Skip to main content

Do the Ends justify the Means?

The City of Vancouver, in British Columbia Canada, recently sought council approval for the Making Room Housing Program in June 2018, with a Public Hearing set for September the same year. The program is intended as a new city wide approach to housing and zoning which will purportedly allow for a wider range of housing choices in Vancouver’s neighbourhoods.

Citing a need for more housing choice, the staff report clarifies that the Making Room Housing program will include consultation through 2018/19 to determine the type of housing that will make sense for different neighbourhoods, but also requests an immediate ‘quick start’ action to allow duplexes in all areas currently zoned for single families.

Which begs the question: does a good policy justify a ‘quick start’ approach to implementation? Do the ends justify the means?

Vancouver is in a time of a housing crisis with citizens and stakeholders from different backgrounds having expressed a desire for bold actions. Many would argue that this program, and the proposed ‘quickstart’ to allow duplexes, is a good policy and should happen sooner rather than later. However, what the ‘quick start,’ and the Making Room Policy is lacking is consensus. Without consensus the policies, although valid, can crumble. This may be the case when the new City Council and Mayor convene later this year. A forced policy can also be a rallying point for opposition within the community. In a good democracy there are opportunities to be involved, to learn about the available courses of action, the reasoning behind any given policy, and equal decision making power are critical features of a robust democracy.

We can use principles developed by institutions around the world give us a framework with which to fully evaluate significant policy decisions such as the Making Room program.

All municipalities in British Columbia are required to have a city wide Official Community Plan, which most cities develop through consultation and engagement. The City of Vancouver does not have one. The report to council indicates that the Making Room Program will serve as a first step towards a community wide plan.

Here are the next steps in the Making Room Housing Program put forward by the city:
  1. Advance Quick Start actions
  2. Continue to map and research the existing conditions of the low-density areas
  3. Analyse new housing options and typologies for consideration
  4. Explore improved affordability
  5. Continue engagement with residents on housing challenges and options and explore what they want to “make room for” in neighbourhoods
  6. Develop principles/selection criteria to identify highly-suitable locations for new housing options (e.g. proximity to transit, shopping, schools, parks, amenities)
  7. Identify areas of displacement risk and areas of best opportunity for change
  8. Develop recommendations and report back

The city argues that there has been significant consultation leading to this current recommendation through the Housing Vancouver Strategy. The details of the consultation and the connection of the Making Room policy and the Housing Vancouver Strategy remain unclear.  One way we can evaluate the process behind this policy decision is to use the following 3 criteria from the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance:
  1. Citizenship, equal rights, and justice
  2. Representative and accountable institutions and processes
  3. Citizen initiative and participation

Looking at the three criteria above, we could make the case that the Making Room Housing program does support citizenship and equal rights; the program is ostensibly intended to support the economic rights of a variety of individuals in varying life circumstances. But does the Making Room policy have mechanisms to ensure justice and equality prevails in the allocation of the new housing types? This is not clear in the current proposed approach.

With respect to Criteria #2 accountable institutions and processes, the only mechanism currently available is via the election of the city councillors; they can be voted out. No other mechanism of accountability has been established for previous zoning/planning decisions, and there doesn’t appear to be anything for this current program. Will there be a process where citizens can further engage with the implementation of the Making Room policy? Will this be in 1 year? 5 years? A citizen review panel can add greater legitimacy to the policy.

The last pillar from #3 above, citizen initiative and participation, reveals the weakest point of the Making Room policy. There is unfortunately very little citizen initiative in the process of designing or implementing the policy. Citizen participation is purportedly intended through the public hearing in the fall, and the subsequent consultation to take place over the next year. Public hearings might make sense for single proposals, for a single neighbourhood or development, but for the city as a whole? Even then, public hearings fall far from the mark in terms of democratic engagement, as we expounded on here.

It will be important for citizens to be meaningfully involved in the process in order to reach a long-term consensus that the Making Room Policy is in the best interest of the city. Without a process to do this, there is a risk that the goals for densification, affordability, and housing variety will be eroded by new Council members or vocal opposition that can “hi-jack” the whole process. Which will not bode well for the goals of making room.


Popular posts from this blog

Including rational thought in decision-making: novel idea?

The post last week brought up the idea that we need to think about what concepts and ideas are put forward in the public realm. From pop music to sports to local community events, our approach to decision-making is influenced by commonly understood cultural practices. Meaningful democratic decision-making requires that we think about the practices, ideas, and values that percolate throughout society. More specifically, when it comes to engaging a group of people to get together and go through a democratic decision-making process, practitioners need to think about how participants are being, or have been, educated. By definition, democratic decision-making is not limited to specialists. "Rule by the people" means everyone gets to participate in decision-making, even about issues where we are not experts. This does not mean, however, that democratic decision-making should be approached from a place of ignorance.  Robert Dahl  emphasized the importance of  enlight

Why independence matters for a democracy...and what the heck is an ombudsperson?!?

Remember this definition of accountability, from a previous post : "the relationship between the local population and their representatives, and the mechanisms through which citizens can ensure that decision-makers are answerable for decisions made."  - from the   Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance In British Columbia (Canada) there are over 2800 local and public authorities, not including actual government offices or departments. Sufficed to say, that's a lot of decision makers. How are citizens supposed to make sure decision-makers are answerable? This is the intended role of the ombudsperson (previously ombudsman). This office is an independent agent that has the power to investigate and examine the activities of public officials and bodies. An ombudsperson is intended to represent the interests of the public, those served by public bodies, and make determinations about whether their actions are aligned with policy and legislation, to examine p

Accountability: getting information about public the public

When it comes to democracy one term that gets floated around often is the notion of accountability. But what does accountability actually mean? What does it look like? Further, in the context of government bodies, elected representatives, and the myriad different organizations that provide civil services in our communities, how does accountability happen? And what's required for a community institution to be able to say it is accountable? The answer is different, for different institutions. For example, we often focus on the accountability of elected officials and government representatives. But what about Crown corporations, or state companies? In Canada, Crown corporations are publicly held entities that provide a public service, but that are not directly managed or overseen by any elected official. The first federal Crown Corporation was the Canadian National Railway, established in 1922, and there are now a diverse array of publicly owned autonomous public entities in di