So . . .
There’s a proposal out for your area.
Approach it with an open mind and heart. You need help with your concerns; so why tell people what to do before you know all the facts? You want allies, not instant enemies.
This introduction will help you understand the ‘big picture’ in you region and city. (And maybe change your views on densification, affordable housing, and your neighbourhood.)
On hearing about a proposal, some residents get angry, some shrug their shoulders, others try not to think about it. I have some terrific tools to help you at that time. But first . . .
Why should we listen to you?
I have attended City Council meetings for over 12 years and have attended over 50 Development Information Meetings.
My journey started when my neighbourhood was informed about a proposed ‘for profit’ development of 63 three-storey row homes (with tandem parking) that would have overwhelmed the neighbourhood.
After our incredibly successful campaign, the outcome was 40 two-storey townhomes with double garages. They are lovely townhomes and a much better fit for the neighbourhood. We reduced the development by over 30%. (For more on my background, my campaign and to read the article about our neighbourhood, please go to My Story.)
I have observed my City’s (often disrespectful) timeline and process, and I have seen the shock and confusion on the faces of residents facing a proposed development. I have both observed and run many successful campaigns over the years. The strategies I am suggesting come from experience.
Why is this website being created?
This website will help you act strategically when confronted with a proposed development near you or an issue that concerns you.
I hope this website will help change how residents become informed and that this strategy, when used effectively, will also change the current (affordable) housing philosophy in the region.
What’s your approach, then? The timeline and process for informing residents must be addressed.
And then there is a need to address your specific concerns.
These are two separate issues.
Most campaigners do not differentiate between these aspects of a campaign. Instead, they rage about the short notice they’ve been given AND their specific concerns. It muddies the topic. But this seemingly minute distinction is vital. If we can change the way cities communicate with residents and get them working together with us, it will change the whole game.
You can read about this more in Strategy (available in the handbook) but for now, trust me and keep reading!
Why is this happening in my neighbourhood?
I think we all agree there is a need for more affordable housing in the Metro Vancouver region.
Metro 2050 is the current Regional Growth Strategy. Cities must align their Official Community Plans with this document. The overall philosophy is this: “Densification in Urban Centres near Frequent Transit Networks” (or “Frequent Transit Development Areas”).
Unfortunately, cities continue to build projects that do not meet the region’s goals and policies—or even their own policies. Developers are always trying to find some land, any land to build as many housing units as possible (while minimizing contact with surrounding neighbours).
A flaw in current thinking about densification and affordability is believing that the more units are built, the less they will cost—so residents should not oppose what is so desperately needed. Therefore, densification is still one of the main strategies for foisting overwhelming development projects onto neighbourhoods. Profit can be another reason. But “more units” and “affordable housing” are not always the same thing—and if residents have legitimate concerns, that does not mean they are against affordable housing.
These strategies, and the way they are implemented, continue to bewilder and hurt residents.
Where is the sign? Why isn’t the sign more understandable?
Many of us assume that as soon as planning starts, the City erects a sign on a property to be (re)developed, so that nearby residents have time to express any concerns.
This is not the current practice in many cities. Many preliminary steps have already happened before the decision to go ahead, so the sign is often erected after City Council or City staff have approved the project in principle.
Usually, the sign provides all the needed information, including a diagram of the proposed development project, information on whom to contact, and possibly details about a Development Information Meeting. This part of the process needs to be updated.
How about two signs side by side?
- A sign in standard format that meets all the legal and policy requirements, and
- A second sign, in large letters and clearly understandable language, informing residents of where this proposal is in the process, details of the Development Information Meeting (and any possible City Council Meetings where it will be discussed) and contact information for the City Project Manager.
Let’s give residents every opportunity to be involved in the process as soon as possible.
Why didn’t we hear about this sooner?
It is disrespectful to exclude residents from the early planning stages of a proposed development project in their neighbourhood. Neighbours should be included before months of planning have already happened between City Planning departments and the developers, and before architectural drawings have been produced.
Developers and City planners have introduced proposed projects many times, but most of us will only campaign once. Obviously, their process needs to change.
I believe the reason for short notice and poor signs is the belief that residents resist change and fear over-densification in their area; so they oppose projects that could bring more affordable housing to the region.
But many protests by residents are actually about insufficient notice of a project.
Research confirms that projects are finished sooner, meet less resistance, and have more community acceptance when the process used to inform residents starts early and is ongoing.
The research reports that I have found include:
- Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, ‘Gaining Community Acceptance: Case Studies in Affordable Housing’, 2006
- Province of British Columbia, Housing Ministry’s NIMBY Task Force’s report ‘Towards More Inclusive Neighbourhoods’ – 2014
- BC Housing ‘Community Acceptance of Non-Market Housing’ Toolkit
Earlier notice would help residents avoid surprises, the unknowns of City policies and procedures, the potential (major) frustrations of construction and the painful adjustment stage for the neighbourhood.
Where’s the respect?
Often it appears that City Councils, City staff, the development team and other stakeholders do not respect residents’ concerns or even really listen to them.
Many City Hall policies dealing with how Council and residents communicate have been revised in recent years to add the word “respect,” including documents such as Council Code of Conduct, Respectful Workplace, Correspondence with Council, Public Engagement at Council Meetings, Question Period, Public Hearings and Delegations.
So, why do they respond so quickly with their answers to our questions and concerns?
Are they even listening?
Or do they think that they have heard it all before and have their usual answers at the ready?
Surely people who have chosen to live in this city and pay their taxes deserve a more respectful process.
Why the name-calling? What is this “NIMBY” label?
You might be called names. It usually starts with “NIMBY” (Not In My Backyard) or “NIMBY syndrome,” and can progress to accusing you of lacking compassion or even of being xenophobic (fearing foreigners/other cultures/strangers).
“NIMBY” behaviour has been described as “the protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics adopted by community groups facing an unwelcome development in their neighbourhood” (Michael Dear, ‘Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome’, 1992) (Until recently, this was one of the most important articles on NIMBYism.)
The term ‘NIMBY’ has been around since 1980.
That means that for over 40 years they have been calling residents names—using defensive and oppositional tactics—to stifle residents’ voices, instead of working with residents to achieve the best possible results for ALL.
In my opinion, both the initial reactions and resistance from residents are emotional. But the planners’ usual response is a solely a factual, an intellectual, one. Residents’ initial emotional concerns and fears are not validated.
I have seen residents be invited to attend meetings, take surveys, answer questionnaires, attend Public Information Meetings, chat casually with City staff at drop-in events, send emails, attend Council meetings, even schedule a meeting with a Councillor, City staff, or the developer.
But rarely do they speak to residents at length about their concerns. And for all the articles about the “NIMBY syndrome,” no one is reporting in-depth on residents’ “NIMBY” experiences. The articles refer to their usual concerns and respond with facts but fail to connect with the person who is upset and doesn’t understand.
Yesterday, you were a blissfully unaware neighbour. Today you heard about the proposal. By tomorrow, if you dare to ask questions or organize, you could be labelled and vilified.
When did it become unacceptable to go to City Hall and ask some questions about what the City and the developer are planning? Is it objectionable for the neighbours to attend a City Council meeting and ask why they were given such short notice about a proposed development?
So, don’t be discouraged by name-calling. Ignore accusations that you are preventing desperately needed affordable housing units from being built. The region needs affordable housing. But your concerns are just as valid.
Will this strategy work for other types of campaigns?
This strategy applies to many, if not most types of campaign. The process will be much the same whatever the size of your city or the scope of your issue:
- A neighbourhood infill development.
- A major developer building immense projects with hundreds of units.
- Major traffic infrastructure that could change your neighbourhood or city.
- A poorly planned change in traffic patterns.
- A massive industrial site on acres of land.
- Serious environmental issues where City Council and City staff don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to listen to and understand your perspective.
- Issues with provincial or federal government regulations.
What do all these official terms mean?
“Densification in Urban Centres near Frequent Transit Development Areas”
The current rationale for development within neighbourhoods is densification within urban centres near “frequent transit networks,” also known as “frequent transit development areas.”
There is a need for more truly affordable housing. Your city or a developer have identified some land where they think that they can build or re-develop a few more housing units than on the property. Let the “filling in” / “infill” / “densification” begin.
“Gentle densification”
This term is used to describe affordable housing options (for established neighbourhoods) that would be less overwhelming to current residents. Such housing could include duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, smaller apartment buildings, etc. and is referred to as “missing middle” housing. Sometimes the term “gentle densification” is used to calm residents’ fears about a development that could well overwhelm their neighbourhood.
Urban Centres
If residents are increasingly walking or cycling instead of driving, housing needs to be close to an urban centre and near local amenities and shops. Even better, housing can then be near transit routes that run every 15 minutes, from the early-morning commute until sometime in the evening.
Where do I go from here?
Now that you have a sense of the overall philosophy and are familiar with some of the terms, you need to understand the current thinking behind affordable housing in the region, and how it could and should be built.
Trust me, reading the chapter Affordable Housing: My thoughts is essential before you dive into your campaign, and will help you be part of the solution.