Pete Fry

For Vancouver

Category: VANCOUVER

  • Integrity of office and public trust.

    Integrity of office and public trust.

    Integrity of office and public trust.
    Yesterday morning I tweeted news that the City’s top properties guy: Bill Aujla, manager of Real Estate and Facilities had tendered his resignation to go and work for the Aquilini Group as VP of Real Estate.

    The news has garnered a lot of comment, mostly outrage and support for stronger lobbyist rules; but also defensiveness from the libertarian build-more-supply set who’ve suggested that ‘rules’ would put a chill on hiring top talent mangers at the City.

    Firstly, I want to be clear: I’ve met with Bill Aujla on a few different projects and found him to very helpful and smart. I also found him to have a good social justice lens. I’m not questioning his character or ability.

    My concern is the wild west of lobbying and political influence, and that there aren’t strong enough rules to that effect.

    I don’t think its unreasonable for city staff to seek employment in the private sector after their tenure, but in the case of top managers, especially where they deal with highly sensitive and valuable information we need some rules.

    The idea of rules isn’t especially draconian or out of the ordinary. In the corporate world, non-disclosure arrangements, non-competition clauses, and “cooling off periods” are all par the course. Other governments have regulations in place to address “revolving door politics.” in France, public officials who move between the public and private sectors are mandated a three-year wait between working in the government and taking a job in the private sector. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)]

    Noteworthy that in Mr. Aujla’s case, many of his meetings would have been “in camera” because if that information was made public, it would easily evoke a run on speculation and price gouging.

    Big money influence, loose lobby rules, conflict of interest: it’s the perception and well-warranted concern of these issues that has eroded public trust in city government.

    These concerns are consistent with our Vancouver Green ethics: we voluntarily rejected developer and big money contributions and have been leading the charge for better whistleblower protection and conflict-of-interest rules.

    PS. That Aquilini’s have city’s top real estate guy, former VPD chief, and at least two mayor candidates in their fold should be an obvious cause for concern.

  • No Tower on the Drive? More fallout on the BOFFO-Kettle deal

    No Tower on the Drive? More fallout on the BOFFO-Kettle deal

    Fallout over the BOFFO-Kettle deal that would have seen a new drop-in and supportive housing along with close to 200 market condos built atop an assembled parcel of private and public owned land and Commercial and Venables.

    As I commented to the Sun reporter yesterday and on Twitter as the story broke – it’s impossible to have an informed opinion on this issue because there is absolutely no transparency. Indeed, as close to half the property in question here is owned by the taxpayers, there should be an onus for even MORE clarity when it comes to negotiating Community Amenity Contributions. There isn’t.

    CACs are negotiated ad hoc, on a case-by-case basis between staff and developers. There is no public scrutiny, nor is there any predictability – this builds an air of frustration and distrust for both developers and the public. Where millions of dollars of public benefits are at stake, and where over the course of ten years of unfettered majority rule, Vision Vancouver have net millions of dollars in developer donations (just as the NPA did before them) it’s high time we took a closer look at how these benefits are calculated and for whom.

    In the case of the BOFFO-Kettle project, a conflux of issues: neighbourhood opposition to the height, scale and context of the project, with the developer on one side claiming the city has demanded too much public benefit to make the project viable, on the other side the city claiming the developer hasn’t even submitted an application and their asks are quite reasonable.

    Was the city being reasonable? Did BOFFO bail because of neighbourhood resistance, sunk costs, a softening speculative and offshore condo market, greener pastures and smoother sailing next door in Burnaby? — of course, we the public will never know what is really going on because the details of the CAC ask aren’t public.

    Mayoral candidate and UBC urban planning prof Patrick Condon once called CACs and spot zoning the soft spot for corruption. He’s right: let’s open it up and have honest good faith negotiations, we have a (moral) right to know what we are trading in public benefits for private profits.

    Postscript:  Interview and story here: http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/scrutiny-over-how-development-fe…

  • On transparency and the Kettle Boffo deal.

    On transparency and the Kettle Boffo deal.

    Some years ago I met w/ Daniel Boffo, over n’hood resistance to height/density and perception that inclusion of city land in project called to question net public benefits, notwithstanding Kettle contributions.

    I suggested that the best solution might be to open the books, show people the pro formas ie. the numbers that make the project work vis a vis public land and public benefits involved.

    He was incredulous (paraphrase) “Why would I let people see my profits?”

    And therein lies problem.
    Transparency must factor in negotiated public benefits. Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are negotiated in secret between developers and city staff (though some allege political/campaign finance influence too).
    We need to reform CAC process.

    Meanwhile:
    Boffo/Kettle claims CAC ask is too high. City claims there’s a $12m grant on the table yet a rezoning application hasn’t even been filed. In absence of transparency one can only guess real story:
    CACs? Spec-tax softened condo market? Sunk costs? Political change?

    Postscript: Originally published on Twitter

  • Empty data from Mayor’s office on Empty Homes Tax.

    Empty data from Mayor’s office on Empty Homes Tax.

    A recent tweet from the mayor’s office caught my eye

    .@Cityofvancouver data shows 95% of EHT declarations were made from Canada, 2% from US, 3% from other countries (reflects where the property owner was located at the time they made their declaration and does not necessarily reflect their primary residence) #vanpoli— Van Mayor’s Office (@VanMayorsOffice) May 27, 2018

    I’d be interested in seeing complete dataset. If EHT is not tracking primary residence but location at time of declaration, and declarations can be made by a proxy — are we tracking local owners, or local realtors/lawyers?

    Regardless of where EHTaxed speculation capital may or may not be coming from, proxy or otherwise —a hallmark of Vision’s ten-year regime has been these kind of opaque, manufacturing consent PR moves. Show us the data not the spin.

    Despite headlines like Friday’s in the Vancourier (City releases latest data on Empty Homes Tax) I’ve searched and yet to find actual data, just curated media release.

    This coming election is increasingly about electing a new City government that puts public interest first, working together to tackle the serious issues we face as a city — and that can only be predicated by real and honest transparency. Show us the data.

  • Big Loopholes in Vancouver’s Empty Homes Tax

    Big Loopholes in Vancouver’s Empty Homes Tax

    Want to avoid Vancouver’s Empty Home Tax?
    Find the right strata.

    The extended empty home reporting deadline is approaching.
    There’s been plenty of advertising. But did you know EHT specifically exempts condos where strata rules restrict rentals?

    That’s a pretty big loophole.
    http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-tax-frequently…

    The City’s own report on the EHT surveying empty homeowners found that 22% of them cited strata rental restrictions as the reason for not renting out their non-owner occupied homes. http://council.vancouver.ca/20170628/documents/pspc6.pdf

    Empty strata-restricted condos are not an insignificant per cent of our housing stock. A 2009 City-commissioned study found more than 60% of strata corporations restricted or prohibited rentals. http://vancouver.ca/docs/policy/housing-role-rented-condo-stock.pdf

    In a city with detached home sales slowing and record growth in non-resident owned condos (in 2017 reported over 20% of new condos); even with new provincial measures, will the EHT meet the objective of having homes people live in?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-non-residents-s…

    Postscript: 

    Originally posted on Facebook

    A follow up question asked “What do you think of the fact that stratas are even allowed to restrict rentals?”

    My response: Ultimately that’s a governance decision up to the individual strata. HOWEVER, I’m leaning toward the idea that “corporate personhood” needs to be applied here. If a strata corporation chooses to prohibit/restrict rentals then they should pay the EHT as a strata (as opposed to the individual owner alone).

    Strata are considered corporations under the Strata Act. Thus things like banking and borrowing to finance repairs or leaky condos are tied to that legal designation.

    Further, property rights and quiet enjoyment thereof (even as a strata) are a pretty big nut to crack with loads of resistance and unintended consequences (what with them being the foundation of our capitalist western democracy and all). To my mind, applying a usury fee or taxation seems a lot more reasonable and actionable.