B.C. Politics Thread

[aGENT]

21 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

Well this is interesting, there does appear to have been a BCU "bump"

 

https://338canada.com/bc/

 

338 now projecting only a 6 seat NDP majority - 49 NDP, 43 BCC, 1 green.

 

Listening to Rustad and the other anti science candidates, one has to wonder how is even this close.

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

I get it, you're upset someone didn't clean up the NDP's mess to your liking 

Apparently you don't get it at all.

 

Both sides fuck stuff up.---- easy for most to understand, perhaps your ideology is getting in the way?

[Bob Long]

7 minutes ago, Gurn said:

Apparently you don't get it at all.

 

Both sides fuck stuff up.---- easy for most to understand, perhaps your ideology is getting in the way?

 

I think it's yours actually. I don't need the NDP to be "clean" on this one or have some shared responsibility. It's 100% their mess. No one was ever going to make it better. 

 

[Bob Long]

31 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Listening to Rustad and the other anti science candidates, one has to wonder how is even this close.

 

not to me. I'm not an NDP supporter so I think I see their mistakes a little clearer than some here, maybe? I see a lot of "yea but at least it's not the Lieberals" kind of responses  since 2017. The problem is that looking at it that way tends to put the blinders on in terms of a very big chunk of the province being unhappy with many decisions.

 

 

[Boudrias]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

not to me. I'm not an NDP supporter so I think I see their mistakes a little clearer than some here, maybe? I see a lot of "yea but at least it's not the Lieberals" kind of responses  since 2017. The problem is that looking at it that way tends to put the blinders on in terms of a very big chunk of the province being unhappy with many decisions.

 

 

Did Eby mend fences with John Horgan? At one point Horgan was quoted as saying that Rustad was someone he could vote for. Haven't heard anything since?

[bishopshodan]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

I'm not an NDP supporter so I think I see their mistakes a little clearer than some here, maybe?

 

Or you have personal issue with them that could actually taint your view?

 

 

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Did Eby mend fences with John Horgan? At one point Horgan was quoted as saying that Rustad was someone he could vote for. Haven't heard anything since?

 

Dunno I've never heard that one 

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

Or you have personal issue with them that could actually taint your view?

 

 

 

Such as? 

[bishopshodan]

5 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Such as? 

 

It was a question.

[Coconuts]

2 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

BC votes in the Cons and its going suck bad. Careful with your vote.

 

Look at the bedfellows

https://vancouversun.com/news/bc-conservatives-john-rustad-jordan-peterson-podcast

 

Petterpot is a bonafide loser.

 

The fact that any BC politician is cozying up to him at all is concerning, let alone a provincial party leader. What a putz. 

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

 

The fact that any BC politician is cozying up to him at all is concerning, let alone a provincial party leader. What a putz. 

 

It just shows to me that the Cons ( across the country) have tight pants over what they see in the states. 

They want the divisive crap up here too. JP is good at telling people (men) its not their fault that they suck at life. 

[Coconuts]

8 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

It just shows to me that the Cons ( across the country) have tight pants over what they see in the states. 

They want the divisive crap up here too. JP is good at telling people (men) its not their fault that they suck at life. 

 

Yeah, JP's a full blown grifter at this point, he's a predatory piece of a shit. 

 

Not keen on the Americanization of Canadian politics but we've been seeing it for a while and we're worse off for it. 

[Bob Long]

21 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

It was a question.

 

Ah. Well I'm not sure, I guess everyone's principles are personal to some degree.

 

I do think the NDP is long on aspirations but often drop the ball on implementation. 

 

I also dislike the 'us vs them' narrative that they take with business. I view that as needless and problematic.

 

So that kind of thing?

 

[The Lock]

23 hours ago, JIAHN said:

 

100% agree on the Trump stuff....on so many levels

 

But

 

IMHO....not so humble, but..........

 

I think that for the most part, we are not affected, day to day, with who is in power, at least that is my experience

 

But, where I do see a difference is in the people of lower economic standing, and how policies affect them

 

I can't even say, that when the rich get breaks, it affects me, but honestly, I have never noticed

 

But when politicians do bad things, and get away with them, and I have to explain, why i like them to my kids or grandchildren, even though they were bad.....

 

Yeah, I have trouble doing that......

 

Trump is the perfect example of that.

 

How in the hell could I ever explain, that I trust that man with my future, when he can not even tell the friggin truth....

 

I guess that is bottom line for me.......

 

I think it explains why I think like I do..............you know, morals and ethics...kinda stuff

 

Of course, and I think there are morals and ethics with any of it. Policies can have moral and ethics behind it as well. I think it's important to realise (and you seem to realise) that, just because someone wants an overall picture and not just want to focus on someone's drunk driving record, it's not for a lack of morals with what that premier did. I want to see people with lower economic standing be able to thrive and I believe ethics and morals are part of that as well.

[bishopshodan]

2 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

Ah. Well I'm not sure, I guess everyone's principles are personal to some degree.

 

I do think the NDP is long on aspirations but often drop the ball on implementation. 

 

I also dislike the 'us vs them' narrative that they take with business. I view that as needless and problematic.

 

So that kind of thing?

 

 

Ok, It seems like more to me. You with NDP seems like me with cilantro. Just cant do it

 

 

[The Lock]

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

Listening to Rustad and the other anti science candidates, one has to wonder how is even this close.

 

When we don't really see things like the housing crisis and other important issues really improve, people eventually start becoming desperate for pretty much anything else. The NDP often talks smart, but actions speak louder than words.

 

It's not much different than in hockey where we, as fans, get mad at a GM when we don't see improvement of the team or at least a clear direction.

 

And no, I don't like the Conservatives. I'm stuck in the middle at this point. There's currently no party for me to vote for. This is more to answer your question in "wondering how this is even this close". If enough inaction takes place, people will either abstain from voting or vote for the other party. Nothing me or you will say will change the fact that the NDP has been slipping in popularity as of late and there are reasons for it. The evidence is in the fact that it is now a close race.

Edited September 4 by The Lock

[Gurn]

3 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

I think it's yours actually. I don't need the NDP to be "clean" on this one or have some shared responsibility. It's 100% their mess. No one was ever going to make it better. 

 

Their mess, and then the  Libs messed up by not taking the extra $50 mill they could have.

[MattJVD]

12 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

When we don't really see things like the housing crisis and other important issues really improve, people eventually start becoming desperate for pretty much anything else.

 

The NDP often talks smart, but actions speak louder than words. It's not much different than in hockey where we, as fans, get mad at a GM when we don't see improvement of the team.

 

And no, I don't like the Conservatives. I'm stuck in the middle at this point. There's currently no party for me to vote for.

As someone who used work in housing; the zoning reforms we've had over the last two years are going to have a huge impact. The legal change is relative quick, but it's going to take years or a decade for that change to be meaningful on the ground. That's just the pace of construction.

 

When you take the risk and carrying costs of a rezoning application out of the equation, there are a lot of projects that previously did not meet the builder's required internal rate of return that now do. Still have to aquire the land, design the building, and actually build it though.

Edited September 4 by MattJVD

[The Lock]

3 hours ago, Bob Long said:

I think it's yours actually. I don't need the NDP to be "clean" on this one or have some shared responsibility. It's 100% their mess. No one was ever going to make it better. 

 

2 minutes ago, Gurn said:

Their mess, and then the  Libs messed up by not taking the extra $50 mill they could have.

 

So I think it depends on whether or not the Liberals had the ability to make a better deal or not.

 

If there was a deal out there for the ships where they could have made more money but they had failed on it, then I agree with Gurn.

If, however, there was no other deal in place and nothing better could have been done then I agree with Bob Long.

 

So the question is, do we know whether there was an offer for the ferries or not that involved more money when the Liberals were in power?

[The Lock]

3 minutes ago, MattJVD said:

As someone who used work in housing; the zoning reforms we've had over the last two years are going to have a huge impact. The legal change is relative quick, but it's going to take years or a decade for that change to be meaningful on the ground. That's just the pace of construction.

 

When you take the risk and carrying costs of a rezoning application out of the equation, there are a lot of projects that previously did not meet the builder's required internal rate of return that now do. Still have to aquire the land, design the building, and actually build it though.

 

And that's a fair answer.

 

The problem is people tend to be in the here and now. If something doesn't change fast enough, discontent happens. Is it fair? Probably not, but often the question for a voter is "am I happy with the current state of things?"

[Gurn]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

 

 

So I think it depends on whether or not the Liberals had the ability to make a better deal or not.

 

If there was a deal out there for the ships where they could have made more money but they had failed on it, then I agree with Gurn.

If, however, there was no other deal in place and nothing better could have been done then I agree with Bob Long.

 

So the question is, do we know whether there was an offer for the ferries or not that involved more money when the Liberals were in power?

First episode of the Michael Smythe show on CKNW radio- one of his guests was Jonathan Wentworth(or something close to that) told Mike they had offered $75 mill for the cats.

Were turned down, so the company bought them, for much less. at the Richie brothers Auction.

----------------------------

The NDP definitely had the bigger fuck up here, but the Libs decision, also cost the taxpayer.

Hell just renting the dock space, by the Lions gate Bridge, so they could leave those ships, wrapped in plastic, for everyone to see cost more than docking the boats elsewhere.

Politics is a dirty 'game'.

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, Gurn said:

First episode of the Michael Smythe show on CKNW radio- one of his guests was Jonathan Wentworth(or something close to that) told Mike they had offered $75 mill for the cats.

Were turned down, so the company bought them, for much less. at the Richie brothers Auction.

----------------------------

The NDP definitely had the bigger fuck up here, but the Libs decision, also cost the taxpayer.

Hell just renting the dock space, by the Lions gate Bridge, so they could leave those ships, wrapped in plastic, for everyone to see cost more than docking the boats elsewhere.

Politics is a dirty 'game'.

 

Then I agree both parties messed up in their own way.

 

I also agree with politics being a dirty game. Case in point: the BC United folding. 

Edited September 4 by The Lock

[MattJVD]

16 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

And that's a fair answer.

 

The problem is people tend to be in the here and now. If something doesn't change fast enough, discontent happens. Is it fair? Probably not, but often the question for a voter is "am I happy with the current state of things?"

Yeah, definitely. I don't blame many* people for being frustrated or wanting change. When you can't afford a place to live or have a family of 4 in a 2 bedroom apartment, that sucks.

 

The * is that it takes a lot of time and reading (or being involved as your job) to know what's going on under the hood. For most people who are working and parenting all day, I think it's unfair to tell them to go learn about it on their own. The ones I do blame are the ones who know what is happening and what the effects will be, but bring up the problem at every opportunity anyways for views/clicks/media attention/votes/etc. That's politics. 

 

Edit: And that's not to say the issue is solved either. It will take much more than zoning reform to have average homes a reasonable multiple of average income again. Just one specific piece of policy that was very good, in my opinion.

Edited September 4 by MattJVD

[Elias Pettersson]

29 minutes ago, MattJVD said:

As someone who used work in housing; the zoning reforms we've had over the last two years are going to have a huge impact. The legal change is relative quick, but it's going to take years or a decade for that change to be meaningful on the ground. That's just the pace of construction.

 

When you take the risk and carrying costs of a rezoning application out of the equation, there are a lot of projects that previously did not meet the builder's required internal rate of return that now do. Still have to aquire the land, design the building, and actually build it though.

 

There are many issues with the zoning reforms.  First and foremost is that these new multiplex rules don't allow a builder to stratify a triplex or fourplex.  So even though you can now build a fourplex on a former single family lot, you have to sell it as a fourplex, not 4 individual strata units.  This is a massive issue, as builders are not going to put the money into a fourplex and then try and sell it for upwards of $4 million in Vancouver or Burnaby.  The numbers given to me do not show any major increase in triplex and fourplex applications at the city.

 

Secondly, the new zoning rules in the TOA areas by the skytrain stations also have a similar issue.  They only allow 8 stories and 12 stories if you are not 200 metres within the skytrain area.  This means a developer cannot really build a hi rise as the cost to do so would exceed any potential profits.  Developers wouldn't bother building an 8 storey or 12 storey concrete building as the cost would be too high and not enough units could be sold to cover the difference.  You'd have to go minimum 25 stories+ with current land values in order to make any profit.  Not sure who at the Provincial level decided on these new rules, but in speaking with many developers around the city, they are not too happy with the changes.

 

The third problem is the red tape.  It takes upwards of 8 years for a developer to buy land and finish building the hi rise.  That's way too long and doesn't help increase current inventory.  This needs to be cut in half down to 4 years.  The municipalities really need to step up and fix this.  Ken Sim is trying to do it in Vancouver with new online systems to get permits quicker, but the other municipalities are still way behind.  It takes one year just for a builder to get a permit to build a house, back in the day it was 3-4 weeks.  So on the smaller end side with houses and duplexes it's also an issue.

 

Lastly, the city really needs to lower their development costs that they charge developers to build properties.  Right now around 25% gross profit of a project is paid to the city in the form of CAC's and DCL's, or development costs.  This 25% is then passed on to the buyer in the form of price increases, which is why condo prices are where they are today.  The municipality literally makes more than the developer when they build a hi rise.

 

This is going to take years if not decades to fix IMO...

Edited September 4 by Elias Pettersson

[MattJVD]

24 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

There are many issues with the zoning reforms.  First and foremost is that these new multiplex rules don't allow a builder to stratify a triplex or fourplex.  So even though you can now build a fourplex on a former single family lot, you have to sell it as a fourplex, not 4 individual strata units.  This is a massive issue, as builders are not going to put the money into a fourplex and then try and sell it for upwards of $4 million in Vancouver or Burnaby.  The numbers given to me do not show any major increase in triplex and fourplex applications at the city.

 

Secondly, the new zoning rules in the TOA areas by the skytrain stations also have a similar issue.  They only allow 8 stories and 12 stories if you are not 200 metres within the skytrain area.  This means a developer cannot really build a hi rise as the cost to do so would exceed any potential profits.  Developers wouldn't bother building an 8 storey or 12 storey concrete building as the cost would be too high and not enough units could be sold to cover the difference.  You'd have to go minimum 25 stories+ with current land values in order to make any profit.  Not sure who at the Provincial level decided on these new rules, but in speaking with many developers around the city, they are not too happy with the changes.

 

The third problem is the red tape.  It takes upwards of 8 years for a developer to buy land and finish building the hi rise.  That's way too long and doesn't help increase current inventory.  This needs to be cut in half down to 4 years.  The municipalities really need to step up and fix this.  Ken Sim is trying to do it in Vancouver with new online systems to get permits quicker, but the other municipalities are still way behind.  It takes one year just for a builder to get a permit to build a house, back in the day it was 3-4 weeks.  So on the smaller end side with houses and duplexes it's also an issue.

 

Lastly, the city really needs to lower their development costs that they charge developers to build properties.  Right now around 25% gross profit of a project is paid to the city in the form of CAC's and DCL's, or development costs.  This 25% is then passed on to the buyer in the form of price increases, which is why condo prices are where they are today.  The municipality literally makes more than the developer when they build a hi rise.

 

This is going to take years if not decades to fix IMO...

I agree on the single-family lot issues. I hope some municipalities will take the Edmonton approach and just allow fee-simple duplexes and triplexes: Essentially subdividing the lot and allowing for 0 setbacks, so individual units of the du/triplex can be sold with no strata. In Edmonton, the application to "subdivide" (okay, it's not technically subdivision, but close enough) costs $150-300 bucks and takes 30 days.

 

8 and 12 stories was deliberate, as that is the maximum for a wood framed structure. So yes there will be a lot of locations that don't see the economies of scale to go steel and concrete. But an 8 story wood frame building in that same location is pretty attractive. Pretty common to do one story of concrete if you have ground-floor commercial spaces, then do 5-7 wood-framed floors above too.

 

I definitely agree on the red tape issue, that's why I'm so keen on the zoning reform. I'm so tired of seeing modest 12-20 story buildings (or even a block of row houses in some extreme cases) be tied up for 2+ years in attempts to get a re-zoning application approved. I'm more familiar with the Victoria market than the lower mainland, as that is where I worked in housing, but it was frighteningly common for re-zoning applications to take years.

 

It sounds like we agree that the issues are mostly municipal. But that's why I'm fond of the province telling municipalities "do it, or I'll do it for you" when it comes to making it easier to build. I know some people are rather annoyed about the Province getting into municipal issues, but at this point it feels (to me) like they have to. I'd love to see the Province tell municipalities to "do it or I'll do it for you" on reductions in DLC's too.

Edited September 4 by MattJVD