Influence of neighbourhood groups debated as Vancouver contemplates city-wide plan

Remember last year, when Vancouver's new council agreed to begin a city-wide plan?

Most municipalities in B.C. have official community plans — updated every decade or so — that serve as frameworks for what can or can't be built, and what future infrastructure projects might happen.

Vancouver last attempted a city-wide plan more than 25 years ago, but it was never completed. 

The idea to make a master plan, guiding development and infrastructure decisions for the whole city — instead of individual neighbourhoods, as has been recent tradition — was heralded by politicians from all parties as a way to unite a city with a fractious political climate. 

"We just voted virtually unanimously ... to embark on a new era for Vancouver. A city-wide plan that will really engage residents in determining what kind of city they want," Green Party Coun. Adriane Carr said at the time. 

But proclaiming a new era is trickier than making one happen. 

Last week, council received a staff report laying out how its plan could proceed. After six hours of debate they still hadn't come to a vote, because plenty of speakers — and a few councillors — disagreed with the values and principles it laid out. 

Which groups matter more?

Most of the disagreements centred around who the report defined as "key partners" and "communities that may require focused approaches" that would directly be consulted. 

The Musqueam, Squamish & Tsleil-Waututh Nations were named, along with "under-represented and equity seeking communities." Children, youth and young adults were highlighted, along with city employees and intergovernmental partners. 

Not directly cited were neighbourhood associations — the patchwork of non-profit volunteer groups that advocate for local resident concerns. 

"I'm questioning fundamentally why we're not starting with the neighbourhoods," said Coun. Colleen Hardwick, who claimed the plan installed top-down values.

"We had a big election in October, and there was a lot of pushback on existing policies and plans."  

It was a sentiment echoed by several neighbourhood associations, but Coun. Christine Boyle said it is important to emphasize a more diverse range of voices.

"I'm excited about the city-wide approach, as someone who has grown up here, but lived in many different neighbourhoods," she said. 

She asked how consultations could engage people who don't speak English, or "renters, who maybe because of being moved around and displaced, aren't as involved in a neighbourhood association."

In addition, some speakers argued that no rezoning should be allowed while the plan is developed.  

'High level of anxiety'

Council will try to pass staff's report on Tuesday, which will formally kick-start the three-year, $18 million plan.

"The one thing I've learned in this job is there's always someone that's not happy with the decision that's made," said NPA Coun. Rebecca Bligh. 

She is optimistic that deep neighbourhood engagement, and a long-term end to rezoning of individual projects, could provide long-term peace — but she also said it is important to frame the discussion the right way.

"There's a lot riding on this for it to be successful, and for it to make the difference in 30 years. I think this is a really critical piece, because it's also where we could get lost in dividing," she said.   

But as Vancouver's chief planner Gil Kelley pointed out during the debate, there are already plenty of divisions. 

"Part of it is mistrust of government, but also things are changing really fast. They're getting really expensive, they're not as fun as they used to be. People ask, 'Do I want to live here? Can my kids afford to live here?'" he said.

"There's a very high level of anxiety. And we should just be honest about that."