Sustainable Region Intiative Meeting- July 13

July 3, 2007

NOTICE TO THE GVRD SUSTAINABLE REGION INITIATIVE TASK FORCE

You are requested to attend a Regular Meeting of the GVRD Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force to be held at 9:00 am on Friday, July 13, 2007, in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

A G E N D A

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 July 13, 2007 Regular Meeting Agenda Staff Recommendation: That the Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 13, 2007 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 June 15, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held June 15, 2007 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Amending Bylaw Number 1066, 2007 Designated Speaker: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary Recommendation: a) That the GVRD Board introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Amending Bylaw Number 1066, 2007”. b) That the GVRD Board reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Amending Bylaw Number 1066, 2007”.

5.2 The Sustainable Region Initiative: Context for a “Strategic Plan” Designated Speaker: Johnny Carline, Chief Administrative Officer Recommendation: Recommendation: That the SRI Task Force: a) endorse the amended draft of the SRI Strategic Plan for the purpose of holding a workshop, led by the Task Force, with all Board members invited, to discuss the draft; b) direct staff to arrange the workshop and to prepare appropriate presentation materials. NOTE: Report to follow under separate cover

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values, dated July 5, 2007

6.2 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Housing – The Price we Pay, dated June 29, 2007

6.3 Update on Greater Vancouver Economic Council (GVEC), dated July 5, 2007

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.

9. ADJOURNMENT

Item 5.1

Committee Meeting Date: July 13, 2007

To: Sustainable Region Initiative Committee

From: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary Department

Date: June 26, 2007

Subject: Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Amending Bylaw Number 1066, 2007

Recommendation: a) That the GVRD Board introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Amending Bylaw Number 1066, 2007”. b) That the GVRD Board reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Amending Bylaw Number 1066, 2007”.

1. PURPOSE To seek board approval to amend its procedure bylaw to provide for suspending rules of procedure.

2. CONTEXT In March when the board considered amendments to its procedure bylaw, staff was requested to investigate options for suspending the rules and suggest voting alternatives and rationale for doing so.

Suspending rules enables an assembly (board) to do something that could not be done without violating its own rules and does not conflict with its constitution, bylaws, or with the fundamental principles of parliamentary law. For example, the board could not resolve to suspend the rule that, for the purpose of election of the chair and vice chair each director has one vote in each election for an office, because this is a provision of the Local Government Act; doing so would conflict with the legislation.

The board’s procedure bylaw does not provide for suspending the rules. However, in unprovided cases the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly apply. It stipulates two days notice be given of a motion to suspend the rules; a majority vote is required. If two days notice is not given, a motion to suspend the rules can be made at the meeting, but unanimous consent is required.

Several sources were consulted on standard rules of parliamentary procedure for suspending rules; these are noted in Table 1. Based on this survey, there seems to be no consistent method. Some require notice; others do not. The rationale for requiring some notice may be to provide time to review whether the suspension conflicts with existing bylaws or legislation. The rationale for the differing voting methods, from general consent to unanimous consent, may be to protect minority rights or to uphold the integrity of the rule.

Source Rule Robert’s Rules of Notes a parliamentary procedure rule requires previous Order notice and a two-thirds vote for its amendment. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is required to suspend it. Longan’s Allows a rule to be suspended by general consent. But if Parliamentary one member objects, a formal motion is necessary and a Rules two-thirds vote. Bourinot’s Rules of Notes it is customary to insist on unanimous consent to Order suspend a rule. Standing Orders of Some Orders explicitly allow the House of Commons to the House of suspend the operation of other Standing Orders. It is also Commons common for the House of Commons, at any given time, to set aside its rules with the unanimous consent of all Members present. Table 1

If the board determines the current provision requiring unanimous vote to suspend its rules during the meeting is too stringent, then whatever option is decided upon can be implemented by way of an amendment to the procedure bylaw.

3. ALTERNATIVES Any option considered would be subject to the suspension not being inconsistent with or in contravention of any statutory requirement.

a) Maintain the status quo for suspending the rules through the Rules of the Legislative Assembly whereby two days notice is required, or if notice is not given, then unanimous consent is required.

b) Amend the procedure bylaw by adding a provision for suspending the rules by requiring a vote of two thirds of the votes cast.

Alternative b) is recommended and is reflected in Attachment 1, Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Amending Bylaw Number 1066, 2007. It is consistent with the procedure bylaw requirement for a two thirds vote to add items to the agenda, and to move ‘that the vote on the motion be called’.

4. CONCLUSION The board’s procedure bylaw does not include a provision for suspending rules, however the board is able to do so through the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly which requires a unanimous vote if notice is not provided. This provision can be changed by amending the procedure bylaw.

Doc No. 4515386

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NUMBER 1066, 2007

A Bylaw to Amend “Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Bylaw Number 1009, 2005” to provide for suspension of the rules.

WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District has adopted “Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Bylaw Number 1009, 2005”, a Bylaw to govern the proceedings of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board and Committees pursuant to section 794 of the Local Government Act ; and

WHEREAS the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District wishes to amend “Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Bylaw Number 1009, 2005”;

NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. “Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Bylaw Number 1009, 2005” is hereby amended as follows:

In Part 1, by adding Sections 1.4 and 1.5 as follows:

“Motion to Suspend the Rules 1.4 Any member may give notice of a motion to temporarily suspend any one or more of the rules contained in this Bylaw, provided that such suspension is not inconsistent with or in contravention of any statutory requirement, by providing the secretary with a written copy of such motion no later than two working days prior to the scheduled meeting, and the secretary shall add the motion to the agenda for said meeting. The notice must specify which rule is to be temporarily suspended and the item on the agenda to which that suspension will apply.

1.5 At a meeting, any member may at any time introduce a motion to temporarily suspend any one or more of the rules contained in this Bylaw provided that such suspension is not inconsistent with or in contravention of any statutory requirement, but such motion may only be adopted by at least two thirds of the votes cast.”

2. This bylaw shall be cited as “Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Amending Bylaw Number 1066, 2007”.

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME this _____ day of ______, 2007.

RECONSIDERED, PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this _____ day of

______, 2007. ______Lois E. Jackson, Chair

______Paulette A. Vetleson, Secretary

Greater Vancouver Regional District Procedure Amending Bylaw Number 1066, 2007 Page 1 of 1

Item No. 5.2

Committee Meeting Date: July 13, 2007

To: Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force

From: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer

Date: July 5, 2007

Subject: The Sustainable Region Initiative: Context for a “Strategic Plan”

Recommendation: That the SRI Task Force: a) endorse the amended draft of the SRI Strategic Plan for the purpose of holding a workshop, led by the Task Force, with all Board members invited, to discuss the draft. b) direct staff to arrange the workshop and to prepare appropriate presentation materials.

1. PURPOSE

This report affords the SRI Task Force a further opportunity to provide input to the development of the GVRD (SRI) Strategic Plan. The plan will articulate the commitment and strategic priorities:

• of the GVRD as a corporate body to contributing to a livable and sustainable future through its mandated functions, and • of the GVRD as a political entity to providing leadership and advocating for collaborative solutions to the broader sustainability challenges and opportunities facing the region..

2. CONTEXT

The SRI Task Force has requested staff to develop a comprehensive document that would convey what the SRI is and what it has and will achieve with the intent that this be a document the GVRD Board can ‘own’ and promote. To ensure the latter objective is achieved, rather than an adopted staff document which may or may not be ‘owned’ by the Board, the document is being developed interactively with the SRI Task Force.

After a number of general discussions, staff presented to the May meeting of the Task Force a draft outline of the proposed document.

On advice of the SRI Task Force, this varied from the original ‘architecture’ of the SRI (attached) contained in the management plans, in that it now clearly separates the ‘Regional Vision Statement’ from the ‘GVRD Organization Mission Statement’. The former is a high level statement of aspiration for the region as a whole while the latter is a more focused statement related to the three broad functions identified for the GVRD: • service provision; • mandated planning functions • leadership/advocacy in a collaborative governance context Page: 2 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

A preliminary partial draft of the first four sections of the document was presented to the Task Force at its May meeting, and direction was given to staff to refine the draft text, including the addition of a section on sustainability principles (‘the sustainability lens’), develop section 5 (key priorities) and begin to select the key projects/programs to be included in the second appendix.

As a result the outline of the current draft is as follows: 1. Introduction: Greater Vancouver – its livability and sustainability 2. Regional Vision Statement 3. The Evolving Role of the GVRD in Planning the Future of the Region 4. GVRD organization mission statement 5. Sustainability Principles 6. Key Strategies and Priorities • Strategies, objectives, target dates, measures Appendices: • Approved plans • Key projects/programs

It is intended that the material will be worked on over the summer break to develop a presentation draft with emphasis on illustrative materials and lay out to make the material as accessible and attractive to readers as possible and that this draft would be used as the basis for a Task Force led workshop to which all Board members would be invited to participate.

3. ALTERNATIVES

Option A: That the SRI Task Force endorse the amended draft of the SRI Strategic Plan for the purpose of holding a workshop, led by the Task Force, and with all Board members invited, to discuss the draft; and direct staff to arrange the workshop and prepare appropriate presentation materials.

Option B: That the SRI Task Force direct staff on further refinements to be made to the draft and to bring back a further draft to the Task Force for further consideration in September.

4. CONCLUSION

Following discussion and advice from the SRI Task Force at its June meeting, the draft GVRD SRI Strategic Plan has been refined and developed. The Task Force’s feedback on this draft is sought, as is direction on whether to proceed to a workshop or return to the Task Force for further consideration.

Attachments: 1. Original SRI “Architecture 2. Draft Text for GVRD SRI Strategic Plan Report

00452360 Page: 3 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

The Original SRI “Architecture”

Page: 4 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

ATTACHMENT: DRAFT TEXT FOR THE GVRD SRI STRATEGIC PLAN REPORT

1. Introduction: Greater Vancouver – its livability and its sustainability

The purpose of this document is to set out in clear terms the role and purpose, driving philosophy and strategic objectives of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

It is increasingly clear that the governance of a metropolitan region like Greater Vancouver can only be achieved through collaborative means. An urban region may be viewed as a system of systems – ecological, economic, social, cultural, political, transportation, information, and so on. All of these systems interact and must be taken into account when the future of the region is being considered. Yet no one institution or organization is responsible for all of these systems; nor could they be in any effective way. Different organizations: public, private and non-profit, are responsible for various parts of this system of systems. As well a myriad of decisions and actions are taken by individuals.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District has some very specific responsibilities, most notably in the provision of utility services. At the same time it represents the coming together of local governments throughout the region to represent an organized federation unique in the multitude of organizations which exist in the region. While the GVRD is not responsible for and cannot by itself oversee the future of the region from every aspect, it is perhaps singularly positioned to provide leadership and to facilitate collaborative governance processes which will bring together those who, collectively, can shape the region’s future.

Since 2002, the Greater Vancouver Regional District has formally put the concept of sustainability at the centre of its operating and planning philosophy and committed itself to be a leader in the process of striving to make the region one which is explicitly committed to a sustainable future. This comprehensive endeavour has become known as ‘The Sustainable Region Initiative’, or more familiarly as ‘the SRI’.

Now, five years after the inception of the SRI, this document brings together all the strands of the SRI as a means of communicating where the GVRD now stands and where it intends to go.

When we speak of the livability of a region, we speak of its quality of life. Typically this includes the quality of the environment in which the region is set and how it contributes to the enjoyment and well being of the region’s citizenry; the health of the region’s economy through which its citizens derive the means to obtain the necessities of life and additional goods and services which add to their well-being; and the social health of the community, from the quality of its essential services such as health care, education and justice system to its ‘social capital’ (the engagement of its citizens in the social activities that contribute to community life) and ‘culture’ (the character, style and content of social interaction, including but not limited to ‘the arts’ and ‘politics’ in the larger sense, which reflect and define the particular nature of a community).

Metropolitan Vancouver, with its spectacular natural setting, prosperous life style, vibrant multi-cultural social life, diversity of local communities, and vigorous but stable and civil democratic political system, has been consistently rated the most livable large city in North America and one of the two or three most livable cities in the world. While it undoubtedly has its flaws, Metropolitan Vancouver continues to be a truly wonderful Page: 5 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

place to live, a place which inspires the pride and affection of its residents and attracts people to it from across Canada and the rest of the world.

However, when we consider what constitutes a sustainable city, this picture changes. The notion of ‘sustainability’ has many shades of meaning but its core concept is clear and was captured by the United Nations Brundtland Commission in words that have been adopted by many places across the world: ‘the ability for a community to meet its own needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs’.

This idea in its fullest sense includes the full range of environmental, economic and social systems (the well known concept of the three legged stool), and in its most focused and telling expression it refers to: the rate of consumption of resources by a community in relation to that community’s ability to regenerate those resources the rate and degree of waste generation (which includes the idea of ‘pollution’) by a community in relation to the environment’s ability to absorb that waste.

One concept developed here in Metropolitan Vancouver to describe and measure this idea is the ‘ecological footprint’ of a community.

Communities and cities, however, have not been self contained closed systems for centuries and it is on their individual and collective impact on global systems that attention has been focused over the last two decades.

In terms of resource renewal and waste absorption, one striking concept developed to describe and measure the global sustainability problem is the number of planet Earths required to sustain current and projected levels of consumption and waste generation. Obviously we only have one planet and therefore any required number of planets in excess of one is not sustainable. Yet many observers suggest we now have exceeded that critical point and, in the common parlance of finance, we are ‘living off our capital’. This is not a sustainable situation. Worse, if the developing countries, particularly the emerging giants of China, India and Indonesia, follow the historic pattern set by the already developed countries, we will need six or more planets to support our current and projected level of resource consumption and waste generation. No amount of quibbling with the arithmetic can escape the conclusion that unless there is a radical course correction our common future would appear to be gloomy indeed.

And it is in that context that the future of the Metropolitan Vancouver region must be considered.

Canada is among the poorest performers in the world with respect to sustainability and while Metropolitan Vancouver has some advantages over other Canadian cities, particularly with respect to energy, and has made some moves in the right direction, it still has huge sustainability issues to address. It is a North American city and, if we assume a future where all cities throughout the world strive to achieve an ecological footprint consistent with the ‘one planet’ measure of sustainability, North American cities face the challenge of achieving a seventy five percent reduction in their ecological footprint – and we do not have centuries to accomplish that.

As noted, the global future probably rests with the future performance of China, India, Indonesia and the like. The degree to which Metropolitan Vancouver adjusts its Page: 6 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

activities to become more sustainable will have local effects but would be scarcely noticeable, in quantitative terms on a global scale. But its significance as an example, both moral and practical, significantly exceeds its quantitative impact. Precisely because Metropolitan Vancouver is perceived to be a world leader in developing a livable city, it receives a disproportionate share of attention. As demonstrated at the 2006 World Urban Forum, many influential leaders, especially in the developing world, look to Metropolitan Vancouver for inspiration and example, despite our shortcomings from a sustainability point of view.

Local planning and development practices have produced a city which most find to be conducive to a very pleasant lifestyle in an attractive city. We can be justifiably proud of this, and the honours that have been bestowed on the region, its municipalities and individuals as a result. Yet for all this, there is a nagging feeling that we are being honoured as much for our make-up and superficial style as for our inner health and character. And it is on the latter that our lasting virtue and reputation must depend. For the sake of our own future residents and for the potentially significant role we can play on the world stage, we need to be a sustainable star, not just a passing beauty. It is suggested that it must be on that reality that the vision for the future of this region should be based. Page: 7 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

2. Vision for Metropolitan Vancouver

Metropolitan Vancouver will strive to achieve what humanity aspires to on a global basis: the highest quality of life including cultural vitality, economic prosperity, social justice and compassion, in a beautiful and nurtured environment. We will achieve this within a framework of applied sustainability principles including an unshakeable commitment to the wellbeing of future generations and the other inhabitants of our one shared planet. We will share the striving for this vision with other cities in the world, confident that the resultant mutual learning and inspiration will be vital ingredients in our hopes for a sustainable common future.

Page: 8 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

3. The Evolving Role of the GVRD in Planning the Future of the Region

Service Delivery Role The forerunners to the current GVRD emerged around 1920 when local municipalities came to realize they could no longer independently effectively or efficiently deliver the core services of drinking water supply and sewage disposal to their citizens. ‘Districts’ were therefore formed, these being essentially municipal cooperatives designed to supply these services on a collective and cooperative basis. It is this function, the supply to municipalities of those services which the municipalities have determined are better supplied regionally, which remains the core activity of the modern Greater Vancouver Regional District. As a result, the design, construction and operation of the infrastructure to provide drinking water and dispose of liquid and solid waste (sewage and garbage) account for the vast majority of the regional district’s budget and staff activities.

Furthermore it is this history which largely shaped the political philosophy of the regional district from a functional point of view. And it remains true that it is the local municipalities who are the principal recipient of the regional services (particularly the dominant utility services), it is the local municipalities who decide which services the region is to deliver and it is the local municipalities who elect/appoint the directors to the Boards of Administration who govern the regional districts.

In a political sense, the history and functioning of the GVRD as a service provider points to the local municipal councils and their supporting bureaucracies as the constituency served by the GVRD, rather than the citizenry of the region as a whole.

Planning, Policy and Regulation Role In 1967 this picture of the regional district as solely a service provider to the local municipalities was changed by the legislation that formally created the Greater Vancouver Regional District in its contemporary form.

First, the creation of a Regional Parks function created a service function where the citizenry at large was the direct beneficiary, rather than the local municipality. Subsequently an affordable housing function, with a wholly owned subsidiary non-profit corporation, the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation, was added to provide affordable housing services directly to qualifying residents and also later the GVRD took on the role of contracting for the provision of 911 emergency call-taking for the region as a whole.

Secondly, the 1967 legislation created a direct regional planning function for the GVRD which to some degree envisaged planning decisions taken at the regional level being binding on and overriding decisions taken at the local municipal level. The repeal of this part of the 1967 legislation in 1983 and its ultimate replacement by ‘growth strategies’ legislation in the mid nineties modified this relationship and placed added emphasis on consensus building and dispute resolution processes which set the region and its member municipalities as equals.

Nonetheless the regional district was still left with some authority independent from and over municipalities in terms of strategic regional planning decisions. The utility boards of administration had similar authority but in their case the jurisdiction was essentially over an integrated service function. The significance of the introduction of a regional strategic planning function was that it recognized for the first time that the plans for the future of Page: 9 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

the region were not simply the sum of all the individual municipal plans. It recognized there was a ‘regional perspective’.

This ‘planning, policy, regulatory’ role was reinforced by authorities bestowed on the region under Provincial environmental management legislation in the areas of liquid waste management, solid waste management and air quality.

While the ‘growth strategy’ and earlier planning legislation, in their implementation, have the effect of the GVRD ‘regulating’ the municipalities rather than landowners and developers directly, their impact or potential impact on the future development of the region is tangible enough to expand the constituency beyond the municipalities to the community as a whole. More significantly, perhaps, it establishes the GVRD as the institution where the strategic land use (and perhaps transportation) decisions as well as strategic decisions about utilities and air quality management are to be made. Indeed the naming of the growth strategy as the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) may have led some to conclude that it was more comprehensive in scope and was truly a broad based plan for the livability of the region. It may have led others to conclude that a broad-based plan is what it should have been.

In fact municipalities generally are reluctant to get involved in social service issues for fear of downloading of associated costs, while the possibility of the GVRD becoming involved in such issues as a regional economic development strategy, a regional cultural strategy and regional emergency management has been resisted for fear of duplicating or compromising local municipal activities and authority.

The upshot is that the second function of the GVRD is a policy/planning/regulatory function that goes beyond the first service delivery function but is limited to growth management, air quality management, liquid and solid waste management, planning and policies related to its service delivery functions (including drinking water and regional parks) and, just in the process of being established, a limited and shared role in regional emergency management planning.

Leadership in a Collaborative Governance Process Notwithstanding the oft repeated caution for the GVRD to maintain its focus on its traditionally established mandates, it has been recognized that these mandates interact with other systems and activities that lie beyond the GVRD’s responsibilities. For example, the exercise which preceded the establishment of the growth strategy (the LRSP) in the early 1990s, entitled Creating Our Future, was fairly wide ranging in scope and the charming vision statement that emerged from that work included images such as “the diversity of origins and religions are a source of social strength rather than strife” and “the basics of food, clothing, shelter, security and useful activity are accessible to all.”

Other than the notion that accessibility to ‘shelter’ and ‘useful activity’ might somehow be connected to the land use plan in the LRSP, nothing in the plans and actions which flowed from Creating Our Future addressed any of the contents of these images. They generally lie beyond the established mandate of the GVRD.

Page: 10 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

It demonstrates, however, that when contemplating the future of the region, there is a compelling need to take a broad sweep and not just limit the vision of the future to an extension of the range of services and planning functions that happen to be within the organization’s mandate at any one time.

This was further underscored in the ‘Citiesplus’ planning exercise in which the GVRD partnered with others to win the Grand Prix in the International Gas Union competition for 100 year sustainability planning. The application of a whole systems or system of systems approach emerged from that work as one of the key characteristics of the ‘sustainability’ approach. This in turn was simply a sophisticated elaboration of the increasingly accepted dictum implied by the sustainability movement icon, the three legged stool. The simultaneous consideration and balancing of environmental, economic and social considerations has become conventional wisdom.

In broad terms governance has been increasingly trending away from the unworkable ‘disentanglement’ philosophy, briefly popular in the 1990s, where different governments and agencies tried to tightly define mutually exclusive roles and ‘disentangle’ from each other, and more towards the realization of the importance of networks, partnerships and what has come to be known as ‘collaborative governance’.

Collaborative governance recognizes that most urban issues are in fact a bundle of issues which often straddle many categories and jurisdictions and therefore need to be addressed by coalitions of interested parties, including governments and government agencies, private business, the non-profit sector and community organizations. Often one agency may take the lead, but each agency retains its authority and no one agency is in overall authority.

In launching the SRI, the GVRD consciously recognized this reality, increasingly seen to be as critical a part of the sustainability approach as intergenerational considerations and whole systems.

The ‘architecture’ of the SRI, developed in 2002 and included in all its management plans (see diagram) recognizes three streams of work. The ‘corporate stream’ bringing sustainability best practices to the GVRD’s service delivery role; the ‘management plans stream’ bringing sustainability principles to the policy, planning and regulatory role of the GVRD; and the ‘partnership stream’ where the GVRD brings its mandated roles but also its position and expertise as a regional political collaborative body with a sustainability perspective to act as a catalyst and facilitator for coalitions of agencies to address complex regional problems that touch on but do not wholly fall within the GVRD mandates.

The current (2005-2008) GVRD Board in a number of workshops in 2006 and 2007 has given further emphasis to this third role. While maintaining the same caution as earlier Boards about any expansion in the service delivery responsibilities of the GVRD, the current Board has stressed the role of the Board as a regional political entity to advocate for and facilitate the development of solutions to pressing and complex regional issues. This role has always been implicit in the activities of the GVRD Board, and has been pursued on an ad hoc issue-specific basis. The current recognition of the central role of collaborative governance is an extension of the earlier analogous but more limited ‘municipal federation’ definition of the GVRD. This and the willingness by the GVRD Board to play a leadership role has provided the path to resolve the tension between the desire for the GVRD to strictly limit any expansion in its role as a service provider and Page: 11 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

policy/planning/regulatory agency and the desire for the GVRD Board to play what would appear to be its natural role as the forum for regional political leadership. In particular, it provides the platform for the GVRD Board to provide leadership in the pursuit of the broad vision for the region as a whole while maintaining its emphasis on an action orientation in carrying out its more limited suite of mandated functions.

We can therefore summarize the threefold role of the GVRD in the following way, noting that the order of presentation reflects the order in which these roles have emerged, but not necessarily their respective importance in any particular context.

a. Service Delivery The core of GVRD services are the utility services provided principally to municipalities: • Water, sewerage, solid waste disposal. Significant services provided directly to the public are regional parks and GVHC housing. Other services include: • Labour relations services, 911 (through E-Comm), drainage services and nuisance mosquito control in specific areas, West Nile virus communication, GPS.

The GVRD as an organization spends the bulk of its time and money on projects and programs which are direct components of the service functions identified as ‘the role of the GVRD’ and support activities. These services and support activities are the vehicle for pursuing ‘best practices’ and demonstrating the values, policies and aspirations of the organization.

b. Planning, Policy and Regulation The GVRD has three main areas of responsibility for planning, policy and regulation: • regional growth strategy (land use through municipalities and transportation through the GVTA) • waste management (solid waste management and liquid waste management) • air quality management (a delegated Provincial function)

A fourth area, regional emergency planning coordination, is currently being developed.

c. Leadership, Advocacy and Education The GVRD is the principal political organization operating at the region scale and therefore serves as: • the main forum for community/political discussion on issues affecting the region • a significant instrument for informing the community on issues affecting the region • an advocate to other governments, business and the community on issues affecting the region

This in turn suggests a twofold mission statement for the GVRD organization in pursuit of the vision for the region articulated earlier.

Page: 12 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

4. GVRD Organization Mission Statement

The GVRD (a) has mandated functions which require it to develop policies and plans, develop and implement regulations, and execute projects and programs in those mandated functions, and (b) is the political body representing the Greater Vancouver metropolitan area.

Therefore, the GVRD will (a): • strive to achieve a standard of excellence in performance that is a credit to the region and the organization; • maintain the highest standards of ethics in all that it does; • adopt and promulgate the principles of sustainability throughout the organization and in all its activities; • be proud, passionate and joyful in its role and all its accomplishments and respectful and compassionate in all its relationships

and (b): • strive to reach out to the people of the region, to inform and educate them and to be informed and educated by them; • to identify the priority objectives for the achievement of a sustainable, livable region and to advocate for those objectives; • and to build and facilitate collaborative governance networks and mechanisms to achieve those objectives in partnership with others Page: 13 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

Sustainability Principles

At the time the SRI was launched, three dimensions to the initiative were identified, each with three segments. These were: time– short term, medium term, long term; content– economic, environmental, social; organizational scale– corporate operations, mandated planning/policy functions, extra-mandate partnerships.

These three dimensions of the initiative correspond to what may be considered as the three high level principles of the sustainability approach, at least as adopted by the GVRD: decision making for short run actions must have regard for long term consequences while long term plans must have significance for current decision making; decision making in any one function area must consider the interconnections with all other function areas; decision making by the GVRD must consider potential interconnections with ‘partner’ organizations.

These have been further abbreviated to three shorthand prescriptions: have regard for remote consequences; adopt a whole systems approach; pursue collaborative governance.

While the latter two are important principles, it is the first principle that lies at the heart of the sustainability issue as reflected in the generally accepted Brundtland definition of sustainability as ‘meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs.’

In a discussion paper jointly prepared with staff from the British Columbia Business Council and the Fraser River Basin Council, GVRD staff advanced the notion that the essence of the first two principles could be translated into the language of a strategy of developing and conserving capital – economic capital, environmental capital and social capital.

Capital is commonly understood as the set of assets which represents the value or worth of an individual, organization or community. People readily grasp that a ‘sustainable’ economic entity is one which preserves its asset base in a way that enables it to ‘self renew’. Broadening the familiar financial notion of capital to the environmental and social spheres is also now broadly understood.

The driving principle of sustainability can therefore be expressed as ‘conserving and developing self sustaining economic, environmental and social capital’.

However, this is a high level conceptualization and a core value of the SRI is that ideas must translate into making a difference through action, not just thought – hence the SRI tagline of “Turning Ideas into Action”, which was subsequently adopted by Canada and the U.N. as the tagline for the 2006 World Urban Forum.

These higher level notions of what constituted sustainability principles were field tested with GVRD staff involved in policy/plan development, major capital project design and Page: 14 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

construction, and ongoing operations programs in an attempt to determine what expression of sustainability principles were of greatest practical value. Different versions worked better in different circumstances. The following builds on that experience.

Suggested Sustainability Principles: 1. Protect and strengthen assets – the desired end state is a system of resilient economies, ecosystems and communities; 2. Restore resources used – the desired end state is a balance between the rate of resources consumed and the restoration of the resource base for future use; 3. Seek eco-efficiencies, minimize waste and eliminate harmful waste – the desired end state is the ongoing efficient re-use of materials and the avoidance of any accumulation of wastes or toxic substances; 4. Seek solutions which promote the broadest social and cultural development – the desired end state is a local and global community which experiences universal self sustaining social and cultural development, including security and access to basic services and opportunities for personal enjoyment and self-development; 5. Seek solutions which promote the broadest economic development – the desired end state is a local and global economy which experiences self sustaining economic development, including universal access to reasonable employment and incomes; 6. Seek solutions which make a positive contribution to the restoration and development of sustainable ecosystems – the desired end state is a local and global environment comprising a variety of self sustaining ecosystems; 7. Seek decision making processes which engage those affected and demonstrate effectiveness, fairness and transparency – the desired end state is a collaborative system of governance that is perceived by all to be openly, fairly and successfully working for the benefit of the whole community, both locally and globally and in both the short and long term.

Page: 15 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

Key Strategies and Priorities

There are three key objectives presented here largely corresponding to the threefold role of the GVRD presented earlier (though in the reverse order).

1. The GVRD will develop and deliver a public campaign to inspire the achievement of a sustainable Metropolitan Vancouver and demonstrate the leadership role of the GVRD in this exercise of collaborative governance; 2. The GVRD will complete its sustainability inspired review and revision of the complete suite of GVRD management plans under the umbrella of the Sustainable Region Initiative; 3. The GVRD will pursue “Sustainability in Action”, a program of achievement in the critical areas of energy, materials and pollution supported by documentation of success stories and sustainability focused decision making mechanisms.

Each of these objectives is multi-faceted. Their intended components and timelines are as follows. Page: 16 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

1. The Sustainable Metro Vancouver Campaign

1.1. Campaign Announcement Announcement of the campaign and the ‘Metro Vancouver’ name at the UBCM meetings, September 2007.

1.2. Launch of the Metro Vancouver Sustainability Summit series, October 2007 ‘Sustainability Summits’ will be high level regional meetings held biannually to review progress towards collaboratively set sustainability targets, exchange experience and collaboratively set new targets to be achieved by the next summit. A partner organization will be engaged to co-produce these summits. In the off year (the first being 2008) ‘sub-regional summits’ will be held around the region and these in turn will be supported by dialogues and breakfasts, building on the current successful series. The entire set of summits and supporting events will be streamed around sustainability themes deemed critical to the region’s future.

1.3. Development of the Metro Vancouver Sustainability Public Academy The Academy is intended to be a network of combined visitor centres/public education facilities and applied research centres located at key GVRD facilities. The research component will allow GVRD staff to participate in R&D relevant to their work; academia, the private sector and other government agencies may be partners. The education component will include formal and informal programs and will seek artistic and cultured expressions in addition to traditional scientific and technical components. University education faculties, school boards and the private sector may be partners. Any legislative amendments required will be sought for approval and prototype designs, programs and costing will be finalized by late 2008.

1.4. Development of the Metro Vancouver Sustainable International Partnership Initiative This initiative is intended to build on the work undertaken by the GVRD in support of the Federal (Industry Canada) Sustainable Cities Initiative, the PlusThirty network developed and coordinated by the International Centre for Sustainable Cities, and the 2006 World Urban Forum. The intention is to build relationships with like minded (sustainability committed) cities, one from each continent, to share experiences (successes and near misses) and where possible and appropriate to undertake joint work for the benefit of one or more of the partner cities. This could be integrated in part with the work of the Academy. A partner organization will be sought to facilitate this work. The object is to have at least one prototype relationship in place by late 2008. Page: 17 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

2. Sustainability Inspired Management Plans

2.1. A New Regional Growth Strategy Dialogues and conferences over the years of the SRI have provided some basic understanding of expectations for a new strategy. Extensive discussions have been held with municipal planning staff. While the growth strategy is essentially focused only on land use and transportation and is not the all encompassing plan some have assumed, it is still a critical component of any metropolitan sustainability initiative. Moreover the achievement of a new growth strategy, equal in vision to its predecessor, the LRSP, but more comprehensive in scope and effective in implementation, may be the litmus test for the resolve and effectiveness of the current two tier governance system. Formal public discussion of a new strategy should begin in the early fall of 2007, a draft plan (proposals) for public discussion in the late fall of 2007 and a final plan for formal ratification in early 2008.

2.2. A New Solid Waste Management Plan ‘Waste’ and ‘Sustainability’ are almost contradictory terms. Any solid waste management plan must therefore begin by a determination to minimize the generation of waste and eliminate toxic waste. That is the essence of the ‘Zero Waste Challenge’ adopted by the GVRD Board as the foundation of a new sustainability inspired Solid Waste Management Plan. At the same time the fact that zero waste is not a current reality must be dealt with in a manner most consistent with sustainability principles – seeking beneficial use where feasible, responsible disposal otherwise. A draft Solid Waste Management Plan, including the elements of the Zero Waste Challenge, should be prepared for public discussion in late 2007 and be finally adopted in early 2008. However, decisions on waste reduction opportunities and a replacement for the Cache Creek landfill need not be delayed and may be made parallel to or ahead of the overall plan.

2.3. A New Liquid Waste Management Plan The existing plan was based on extensive consultation and implicitly includes the diligent application of environmental risk management principles and seeks cost effective solutions. Nonetheless the conscious application of sustainability principles in the review of this plan may increase the emphasis on source control, accelerate the upgrade of primary wastewater treatment plants to secondary treatment, develop new beneficial uses of biosolids and explore increased energy generation from liquid waste sources. The target is to adopt a new Liquid Waste Management Plan in early 2008.

2.4. A GVRD Housing Strategy The prime responsibility for affordable housing rests with the Provincial Government in conjunction with Federal housing policies. But local government has an important role to play and there is a broad consensus that a coordinated regional approach adds significant value. A draft is under discussion and should proceed through public consultation and final adoption prior to the end of 2007.

Page: 18 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

3. Sustainability in Action

3.1 Energy, Materials and Pollution Energy, materials and pollution are three vital performance areas in the achievement of sustainability. While the detailed information base may not be in place to allow a comprehensive and accurate measuring of performance, it is nonetheless necessary to demonstrate tangible commitments to improved corporate performance in these areas. The GVRD will therefore strive to: • Significantly increase the ratio of energy generated by GVRD operations to the energy consumed from non-renewable sources • Significantly reduce the volumes of non-renewable materials consumed and non-recyclable material waste generated in GVRD activities • Significantly reduce the volume of particulates and greenhouse gases emitted by GVRD activities

3.2 Success Stories The GVRD Sustainability Report for 2004-2007 focused on telling the stories of success achieved by the organization and its partners, including the ‘near misses’. It is vitally important to continue to share these stories, both as a way of sharing experiences with others by way of lessons in what worked and did not work in our circumstance, and in celebrating the performance of an organization of committed, capable and hard working individuals whose contribution to this region may find few other avenues of recognition. These stories need to be told, and we will tell them. However we need to go beyond merely producing a report and to capitalize on these success stories by using them as raw material for the previously referenced Sustainable Metro Vancouver Campaign.

3.3 Decision-making and Sustainability The mechanisms used to inspire decision making to follow sustainability principles and achieve the foregoing objectives will be developed and documented and the extent and impact of their application on actual decision making will be assessed and evaluated against what is known of the best practices elsewhere in the world. Improvement objectives will be set based on that assessment and feedback received. Various mechanisms currently in place or under development will be assessed in the first round of documentation: The sustainability lens – the refinement /refocusing of sustainability principles into practical guidance for staff in different functions and different parts of the organization Business casing tools - designed to increase transparency and consistency into the capital project development process Sustainability design guidelines –provide an analysis of and guidance for frequently arising sustainability issues. Some examples include: LEED certification for GVRD buildings, use of green concrete, use of bio-based lubricants, and design for deconstruction. Sustainability Assessment – a comprehensive review of specific operational areas (e.g. solid waste minimization programs) and policies/practices (e.g. sustainable purchasing) to determine their alignment with and performance against sustainability principles Page: 19 of 19 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force Meeting – July 13, 2007 Report: Sustainable Initiative: Context for a Strategic Plan Report Date: July 5, 2007

Innovation – innovation pursued in both a decentralized way (through activities within usual organizational groupings) and a centralized way (through a newly formed ‘innovation group’ called I7) will be measured and assessed Systematic measurement – building on the experience of the previous four GVRD’s Sustainability Reports, a revised set of measures and reporting mechanisms will be developed, applied and assessed.

Item 6.1

Committee Meeting Date: July 13, 2007

To: Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force

From: Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations

Date: July 5, 2007

Subject: Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values

Attached for your information is a report dated July 5, 2007, titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values”. The report will be reviewed by the Regional Culture Task Force at its meeting on July 16, 2007.

Attachment: 1. Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values

004522049 Attachment

Regional Cultural Task Force Meeting: July 16, 2007

To: Regional Cultural Task Force

From: Heather Schoemaker, Manager Corporate Relations

Date: July 5, 2007

Subject: Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values

Recommendation:

That the GVRD Board forward this report to member municipalities, and other related agencies for their information and comment and that the findings of this report be considered in respect to the question of a regional cultural strategy.

1. PURPOSE

To provide information to the Regional Cultural Task Force on the June 28, 2007, Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogue: Culture – People, Places, Values.

2. CONTEXT

The Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues is a series of discussions intended to help decision makers shape the future of the region by presenting a range of views to challenge and stimulate fresh thought on a range of regional issues.

Attachment 1 provides an overview of the discussion of the dialogue. Further background information is available by request. Attachment 2 provides a schedule and details on the 2007 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues.

3. KEY MESSAGES

Overview Framed around the theme of Culture: People, Places, Values, the intent of the dialogue was to examine the role of culture in building a sustainable and livable region and what should be done to facilitate that.

One view that was repeatedly expressed was that while art and cultural expression is good and stimulating in its own right, it is also required for the social dimension of sustainability.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 3 of 15

The social dimension of sustainability requires something called “social capital”: the ability of a community to keep on regenerating itself, identifying its future issues and organizing itself in order to come up with adequate solutions to its challenges. However, in order to do that you need to have a community that is creative, imaginative, tolerant, broad-minded, inclusive and, above all, developmental and self-learning—and that is the very essence of what artists are. And there was some agreement that the engagement of audiences and creative artists in neighbourhoods, municipalities and across the region was seen as a positive force in creating channels of communication, tolerance and understanding. It was suggested that this engagement, over time would build strong communities and a sense of participation and belonging.

The economic impact of cultural activity on society was also highlighted, as was its importance in the area of learning and its contribution to the development of imaginative and confident citizens. These arguments supported the view that culture strikes the heart of everything the GVRD does. It’s one of the four central pillars of our lives together: economic, social, environmental and cultural. So we need to change the mindset: the will to include arts and culture in placing it among health, economic development and urban planning. It has to be at the table and be considered when those things are being discussed.

A contrasting view that was expressed, using the narrow definition of “art” rather than the broader concept of “culture”, was that while art might articulate issues and might inspire, it won’t solve our issues of sustainability. Art will not be the secret to solving our collective future. Nonetheless, because art is good [in itself], the main issue is for government to fund artists and the opportunities for artists to display their works.

While it would be misleading to suggest the meeting arrived at any formal consensus, one message was clear: the GVRD has a responsibility to take a more active role, perhaps as a funder, perhaps as an advocate, perhaps as a facilitator, in integrating arts and culture into the fabric of regional sustainability.

What is Culture? Participants identified two basic definitions of culture. One is the UNESCO definition which is “the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of a society or a social group that encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs. That’s culture “writ large”. The other definition of culture is: the visual, literary and performing arts and associated arts. If we ignore the first definition, we dismiss what motivates people, what gives identity and meaning to their lives and what connects us as human beings. If we ignore the second definition, we forfeit the most powerful instruments of communication, imagination, inspiration and creativity known to humankind.

Much of the discussion focused on the issues of the ‘fine arts’ and ‘performing arts’. Fewer references were made by speakers to literary, culinary, linguistic or cultural customs and other aspects of culture in the broadest sense. For some art was seen as an expression of culture – for others the collective energy of the artists created the culture. Some speakers addressed a wider focus in which culture acted as a stimulant to creativity and helped to build a sense of imagination in people.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 4 of 15

Culture & Sustainability How do we link arts and culture to sustainability? How do culture and arts as a component of culture help to support a shift to sustainability? Most participants believed the richer the culture of a society is, the more sustainable it is. We need to recognize the value of creative thought and imagination, and how that contributes to creating sustainable futures and communities.

Culture in the sense of minorities and culture, and culture in the larger sense of a community culture, have come together in Greater Vancouver. A number of speakers felt that until we start addressing cultural issues and allow culture to underpin everything we do and infect every aspect of our lives, we won’t dig ourselves out of the hole in which we find ourselves.

Education and Learning A culture of sustainability has a symbiosis with a culture of learning. If you’re going to have a culture of sustainability, it will be founded on an active culture of learning. Therefore, you have a dynamic culture of learning for sustainability. That’s quite different from what we have had as our typical culture of education. The key principle within this culture of learning that is vastly different from the education system as we’ve known it and as people popularly know it, is the total belief in the full capacity of a young person in the fullness of his or her five years of life or ten years of life, to determine what sustainability will be in terms of the way they will live their life in relationship to others.

Learning continues to be a very significant factor for people of all ages. The arts are essential to learning (at any age) but paramount for young people in the school system. Engagement in and by the arts stimulates development of better learning, life and cognitive abilities – and collectively impacts society at large.

But there needs to be opportunity to express artistic interest and inclination. Cutbacks in cultural and arts programs in the school system are impacting the character of the graduates of the secondary school system. Students who are exposed to the arts enjoy a higher quality of life – and learning and are able to participate in the creative economy through film, video graphics and gaming, as well as in traditional fine arts and performance.

Many facilities in schools or other institutions have facilities that are under-utilized. Imaginative use of existing structures such as community centres, schools and cultural centres could provide venues for rehearsal, performance and creation.

Providing support to the creative sector is an investment in the future of the region – and an opportunity to capitalize on the positive social values that already exist. This investment will yield dividends in future years as the graduates of the school system become parents and participate in the economy. They will become confident and tolerant citizens expressing the best of the values that make our region so desirable and livable. They will also be equipped with powers of imagination and ingenuity that will enable them to confront and build on the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 5 of 15

Funding Many speakers expressed the need for support for the arts in the region. Artists need places in which to create, to rehearse, to present to the public – and they need audiences. But most speakers agreed that distribution of money is not by itself the answer. There are many creative approaches that can be pursued to achieve the needs and expectations of the region.

Most funding currently comes from the federal and provincial governments – and from other institutional donors such as the Vancouver Foundation. Many speakers asked that the individual municipalities and/or the GVRD accept the responsibility for providing additional funding and non-monetary support.

While grants-in-aid were frequently mentioned by speakers, other imaginative support mechanisms were also mentioned. The subsidy may be best applied, for example, by making the arts accessible and available – subsidizing audiences may be most important. We may require an evolution to a new model that assists creative organizations to develop their own core funding may be a desirable outcome of this policy process.

Participants believed the GVRD has an opportunity to help the people in the municipalities leverage projects through core communities.

The Role of Local Government There was division among speakers on the role that local governments should be taking in the region. A significant segment of the participants expressed a desire for more engagement by municipalities and the region in supporting and stimulating culture and the arts. Others expressed a need to see the arts identified more strongly in municipal plans and policies as an expression of the ‘social will’. This could be expressed in partnerships that bring programs to children, special populations and communities and that support of artists of all calibers.

Some participants expressed the belief that it is the responsibility of the region to create a region-wide arts funding body and cultural policy that will support dynamic arts in the GVRD. Others believed the most important thing the GVRD can do is promotion and presentation of artists in public spaces supported by public funding for audiences in the most diverse areas of the region. If we could focus on how we bring transcendental experience to people in this region, and how the GVRD might articulate that, that would be a good project.

Still others believed it is the responsibility of government to look at culture the same way as it looks at sewers, lights and paving, as something that’s absolutely necessary and recognized as a key element of regional sustainability. So we need to change the mindset: the will to include arts and culture in placing it among health, economic development and urban planning. It is not a frill that we can set aside when there are more pressing issues, but a long-term investment in health, sustainability and the quality of the life that we make together.

Closer coordination and cooperation between governments at all levels would ensure better distribution of funding and utilization of facilities. Some of this can be accomplished through Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 6 of 15

the development of policy and plans. In particular, participants suggested the GVRD could create an arts advisory and development office that could help people build resources in their own municipal communities, working with municipal governments to promote sharing of arts ideas and projects and building expertise in funding streams.

This could encourage intellectual mobility and help co-ordinate regional activities, making sure the benefits are felt at the local level and maximizing the impact of cultural experience both for the individual and for society at large … at essence, building the livable and sustainable communities that are at the heart of all the GVRD’s endeavours.

Attachments: 1. Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogue – Culture: People, Places, Values 2. Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues 2007 Schedule

004523678 Attachment 1

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues Culture: People, Places, Values

June 28th, 2007, Vancouver - Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue

Panel Members • Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles Executive Director, Alliance for Arts & Culture

• Gary Cristall Gary Cristall Artist Management

• Chris Kelly Superintendent of Schools SD #39, Vancouver School Board • David Lemon Executive Director, Health Arts Society

Moderator: Rafe Mair Chair: Mayor Max Wyman Participants: 117

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

What is culture?

The discussions began with consideration of the nature of culture and the arts that carried on as a thread through all of the discussions. This discussion focused on the wide and narrow views of culture – and the relationship of the culture to “the arts”.

Culture, in its broadest sense, is a means to stimulate people to act more civilly, to have greater confidence in local government, to trust the media, to broaden their friendship circle, to volunteer their time to the community and to become more balanced in their lives. This is a continuing challenge in all communities and one to which culture and the arts can make a positive contribution.

UNESCO defines culture as “the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of a society or a social group that encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs. Another definition is “other definition of culture is: the visual, literary and performing arts and associated arts.”

Participants expressed diversity in their view of the nature of Culture and Art. Most saw culture as an overarching super-imperative that was “good” for society – but it was difficult to focus on a single viewpoint that captured the sentiments of all or many of the participants. Much of the discussion focused on the issues of the ‘fine arts’ and ‘performing arts’. Fewer references were made by speakers to literary, culinary, linguistic or cultural customs and other aspects of culture in the broadest sense. For some art was seen as an expression of culture – for others the collective energy of the artists created the culture. Some speakers addressed a wider focus in which culture acted as a stimulant to creativity and helped to build a sense of imagination in people.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 8 of 15

One stream of discussion held that culture is not an instrument of anything but is an accumulation of human attributes and experiences. Respect for all cultures is bonding, but raw culture can be one of the most divisive elements of humanness, associated with disparate notions of identity, customs, place and faith. The arts are just one attribution of culture and may not be able to solve the problems of the world. Artists create work not because it serves any utilitarian objective but because they have to create work—it’s an expression of their imagination.

Nobody expects art to solve all the problems of the world. But engagement in the creative sector tends to increase creative thought and innovation, which we need to combine with all other resources to find solutions to the problems. Artists are not the only ones who have creative thoughts. Many of the people, in all kinds of industries, who have creative thoughts also have some background in artistic pursuits. There is a high correlation there.

Culture and Sustainability

Connecting people to their neighbours, to their municipality and to their region is widely seen as a desirable goal. Participation in and exposure to culture and the arts is a practical way to build these bridges. When people feel those connections growing they are more likely to participate in and contribute to the social fabric of society. When people feel connected they are more likely to reach out and ‘bridge’ to new experiences, new friends and widen their social group. Culture in the sense of minorities and culture and culture in the larger sense of a community culture have come together in Vancouver. A number of speakers felt that until we start addressing cultural issues and allow culture to underpin everything we do and infect every aspect of our lives, we won’t dig ourselves out of the hole in which we find ourselves.

One speaker noted that a number of years ago, at a Mayors’ Roundtable for Business and the Arts, then Mayor Gordon Campbell said that he didn’t want to hear about economic multipliers and that in the current discussion we’re still talking about economic multipliers.

The great thing about art, one panellist mused, is that artists will create it whatever environment they are in … friendly or not friendly. You put them in prison and they write novels in their heads and paint pictures in their minds and wait till they get out to use them. That means that even though the GVRD has been guilty of criminal neglect of its artists, they continue to produce. Art is not created by organizations, funders or arts-friendly businesses. It is created by artists.

How do we link arts and culture to sustainability? Since sustainability really is the issue facing us all is, how do culture and arts as a component of culture help to support a shift to sustainability? The richer the culture of a society is, the more sustainable it is and that relationship is not accidental. Many societies with very low levels of material development by Western capitalist standards are incredibly rich culturally.

Several speakers echoed the need to recognize the value of creative thought and imagination, and how that contributes to creating sustainable futures. Without creative imaginations, it’s difficult to come up with a way for society to become sustainable. A culture of sustainability will be a significant shift from where we are now. It is a culture of sharing, participation, reaching out to support each other and of transcending the need for material wealth.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 9 of 15

Culture, Art and Learning

Art is the means and medium for the creation and development of culture. Culture has no predetermined sense of what it is, but is a possibility that is constantly emerging. Because learning is a constantly emerging act, just as the human life is a constantly blossoming, becoming thing, art becomes essential to learning. There is nothing static about this.

Engagement of a person at any age in any circumstance, with and by art is essential to that person’s learning and development. It’s non-optional. Therefore [the individual’s engagement in art] is central to a society’s learning and development. It’s non-optional to a society’s learning and development. The individual’s engagement in art] becomes non-optional and essential to a society’s active, conscientious [conscious?] creation of culture. This is without any predetermined sense of what [the culture] might be, but from the standpoint of what is essential to a human life and a social life.

The discussion suggested that this is all a matter of making meaning through this almost accidental sense of consciousness that we have in this very perplexing and fascinating universe. That is embodied in every single person. It’s up to each person to have her own determination, through multiple independent relationships of input, artistically, in terms of the meaning that she will make, on the basis of the quality of her experience within a community of learning.

There are three aspects of this: philosophical, practical, and propositional. The philosophical aspect is that art civilizes society. There is nothing to be predetermined about the sense that a person will make of his or her surroundings.

With all of its shortcomings and limitations, if you bring any fraction of the artistic into the environment of learning, around the phenomenal possibilities of the meaning that a young person will make out of it, and it’s almost indescribable what happens. It is a phenomenon in terms of what happens to the learning of the person when they are connected with that kind of opportunity.

The proposition was posed that we conceive of a region of learning that consciously seeks to engage the best of what it can do artistically and culturally, for the sake of the possibility of the quality of human lives, collectively and individually

It was suggested that we also need to look at the schools. We need that kind of training and expertise to make sure that the audiences of tomorrow are being developed and educated culturally. If you bring any fraction of the artistic into the environment of learning, there are phenomenal possibilities of meaning that a young person will make.

Voters need a better understanding of the value of art—that means developing the cognitive capacity to understand, grasp, appreciate and value art. That happens primarily in the school system. So we need a revolution in the school system.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 10 of 15

Vancouver has a strong international reputation

The perception of the City of Vancouver outside Vancouver is not tied to specifically to art- making, but within the not-for-profit sector Vancouver’s image and reputation is extremely strong. The perception of Vancouver is strong across all disciplines, whether you speak about the literary arts, the visual arts, music, theatre or dance. We’re in a good place now in Vancouver, very much despite the conditions under which professional artists have attempted to make their art and make it available and accessible to audiences.

It’s on that level of new generations of artists that there is huge excitement about the region, across Canada and internationally. We are at the tip of a wave. There is a lot of energy in the region.

The challenge and opportunity of cultural diversity

Several speakers felt that Vancouver doesn’t deserve a poor reputation on the cultural front. We’re just a little over 120 years old and we’re on a high learning curve. But, while Vancouver is only 100 years old, in many societies around the world, the newest cities that have had access to technology most recently are moving leaps and bounds ahead of older places. The point is to act now in the interest of creating the best kind of cultural environment possible.

Immigration is a massive challenge. Viewed as an asset it’s an asset. Viewed as a problem it is a problem. In the Vancouver public schools, there are 65 different first languages spoken at home, but we’re not living in chaos in Vancouver schools or within those communities. Some common sense of the richness is being made, and in a deliberative way. It is deeply, broadly challenging.

Compare the global situation from the standpoint of multiple cultures figuring out how to sustain life on the planet. We have the microcosm of the macrocosm. We have a phenomenal opportunity to collectively make sense of that, and I think we’re on some good roads.

There is ample evidence that a focus on arts and culture helps build community, stimulate imagination, maximize creativity, solve problems and enable healing. Arts and culture bring many benefits to the community: – economic benefits in terms of urban renewal and revitalization; – personal and social development; – community identity and pride; and particularly, – social, intellectual and emotional development of young people.

Arts and culture are gifts that we have in our community and we need to exploit them. We need to collaborate to get everybody at the table. We need to get all cultures speaking together. We need artists, business, health professionals, justice professionals, the police – all elements of the community talking together. If we do that, we’ll find solutions to any of the problems facing us, including the one of borrowed time.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 11 of 15

A focus for the region?

Some speakers asked what is it about this region particularly to which the GVRD should address itself? We have a city that is spread out over a huge area, which is huge problem for the members of the GVRD.

Greater Vancouver’s municipalities are well placed to take leadership role. When we define culture “writ large”, this area is culturally diverse and rich. We have enormous diversity of cultures and ethnicities within our region. That’s an enormous benefit that is as yet untapped. When it comes to culture “writ smaller”, (i.e., the arts), there is an enormous richness of talent in the region. There is a greater concentration of artists in this region than in any other urban centre in the country. There is a greater concentration of artists in this province than in any other province in the country, by population.

Some speakers wanted to challenge the notion of “this city – as Vancouver” when we think about the creative sector. They feel that we should become advocates for the fact that we don’t live in a city but in a region that has cohesion culturally and artistically. Existing institutions should focus on that.

Engagement With the Creative Community

There was some agreement that the engagement of many audiences in neighbourhoods, municipalities and across the region was seen as a positive force in creating channels of communication, tolerance and understanding. It was suggested that this engagement, over time would build strong communities and a sense of participation and belonging. From the discussion the role of culture and the creative sector in stimulating the region to become more sustainable was less clear. However, as part of the social dimension of sustainability, culture may assist municipalities in regenerating themselves to meet the huge challenges of the future. We expect artists to be professionals but amateurs are much greater in number. We have professionalized art over the last 100 years. It’s now almost impossible, for example for anyone to deem themselves a composer unless they’ve been to university. The question of who is an amateur artist was very interesting. Really, everyone who expresses herself or himself creatively in some way is an artist.

There is a need for community and neighbourhood level creative opportunities and a need for entrepreneurialism on the part of the artists.

We have a growing population, and that is producing extraordinary opportunities in the municipalities. Because the municipalities are so spread apart, they will each look at their own response to their arts and culture project. The GVRD, with its tiny budget will not likely be mandating arts projects in a region of 2 million people spread across huge area of 3300 square kilometres. In terms of cultural policy, every municipality has its own character and will create it’s own kind of arts project.

For example Mount Pleasant is a community that has used art. They many artists in the community, who have volunteered in the school doing a program that was suddenly, finally funded through Vancouver School Board. That developed into other things like recycling in the community and a community listserv. We talk within the community.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 12 of 15

In another example, on Bowen Island, through its Arts council, developed a cultural master plan for our community and then worked for three years to have it embedded in the OCP. They think they’re the only community in the GVRD that’s done that. In this way, they connected our political will with our cultural and social will. Part of the cultural master plan talks about housing artists, and as a result of that we have also formed of an affordable housing association. They are the fourth community named in the Hill Strategy, as the most creative community in Canada (per capita).

The effect of high housing costs

The real estate boom or crisis, depending on whether you own or rent, is putting artists in jeopardy. Studio spaces are disappearing. Cheap rent for artists is disappearing. You can look at San Francisco, which is driving artists out of the city, to see what happens when you can get a beautiful little starter home for as little as $800,000 in some parts of town.

Winnipeg, is the best place for culture and arts in the country. One of the reasons, and this came up over and over again when we talked to people, is because artists can afford to live and work there. As a dance company person said to me, “Where else could I have a studio?” Or, as a performance artist said, “Where else could I buy a house?” We need to look at those issues.

The GVRD’s role

Why has the GVRD failed to recognize the value of arts and culture, and why can’t the GVRD become more proactive in supporting arts and culture? What is the problem we’re all talking about? The GVRD has never been responsible for culture. Individual municipalities promote this, but what is the issue?

Perhaps the responsibility of the region is to create a region-wide arts funding body and cultural policy that will support dynamic arts in the GVRD. It’s time the GVRD recognizes that it needs to make a financial commitment to the arts, both through greater funding and through providing access to space and places where artists can connect with audiences.

What can the GVRD do for art and artists, and for member municipalities? This GVRD project is one of ensuring diversity where [art is] not self-supporting. The most important thing the GVRD can do is promotion and presentation of artists in public spaces supported by public funding for audiences in the most diverse areas of the region.

It is the responsibility of government to look at culture the same way as it looks at sewers, lights and paving, as something that’s absolutely necessary. We need to advance culture to the centre of the civic agenda. It not a frill that we can set aside when there are more pressing issues, but a long-term investment in health, sustainability and the quality of the life that we make together.

Culture strikes the heart of everything the GVRD does. It’s one of the four central pillars of our lives together: economic, social, environmental and cultural. For sustainability, we need capacity not just in road systems but also intellectual ability. So we need to change the mindset: the will to include arts and culture in placing it among health, economic development and urban planning. It has to be at the table and be considered when those things are being discussed.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 13 of 15

The GVRD is starting to do its part. Traditionally, it has regarded itself as a service provider: ensuring clean air and water, managing solid waste etc. It is now recognizing that culture plays a significant role in the creation of sustainable, resilient, creative communities. The GVRD is setting up mechanisms such as the task force on regional culture.

The suburban municipalities and satellite cities are developing their own cultural life, so what could the GVRD possibly do for each of its members? I’m not sure how the GVRD, with a budget that has just been reduced from $117,000 for arts to $100,000, will start mandating what kinds of arts projects will be going on in a region of 2 million people across an area 60 kilometres deep and 55 kilometres wide.

The GVRD could create an arts advisory and development office that could help people build resources in their own municipal communities. Arts projects will be particular to interests and values of citizens and create a rich diversity or arts life that might encourage movement of audiences around the region.

The office could work with the municipal governments to promote sharing of arts ideas and projects. It could inventory and promote imaginative uses of municipal and private resources that might not have been considered useful for arts projects. The office could also bring expertise or arts project organizers to help them build new funding streams in the private sector. The office could be funded by all municipalities, which would require only a small budget for an entrepreneurial staff. It would set project goals on application from arts groups. The projects would require specialist contractors from time to time, such as fundraisers and creative advisors. This would encourage intellectual mobility and help co-ordinate regional activities.

The role of existing institutions

There has been a lot of talk about new beginnings to advance arts and culture. What about existing institutions, such as the Arts Umbrella or the Science World? What more can they do individually to advance progress on this topic?

There is a very detailed strategy around the deliberate development of Vancouver as a learning city. It was two years in development and it exists. The simple idea is that the City of Vancouver and its organizations come together conscientiously, on a regular basis, to connect the dots with one another. They would consider, for example, the best that the Arts Umbrella can do, that Science World can do, to engage the populations of the city in multiple areas of learning and development. Today’s topic is arts and culture, and those organizations come together to connect the best they do in multiple arenas, not just in an education system.

Funding for Culture and Arts

We have to stop thinking of what we give to the arts as handouts, and look at them as investments. There have been positive movements on the civic level in terms of funding. The Province has unfortunately not changed in any substantial way over the last five to ten years. It’s been on a federal level, if at any level, that funding has been provided to sustain the region and to stimulate new work and new generations of artists.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Culture – People, Places, Values Regional Cultural Task Force – July 16, 2007 Page 14 of 15

Some speakers would like to see funding and adequate support at local levels, where artists and those who are concerned with artistic and cultural affairs can exploit what is there. What about political will to support the arts? Some speakers didn’t think it will come from political forces. They say – ‘those days are past’ and doubt that the GVRD will come up with a substantial sum of money to sustain significant theatre companies, ballet companies, music projects, etc., across the region. The politicians just see at as more money, and they have only one place to go for that: their taxpayers.

A model for developing local funding for arts projects

The GVRD has an opportunity to help the people in the municipalities leverage projects through core communities. If a core community is interested in doing a project in theatre, dance or music, it would get assistance from the GVRD to mobilize the project. The GVRD would not necessarily invest substantially in it, but instead provide certain resources to help that organization get off the ground. There are many small organizations that don’t have the skills to do that. Then the local community will begin to invest.

Once the local community begins to invest, the organization could then go to their City Hall and the Mayor and Council saying, “We have raised $150,000 (for example). We need $250,000, and here is our program. It’s much more likely to happen that way than the 21 members of the GVRD finding several million dollars when they have only $100,000 this year. Arguments for support of artists and subsidy of audiences on grounds of social harmony, social cohesion and economic vitality haven’t yet succeeded in generating sustained support by governments.

Building community is essential for sustainability

Ultimately, it is all about building community: that’s ultimately the only thing that will stand between us and disaster. Getting this down to a local level, having people experience culture however you define it, building community block by block, community by community—that really is all there is to human life on this planet.

Culture Policy Some speakers felt that the lack of policy expressed at the municipal and regional level was an issue. Without some expression of direction, more coordination and focus for culture in the arts that there would be a continuation of the status quo. Closer coordination and cooperation between governments at all levels would ensure better distribution of funding and utilization of facilities. Some of this can be accomplished through the development of policy and plans.

FUTURE OF THE REGION SUSTAINABILITY DIALOGUES 2007 SCHEDULE

Note: Dialogues are hosted from 11:30 to 2 p.m. (lunch will be served from 11:30- 12:00) SOUTH Eaglequest Coyote Creek Golf Club ~ 7778 152nd Street, Surrey Labour and Immigration Wednesday 7 February Transportation Wednesday 4 April Housing Friday 15 June Industry Wednesday 4 July Drugs and Crime Wednesday 19 September Regional Economy Wednesday 7 November

CENTRAL / NORTHEAST Inlet Theatre ~ 100 Newport Drive, Port Moody Labour and Immigration Wednesday 14 March Transportation Wednesday 9 May Housing Wednesday 20 June Industry Wednesday 5 September Drugs and Crime Wednesday 17 October ½Regional Economy Wednesday 12 December½ ½Executive Plaza Hotel, Coquitlam for 12 December session NORTH SHORE Hollyburn Country Club ~ 950 Crosscreek Road, West Vancouver Labour and Immigration Thursday 29 March Transportation Thursday 3 May Housing Tuesday 5 June Industry Thursday 19 July Drugs and Crime Thursday 4 October Regional Economy Thursday 6 December

REGION-WIDE DIALOGUE Wosk Centre – SFU ~ 580 West Hastings Street, Vancouver Energy Thursday 18 January Fit / Fat Wednesday 21 February Security and Safety Tuesday 8 May Culture Thursday 28 June Topic to be decided Thursday 25 October Topic to be decided Wednesday 28 November

SPECIAL REGION-WIDE DIALOGUE Newlands Golf and Country Club ~ 21025 48th Ave, Langley

Agriculture Wednesday 21 March

5-Jul-07

www.gvrd.bc.ca

Item 6.2

Committee Meeting Date: July 13, 2007

To: Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force

From: Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations

Date: June 29, 2007

Subject: Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Housing – The Price we Pay

Attached for your information is a report dated June 28, 2007, titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Housing – The Price we Pay”. The report will be reviewed by the Housing Committee at its meeting on July 13, 2007.

Attachment: 1. Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Housing – The Price we Pay

004522150

Attachment

Housing Committee Meeting Date: July 13, 2007

To: Housing Committee

From: Heather Schoemaker, Manager Corporate Relations Department

Date: June 28, 2007

Subject: Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Housing – The Price we Pay

Recommendation: That the GVRD Board: a) Invite the housing dialogue panelists to review and provide comments on the Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy in consideration of the discussion generated during the dialogues; and b) Forward this report to member municipalities, and other related agencies for their information and comment.

1. PURPOSE

To provide information to the Housing Committee on the June 5, 15 and 20, 2007 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogue: Housing – The Price We Pay as well as the original session held on March 27, 2006 at the SFU Wosk Centre for Dialogue.

2. CONTEXT

The attached summary (Attachment 1) provides an overview of the discussion of the dialogue. Further background information is available by request. Attachment 2 provides a schedule and details on the 2007 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues.

3. KEY MESSAGES

Building on the housing dialogue hosted at the SFU Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue March 27, 2006, the discussion was expanded to include three additional venues – South of the Fraser; Central/Northeast and the North Shore.

Focusing predominately on housing affordability, in the mainstream market, the dialogues examined the impact of high housing costs, the impediments to developing an adequate Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Housing – The Price we Pay Housing Committee Meeting Date: July 13, 2007 Page 3 of 5 supply of livable, affordable and sustainable housing, and innovative mechanisms to help address this issue. What follows is a synthesis of the discussion – details on the individual dialogues can be found in Attachment 1.

Why we have a Housing Affordability Problem Participants expressed the belief that we may be a victim of our own success. Greater Vancouver has been consistently voted one of the most livable regions in the world by the United Nations. We have worked hard to achieve this reputation and have promoted and marketed the region to the world. The result is that many people want to move and live here. We will be in the global spotlight again with the Olympics in 2010.

However, we are not a country club and can’t expect to keep people out. We will continue to grow and develop with current projections estimating the need for 22,000 units of new housing a year. We’ve benefited from the strong, continued housing demand and the rising land values, but we have a limited, fixed supply of land as we are constrained by mountains, ocean, the US border and the agricultural land reserve. We are an increasingly urban community; however, participants commented that the GVRD has not used its constrained land very well.

While we may be one of the most expensive places in Canada to live, we are not unique in facing this housing affordability problem as this is being experienced in communities throughout BC and Canada. There are some aspects of this problem that we can’t change – escalating land values, rising cost of construction, interest rates, and a constrained land base – and there are other aspects that are within our control – the amount of density within Greater Vancouver, the availability of public transit and transportation choice, innovative housing designs and fast-track approval processes.

Spectrum of Housing Needs As defined by the dialogue participants, the housing problem is not a single problem but a bundle of problems that span the spectrum of housing needs. Finding solutions to address affordability in the mainstream market requires a different set of policies and actions than addressing the issues of homelessness and social housing.

For the homeless, the challenges are often first and foremost mental and physical health issues, substance abuse problems, street crime issues and the lack of money and employability. In the case of low-income people in the region, the challenge lies in that these people are not able to participate or compete in the housing market even if the market was not superheated. Solving the housing problems of the homeless and low-income sectors of society require a greater level of involvement and financing from senior levels of government to provide social housing.

There is a central role for the provincial and federal government to play in providing financing for social housing and in changing taxation policy particularly for new and rental housing. However, success will only come with the cooperation of all levels of government.

Implications of a Housing Affordability Problem The conventional housing market faces difficulties in a rapidly growing and robust urban centre with a constrained land base. Where will our children live? In one sense, we are always faced with a housing affordability problem if that means that some people must settle for less than their ideal housing solution. However, participants believed this becomes a Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Housing – The Price we Pay Housing Committee Meeting Date: July 13, 2007 Page 4 of 5 critical region-wide problem when the fight to lower-cost housing and lower land values directly impacts our quality of life, creates massive transportation and land-use challenges, when labour shortages emerge because workers can’t live close to where the jobs are, when residential land values become so high that industrial or office development becomes a lower priority and we have trouble finding new space to accommodate employment.

For those already in the housing market, this may be a good situation – for those who are not it’s a bad situation and an enormous challenge. In Greater Vancouver, people pay 68% of their pre-tax income to their home for their mortgage, taxes and utilities. This is also a social justice issue and impacts the vitality of the urban core. Growing market failure in the economics of the housing market in its ability to provide housing to the region’s residents can lead to urban decay if businesses and offices can not find support workers as people move farther away. A longer daily commute for these workers not only increases demands on the transportation system and impacts pollution levels but also places pressures on families. Greater Vancouver is at a tipping point in addressing this issue creatively.

Density and Partnerships as Key Solutions Reinforced in previous dialogues, participants again identified the need for increasing density as one part of the solution to this problem. Sprawl is not an option and significant, responsible, intelligent densification can ensure that Greater Vancouver can continue to be a model of livability and sustainability. Density can be achieved through creative densification, including the conversion of garages into carriage houses, the legalization of secondary suites, the building of low-rise livable dense complexes, front row houses where there used to be two single detached dwellings, and the rezoning of single family housing lots to accommodate double lots. There is enormous potential to increase the density of single-family neighbourhoods without radically changing their character. Different types of density will solve different problems in the region, including the issue of creating balanced communities which can accommodate people of different ages and allow for aging-in-place.

The assumption that density is the solution rests on the notion that an increase of supply will start to solve the housing issue because of the economics of housing provision. By increasing the supply, you can hopefully get enough new stock to make some of the existing stock affordable. However, there are indications that the problem is more complicated than this and that specialized arrangements need to be made. Exemplary partnerships amongst developers, municipal governments and not-for-profit organizations to develop affordable housing projects have required specialized arrangements, including re-zoning, relaxed bylaws, and targeting the profits and added value of parceled land into community needs (e.g., building daycares within housing projects). The private sector has a role to play in promoting progressive development practices to adapt to the changing needs of society, including engaging in partnerships with municipalities and non-profit organizations.

Density bonuses will only yield a certain limited return in terms of increased supply. When municipalities grant rezonings, they are creating an enormous lift in land value for the developer and as communities we need to negotiate for shares in that lift in land value to create revenue that funds community amenities including affordable housing. An increase in zoning increases the value of the land and therefore provides a source of revenue that can be captured by municipalities and diverted into affordable housing by various mechanisms. This is called inclusionary zoning and can particularly be fruitful in places such as downtown Vancouver where the unit prices are so high.

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Housing – The Price we Pay Housing Committee Meeting Date: July 13, 2007 Page 5 of 5

The Role of Local Government Participants believed municipalities need to be more creative and flexible in what they allow developers to build and what they require from them. For example, they can actively facilitate the development of affordable housing by developers through rezoning initiatives. The currency which municipalities have is bonus density, streamlining regulations and approvals, and creating more flexibility in allocating land use. They need to remove red tape, fast track approvals on affordable housing, and reduce conflicting regulations across municipalities (e.g. building codes) that undermine creative solutions with developers. A number of municipalities have been involved in innovative arrangements in which they allow developers additional density in exchange for the use of part of the developed land for public goods (e.g., nonprofit office space, daycares, waterfront walkways, rental housing, social housing). Municipalities can also require rental housing as part of large new developments. However, they need to create a mechanism to translate some of the rise in land value that comes from rezoning for density into substantial contributions towards constructing social and affordable rental and market housing. Municipalities have the capacity to convert and develop government land and divert the resulting income into affordable housing investments; however, this requires balancing housing needs with other needs in the community. There are also key linkages between housing decisions and land-use and transportation planning. Municipalities have the capacity to shape mixed-use neighbourhoods that bring together people of different ages, and combine live-work-play opportunities and transportation nodes within walkable distances.

The issue is complicated with dialogue participants expressing the belief that some municipalities resist taking action on affordable housing as they view this issue as the mandate of senior levels of government and they need to prioritize other claims on their municipal budgets. Participants viewed municipalities as being critical players in resolving the housing issue with some experts advocating for all municipalities to absorb a fair-share of regional growth and build affordable housing around transportation nodes.

Education and Communication A key issue identified by participants is the level of education of the public on housing issues. Proposals for densification and construction of affordable housing are frequently met with strong public opposition (NIMBYism – not-in-my-backyard). Advocates for affordable housing are in the unusual position of applauding municipal governments for standing up to public opinion and deciding to allow development projects that are unpopular with neighbourhood residents. The reality is that affordable housing solutions, such as densification, require citizens to make decisions that are not directly in their interest, particularly if the residents seek to maintain their neighbourhood in its current state. In order to make social decisions, there is a need for conversations about what the housing issues are and how they can be resolved for the benefit of both current residents and future generations.

We need to move away from the American Dream of equating success with a large single- family lot. In the future, most people will likely live life in some form of a multi-family home and that is ok. We need to create a critical mass of awareness amongst the population which can bolster political decision-making. This education step enables the political process to make the right decisions while respecting democracy. Conversations about solutions can be greatly aided by visualization tools that depict densification as “gentle densification” and as an attractive option that enhances neighbourhoods. In the past we Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Housing – The Price we Pay Housing Committee Meeting Date: July 13, 2007 Page 6 of 5 over-glorified citizen participation and now we are under-emphasizing its worth. The solution is to get all the parties around the table and to discuss solutions. Regional Growth Strategy A message from participants was the need for all municipalities to “buy in” to a regional growth strategy - to consider regional planning as a way of co-ordinating and mandating increased densities on a regional basis. Participants believed we have the ability to build affordable housing if we can get higher density, but the political will may be missing.

Innovative Solutions and Sharing Best Practices There is evidence that there are many innovative partnerships and solutions being developed in Greater Vancouver to address the housing affordability problem; however, participants expressed a level of frustration that these innovations are not widely shared. An option discussed by participants was the need to form an association, engaging all levels of government, the private sector and the non-profit sector - an association that would carry the message, encouraging partnerships, dialogues and a continuous forum for exchanging best practices.

At the conclusion of the housing dialogue series, panelists voiced their appreciation for the dialogue forum and expressed their desire to continue the discussion working toward concrete actions. It would be appropriate and of value to invite this panel of experts to review and provide comments on the draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy.

Attachments: 1. Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogue – Housing – The Price we Pay 2. Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues 2007 Schedule 3. Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogue – Media Clippings

004523751

Attachment 1

Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues Housing: The Price we Pay

March 27, 2006, Vancouver - Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue June 5, 2007 – North Shore – Hollyburn Country Club, West Vancouver June 15, 2007 – South of the Fraser – Eaglequest Coyote Creek Golf Club, Surrey June 20, 2007 – Central/Northeast – Inlet Theatre, Port Moody

Panel Members • Maureen Enser, Executive Director, Urban Development Institute • Ward McAllistair, President & CEO, Ledingham McAllister • Tracie McTavish, President, Rennie Marketing Systems • David Negrin, Senior Vice-President of Development, Concord Pacific Group Inc. • Jim O’Dea, Consultant, Terra Housing Consultants • Peter Simpson, Chief Executive Officer, Greater Vancouver Home Builders' Association • Peeter Wesik, President, Park Lane Homes • Jay Wollenberg, Principal & President, Coriolis Consulting Corp.

Moderators: Rafe Mair and Peter Holt Chairs: Mayor Richard Walton, Councillor Judy Villeneuve, and Councillor Mike Bowen Participants: • Vancouver: 120 • North Shore: 65 • South of the Fraser: 75 • Central/Northeast: 56

Building on the Housing dialogue hosted at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue March 27th, 2006, the discussion was expanded to include three additional venues - South of the Fraser; Central/Northeast and the North Shore.

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION BY REGION

North Shore

North Shore Challenges There are examples of dense development on the North Shore; however, there is concern about increasing the density of the North Shore and placing additional pressure on the two bridges. Is one solution encouraging businesses to locate outside of the downtown core and Richmond Centre to the North Shore and other municipalities? West Vancouver has a skewed housing market with high housing prices of over a million. The District of North Vancouver is also faced with the problem of a fragmented jurisdiction which can limit the capacity for political action. The City of North Vancouver is faced with a push to develop housing rather than commercial space and a lack of housing for workers with low-end jobs to support the City’s businesses. They seek to have their elderly people, young families, and working people in the community and to live the life they want to live.

Bowen Island Bowen has a population of 4,400 on an area the size of Manhattan but has a housing problem because people move there to have 10 acre lots. Snug Cove is becoming a sort of ghost town and is in need of revitalization; however, the workers can’t afford to live on

Bowen to supply the businesses with staff. Creating beautiful, environmentally friendly, pre- fabricated houses will also lower the cost of housing.

The Example of San Diego and Vancouver’s Eco-density San Diego serves as an example of how to reverse urban decay due to a housing affordability problem. Central urban core businesses were losing their capacity to attract workers who were being forced to move farther and farther away and commute longer distances to work. Over time, these workers were choosing to leave their jobs and find work closer to their homes. The vibrancy of the urban core was being undermined; however, this was reversed through increasing housing density and creating affordable housing. Vancouver’s Eco-density Initiative was also highlighted as an example of municipal action on increasing density.

Creating Balanced Communities An additional problem is the lack of choice for elderly people to move to higher density living in West and North Vancouver. Seniors on the North Shore are frequently asset-rich but income-poor and they need support as they age from younger people living in their communities. They currently don’t have many options for aging-in-place and remaining within their neighbourhoods. The North Shore is also facing the closure of schools which has an impact on attracting families to the neighbourhoods and on the commute for parents driving their children to school. We need to anticipate what the population will be and its likely demographic structure and then make sure that the community has the facilities to meet their needs. School closures are a direct result of North Shore neighbourhoods not accepting higher density which would make the area affordable for families.

The North Shore can take a lot more density but it has to be the right kind of density (e.g., the type that will get people out of their cars, improve quality of life, keep appropriate facilities open, allow aging in place) and in the right locations. Density can be developed in an attractive way, such as through allowing secondary suites, and can provide people with choice. Many people would sell half their lot if they would be allowed to subdivide the lot.

Linking Transportation and Land-use There would need to be an increase in public transit and transportation choice to accompany densification. Density developments would need to be placed in locations that are inherently servable by transit and ride-share / car-share options and along transportation corridors.

Development Cost Charges Development cost charges are not considered to be the cause of the housing affordability problem, because land values will rise to address these costs.

Secondary-suites, rentals Developers can provide secondary suites or lock-off suites that can be incorporated into the main house or condo or can be used by the owner as a rental suite and mortgage helper. These secondary suites can also be built above garages. Rental housing stock needs to be protected both in terms of physical units as well as rental price. This requires balancing the need for affordable rental housing with the need of home owners to use secondary suites as a mortgage helper.

Fear of Density

Developers and municipalities need to address the fear of density in neighbourhoods by providing images of what higher density developments could look like. High density does not necessarily mean high-rise towers, but often people picture this when they are told about densification. Low-rise projects of three and four storeys can be built with a floor area ratio of 2 because you build out to the street instead of creating big setbacks.

Absorbing costs of unsustainable locational choice There is some support for establishing penalties (such as road pricing) for regional residents who decide to live in areas that require extended commuting time to access work and amenities, and incentives for those who choose to live in compact communities. Lower price housing and land values exist farther away from downtown and major urban cores because they have poorer accessibility. People who choose to move to a lower-priced area have to accept the consequences of their choice and absorb the cost of transportation for making an unsustainable locational choice. We shouldn’t build a third bridge but manage transportation demand and price the roads.

Innovative solutions There are a number of examples of developments in which the municipality provides a developer with more density in exchange for establishing a piece of their land for a nonprofit organization, social housing or daycares. These innovative solutions are created in partnerships amongst municipalities, developers and nonprofits. There is an option of creating developments which shift from predominately rental housing to social housing over the years. Decisions about affordable housing should be made by municipalities rather than at a higher government level.

South of the Fraser

Definition of Affordable Housing The definition varies from community to community. The City of Richmond has established an affordable housing bylaw which mandates that a certain number of units need to be affordable housing and rented at a specific price.

Regional Perspective We need to adopt a regional perspective when addressing this issue. In 2006, there were more housing starts in Chilliwack than in Abbotsford because everyone is going up the valley.

Taxes as Affordability Impediments The taxes across the municipal, provincial and federal levels including housing taxes, property transfer taxes and taxes on development cost charges are seen as impediments to affordable housing – in particular property transfer taxes.

Density and Fast-tracking Approvals Solutions include allocating density for construction in former industrial areas, encouraging the building of smaller units, fast tracking municipal approval processes for affordable housing, building density near public transit to reduce the need for parking spaces, and promote secondary legal suites. Housing lots are already smaller than they used to be.

Defining a Livable Community

A definition of a community is where you can walk to have breakfast or don’t have to own a car.

Abbotsford Abbotsford is a young city and is building a number of high-rises to respond to the housing pressure while keeping the agricultural land reserve steady.

Changing our Expectations – Lot Sizes, Renovations and Building Detail We have to change the way we build our homes as well as our lot sizes, not least because of energy costs. There are also new expectations in terms of building details. In the 1970s, building structures were a lot simpler and now the costs of housing construction have increased because of the demand for more detailed design. The scale and frequency of renovations has also increased as well as the desire for one bedroom per child. We’ve been spoiled for a long time.

Developing Transit before Densification There is some value in adding density in areas that are served by transit and then designing transportation corridors ahead of future development. South of the Fraser is 50 years behind North of the Fraser in terms of access to rapid transit.

Rental Housing There needs to be significant tax incentives by the provincial and federal governments to continue to develop and maintain rental units in Greater Vancouver. One solution is to legislate a fixed percentage of rentals in multi-family developments. Another solution is to have municipalities and the province donate land for rental; however, the municipalities are reluctant to offer these lands at little or no cost because they feel they have a duty to their community to get economic rent or value from them. Another option, then, is for municipalities to negotiate for community amenities with developers and include affordable or rental housing as part of that. Toronto introduced rent control but it led to derelict, badly maintained buildings.

Alternate forms of Tenure There may be an option for reintroducing leasehold properties, encouraging co-op housing, and housing agreements as options for increasing affordability.

Regional Growth Strategy It is important that all municipalities buy into the Regional Growth Strategy and come to common agreement about accepting and dealing with their fair share of growth and allocating where density increases should be.

Incentives for Municipalities with ALR and Greenspace Municipalities that steward the flood plains and parklands and preserve agricultural lands should receive bonuses for protecting urban containment boundaries.

Development Cost Charges for Affordable Housing Richmond has set additional fees that are placed in an affordable housing unit; however, these costs will inevitably rest on the shoulder of the consumer. Reducing DCC charges is a red herring in terms of solving the affordability problem because housing prices are determined by the market and don’t reflect a change in a few thousand dollars worth of DCC charges. The key is for municipalities to provide developers with lead time on the DCCs so that they don’t get stuck once they’ve set their budgets and had the land appraised.

Predictable Rezoning Municipalities have the capacity to rezone for density; however, they should do this within the context of a comprehensive community development plan. If this doesn’t happen, then there will be speculation as to which land parcels will be rezoned for density and this will drive land value prices up. Municipalities can be reluctant to rezone because they want to negotiate an amenity package with the developer when the development application arrives; however, certainty is important for developers and through OCP planning you can maintain a degree of negotiation room within the high density zones.

Abolish the ALR? If you abolish the agricultural land reserve today and turn it into residential housing, would it dramatically affect housing prices? Although the houses would sell, it is a short-sighted solution to where we want to be in 20 and 50 years. The question is how we connect our housing needs and our sustainability. The debate has to include the future of the automobile and where we will live and work given we will run out of oil soon.

Central/Northeast

BC wide perspective The housing problem is happening across British Columbia in places such as Vernon, Cranbrook, and Kelowna which are feeling housing demand pressures and finding their housing prices and land values increasing. This is partly due to people coming from Alberta to buy homes in BC.

Tri-cities area Port Moody has developed higher density housing in an attractive way through the creation of mixed use neighbourhoods, including Newport Village with condos, shops and restaurants. Coquitlam is also considering ambitious densification. Burnaby has engaged in innovative negotiations with developers and traded higher density amounts in exchange for the inclusion of social or family housing in developments.

Build for people and not cars Why does every house need to have a two-car garage? We should house people before cars. Change the zoning bylaws and allow for more carriage homes constructed in garages.

Bring everyone to the Table Developers need the municipalities to be at the table to ensure that creativity is not hampered by bylaws such as the number of doors allowed in an apartment suite.

Demand for Green Buildings? Three years ago, the consumers were not willing to pay for green amenities. This has likely changed and will be proven with the selling of upcoming developments.

Rental Housing and Investors 35% of all our buyers today are investors rather than buyers and that provides a rental market. A solution for developing rental housing is providing tax exemptions for developers building rental.

Developers need to pressure Municipalities Developers need to place pressure on municipalities to demand more non-market housing in exchange for density.

Referendum for Affordable Housing Funds Municipalities can ask the community if they are prepared to pay an amount towards affordable housing and social housing every year, rather than loading the cost on specific projects.

Construction With the rising cost of and demands on construction, developers and individual homeowners are experiencing longer timetables on construction and renovations. This is being exacerbated by the labour shortage in the constructions industry and the lack of new young people entering into the trades. The older people in the construction would love to retire but have to remain to do the work and mentor new young workers.

How long is the lifespan of a building? How long are we building for at the moment? The building codes have responded to issues such as earthquake preparedness and the issue of leaky condos and rain screen protection. Consumers should investigate the track record of the development company or architecture firm from which they are purchasing their house.

Subsidized Housing At the Burnside Gorge Association in Victoria, residents who are subsidized in their housing are supported in creating a financial management plan to gradually increase their income. As they build credits and their income, they are not subsidized to the same degree but have built the job skills and work experience through the program. There is a problem when subsidized housing recipients have $40,000 cars and have cellphones and other expenses. There are choices and tradeoffs that need to be made and the subsidized housing should go to those who really need it.

Businesses offering Loans for Mortgages to Employees In Eastern Canada, one company had a difficult time keeping long-term employees because of housing prices in the area. They provided employees with a $20,000 loan to secure a mortgage for a first home and this loan would be written off over ten years if the employee remained with the company.

Cooperation is important but so is action The key is not to wait for a big multi-sectoral collaborative forum but to use the tools that municipalities, developers and non-profits have at their disposal and start to act.

Internet as a Learning Tool We need an online hub that outlines successful solutions that municipalities, developers and nonprofit organizations have created to address affordable housing. Could it be the GVRD, or the GVRD and the UDI together, who could develop a sort of “Development 101” for municipal councillors, who, getting re-elected every four years, need to be brought up to speed? It would be wonderful for them to know about 12 or 20 successful projects that have

addressed affordable housing through these innovative arrangements (e.g., rezoning, increasing density in exchange for amenities etc)

Vancouver

Sustainability Some people think sustainability is avoiding dependence on a growth economy – that a steady state is more comfortable. In this region, we don’t have the ability to achieve a steady state. We are going to capture a big enough share of population growth that we will be under pressure. Sustainability means accommodating development with much smarter approaches to urban transportation, and embracing green building technology and ways of living that create a smaller ecological load while accommodating more people. This requires a long-term vision and addressing the needs of the less fortunate in our community.

Critical issues affecting affordability Critical issues affecting affordability are the supply and cost of land; the drawn-out approval process, the increasing cost of approvals, the dramatic increase in construction costs, and our critical shortage of workers.

Climate change and sea level rise There is a real possibility with climate change and sea level rise that we may have to abandon Richmond and Delta. We have to start thinking about the impact of climate change on our planning.

Supply vs. Demand The basic problem is an imbalance between supply and demand and as there is little appetite to control for demand, the problem has to be addressed through supply side solutions. On the supply side, densification is preferable to sprawl.

Density Solutions Densification can occur along arterial roads. We are not making the best use of densification options. Calgary is an example of a city that embraces densification and has created a vibrant downtown core; however, we should avoid Hong Kong style density. We can create density without necessarily going above 6 or 7 storeys. Short squatty buildings may not focus on view but can be comfortable for family-oriented living. SFU UniverCIty on Burnaby Mountain is an example of a development that has focused on creating secondary suites and townhouses and holding 25% of the equity of development to make the housing affordable for employees. Other examples are high density projects at 41st and Oak, 12th and Arbutus, Coal Harbour and King Edward Village at Knight and Kingsway.

Nonprofits Nonprofit housing providers have to focus less on government subsidies and more on working with developers.

Problems with the Planning Process There is a major problem in the planning process; the initiative is left to developers to make proposals in which they have to invest considerably and have no certainty of succeeding. The planning process and planners have been reduced to focusing on negotiating public amenities, servicing and other contributions to the municipality as a condition of success. This is a costly and uncertain process which discourages the needed densification process.

We need to put the planning back into planning. Municipalities need to identify and pre-zone areas suitable for densification and then charge the appropriate development fee. If municipalities are politically constrained form exercising the needed leadership, there may be a role for the Province or the region (preference expressed for the latter) to provide the lead through targets, incentives or even requirements.

Leadership in Articulating a Vision Politicians at the local and regional level, leaders in the planning and development community, and planning staff need to be able to make the case and articulate the vision. They must make the direct connection not only between density and environmental sustainability but also with economic and social sustainability. This vision needs to be supported by analysis.

FUTURE OF THE REGION SUSTAINABILITY DIALOGUES 2007 SCHEDULE

SPECIAL REGION-WIDE DIALOGUE Newlands Golf and Country Club ~ 21025 48th Ave, Langley

Agriculture Wednesday 21 March

5-Jul-07

www.gvrd.bc.ca

Metrovalley Newspaper Group Housing tax talk vexes regional mayors

Friday, March 9, 2007 Page: 0014 Section: Surrey Leader - News The Greater Vancouver Regional District will continue to advance its ideas to combat homelessness even though several cities object to one suggestion White Rock Mayor Judy Forster said she also they band together to raise $50 million. supports the paper going out for discussion although she's unsure whether she supports a levy. Some mayors declared the notion dead in the water even though the GVRD board voted last Friday to Housing options will get more debate at a GVRD send a discussion paper on possible housing solutions workshop in March, as well as public dialogues May out for public comment. 28 in Surrey, June 7 in West Vancouver and June 20 in Port Moody. Among the recommendations is the idea GVRD cities raise $50 million that would, along with federal and Copyright 2007 Surrey Leader provincial contributions, form a $250-million fund for affordable housing projects.

"Our council categorically rejected the concept of levies," said Pitt Meadows Mayor Don MacLean, who noted the provincial government has already ruled out participating. "I don't know why we're pursuing it." Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who also voted in opposition, said raising the $50 million would have the effect of jacking up taxes in his city by four to five per cent. "This is the most wrong-headed approach to take," he said. "The fact is property taxes do not reflect people's income. I have pensioners on $600,000 worth of property earning $30,000 a year. They cannot subsidize social housing." Corrigan said the fund would mean stepping into an area of provincial responsibility. GVRD staff see the money not coming from property taxes but potentially from higher garbage tipping fees or water charges. But Corrigan said he sees no reasonable way to funnel proceeds from those fees to an affordable housing fund. Vancouver Coun. Kim Capri was among those who spoke in favour. "I would be open to looking at a tax increase specifically for providing housing," she said, adding Vancouver city hall is getting queries from people who want to donate money to fight homelessness. GVRD chair Lois Jackson said the issues raised in the paper should go out for debate even if they are contentious. The paper urges a variety of measures, including density bonuses and other incentives to encourage developers to blend some affordable housing units in with market housing.

FPinfomart.ca Page 1 North Shore News 'You ain't seen nothing yet'; Forum hears density key to region's future

Sun 10 Jun 2007 Page: 11 Section: News Byline: Tessa Holloway Source: North Shore News Density was the magic word at the GVRD high-priced, sprawling British Properties. Sustainable Region Forum on affordable housing Tuesday at West Vancouver's Hollyburn Country Recent proposals for higher density in the District of Club, but it's still a four letter word for many North North Vancouver have drawn controversy. District Shore residents. council recently backed down to public pressure over proposals for density bonusing along Marine Drive The forum, entitled Housing: The Price We Pay, that could have seen zoning for higher density, opting brought together stakeholders from around the North instead for something more moderate. Shore with a panel comprised of Maureen Enser of the Urban Development Institute, Ward McAllister, District Mayor Richard Walton, who opened the CEO of Ledingham McAllister Properties Ltd, Jim forum, said more needs to be done to convince O'Dea of Terra Housing Consultants and Jay residents. Wollenberg, president of Coriolis Consulting Corporation. "People need to feel that the additional density is somehow going to make their life better," said Deborah Spicer, director of the real estate board of Walton. "We have to do more a compelling job as Greater Vancouver, summed up the problem. public officials and myself as mayor in engaging people in this discussion." "We currently have 286 listings in West Vancouver. Just less than 10 per cent of those 286 or 25 of those The forum was the third of six sustainability listings are priced at under a million dollars. Over 20 workshops scheduled for this year, with future per cent of those 286 listings are priced at over $3 workshops focusing on industry, drugs and the million." regional economy. For more information, visit www.gvrd.bc.ca/sustainability/. The panellists and invitation-only audience gave their solution: Density is key. [email protected] "All of us in this region have to change our expectations. This region is becoming more urban whether you like it or not," said Wollenberg. "You ain't seen nothing yet." He said the only way to lower the price is to dramatically increase supply, and with limited land for the region to grow that means added density. There was no shortage of ideas as to how to raise supply, from making secondary suites easier and density bonusing to carriage suites built over garages. "The issue here isn't do we have solutions to the problem. There are so many different ways we can create more housing," said Enser. Instead, she said, the issue was how to get that new stock on the market, but to do that projects have to first get past municipal councils. "With all due respect, they're the chicken (before the egg)," said McAllister of municipal councils. "We need a higher level of government to mandate rates of housing and densities to the municipalities so they have somebody to point the finger at."

Yet some areas of the North Shore aren't buying in. While panellists comp-limented the high density corridors of Lonsdale and Ambleside, the forum itself was held at the Hollyburn Country club in the

FPinfomart.ca Page 4 The Vancouver Province Eco-density zealots must recognize that condo living is not for everyone

Mon 18 Jun 2007 Page: A14 Section: Editorial Byline: Derek Moscato Column: Derek Moscato Source: The Province G reater Vancouver's civic leaders are talking a lot about density these days -- elevating the D word to Yaletown has new schools and parks to bolster its almost mythical status. Indeed, there's a lot to like case for being family-friendly. But other highrise about people moving into compact places like the neighbourhoods have not followed suit. downtown core, since land in our region is finite, while the population continues to grow. Then there's the affordability issue for people with families. The cost of buying a two- or three-bedroom But density isn't for everyone -- a point that some condo in central Vancouver can be astronomical. density boosters fail to see. So what can the density cheerleaders take from this In their rush to squeeze everyone into a lifestyle of picture? Let's hope a healthy respect for those who've condominium living -- complete with seawalk strolls, taken a pass on the downtown lifestyle, for starters. yoga studios and low-fat lattes -- they run the risk of demonizing those who, for a variety of good reasons, It's about choice, really. opt for suburbia. A family guy taking care of four kids and a dog is No doubt about it, there are many positives to urban about as fond of condo living downtown as the densification. People living in these neighbourhoods hipster from Main Street is of living in an Aldergrove use up fewer environmental resources and are more cul-de-sac. likely to take advantage of public transit than those who live in sprawling suburbs. In urban and suburban circles, the old expression still holds true: To each his own. Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan continues to promote his EcoDensity initiative as a means to [email protected] creating "green, livable and affordable" housing. At a GVRD forum on housing earlier this month, the pro-density argument again was put forward as a way of taking the froth off prices in Greater Vancouver's red-hot real-estate market by ramping up the supply of multifamily units. Translation: More highrise condos are on the way. But, before we overdose on density, we need to ask ourselves if the push to compact living is right for everyone. The B.C. census numbers for 2006 seem to tell a different story from the one the density advocates would like you to hear. For one thing, the biggest growth in our region isn't happening in the city of Vancouver. It's in Surrey, Mission, Chilliwack and Abbotsford -- where single-family homes still rule. Between 2001 and 2006, Surrey alone enjoyed a population increase of 13.6 per cent. And the cty of Vancouver's growth rate lags behind not only Surrey, but that of the GVRD as a whole. So why aren't more Lower Mainland families embracing the high-density lifestyle? For starters, there's the perception, right or wrong, that compact neighbourhoods are the domain of childless singles and well-to-do retirees. Also, raising kids can be a challenge in the inner city.

FPinfomart.ca Page 11 Metrovalley Newspaper Group Greater density in Greater Vancouver's future

Thursday, June 21, 2007 Page: 0001 Section: Burnaby Newsleader - News Denser building and living is the only strategy that can help keep home prices from spiraling out of reach for more of the region's residents. The GVRD is in the midst of a process to redraw its Livable Region Strategic Plan, and McAllister said it That was the consensus of a panel of housing and may be time to contemplate a move to regional development experts who spoke last Friday at a planning to end the patchwork of local planning GVRD dialogue on housing affordability. decisions. "Densification is upon us and is the way of the future One of the key challenges is the fact virtually no in the region," said Peter Simpson, president of the rental apartment buildings are being built because Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association. their income stream simply can't compete against the returns that come from selling condos. Panelists also agreed one of the best methods is to use density as a carrot to encourage developers to Burnaby Coun. Colleen Jordan noted many build more rental housing or affordable housing units three-storey walk-up apartments are 40 to 50 years blended with other market units. old and huge pressure is growing on councils to let them be rebuilt as condos for sale. "If you can double the density it's like creating free land," said Jay Wollenberg, president of Coriolis She suggested zoning areas as rental only might be Consulting. one answer, but could risk creating ghettos. The forum came amid fresh signs it's getting tougher The panel also heard calls for lower development to afford to live here. cost charges (DCCs), the fast-tracking of permitting and legalization of secondary suites. The median price of a single family house in the GVRD cracked $700,000 for the first time in May. Peeter Wesik, president of Parklane Homes, said increased development close to public transit And a new Royal Bank study found it takes 70 per corridors offers potential for more people to live with cent of the median Vancouver income to afford a fewer vehicles and devote their savings to housing. typical two-storey house. One of the things that must change, he said, is "the With 45,000 new residents coming to Greater attitude that public transit is for losers." Vancouver every year, prices will continue to climb fast unless the supply of housing rises as well. While the audience heard predictions more people will one day live all their lives in multi-family And in a region tightly constrained by mountains, buildings, none of the panelists saw any ebbing of the ocean, parks and agricultural land, that means influx of people that comes with Vancouver's building up. desirability. But while civic leaders agree on that goal, some of "Our region is not a country club - there are no bars them also fear the wrath of angry residents who to entry," McAllister said. "People are coming and oppose any move to densify their neighbourhoods. it's come one, come all." "We have to deal with Dick and Dorothy from down Copyright 2007 Burnaby NewsLeader the street," Delta Coun. Scott Hamilton told the forum. "These people will line up out the door at public meetings." Panelist Ward McAllister, a real estate developer, said cities that push the burden of growth onto their neighbours must be punished. "For those in the future that don't accept density, there should be penalties," he said, suggesting the return of federal gas taxes should be cut off. "Sprawl is not an option," he said. "It's vital that Lower Mainland municipalities all buy into a regional growth strategy."

FPinfomart.ca Page 1 Coquitlam Now Housing forum highlights relaxed zoning rules as potential solution to home affordability crunch

Fri 22 Jun 2007 Page: 8 Section: News Byline: Stephen Thomson Source: Coquitlam NOW One strategy to cope with soaring housing costs in the province is to relax zoning rules, according to a panel of regional development experts. Negrin noted that housing affordability is a provincewide issue, with many people forced to put "It all comes down to regulations," said Jay more than half of their incomes into keeping their Wollenberg, president of Coriolis Consulting Corp. homes. "We have 12,000 families in British Columbia that are looking for a place to live," he Wollenberg, a professional planner and real estate said. consultant, was among five Lower Mainland experts who spoke about potential solutions to the McTavish, who is involved with marketing the affordability gap that is steadily pushing home Olympic Village in Whistler, questioned how the ownership out of reach for many British Columbians. growing popularity of the West Coast would affect housing prices. The forum -- titled Housing, the Price We Pay -- was held as part of the Greater Vancouver Regional "How are we going to stop the world from coming District's sustainable region initiative, which has seen here and keep it affordable?" he asked. a series of similar discussions take place in surrounding communities beginning last year. Wesik pointed to denser living, an improved transit system and innovative design as means of providing One of the underlying causes of the affordability affordable and sustainable housing. problem, Wollenberg said, is the difficulty some have competing in a housing market fuelled by the popularity of West Coast living. "What we've done is create one of the most attractive places in the solar system," he said, adding that the high demand for housing could be met by changing municipal zoning bylaws to give developers more room to build. The event was held Wednesday at the Inlet Theatre in Port Moody, drawing more than 45 attendees, including a handful of municipal politicians from the Tri-Cities. The panel of development experts also included: Tracie McTavish, president of Rennie Marketing Systems; David Negrin, a vice-president with Concord Pacific Group and president of the Urban Development Institute, Pacific Region; Peter Simpson, CEO of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders' Association; and Peeter Wesik, president of ParkLane Homes and chair of Wesgroup Income Properties. The group brought its expertise to bear on a range of issues gripping the B.C. development industry, including skyrocketing land prices and the shortage of skilled labour available for construction projects.

Simpson agreed that land use regulations should be more flexible for developers, calling densification the "future of the region." "Whatever land is left is pricey, so we better make good use of it," he said.

FPinfomart.ca Page 1 Item 6.3

Committee Meeting Date: July 13, 2007

To: Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force

From: Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer/Commissioner

Date: July 5, 2007

Subject: Update on Greater Vancouver Economic Council (GVEC)

Recommendation That the Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force receive this report for information

1. PURPOSE

To update the Committee on GVEC and related Committee/Board recommendations.

2. CONTEXT

At its meeting of November 3, 2006, the Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force considered a report titled, “GVRD and Regional Economic Initiatives” dated October 5, 2006.

The report outlined the need for an economic development strategy and identified the development of the economy of the region as a role intended to be undertaken and lead by other agency/agencies but one which the GVRD, with its various roles in land use strategy, provision of utilities and transportation policy would necessarily be involved. The Greater Vancouver Economic Council (GVEC), a major collaborative effort across a broad spectrum of business, academic, labour and civic leadership, presented to the Committee their business case to stimulate investment and new employment in the region, all within a sustainable context; and expand industrial clusters, attracting international investment, and benchmarking against competitors. Efforts of this newly formed Council was supported by the Committee by recommending the following resolutions and later approved by the Board.

• Direct staff and existing committees to identify projects that may be done in collaboration with GVEC; and • Provide the Greater Vancouver Economic Council (GVEC) formal support including GVRD’s support in their request for Federal, Provincial and private sector financial assistance; and. • Direct the Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force to draft Terms of Reference for the development of a Regional Economic Strategy.

GVEC’s focus in the months following the above meeting was on securing funding to create a functioning organization with full time staff. These efforts remain stalled. The organization has not been active and the GVEC Board has not met for more than six months. Any progress on working with GVEC has therefore stalled.

Page 2 of 2 Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force – November 7, 2006 Report: GVRD and Regional Economic Initiatives

The committee may wish to note that the response of municipal economic development officials to the news of GVEC’s inactivity is support to a white paper, The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver authored by Vancouver, Richmond and Surrey economic development staff (see attachment). The report outlines the following points: • the issues of concern across the region: planning for industrial and commercial land use, transportation networks to support trade and commerce, and workforce development; • potential regional collaboration: development of a clear vision for a region-wide strategic economic development planning, development of a joint databank, and establishment of a brand for the region; • that without collaboration, the region will not have a cohesive vision, will lose economic opportunities, and will risk that other city or regions will out compete Greater Vancouver; • areas for regional collaboration: workforce recruitment and retention, attraction of new technology-based manufacturing industry to BC, trade and promotion related to the 2008 World Urban Forum in Beijing and 2010 Olympics and Paralympics, and development of an Asia Pacific Gateway plan. • the need for a strong political leadership that establishes economic development as a priority to move forward.

The paper was presented to the Regional Administrative Advisory Committee (RAAC). RAAC responded by suggesting that a starting point should be a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Vancouver, Richmond and Surrey and we understand this is to be pursued.

3. ALTERNATIVES None presented.

4. CONCLUSION

GVRD functions in land use planning, regulatory activities and delivery of utilities requires a regional economic context and therefore has been supportive of activities that provided understanding and assistance in addressing regional economic issues. GVRD’s efforts to work with GVEC are stalled.

ATTACHMENT: 1. White paper: The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver, dated September 8, 2006

004524038 The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver

September 8, 2006

This product is presented as a joint report between Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond. The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver September 2006 Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents...... 2 Executive summary...... 3 Introduction...... 4 Background...... 5 Greater Vancouver Economic Partnership (GVEP) – 1999 to 2001...... 5 Greater Vancouver Economic Council (GVEC) – 2004 to present...... 5 Present Economic Development activities in the GVRD...... 6 Municipal economic development functions...... 6 Regional Economic Development Sub-Committee (REDS)...... 6 Business & Trade Associations...... 6 What is the Problem?...... 7 Why now?...... 8 Shared issues...... 8 Possible areas of collaboration...... 9 Challenges & benefits for a regional approach...... 9 Challenges...... 9 Benefits...... 9 Role of local Economic Development organizations...... 10 What is required to move forward...... 10

Page 2 The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver September 2006

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper provides a framework for civic leaders within the Greater Vancouver area to discuss regional collaboration for economic development. The paper has been drafted jointly by the economic development staff from Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond, in response to an initial meeting among the Mayors of those three cities, who have expressed a desire for municipalities within the Greater Vancouver Regional District to find effective ways of working together for mutual benefit. The paper is meant as a starting point for further dialog and debate. While the Greater Vancouver region is presently experiencing strong economic growth, the area’s economic success is tempered by constraints on land, to regional collaboration, these efforts may be challenged infrastructure, and workforce. Greater Vancouver’s future by perceived rivalries between municipalities, and by economic prosperity could be strengthened by developing competing priorities for limited resources. collaborative solutions to shared economic development issues. Without this collaboration: Regional collaboration for economic development requires strong political leadership, agreement among municipalities  There is no cohesive vision for where the regional to work together, dialog to establish “common ground”, and economy is headed; discussion about an appropriate organizational framework  Existing regional economic development efforts are that can advance collective action. This paper is meant as stalled by lack of political support; a starting point for more detailed discussion and debate  Economic development resources are fragmented; among civic leaders and staff.  Financial and political leverage is diluted;  Economic opportunities are limited and lost; and  There is an increased risk that other city-regions will out compete Greater Vancouver for economic benefits. Regional collaboration among municipalities can generate more effective results than individual efforts. Some possible areas of collaboration could include:

 Establishing region-wide strategic economic planning;  Lobbying senior levels of government;  Jointly developing data and information resources;  Developing and pursuing economic opportunities that have broad regional benefits; and  “Branding” the region as a destination of choice for business and skilled workers. Regional collaboration can strengthen economic advantages, establish a “city-region” of international significance, and ensure efficient use of economic development resources. But while there are clear benefits

Page 3 The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver September 2006

 INTRODUCTION

The Greater Vancouver area functions as an integrated “economic region”, yet economic development efforts remain fragmented among 21 local municipalities. As a consequence, the Lower Mainland region lacks a coordinated economic development approach, which creates potential for conflicts among municipalities, and results in missed opportunities.

The Mayors of Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond are interested in working together, along with other interested municipal leaders within the GVRD, to review how their municipalities may collaborate on shared economic development opportunities and challenges. The topic of regional collaboration was raised by Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan at the GVRD Mayors’ Meeting in July 2006 and many of those present at that meeting have expressed interest in discussing the topic further.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for discussion among civic leaders about regional collaboration for economic development, and to outline potential shared interests. It has been drafted jointly by the economic development staff from Vancouver, Surrey & Richmond, and is intended as a starting point for further dialog, in the hope that municipalities within the Greater Vancouver Regional District can find effective ways to work together for mutual benefit.

Page 4 The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver September 2006

 BACKGROUND A regional approach to economic development is not a for economic development; provincial ministries were new concept in Greater Vancouver. There have been several mandated to incorporate economic development into their attempts to organize regional initiatives, with varying core functions, but program funding was limited. Without degrees of success. An understanding of recent efforts the financial support of the provincial government or BC provides insight into the challenges and opportunities for Hydro, the remaining GVEP partners reconsidered their future regional collaboration. ongoing interest, and also withdrew support. Greater Vancouver Economic Partnership (GVEP) Greater Vancouver Economic Council (GVEC) 1999 to 2001 2004 to Present In 1999, the Greater Vancouver Economic Partnership Despite the failure of the Greater Vancouver Economic was formed, with financial support from the Province of Partnership, a number of community and business leaders BC, Industry Canada, the GVRD, universities, major utility remained convinced that a regional approach to economic companies, transportation providers, business and industry development was required. In 2004, several “economic associations, and several private sector firms. The focus of leadership forums” were held, with participation from more the GVEP was joint economic development “marketing”, to than 300 delegates. attract new businesses and industries to the broad “Greater The forums resulted in the creation of a business plan, Vancouver” region, defined as the area from Whistler to and the formation of the Greater Vancouver Economic Hope. GVEP established a comprehensive database of Council (GVEC). GVEC is envisioned to be a not-for-profit information relevant to site selection decisions, based on society with representation from business, communities, an internationally adopted data template, and participated senior governments, academia, first nations, and labour, in several key site selection events to generate awareness with a stated mission to “stimulate investment and new and interest in Greater Vancouver as a business location employment in the Greater Vancouver Region by creating a of choice. While GVEP enjoyed initial support from local clear vision and economic strategy for the Region, within a and senior levels of government and the private sector, it sustainable context.” ultimately failed for several reasons: GVEC has established an interim Board of Directors to secure 1. Lack of money -- The original government funding the resources required to create a functioning organization partners anticipated that their “seed funding” would with full-time staff and implement the mandate outlined in encourage private sector partners to provide ongoing its business plan. The Board has an ambitious fund-raising operational funding to GVEP. This did not happen because plan that targets raising $40 million for an endowment to the mandate of GVEP did not generate a direct “return on support a self-sustaining regional economic development investment” to individual companies, so there was little agency. The GVEC Board has approached senior levels of incentive for the private sector to contribute ongoing funds. government and the private sector, but their efforts remain As a result, GVEP was unable to secure adequate ongoing stalled as other funding partners wish to see evidence of operating funding and ceased operations. municipal support for a regional economic development 2. Narrow strategic focus -- The GVEP was established function. primarily as a marketing agency. While business recruitment is an important economic development strategy, it can create potential conflicts among neighbouring municipalities that view each other as “competitors” for business investment. This is a challenging paradox for a regional marketing agency that needs support from multiple municipalities within the region, and without clear agreement from municipal partners, can undermine long-term support. 3. Change of key leaders -- the 2000 provincial election resulted in a change in government, and a change in focus for provincial economic development. Crown agency BC Hydro, one of the major forces behind GVEP, shifted strategic focus and closed its internal department responsible

Page 5 The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver September 2006

 PRESENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE GVRD While the Greater Vancouver Economic Council works Organized by planning staff from the GVRD, these meetings to become established, there are a number of existing have created an informal collaborative regional network, economic development functions within individual and have established respect and trust among peers. While municipalities and additional economic development this committee does not have a formal mandate or call-to- efforts are underway among business and trade action for regional planning and collaboration, it establishes associations. a strong foundation for a more formal collaborative regional Municipal Economic Development Functions effort. At least 16 municipalities within the GVRD presently Business & Trade Associations provide funding to a local economic development There are literally dozens of business and industry function. Some of these functions are located within City associations throughout the region – some which serve Hall; others are contracted to arm’s length commissions or specific cities (like the Vancouver Board of Trade, Surrey independent contractors that receive funds from the local Chamber of Commerce, and Richmond Chamber of government. Collectively, municipalities invest about $4 Commerce), and some which cross regional boundaries million in economic development, and employ 28 staff. A (like the BC Business Council, BC Technology Industries summary of the staff levels, funding, and status of economic Association, New Media BC, and BC Biotech). Many of development planning is outlined in the table below. these organizations have taken active roles in economic Regional Economic Development Sub-Committee development, representing the views and collective interests (REDS) of their business members. They have expressed strong Professional staff from economic development functions support for a regional approach to economic development, across the region meet every 3 months to share information, as the issues that impact business growth and investment and discuss regional economic development issues. span across geopolitical boundaries, and some have initiated their own economic development plans.

Table 1: Summary of Municipal Investment in Economic Development

Area Staff 2006 Budget Organizational ED Strategy Status City of Vancouver (through VEDC) 5 FT $778,000 External non-profit organization with annual service contract from City Underway City of Surrey 4 FT $450,000 Internal City Department Update soon to be underway City of Richmond 3 FT $448,000 Internal City Department Update soon to be underway. City of Burnaby 1 PT $200,000 Internal City department, and annual service contracts with external orgs. Completed 2005 North Vancouver (City) 1.5 FT $200,000 Internal City Department Planned for 2006/07 North Vancouver (District) 2.5 FT $250,000 Internal Department Planned for 2006/07 West Vancouver 1 PT TBD Internal Department No Current ED Strategy New Westminster 1 FT $120,000 Internal Department Plan Underway Maple Ridge 3 FT $350,000 Internal City Department To be completed Fall 2006. Coquitlam 1 FT $800,000 Internal City Department Update soon to be underway. Port Coquitlam 1 PT $25,000* Internal City Department No current ED strategy Delta 1 PT $45,000 Internal Department, and annual service contracts No current ED strategy Port Moody 1 PT $150,000 Internal City Department Arts, culture & tourism strategy Pitt Meadows 1 PT $50,000 External contractors managed by City Staff No current ED strategy Langley (City) 0 $100,000 External contractors managed by City Staff Completed 2004 Langley (Township) 1 FT $100,000 Internal City Department Completed 2002 White Rock TBD TBD TBD TBD Anmore TBD TBD TBD TBD Belcarra TBD TBD TBD TBD Bowen Island TBD TBD TBD TBD Lions Bay TBD TBD TBD TBD TOTAL 28 $4,066,000

Page 6 The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver September 2006

 WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? 5. Greater Vancouver’s opportunities are limited by a lack of regional thinking and action. Internationally, Greater While individual municipalities are collectively investing Vancouver appears smaller and less significant than it is. close to $4 million annually in local economic development As a region, we are a force of more than 2 million people efforts, there is presently very little regional coordination or and 80,000 businesses, on par with world-class centres investment for regional economic development. Indeed, for business like Toronto, Montreal, and San Francisco; as the Greater Vancouver region is one of the only metro individual municipalities, we are equivalent to Hamilton, areas of its size in Canada that does not have a regional Edmonton, or Brampton – wonderful small cities, but not economic development strategy. The region’s peer metro “world class” economic centres. In this global economy, areas, including Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Halifax size matters, and the region’s municipalities stand to gain and Montreal, have regional efforts to address economic greater benefits by working together than individually. development issues. 6. Greater Vancouver is in danger of being out-competed There are serious consequences to the Greater Vancouver by other regions. Many of our competitor “city-regions” -- region’s lack of collaboration: like Montreal, Toronto & Calgary -- understand the benefits 1. There is no cohesive vision for where the regional of a regional approach to economic development, and economy is headed. This means there is a lack of shared are resourcing regional organizations to carry out sales understanding of regional economic priorities for land & marketing, workforce development, industry cluster use, transportation, population growth, and infrastructure development, research & data collection, and economic investment. It means that individual municipalities development planning. Simply put, these regions are can make decisions that detrimentally affect other positioned to out-compete us, and will continue to erode municipalities in the region. While some municipalities our competitive position if we do nothing. have economic development strategies, these strategies need to be integrated into a regional plan for the region’s economic future. 2. There are several organizations that are attempting to establish regional economic development initiatives, including the Greater Vancouver Economic Council (GVEC), and the Vancouver Board of Trade, but they are stalled by lack of political support. This means that there is a risk of another regional economic development “failure”, which will make the next attempt ever more difficult. 3. The region’s investment into economic development resources are fragmented from community to community, creating unnecessary duplication of effort and gaps in service that translate into lost opportunities for the entire area. This is becoming less acceptable to both residential and commercial taxpayers who are placing increasing pressure on their municipalities and their political leaders to streamline resources and create better regional efficiencies. 4. The lack of regional collaboration on critical economic issues results in a diluted ability to lever needed political support and investment from senior levels of government. Greater Vancouver must compete with other, more organized regions in the country for limited national resources, and can better do so by presenting a united voice.

Page 7 The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver September 2006

 WHY NOW?  SHARED ISSUES We are all part of a single “economic region”, and we all While all municipalities within the GVRD stand to gain from stand to gain from our shared opportunities. economic opportunities, they also share issues of concern. “Why now?” some may ask. In short, if not now, then These important issues significantly impact the region’s when? economic performance and can only be addressed at a regional level. For example: Others may say “but we are already growing, and our economy is strong, so why bother with economic  The region lacks a coordinated approach to land use development?”. While it is true that there is presently strong planning for industrial and commercial activities. regional economic growth, it is equally true that economies With limited land supply, land use decisions are critically are highly cyclical, and based on current patterns, the Lower important to each municipality’s tax base and fiscal Mainland will -- in the next few years -- face an economic health, and impact future job creation opportunities downturn. These cycles are manageable however, and for residents. While individual municipalities need to Greater Vancouver has the opportunity to use the current maintain autonomy over land use decisions, there are growth cycle to build strength for the long term, and ensure regional benefits if these decisions are made in the that municipalities are collectively prepared to weather the context of the area’s inter-related economic activities and inevitable economic changes in the future. shared opportunities. Perhaps the most compelling reasons to collaborate now  Local municipalities need to work together to ensure are the shared opportunities that GVRD municipalities all that transportation networks support trade and stand to gain from in the next few years: For example: commerce. Appropriate infrastructure for rail, road, port and air transportation provides critical access to markets  The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games will shine and facilitates the flow of goods and services to, from, an intense media spotlight on all of British Columbia, and and within the region. This requires collaboration among the Greater Vancouver region in particular. This new- all municipalities in the region, to ensure that regional found awareness can bring new businesses, jobs, and economic development goals are supported. residents to all Greater Vancouver-area communities. By working together, we can share the benefits of this  Regional businesses have shared workforce growth. development concerns. Companies throughout the region draw upon the regional workforce. Some  BC is the Gateway to the Asia Pacific region. As trade key industries are already experiencing a region-wide with Asia increases, there are opportunities for business shortage of workers, and competition from other city- expansion and job creation in all Greater Vancouver cities. regions for those workers is intensifying. It is important As a transportation gateway to North American markets, that there is a regional shared economic vision for there is a need to coordinate municipal decisions for the future, to ensure that local municipalities support land use, transportation networks, and infrastructure decisions that attract and retain the type of workers that investments, to ensure that all municipalities take are needed to support a strong economy. advantage of this opportunity while protecting the quality of life that we value in the Lower Mainland. These are complex issues that cannot be solved by individual municipalities working in isolation. It is in the  Globally, there is a rising influence of metro areas region’s collective interests to work together to understand – population is being drawn into large urban centres, and resolve regional economic development concerns. and the Greater Vancouver region will grow in economic importance nationally and internationally. There is an opportunity to focus this growth in ways that enhance the long-term financial and economic sustainability of the region.

Page 8 The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver September 2006

 POSSIBLE AREAS OF COLLABORATION There are many ways regional municipalities can be more effective by working together rather than individually. For example:  Municipalities could work together to establish region-wide strategic economic development planning. This would provide a collective vision for the future regional economy, and a clearer understanding of each municipality’s role within the region.  Municipalities could collectively lobby senior levels of government on issues of common concern, such as infrastructure and economic development funding. By working together with a common focus, lobbying efforts will be more effective. business expands its operations in Burnaby, it is likely that new jobs will be filled by residents from neighbouring  Municipalities could jointly develop data and municipalities; the firm will draw upon suppliers located information resources so that there is a shared in other cities within the region – all of these activities understanding of regional economic development generate economic benefit. strengths and challenges, and a common base of  Each municipality in the region is constrained by information for business retention & attraction. limited money and competing priorities. Regional  Municipalities could work together to develop collaboration for economic development will require economic opportunities that have broad regional incremental resources to be allocated by individual benefits – for example, capitalizing on the opportunities municipalities; this may require a re-allocation of existing generated by Greater Vancouver’s proximity and affinity taxes, or new tax revenue. This could create a political to the Asia Pacific region. challenge for local councils, who may have other  Municipalities could establish a “brand” for the competing priorities for scarce tax dollars. region, to support marketing efforts that promote the Benefits region internationally as a location of choice for business Economic activity in the Lower Mainland transcends and skilled workers. geopolitical boundaries; therefore, a strong argument for These are simply ideas – ideas that require much regional collaboration already exists. And while it may seem discussion and shared understanding among the region’s challenging, these challenges are offset by some significant municipalities. Agreeing to collaborate for regional benefits: economic development is the starting point for this dialog.  Collaboration will result in decisions that strengthen  CHALLENGES & BENEFITS FOR A our regional economic advantages. A regional game REGIONAL APPROACH plan for economic development can help guide land use, taxation, and regulatory policy decisions that strengthen Challenges the entire region as an economic powerhouse for the West. Collaboration is not easy – it requires trust, time, and shared commitment. There are several factors that may make  By working together, the Greater Vancouver area economic development collaboration challenging: establishes itself as a “city-region” of significance, with the capacity to compete with other city-regions for  To be successful collaborators, municipalities workers, businesses, and economic opportunities. cannot view each other as “competitors”. Successful  A regional approach to economic development will regional economic development initiatives are based enable municipalities to make more efficient use of on the recognition that an economic development economic development resources, ensuring that local “win” for one municipality has indirect benefits to many governments minimize duplication and leverage existing municipalities within the region. For example, if a resources to gain greater benefit. Page 9 The Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver September 2006

 ROLE OF LOCAL ECONOMIC  WHAT IS REQUIRED TO MOVE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS FORWARD Some may wonder “How will regional collaboration affect While the Greater Vancouver region is presently existing local economic development functions?”. Within experiencing strong economic growth and positive regional collaboration, local economic development prospects for the future, our economic success is tempered organizations will continue to provide an important role: by constraints on land, infrastructure, and workforce. The lack of regional collaboration for economic development  First, local economic development organizations results in missed opportunities and threatens future can provide the front-line staff expertise that will be economic prosperity. necessary to advance regional dialog. The voice of each municipality will need to be represented, and local But there is interest in establishing regional collaboration for economic development professionals are well positioned to economic development. To move forward, the following understand the needs and priorities of their municipalities, elements are required: and the local context for regional opportunities. At the  Strong political leadership that establishes regional same time, local staff can provide regional context to local economic development as a priority. Without this decisions, to ensure that local Councils understand how “political will”, nothing of significance can advance – funding their decisions fit into the regional economic development from other levels of government and the private sector picture. will remain stalled, and staff will continue to focus on local  Second, not all economic development priorities will priorities. be regional in scope, and local economic development  Agreement to work together. Municipalities must be functions will continue to provide services locally that willing and prepared to invest time to discuss shared issues will not (or should not) be provided at a regional level. and work together to address concerns. The scope of these services needs to be discussed, so that  Establish “common ground”. In order to advance there is a clear understanding of what should be dealt with regional collaboration, municipal leaders need to talk regionally versus locally, and ensuring the efficient use of tax about the “common ground” – what are the shared issues dollars. of concern? What can we do better together than we can individually? This shared understanding can be the basis for securing agreement, perhaps in the form of a “memorandum of understanding”, on areas of collaboration.  Support a viable regional organizational structure to implement actions. Once local municipalities have agreed upon their shared interests, they can take collective action to address regional economic development issues. This sets the stage to explore options for the best way to deliver regional economic development, including the GVEC as a vehicle to advance regional economic priorities. This is a complex and vitally important issue for the Greater Vancouver area, and its future position as a region of economic significance. This paper is meant as a starting point for much more detailed discussion and debate among municipal leaders and staff. Is it a discussion that more municipalities are willing to have?

Page 10