I’ve always thought the only way to (legally) make money fast (legally) is to win the Lotto Max. Recent action by the Kelowna government, led by City Director Doug Gilchrist and the Mayor and Council, gives hope for an alternative path.
It’s easy. Just buy a plot of land, maximize the possible density the land can support regardless of zoning, and then get a derogation from zoning restrictions in exchange for humble development-related companies that supposedly improve the community. It is these variances that deliver the millions that compete with Lotto Max.
What the Council does not fully consider in approving these types of get rich quick projects is the external impact that these projects collectively impose on the community. These include rising property costs and thus rising housing costs, increasing car traffic and parking on the street as well as higher local taxes. These tend to make Kelowna a less liveable city for anyone who isn’t a developer.
For example, let’s look at the development project proposed by the mission group that the council will be discussing tonight. The affected property is right on the lakeshore and the proposal sets new standards in terms of opacity and incomplete disclosure.
For example, the size of the property described apparently includes Crown property and underwater.
As part of its consultation process, the developer distributed a brochure describing the project to more than 556 property owners and businesses in the area. Unfortunately, much of the detailed information that would allow interested parties – let alone council members – to draw reasoned conclusions about the desirability of the project has been left out.
Most puzzlingly, the developer’s original proposal included a six-story boat storage facility when zoning only required one story. Why not a glittering marina? Perhaps the property developer was unwilling to deal with government regulations restricting a marina in a place considered a prime fish habitat. Why the planning department has recommended four levels of boat storage when this is not permitted under applicable safety laws is unexplained to the council or anyone else.
I’m assuming the developer expects the city to negotiate with federal and provincial authorities to change the rules to accommodate a marina in the project, fish habitat or not.
You might wonder why this half-baked proposal is coming to the Council now and why there is a seemingly endless queue of development proposals, all of which require significant deviations from the Community plan and zoning.
Perhaps developers see an opportunity in the $ 478 million deficit highlighted in 2018 that saw the city face capital projects like roads, sewers, and parks over the next decade.
This deficit was caused, at least in part, by the city adjusting its Development Expense Charges (DCCs) only every five years instead of annually or monthly. Given these policies, when Walter Gray, the former head of the Chamber of Commerce, was mayor, the cumulative effects were significant.
As evidenced by the approval of development projects, neither the planning department nor the city council seem concerned about the lack of affordable housing or how this abundance of high-rise buildings is changing the city’s environment and the ability to accommodate people of medium and medium size lower incomes.
They appear to be geared towards closing the accumulated deficit through a combination of steadily rising property tax rates and most importantly, allowing non-zoning developments.
Taken together, all the variances generate significant developer revenue in the form of DCC fees, while developers provide limited public facilities in return for the increasing building heights.
So how is the Council shifting the focus from optimizing the city’s DCC revenue to making Kelowna a livable city for its current and future citizens? What you should do is:
– Reject the current proposal from the mission group and send it back to the drawing board.
– Pause approving projects that require height deviations from the existing official parish plan and use the time to develop a long-term housing strategy that will meet the needs of the entire city.
– Instruct staff to include a statement on their future submission to the council as to how (or not) a particular development is compatible with the housing strategy.
Should such measures fail, the voters should demand a change in the council and in the city administration.
David Bond is a retired banking economist who lives in Kelowna.
