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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who gets to decide when it comes to Community Amenity Contributions?

This week we're approaching candidates in the upcoming Vancouver municipal election to get their feedback on the city's approach to Community Amenity Contributions (CACs). The Evoke team undertook a case study and research project in this area, and believes these could be better approached. Candidate responses will be posted on this site, meanwhile, here's some background on our perspective. 
The City of Vancouver has a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) policy, officially established in 2004 with their Financing Growth strategy, where all new development and rezoning applications contribute, financially or in-kind, to community amenities. The CACs are extracted from new development and spent upon Council approval in a number of valuable areas such as: affordable housing, child care, amenities, green spaces, community infrastructure and other public goods.
Our research focuses on a key dimension related to CACs; although they are derived from value created within a neighb…

Collaborative Governance in Action

Government: one participant amongst many

In a previous post we highlighted the need to go beyond voting for robust democratic participation. But if that's the case then the question becomes - how? Where do we create places for collaboration, discussion, and dialogue surrounding key issues facing our communities?

One possibility is to set up opportunities for collaborative governance. Now remember, governance is distinct from government; governance refers to decision-making practices and structures, and alsothe broader systems in which decisions about our communities are made. A government is a specific entity endowed with decision-making authority over something.

Collaborative governance simply refers to decision-making where multiple different organizations are involved. In these forums, governments are one of the participants amongst many, as opposed to being the sole arbiter over final decisions. Decision-making takes place between both state and non-state entities, and authori…

Does an efficient public service destroy community accountability?

New Public Management is an approach to running public service organizations (government services), and civil service generally, focused on service delivery that is efficient, business-like, and that incorporates market based principles. It includes management techniques and practices drawn from the private sector, allowing public servants to contract out services through competitive contracting, and focused on the professionalized delivery of public services.

The problem is...this approach may result in a loss to democratic accountability.

In a previous post we outlined two key dimensions to accountability; 1) understanding and monitoring decisions that are made, and 2) access to trustworthy information. Public administration, and the notion of public service, was traditionally focused on accountability to constituents via centralized control, and reporting to, defined government ministries and departments. This model is far from perfect; centralized bureaucracies are problematic in …