If you listened to Vancouver city council on Wednesday, you would come away thinking there’s one thing in particular the ABC Vancouver majority won’t stand for.
“I think the motion is actually divisive,” said Coun. Brian Montague.
“It’s purely political, purely divisive,” seconded Coun. Lenny Zhou.
“I have to wonder if this is purely to divide the city,” added Coun. Mike Klassen.
“It feels like it’s an effort to try and make this more of a way to divide the city,” echoed Coun. Rebecca Bligh.
What exactly was seen as so divisive?
A motion by opposition Coun. Christine Boyle, asking staff to come up “with a plan and timeline to bring forward policies and recommended amendments for consideration at public hearing to add badly needed housing, shops and services in Shaughnessy.”
It was a classic type of opposition motion to put a governing group between a rock and a hard place: propose something that in theory the ruling party supports (given ABC’s endorsement of pro-density policies), but with implications that would also make them leery (given Shaughnessy’s
long-standing lobbying to preserve their distinct zoning and heritage bylaws).
Which might be why ABC councillors had a consistent main message in rejecting it. Or to be specific, two main reasons.
“I think it’s just a distraction for staff that are actually working on viable housing solutions,” said Montague.
“We’ve been cautioned about the number of initiatives … about staff capacity,” said Klassen.
“[The last] council threw so much at staff that it was overwhelming and I honestly think
it created paralysis,” said Coun. Sarah Kirby-Yung.
They are fair arguments to make, particularly in the context of both the city and provincial government actively working on new bylaws to create more density throughout the city.
But consider the fact that politics is often divisive. Housing policy in Vancouver is especially divisive. And that Shaughnessy’s own zoning regulations, unique from every other neighbourhood, inherently divide it from the rest of the city.
And consider that right after council shot down Boyle’s motion, they approved
two other motions around housing: one motion to study more density close to schools, and one motion to study how the city can directly create middle-income housing.
There were differences in the details of those motions, but a big one is that the motions that passed came from ABC Vancouver, while the motion that failed came from Boyle.
You could say pointing that fact out is divisive. Or you could say that it's just Politics 101.
