poor condition, or the complete razing of Hogan's Alley has no roots in racism, and certainly I'm imagining that residual impact. Suburbs were designed to isolate their residents from the poor (and predominantly visible-minority) people who lived in the denser urban areas. Single-family zoning was created to make illegal the development of more dense/affordable living options such as row houses or apartment buildings. That is limiting growth, clear and simple. It is limiting growth (by your own admission!) to "keep it mostly homes" as opposed to turning the city into "Pacific New York." I said nothing about Vancouver's growth having been "stopped." What I said was, there were - and continues to be - efforts to eliminate growth. The city grows despite the NIMBYs (albeit less quickly and less efficiently), but it is absolutely their objective to inhibit growth for their own benefit. Growth is often exponential, too, so if the city has been growing somewhat linearly that's a good indication that its growth is being inhibited. If people want to live here, good. Let them in, let them build. Not sure why you believe it's your right to live here and keep others out. Perhaps you're someone who has benefited greatly from Vancouver's growth, despite yourself. [0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/article-taking-a-closer-look-at-the-legacy-of-harland-bartholomew-and-his-plan/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/articl... [1] https://www.straight.com/news/734491/history-shows-racism-has-always-been-part-vancouver-real-estate https://www.straight.com/news/734491/history-shows-racism-ha...

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> Every community has the right to control what it's going to be. If Van residents don't want to continue to jam everyone into skyscrapers, that is their right. How far does the "right to control" extend? What if Van residents don't want Jews or Black people in their community? What if they don't want poor people? What if they just don't want any more people at all? Do they have the right to do any or all of these things?

jollybean 5y ago
"But what if the Grocery Store wants to ban Blacks! We can't have them decide what to carry, where to build, what prices to set!" It's not unreasonable to think about the limits of what kinds of control communities can have, but as you've posed it, it's completely rhetorical. Nobody is 'banning Blacks' from anywhere. The level of hysteria on these kinds of things is creaking into every discussion even when it's mostly inappropriate. Vancouver has a busy city with X homes, Y flats, a certain infrastructure and that's that. If they want to decide to not want skyscrapers everywhere, they can do that, and it has nothing to do with 'banning a group'. 'Tolerant and Progressive' Vancouver has made very material choices that have made living their excessively difficult for people living on the margins, and highly favourable to very wealthy non-citizens who want a place to keep their money safe. Which is their choice, but it's an odd one, more importantly, I don't think communities generally make choices to 'stop poor people', that's not part of the cards, rather policies indirectly do that. If there is a systematic issue at play here, it may be the 'growth mindset' of new world city managers and businesses, all of whom want 'more sales, more revenue, more tax revenue, more leverage, more power' etc. 'to build that thing and provide that service', never really contemplating something resembling actual sustainability.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > If they want to decide to not want [ ... ] As I said in another comment, one of the problems with this approach is the the actual process of decision making for such issues is deeply flawed. The question of who "they" is and precisely how "they decide" is far from simple; the answer is certainly not "the citizens of Vancouver". Retrospectively, I do think that my comparison with bans on various protected groups was a bit silly. Even so, these decisions are not some simple mapping from "the will of the people", and that means that it's not as simple as "they get to decide".

epistasis 5y ago

"Local control" is the same thing as "states' rights" in the US. States' right to do what, exactly? Local control to do what, exactly? In this case, local control is exerted to segregate geographic areas by wealth and income, and to enrich the current land owners, to the communal loss of all of society. Vancouver landowners didn't create the massive value of their land through their labor, they were just speculators. They profit by the economic loss of everybody else, they are rentiers, parasites on the system. If you want to hold on to a piece of land, and keep everybody else out of it, you had better start paying everybody else for that privilege. Land is fundamentally different from capital, different from wealth created by man. Its value comes from either nature, or in the case of Vancouver, by what everybody else has built up around it. Institute a full land value tax, to return to society the wealth that landowners are stealing from society, and you can hold on to your piece of property. But you should never, ever, be able to enter into a contract with other landowners to agree to kee everyone out. That's exactly what restrictive zoning is, and it should be smashed like any other cartel that is robbing the rest of society for the benefit of the few.

jollybean 5y ago
This isn't really right. 1) 'Local Control' is not some kind of vast conspiracy to suppress people. There's an almost infinite amount of living space. Not all of it is Prime Vancouver Property. People living in a community can decide if they want it to be New York or Vienna, it's their choice, not yours. 2) "Vancouver landowners didn't create the massive value of their land through their labor" Yes, they did! People of Vancouver, largely made Vancouver attractive to others. That's absolutely the case. They were not speculators they were residents. 3) "If you want to hold on to a piece of land, and keep everybody else out of it, you had better start paying everybody else for that privilege" False! Land ownership is a right, moreover, all of them pay the necessary municipal taxes to support their community. You, as a part of 'everyone else' have absolutely nothing to do with that equation, they owe you nothing. As long as they are not externalizing something negative (i.e. pollution), what they do is not much of your business. 4) "Institute a full land value tax, to return to society the wealth that landowners are stealing from society" - now you're onto a complete separate issue. 5) If there's something missing in your diatribe, it's that vast amounts of land was sold to people who were not even citizens, from money arranged by ill gotten means: we 'outsource' externalizations such as pollution, lack of human rights to other nations, and the totally corrupt leaders of those nations leverage that fact, and bring the money back in one of the only things we can materially sell them, which is land. If you're concerned about housing prices, ban foreign ownership of property, and ban handing out citizenship for people who are not even residents. It only takes a small % of 'price insensitive demand', which provides the only 'confident signal' in a market, in order to really skew a market in one direction. In this case, up. The difference between Montreal and Toronto/Vancouver is that Montreal has a fraction of the foreign investment in housing ownership, and surprise, reasonably affordable housing. The 'language barrier', among other things, insulates them from some of the ravages of globalism. If Montreal wanted to change that, they can, it's their choice.

lwansbrough 5y ago

1.) Good. 2.) Neighborhoods in Vancouver were decided long ago and they mostly developed around racist an exclusionary ideology, these “communities” exist simply to separate the haves from the have-nots. Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth, the city has grown where it can and now the same people who complained are gleefully cashing out on the growth the tried so desperately to disrupt. By the way, home owners are a minority in Vancouver so I suspect most Vancouver residents just want somewhere affordable to live! And since NIMBYs own all the land, the only economically viable developments are high rises! 3.) The land was taken from them and only returned in part after decades of lawsuits. Despite that, the “community” still thinks they deserve to be able to decide what can and can’t be built.

jollybean 5y ago
"Neighborhoods in Vancouver were decided long ago and they mostly developed around racist an exclusionary ideology, " Completely false. It's worse than false. " Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth," More complete rubbish. It's hard to read past any of that complete misinformation, but here's some help: Any historical issues regarding segregation 1) have little to do with growth and 2) there's nothing even residual regarding housing today. The population of Vancouver at the turn of the last century was only 26 000 people. It has nothing to do with what Vancouver in 2021. Vancouver's growth has been very consistent since it's inception, which disputes your made up claims about 'conservatives wanting to stop growth'. Vancouver is a city with almost a 50% foreign born population. Demand to live there among 7 Billion on earthy who might want to live there is almost infinite. If Vancouver wants to turn into Pacific New York, that's fine. If they want to keep it mostly homes, that's also fine, it's entirely up to them, not ideologues on the internet.
- lwansbrough 5y ago
  I was born in Vancouver, I live downtown. You seem to be ill-informed of Vancouver's past, or are deliberately trying to white-wash its history. Take a look at Harland Bartholomew's contribution to Vancouver's city planning[0] or hear from many local historians and experts on the development of Vancouver's zoning and districts[1]. I'm sure it's impossible that Chinatown's relatively poor condition, or the complete razing of Hogan's Alley has no roots in racism, and certainly I'm imagining that residual impact. Suburbs were designed to isolate their residents from the poor (and predominantly visible-minority) people who lived in the denser urban areas. Single-family zoning was created to make illegal the development of more dense/affordable living options such as row houses or apartment buildings. That is limiting growth, clear and simple. It is limiting growth (by your own admission!) to "keep it mostly homes" as opposed to turning the city into "Pacific New York." I said nothing about Vancouver's growth having been "stopped." What I said was, there were - and continues to be - efforts to eliminate growth. The city grows despite the NIMBYs (albeit less quickly and less efficiently), but it is absolutely their objective to inhibit growth for their own benefit. Growth is often exponential, too, so if the city has been growing somewhat linearly that's a good indication that its growth is being inhibited. If people want to live here, good. Let them in, let them build. Not sure why you believe it's your right to live here and keep others out. Perhaps you're someone who has benefited greatly from Vancouver's growth, despite yourself. [0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/article-taking-a-closer-look-at-the-legacy-of-harland-bartholomew-and-his-plan/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/articl... [1] https://www.straight.com/news/734491/history-shows-racism-has-always-been-part-vancouver-real-estate https://www.straight.com/news/734491/history-shows-racism-ha...