Skip to main content

Where do the candidates stand on CAC's?

After the release of our research paper Who's Counting the Dollars? concerning Community Amenity Contributions, we have asked candidates in this year's municipal election for their thoughts on our recommendations.
We will post responses here as they are received.

OneCity Vancouver, Christine Boyle
One of the big ideas that OneCity Vancouver is bringing to this election is our Windfall Power Land Value Capture proposal (sometimes called a land value tax, or land lift tax). You can read more about it in this Vancouver Sun Op-Ed, and more will be released with our platform soon. 

A land value capture wouldn't entirely replace the CAC system, but it would dramatically scale it back by creating a more transparent system for measuring the impact that upzoning or nearby public infrastructure investments have on land value, and then capturing a portion of that 'lift' in value to spend on community priorities (like affordable housing and more robust public transit). In addition, it will dampen speculation, which is important. 

Yes Vancouver, Hector Bremner
YES will expand consultations to ensure that neighbourhoods can have a much greater say in directing where and how the CACs are spent. 
*Note: Evoke has asked Hector Bremner to be more specific. 

Graham Cook
Community Amenity Contributions need to be calculated from a predetermined and publicly available formula that takes into account things like the percentage of the project that is long-term secured rental (both market and non-market) as well as other social benefits. I'm really excited by the concept of allowing for more public input and participation in the direction of those funds. As with all consultation initiatives, efforts will need to be taken to ensure that non-privileged voices are amplified and that the funds are utilized in such a way that maximizes public benefit.

NPA Vancouver, Justin Goodrich
With respect to CAC’s, the NPA believes that CAC’s should not lead planning, but rather that planning should come first – then CAC’s.  Moreover, we foresee CAC’s as being predetermined based on a series of metrics (size, scope, location, etc.).  These metrics would then fall on a spectrum that would determine CAC’s. Finally, the NPA is committed to genuine stakeholder engagement.  This means that each development will include a proper opportunity for community engagement / feedback (not these rushed processes that fail to fully engage the local community) during which CAC’s would be discussed openly.

Also, here are a few highlights from our Housing Platform in general:
  • We will immediately allow two secondary suites in detached homes, creating up to 40,000 new units for renters while providing new financial options for homeowners.
  • Fast-track housing for those who need it most.
  • Reduce costs of developing secondary suites and laneway homes.
  • Renew outstanding co-op rental leases.
  • Construct rental accommodations on City-owned land.
  • Stop the practice of city planning based on developer cash contributions.
  • Stop one-off and sweetheart deals with developers.
  • Break the permitting longjam and bring down the cost of new units.
  • Establish protections for displaced tenants.
  • Engage neighbouring municipalities.

Adrian Crook, Independent
I support increased transparency around how and where CACs are spent within the community. I support ensuring CACs are spent by and in the community, in a manner that fosters inclusion, diversity and social equity.

It's important that CAC revenue spending benefits the local community directly, but also the city as a whole, by adhering to progressive principles. Keeping CAC funds in the community has to be balanced with necessary city-wide goals like increasing affordable housing or reducing street homelessness.

Kennedy Stewart, Independent
I share Evoke’s position that equitable and inclusive access to decision-making, as well as transparency is critical to democracy. Citizen engagement and empowerment fosters greater community ownership over key decisions. I am committed to building more resilient neighbourhoods through this approach.

Vancouver is an amazing city, attracting people from across Canada and around the world. But despite all the construction happening around us, everyone but the very wealthy is finding it harder and harder to find affordable housing. As mayor, housing affordability will be my number one priority.

CACs assist in addressing the demands for various public amenities associated with growth in the City. Requiring developers to contribute up to 80% of their profits to provide these community services and amenities for all residents to live active and social lives is critical.

My priority is to build 25,000 new non-profit affordable rental homes over the next ten years. I’ll focus on building affordable rental homes for those making $80,000 a year or less, more non-market and supportive housing for our most vulnerable citizens, and targeted housing solutions for Indigenous Peoples, cultural communities, seniors, and people living with disabilities.  

To address your Evoke’s concern that CAC’s don’t always directly benefit the communities in which they are generated, my priority will be to require onsite delivery of housing, childcare, or other community amenities (vs. payment in lieu) so that benefits go to the community where the project is built.

The allocation of public benefits is determined through a Public Benefit Strategy (PBS). PBSs are developed through the planning process (eg., West End Plan, the DTES Plan, Grandview Woodlands Plan, etc.). I support the idea of a participatory budgeting process and building on the West End Participatory Budgeting Pilot will expand and pilot the process in other communities.

Increasing density helps create livable and sustainable communities, economic vitality, and enables a better response to a growing and changing population. Ensuring resident buy in and support for change requires more robust engagement and meaningful decision-making authority within their community. I am committed to that principle. 


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 democracy doesn't mean you get your way - Part 2

If you do an online search of the word "democracy", you'll come across references to things like 'majority decision-making' or 'control by a majority'. Majority decision-making, and voting, are often assumed to be key features of a democracy. However: neither voting, nor control by a majority, are necessary for democratic decision-making. This may come as a shock, but there are ways for groups of people to make decisions that do not involve voting. Voting leaves very little room for nuance, for the exploration of alternatives, or for compromise between disparate perspectives. Majority decision-making, for its part, can lead to a tyranny of the majority, the oppression of minority perspectives, the polarization of opinions, and, by definition, a portion of participants whose preferences are ignored. So what's the alternative? If you're part of a group that is empowered to make a decision on some issue (a board, community group, committ

Moving beyond a tyranny of the majority

I really like the colour orange, and orange shirts. But what if a majority of the people in my life wanted to stop me from wearing orange, and decided to take a vote of those who were opposed to ever allowing me to wear orange again? What would I do!? In the last post I made brief mention of the possibility that, under majority rules, decision-making could result in a tyranny of the majority. This can occur anytime there is a minority (which is pretty much possible all the time) who do not have the sufficient numbers to influence decisions under this approach (majority-based decision-making). In this scenario there is no incentive for the majority to take into account opposing views. Those who find themselves in the minority will have their needs and desires rejected, ignored, or worse, oppressed. To put it bluntly - a group could decide it's not cool to wear orange anymore, and to put in place a law whereby anyone caught wearing orange would be imprisoned. All they would ne