4 ms·

What does acceptable use of their own land look like to you? What would meet your specific approval?

• systemstops 3y ago
  It's acceptable to me - none of my business. But it's corporate money building this project, which we should be clear about. It's just built on native land.
  • Seattle3503 3y ago
    I'm not sure why that matters? If others would offer the tribe a better offer, I'm sure they would accept it.
    • systemstops 3y ago
      I guess the point I was trying to make is that the public is being manipulated by the moral framing of this project. The buildings would not be normally allowed in that area, and the proponents of project are using an explicit racial justice narrative to counteract criticism of their violation of norms. I'm agnostic about whether or not the project is good idea, but I think it's generally bad to manipulate people in this way. What I was implying is that the whole thing seems like a really clever scheme by a real estate developer during a time in Canada when indigenous issues are hugely popular. But, maybe I am being too cynical.
      • TulliusCicero 3y ago
        > the proponents of project are using an explicit racial justice narrative to counteract criticism of their violation of norms. Pretty easy to do when some of the criticism indeed sounds kinda racist. Example from the article: > In 2022, Gordon Price, a prominent Vancouver urban planner and a former city councillor, told Gitxsan reporter Angela Sterritt, “When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building.” I'm sorry, but does he expect indigenous people to only build log cabins forever or something? Maybe they should also forgo cars and buses and only use horses?
        • systemstops 3y ago
          It seems like he's expressing criticism over the racial narrative that this is an "indigenous way of being" building project instead of another corporate development that happens to be built on indigenous land. Obviously, no one is expecting indigenous people to use ancient building techniques that haven't been used in centuries, but the groups behind the project are making the explicit claim that the project is somehow tied to a racial identity. Criticizing their claim is perfectly reasonable.
          • astrange 3y ago
            "Corporations" don't come from nowhere. Anyone can be a corporation, and building a building involves hiring professionals. The idea that developers are all evil space aliens comes from your unconscious memory of 80s kids movies where they were the villains.
        • kjkjadksj 3y ago
          White man brought the horse over too.
      • brailsafe 3y ago
        The thing is, you don't need racism to make the adjacent residents seem like the people they are, it's just one more reason to build spite towers. They're standard rich boomers who'll show up to every hearing and persistently move the goal posts until any change is impossible, and they're on record doing so in a way that's beyond embarassing.
      • Seattle3503 3y ago
        The moral framing almost certainly a part of the strategy to get the public to accept the projects. But at the same time, I'm not sure the moral framing (that natives should have more autonomy over their ancestral land) is incorrect, or detracts at all. Is an appeal to ethics really "manipulation" if you agree with the underlying ethical principle? Or is it just emphasizing a point that we have ignored for too long?
  • Tiktaalik 3y ago
    At the end of the day you need to pay someone to swing a hammer. When the City of Vancouver built its own below market city owned apartment at Main and 7th they hired local developer Marcon to build it. Marcon also builds for-profit condos all across the region. "Corporate money" being involved in the creation of housing is pretty unavoidable.
  • guyzero 3y ago
    "Corporate money" builds everything - that's how capitalism works.
• ipaddr 3y ago
  The question is could someone build a similiar structure beside or does zoning prevent this. If so parent has a valid point
  • fckgw 3y ago
    It's not our land, zoning is meaningless. Who cares about a hypothetical if something "could" have been built here
    • ipaddr 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • filoleg 3y ago
        There are still rules in place, indeed, just not for zoning. So I don't see how getting rid of zoning rules there suddenly gives those areas any more power to sign sovereign treaties than it would to any other area in the US that decided to have lax zoning rules. It's not really that complicated of a concept that you can deregulate one specific thing, but keep all regulations outside of that in place.
  • mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    The answer is that no, there is no zoning in that area because that parcel of land is not subject to City of Vancouver zoning laws, being not part of the City of Vancouver. The adjacent properties are part of the City of Vancouver, and therefore are subject to zoning that the City of Vancouver chooses to impose upon them. That zoning could be removed if city hall so chooses, but Kitsilano NIMBYs would oppose it. But city hall cannot define zoning rules for land that is not within their jurisdiction, so the NIMBYs have no voice. Just like, say, UBC is also not subject to City of Vancouver municipal zoning rules. Nor is Nanaimo. Nor Haida Gwaii.
    • brimwats 3y ago
      And hopefully the massive towers push the council to start rezoning those single story residential areas into something more realistic
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]