Carole Taylor's Journal

In this edition of Journal, we wade into the fraught topic of city planning, density and affordability by examining Vancouver’s latest efforts to get more housing built – no matter what.In the beginning, when the province mandated more density around transit hubs, people grumpily agreed, even though it was stomping on the right of municipalities to control their own zoning.After all, having people live close to transit lines should lead to more people using the system, therefore making the massive infrastructure costs worthwhile.Thus, the Broadway Plan allowed increased density and towers along the new rapid transit route.But then Vancouver City Council went further by proposing to greatly increase the areas where this was allowed. It now encompasses many different character neighbourhoods, often at some distance from the transit corridor.The idea that, without needing a rezoning process, anyone can build a 20-story tower next door has worried many city planners, architects, and community activists. Whatever happened to all the work that went into those individual neighbourhood plans?Larry Beasley was one of 23 community leaders who wrote to Council, asking them not to pass this further expansion of the Broadway Plan and its towers.However, the Council disagreed and passed the changes.Larry Beasley is an internationally respected urban planner who, as Co-Director of planning for the City of Vancouver, helped develop what is now known around the world as Vancouverism. He is frequently asked to speak and advise on this urban planning concept.

In this edition of Journal, we take a close look at the art of pollsters. You know – if you want to know what your neighbours are thinking, or what Canada is thinking, ask a pollster. Poillievre is ahead of Trudeau by 20 points. Or now Carney is ahead, maybe. Or 45% of Americans think Trump is doing a swell job. And then we remember 2016, when the majority of American pollsters said with confidence that Hilary would win the election. Then she didn’t. Whoops.Since that time, much self-examination has been going on in the world of pollsters. Who is your sample? How do you reach people when many don’t have a landline anymore or don’t answer their cell when they don’t recognize the number? Or how about those cagey folks who give the wrong answer just to complicate the results?So, like it or not, polls play a big role in how we see the issues of our time.What intrigues me is what the pollsters see behind the numbers. After all, they are looking at these questions over and over. What trends are they identifying? What changes are happening? What does it mean?Mario Canseco is president of a well-respected and often quoted Canadian company, Research Co. He looks beyond the obvious question of which party are you going to vote for. He wants to know the why and who you are. A senior? A young man? Someone in the sandwich generation caught between raising a family and caring for aging parents?And how do you capture in numbers the worries and uneasy feelings of the average Canadian? That’s where the analysis comes in.

In this edition of Journal, we examine the “horrors that exist on our streets.” That phrase was used by Leonard Krog, the mayor of Nanaimo to describe what he sees every day in his city.Others use the euphemism “the disorder in our streets.” But whatever you call it, it certainly denigrates the liveability of so many communities – and it started way before decriminalization.All across North America, not just in British Columbia, there was a movement in the 1970s, away from institutionalized care for the mentally ill, in part as a result of the movie “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.”That was a terrifying tale of abuse that no one would support.However, rather than ask how we could improve the way we care for the severely mentally ill, it was broadly decided that almost no one should be in secured care. Thus, Riverview was closed. A huge mistake, in my opinion.I realize that the percentage of those who are severely mentally ill and in need of help is small, but to think these individuals would be able to cope on their own, find housing, remember to take their meds, eat properly and be safe is absurd. Instead, so many have become the victims of drug dealers and pimps.So now, this vulnerable population has to deal with a decriminalization experiment that has increased the public use and abuse of drugs. The drugs are stronger, overdoses are frequent, brain damage too often the consequence. And still there are those who hear of the violent stranger attacks or see individuals lying on the streets in a desperate state but continue to argue against secured care.Mayor Leonard Krog isn’t one of them. He has been outspoken about the need for a new approach.

In this edition of Journal, “To Tariff or not to Tariff – that is the question.” With apologies to Hamlet, but it is what people are talking about. Whatever you think of him, President Trump has certainly turned the status quo upside down. From his point of view, it works.By simply threatening to apply tariffs to all Canadian goods if we didn’t take action on our border and fentanyl issues, our prime minister and premiers sprung into action. Helicopters to the border, more raids on mega drug labs! Drones in the air!But how will we respond to actual tariffs?Canadian politicians and economists have had various ideas: We’ll match your tariffs dollar for dollar – or we will target sectors that Americans care about the most.Our NDP premier floated the idea that we would take liquor and wine off British Columbia’s shelves if they came from red Republican states. I guess that means Kentucky bourbon is out and California wines are in!While one can’t give in to bullies, it is fair to ask some questions.Will retaliatory tariffs work, stop a trade war and change President Trump’s mind? Or just up the ante?And who pays the cost? Consumers on both sides of the border, I would say.One economist has written an essay titled: “Tariff retaliation is a dead end.” Canada needs to retool its economy, not chase self-defeating tariffs. That economist’s name is Dr. Roslyn Kunin.Roslyn is an award-winning labour economist and forecaster who has taught at both UBC and SFU. Amongst her many career accomplishments, she served 20 years as Regional Economist for the federal government.

In this edition of Journal, we take a close look at the challenges that mayors face every minute of every day. There is no such thing as a time-out when you are in that job. It always surprises me when I hear our governments described in this way – most important, the federal level, next the provincial, then the municipal. When I served in Vancouver’s municipal government, I was often asked, “When are you going to run provincially, or federally?” – as if that must be the goal. It was never my aspiration, even though for other reasons, I did eventually serve provincially. But municipal governments are closest to the people they serve. They know what the issues are. Constituents can visit you in your office. They can appear in person to state their concerns before council, whether it is about potholes, the symphony, or supportive housing. And mayors are the pointy end of that stick. In our minds, they are the ones responsible for housing costs, crime in our streets, fentanyl deaths, not enough density, too much density, too few bike lanes, too many bike lanes.In many ways, a thankless job. But when done well, the good mayors become our voice on the public stage. Mayor Mike Hurley of Burnaby is certainly in the spotlight these days. Elected in 2018 as an independent, he was re-elected in 2022 by acclamation – a strong vote of confidence.And, as if being in charge of this bustling, well-run, and growing municipality were not enough, Mayor Hurley has recently taken on the role of Chair of the Metro Vancouver Regional District at a tense time when the overdue and over-budget waste water plant fills the headlines. Brave.

In this episode of Journal, we take a close look at what is happening to city planning.When I was in civic politics, things were definitely not perfect, but I would say the governance structures and roles were clearer than today.For instance, at that time, the federal government did not deal directly with municipalities – they worked through the provincial government. Not today. The Trudeau government has gone straight to certain cities with financial enhancements, even if it’s not a provincial priority. Several premiers are not happy.On the question of zoning: in the past, that was exclusively a municipal responsibility. Not today. British Columbia’s provincial government has introduced density rules. Some call it a one-size-fits-all policy for cities throughout the province. This initiative overrides any neighbourhood planning done by municipalities. Many mayors are not happy.Of course, one of the consequences of increased density is the need for infrastructure improvements – water, sewer, and electrical loads all need to be upgraded. As Mayor Mike Hurley of Burnaby has said, we have to handle all those new flushing toilets. These are major costs. Who is going to pay?And what about transit, the service that ties communities together? We have been told that BC Transit’s business model no longer works and they will be $600 million in the hole by summer – never mind even considering increasing service and buses for all those new residents.These are all pieces of a puzzle that don’t seem to fit together. Andy Yan is someone who has the responsibility of looking at the city holistically. As the Director of the City Program at Simon Fraser University and a planner himself, he is a respected commentator on what makes cities work and what doesn’t.---Carole Taylor's Journal is a public affairs dialogue that digs deep into the most pressing issues of our times. For more, see our website at http://www.caroletaylorsjournal.ca.