Ottawa in bind over new Vancouver tax
Feds concerned about effectiveness of real estate levy and overall economic impact
? David Staples
The Province
The battle over densification just got a lot more interesting.
It seems this fight is not just folks who want lot splitting and highrise apartments pitted against those who oppose such developments.
Former Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan, now an MLA with the British Columbia Liberal party, says the densification fight is both class and generational warfare. It pits haves against have-nots, old against young, wealthy baby boom homeowners against millennials, poorer young people who hope to live in the city core, rather than commute from sprawling suburbs, but can’t afford to buy into these established areas.
Sullivan knows the fight well. As Vancouver’s mayor from 2005 to 2008, he faced stiff resistance from activist and empowered baby boomers when he tried to combat sprawl, rising greenhouse gas emissions, out-of-control housing prices and the development of prime farmland in the Vancouver area.
I interviewed Sullivan after first hearing his ideas on CBC Radio’s The 180. In his CBC interview, Sullivan pointed out that baby boomers had been inspired by the ideas of urban planning guru Jane Jacobs, who fought against a city redeveloped for cars, with endless freeways and massive highrises.
The fight against highrises started in the 1960s, but continued for decades and it didn’t just halt the neighbourhood-busting mega-projects that Jacobs disliked, it stopped needed densification, kept central neighbourhoods locked into their 1950s suburban form, and enriched the baby boomers who initially bought homes there, Sullivan says.
“It’s been a brilliant financial strategy for them and they’re cashing out now as we speak.”
In our interview, Sullivan describes Vancouver as a Venice surrounded by a Phoenix, where the refusal to densify means that environmentally sensitive areas are getting mowed down to build sprawling, car-dependent suburbs.
Most Vancouverites want change, Sullivan says, but hardcore activists often get their way and block major densification efforts. “People with pretty narrow interests are able to get in the way of the natural densification of cities and in Vancouver it’s created a lot of problems with housing prices.
“It’s a great financial strategy to grab the land when it’s cheap and when you’re the only one around and lock it in, and then circle the wagons. Because the city will grow and if you can restrict supply, the only thing that can happen is the price will go up. So there’s a great wealth transfer from young people who are trying to find a way to live without pretty long commutes and living in a way that is more environmentally sustainable, and the older generation that is sitting on this land and stopping everything that would make the lives of the young people easier … (Young people) either pay it in money or they pay it in time. They will live off in a distant suburb and pay it in the time that they have to get to work, get to the things they want to go to.”
Sullivan points out that some resistance to change is be expected. “There’s a fear of change. People generally, naturally, like things to stay the same once they’ve established their living pattern. They see the downsides of change.”
Sometimes change is resisted by people claiming they don’t want to wreck the historic nature of the area. Sullivan doesn’t buy that these areas are full of endless numbers of important historic homes. Yes, he says, some historic sites must be preserved, but this isn’t an argument to prevent densification in mature areas.
What to make of Sullivan’s theory? It’s based on his experience as mayor. It’s a voice from the front lines of a fierce densification fight. I put a lot of weight in his take.
Jane Jacobs has had massive influence. The activists who took up her fight have always believed they were on the side of the angels. In taking dead aim at the monetary and anti-density consequences of Jacobs’ legacy, Sullivan serves us all. It’s useful to point out to folks convinced they’re right and on the side of the good that they’re also getting rich off their principles.
In the end, though, the far more crucial point that Sullivan makes is that if we want a greener, less sprawling, more efficient, more affordable city with lower property taxes, densification is the way to go.
That will work for young people, but also should work for most baby boom homeowners, at least if they are sick of pollution, traffic jams and ever rising property taxes, the byproducts of a sprawling city.
© 2016 Postmedia Network Inc.