The April 14 commentary “Is it time for sa国际传媒 to intervene in Oak Bay housing?” raised several debatable points. Let’s take a closer look:
In respect to the Quest proposal, the commentary charged that two councillors who defended their decisions “scuttled the project,” “gave flimsy arguments,” “were disingenuous,” and voted against it for “spurious reasons.” This emotive, pejorative language is counterproductive.
Four councillors voted this down. They voted after considering the application and listening to the feedback from their communities.
Isn’t that how democracy works? Or do we abandon due process when it doesn’t suit us?
The commentary said more housing like the Quest is needed for those who want to downsize and stay in the neighbourhood. Million-dollar condos aren’t a need; they are a want.
People shopping in that price bracket aren’t starved for choice. Not even in Oak Bay.
“Blasting is an unavoidable aspect of site preparation,” the commentary stated.
All blasting is not the same. The extent needed for this project would extend well beyond anything happening in that neighbourhood at present. Then there’s the risk to that pesky Garry oak tree, but let’s ignore that.
Large and Co. bought the property at 2326 Oak Bay Ave. knowing what the regulations were at the time and (presumably) that their proposal would need a council approval.
They gambled and lost. Twice. The megabucks hoped for may not eventuate.
A question for people who demand that Oak Bay must do more to increase density: Why is tearing down one house and replacing it with duplexes and/or townhouses (as suggested by the councillors) — a density increase of 300 to 400 per cent on what was a single property site — not enough?
The commentary stated that council folded to the concerns of neighbours by rejecting a proposal for a housing development by the Oak Bay United Church.
Wrong! The project didn’t make it out of the planning department. On Jan. 2, 2019, Deborah Jensen, manager in Oak Bay’s building and planning department, sent the developers a four-page letter asking them to address 10 issues that arose from their application.
The church failed to respond to the issues, and on Feb. 9, 2020, withdrew the application before Oak Bay council had a chance to consider it.
The cry that the sa国际传媒 government should take control of housing decisions makes an easy soundbite, but are proponents of this idea even vaguely aware of the crisis in our medical system?
After all, that system is managed by the provincial government. The family doctor crisis, among other issues, wasn’t created solely by the current reigning political party, but it continues to worsen.
So how about we wait for an indication that the sa国际传媒 government can resolve one crisis before handing them another. After all, it’s not just about greenlighting more housing, it’s also about deciding who will be responsible for land management and all surrounding infrastructural challenges.
We should be careful what we wish for.
• To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
