On this edition of Journal: another hitch in the plan for a smooth path to reconciliation in British Columbia.

First, we had the BC government’s introduction of the Land Act, which unsettled many of its assertions of co-management with First Nations of all the Crown land in the province. The Act was withdrawn, but not before some name-calling.

But then in a splashy press conference, Premier Eby announced the granting of aboriginal title to Haida Gwaii. When people of all stripes and professions raised questions about what that would mean for private property owners, the Premier announced again and again it would not affect private property.

And then, boom – there was the court decision granting aboriginal title over land in Richmond to the Cowichan, with the Judge suggesting – despite what had been asserted by Premier Eby – there were issues around private property rights.

Finally, last month in another twist on this reconciliation journey, a different judge in a separate case found that BC’s mineral claims regime, fundamental to our hoped for resurgence in mining, is inconsistent with the province’s own declared law, DRIPA – the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act – because mining claims were made before receiving free, prior, and informed consent from First Nations.

With all of this cumulative confusion and uncertainty, is it any wonder that support for reconciliation has fallen in recent polls?

Joining me to make sense of all this is Thomas Isaac. As one of our country’s leading experts on aboriginal title and the law, he has concerns about what he is seeing in BC.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this edition of Journal, we try to make sense of the mish-mash of housing initiatives coming at us from all directions – federal, provincial, and municipal governments.

Two things seem obvious. First, no one is coordinating these various programs, since some of them overlap and some even contradict each other. At one point last spring, research showed there were at least 60 initiatives aimed at developers and builders, supposedly to increase the supply of housing, therefore leading to affordability. But have they?

Second, the whole issue of housing is fractured into parts. There is home ownership, market rental, below market rental, social housing, seniors housing, assisted living, and on and on. Each category gets debated on its own with little attention to how it fits with all the other needs. Policies are then developed sector by sector.

Beau Jarvis sees this as a problem. Beau is the President and CEO of Wesgroup Properties, one of Canada’s largest housing providers. For many years, his company has been a major player in purpose-built rental housing. Many people in government and in the community feel that this is the only answer to affordability, but is it?

Have we completely given up on the idea of ownership – in any form – because it seems so expensive and so impossible?

But at the moment, rental is the flavour of the month, garnering much of the attention and policies to support it. Despite Wesgroup’s strong presence in that market, Beau feels it is a mistake if we aren’t talking about housing as a whole with all its permutations and combinations since piecemeal policy does not guarantee a liveable, affordable city.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this edition of Journal, we examine what is happening to the City of Vancouver – and what can be done, if anything, to turn this situation around.

When I was a councillor in the late eighties, I remember one example of how neighbourhood planning was done in those days: on the street, not in backrooms.

A brand new False Creek residential development, to be built on industrial land, while controversial, was to be a centrepiece of new urban planning principles. Immediately, questions arose. How can you have density without amenities like parks? Or the idea that you can’t start building without thoughtful plans for infrastructure and traffic management. Most importantly, you have to talk to residents (or future residents) about their needs.

Larry Beasley, an urban planner for the city, was not content to just send paper reports to Council – he took a group of us councillors down to False Creek so we could actually see the design initiatives that were important to liveability, rather than just plunking down apartments.

As a sidebar, part of the lesson was about quality, dramatically emphasized when he was mid-sentence explaining why a certain kind of rock – rip-rap – had to be used along the shoreline to prevent rats from infesting the residential area. Just at that moment, a rat appeared and scampered up to us. Alright, alright. Pay for the right rip-rap!

But the point actually is, Larry Beasley was always hands-on: walking the streets, talking to residents, asking questions, listening and responding, ensuring we built a city for its citizens. It is a big reason why Vancouver has so many unique neighbourhoods. And for many years, those streets became mini communities – safe to walk, shop, and talk to your neighbours.

Larry is not happy with what he is seeing today: that the province has decided it can design our cities from Victoria.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.