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.

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 …