“In my five years (working for the city, as the City of Vancouver’s senior administrator) this would certainly be unprecedented to have this volume [of lawsuits] in this short period of time.”
Vancouver City Manager, Dr. Penny Ballem
On Friday, June 21st, an unprecedented 12th lawsuit was filed against sitting Vision Vancouver City Councillors in British Columbia’s Supreme Court, this latest legal action referencing an alleged conflict of interest involving two-term Vision Councillors Kerry Jang and Geoff Meggs.
The Mainlander editor Nathan Crompton, longtime respected community organizer Isabel Minty, housing advocate Rider Cooey, Grandview-Woodland resident Jak King, and seven other litigants allege in their lawsuit that the councillors each had a conflict of interest related to the re-zoning decision over Heather Place at Willow and 13th, that they failed to disclose.
[Update: for further insight into the legal action, here’s Carlito Pablo’s Straight‘s story, in which Vision Councillor Kerry Jang is on the defensive. As one of the commenters on the story wrote, “Why didn’t Jang and Meggs recuse themselves from taking part in the Heather Place rezoning? They sit on the (MetroVancouver) board … that asked for the rezoning in the first place. Isn’t this the basic question that Jang needs to answer?]
As reporter Emily Jackson wrote in her story in Vancouver MetroNews …
This is one of numerous legal challenges the city has faced from groups of residents in the past year, including actions over a park in (Kitsilano), a tower in Yaletown and mountain views in Mount Pleasant. While the City of Vancouver isn’t named in this particular lawsuit, the city provides indemnification for all councillors and therefore foots the bill.
As CityHallWatch observers have written, the Heather Place rezoning …
… calls for three times the height and density, halves the parking requirements, and reduces the number of affordable housing units from the present 86 units to 52 units. The new Heather Place project would provide 178 units at full market rental rate; the rezoning would also waive approximately $2.5 million in Development Cost Levy fees.
Only Green Party of Vancouver Councillor Adriane Carr voted against the rezoning, noting the loss of affordability (only 22% of units will be subsidized, as opposed to the current 30%), and the much higher market rents that will be charged (e.g. a projected $1968 for a 2-bedroom vs $900 currently being charged for the same Heather Place unit, more than double the current rental rate, tantamount to constructive eviction for tenants).
In addition, Ms. Carr took issue with the proposed 94-foot (28.7meter) height of the building on the northern lot, noting that it fails to conform to the adjacent neighbourhood; questions she asked on the impacts on existing services (given the greater number of residents to be housed in the massive 278-unit rezoned complex) were not answered by city officials — neither were questions pertaining to the costs of the chosen construction form (which is to say, concrete vs. the current wood frame).
Meanwhile, there are 11 other community-based legal actions and injunctions launched against the City of Vancouver and Vision Vancouver members of City Council that have either been resolved, or await adjudication in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
1. On May 21, 2014, the False Creek Resident’s Association filed for judicial review by the Supreme Court of the city’s decisions to grant back-to-back temporary development permits to Concord Pacific for the operation of their sales centre on land zoned for park and recreation. The court petition challenges the city’s ability to allow a property designated for parks to be used for commercial purposes.
2. The Community Association of New Yaletown filed a legal petition at BC Supreme Court to prevent the development, on the downtown city block containing Emery Barnes Park, at Davie and Seymour, of what could become the densest residential building in Vancouver.
3. The Casa Mia rezoning court action. As the Southlands Community website states, “The Casa Mia Heritage Estate, located at 1920 SW Marine Drive, is threatened with precedent-setting rezoning.”
The Southlands community is not opposed to the use of the Casa Mia heritage site for the purposes of a small scale care facility for seniors. Rather the concern arises respecting the proposed large-scale, multi-level development that would encompass a hospital-like, 62 bed seniors care facility that residents believe would detrimentally impact, and significantly change the character of, the surrounding neighbourhood. Residents believe, as well, that the net effect of the proposed construction would serve to “warehouse” seniors, an approach to seniors care that is not only inhumane, but in direct contravention to the policy adopted by Vancouver City Hall’s very own Seniors Advisory Committee. More information may be found here.
4. Manipulation of protected view cones. A notice of civil claim was filed by the Residents Association Mount Pleasant in B.C. Supreme Court on March 4 alleging that the city — without Council debate, public notice, or motion of Council to amend the applicable zoning and development bylaw — significantly narrowed “view cones” that are legally protected. Details may be found in this Straight story.
5. An alleged conflict of interest in the building lease to social media company HootSuite, this suit launched against the City of Vancouver, including Mayor Gregor Robertson. Background to the suit may be found in this Valentine’s Day Vancouver Courier Bob Mackin story.
6. Short Term Incentives for Rental (STIR) and Rental 100, a petition filed by West End Neighbours, that has now been resolved (not in favour of the plaintiff). The legal action sought to quash bylaws that override existing zoning guidelines, violate the Vancouver Charter, and which it was alleged provided excessive incentives to developers.
7. The Hadden Park, 12-foot wide asphalt bike path, since resolved in favour of the plaintiff — there will be no bike path constructed through Hadden Park, nor through the adjacent Kitsilano Beach park. Extensive VanRamblings coverage of the issue may be found here.
8. Community Centre Associations suit against the Park Board and the City of Vancouver, some insight into which may be found here. In the coming days, VanRamblings will provide more extensive coverage of this issue, and an update as to where the parties are, at present, in the long-running, and not soon to be resolved, dispute.
9. Vancouver Not Vegas court challenge to PavCo and Paragon BC Place Casino Plan. Just click on the link above for details.
10. Alleged violation of Canadian Charter of Rights. City worker Milan Kljajic has taken the City of Vancouver to the Human Rights Tribunal, alleging that City of Vancouver managers violated the Charter of Rights by using the city’s code of conduct to muzzle a worker who stepped into a fight for control of the city’s community centres. Mr. Kljajic’s action hopes to reveal that some provisions of the City’s Code of Conduct are unconstitutional. More details on this legal action may be found in the September 29, 2013 Province newspaper story.
11. Alleged conflict of interest pertaining to the Oakridge Centre development. Cedar Party founder Glen Chernen, and nine others, filed a March 7th petition in B.C. Supreme Court asking that a judge disqualify Mayor Gregor Robertson, and his caucus, for failing to disclose a direct or indirect pecuniary conflict of interest. Details of the suit may be found in this Bob Mackin Vancouver Courier story.
As this editorial in The Province states, “Hey, Vision, city hall lawsuit
s are not a sign of happy citizens.” And so it has been written, and recorded.
