Sorry I truly don't understand what you're saying here... no one's buying anyone else out. It's a daycare.
96
Ongoing cost-of-living crisis should trigger another housing benefit payment: Singh
(nationalpost.com)
39
‘Oh my God. You’re my son’: B.C. mom reunited with son 50 years after Sixties Scoop
(www.vancouverisawesome.com)
The article explains why this is an issue. When we say “the residents” it’s important to contextualize which residents and how many:
It also shows how city-building decisions can be swayed by a relatively small number of people who have the time, resources and desire to fight against change in their neighbourhood.
It’s understandable people don’t want their neighbourhoods to change in ways they fear would make them worse. But city hall should weigh those voices against broader public interests, including a much larger group of people who could benefit from such changes, but are not nearly as likely to show up at public meetings to make their case.
Macquisten would have liked to voice his support to the board of variance, but it’s not easy for a working parent of two to show up at city hall at 1 p.m. on a Tuesday.
I had no idea this was so dangerous. Uninstalling now
But, I think the concern about precedent setting is valid
I'd say the problem here is this isn't precedent-setting. It's not a rule change, it's an arbitrary process making an arbitrary decision based on the arbitrary opinion of the city's chief planner. Daycares should be by right but because of this insane ad hoc process we have no clear guidance on what's allowed where. Just because one guy opens a day care in point grey doesn't mean the next guy can open a nuclear plant.
so what they fought was a home-based business that could be disruptive and obstructive to the area.
This logic could apply to any business, anywhere in the city and forms the basis for NIMBYism. Does this mean we shouldn't build anything anywhere in Vancouver again?
But when you live in a city you have to accept some level of "disturbance" (remember this is children playing, not a rock concert) from others. Following your logic, we wouldn't be allowed to permit anything in the entire city ever again. Vancouver desperately needs new things like daycares and housing and we can't let the loudest (and richest) residents veto their inclusion.
Zooming out, this is 10 minutes from the downtown core of Vancouver, the region of 3 million people. You can't expect it to be preserved in amber forever. Ultimately this will mean fewer families are allowed to live in Vancouver because childcare is so important, and that hurts the entire city.
Genuinely curious: why?
Sure the city could increase enforcement, but in my mind this is a symptom of our nimby city underbuilding for decades. We've seen it in housing but this demand shows the problem exists in other areas like hotels too. When will we get a municipal government that actually delivers?
The very obvious solution to our housing crisis, the one almost literally every other country on earth would do, is to upzone our cities contained in the greenbelt. To say those cities are full and swap out greenbelt land is criminally negligent. Sprawl will cost us not only in upkeep but in the environmental devastation.
Based on their track record you're absolutely right, this is almost certainly on the backburner, never to return. I've lost all patience with this city's complete inability to deliver the simplest of promises. I'm only judging them on what they actually accomplish, not what they say they will do one day maybe in the future.
Surprise for me personally, I hadn't heard of her until this record and it rules.