"The Urban Development Institute - Pacific (UDI) is the premier industry body that represents the interests of British Columbia's leading residential, commercial, industrial and institutional developers. UDI is comprised of over 500 corporate members who collectively generate more than $25 billion and 250,000 jobs for the provincial economy each year."
UDI Policy Agenda, 2011
IN the interests of ordinary British Columbians, especially those who live, work and pay myriad taxes in Metro Vancouver, it would be helpful to know one other significant number: the amount of profit generated in this province annually by the 500-plus members of the Urban Development Institute.
How else can people evaluate the fairness of UDI's position on what it calls "development extractions"? The UDI document claims that these expenses - development cost charges, community amenity contributions, property transfer taxes, the HST and a host of other local and senior government charges - either "constrain the supply and development of new housing, or they are passed on to new homebuyers."
Clearly, they are implying that if a developer cannot achieve a pre-determined profit he will walk away or up the price to the market.
Fair enough, but as citizens would be quick to point out, it is not the industry and its homebuyers alone who bear the costs of new development.
Permit fees, development cost charges and amenities don't come close to covering municipal costs for months of staff reports, public hearings, new traffic controls, realignment of roads, utilities and more. Directly or indirectly, those burdens are borne by all municipal taxpayers long after developers have moved on.
Adding to the imbalance, of course, is the fact that while corporate expenses are paid out of gross revenues, residents must pay their assessments with after-income-tax dollars.
Of equal concern to North Shore residents and councils should be the influence the UDI board seeks to wield on behalf of its members at all levels of our elected and non-elected governance.
Despite its use of innocuous words and phrases like "affordability", "collaborative" and "rationalization of municipal planning frameworks", the organization's Policy Agenda 2011 leaves one with the uncomfortable feeling that what the industry tail really wants to do is wag the governance dog - especially at the municipal and regional levels.
How else to interpret the statement which appears under the heading Housing Delivery and Supply? Discussing the lack of affordable housing and zoned density, the document says: "The UDI advocates a coordinated and streamlined approach to the release of new land in both greenfield areas and upzoning for higher density in existing infill areas."
Whoa! Hold on a minute. We are all for friendly collaboration, and UDI members are entitled to lobby all they want, but while citizens have their own reservations about government, they elect councils to "provide stewardship of public assets" as the province's Community Charter puts it.
Furthermore, as North Vancouver council-watcher Corrie Kost observed, "density is not always a good thing; but where it happens, growth should always pay for itself."
So if, through the collective wisdom of regional councils, residents decide they're not in love with density and would rather preserve scarce industrial
lands and greenfields, UDI members should work within official community plans instead of forever pushing the envelope and blaming councils for the expense.
That said, developers are likely to find a more welcoming mat at the TransLink door. The agency has long been in discussions with Metro Vancouver about the desirability of situating highdensity development around SkyTrain stations - along the Canada Line corridor for example. That's one way to achieve its ridership projections.
If the transit authority's tentative steps toward light-rail technology bear fruit, municipalities and developers may need to further rethink the positioning of density they envision for regional transit routes.
. . .
And speaking of TransLink: On Feb. 10, in reaction to a $100 per-answer survey idea that left the transit authority's red face in the mud, Surrey Mayor Diane Watts joined other members of the Mayors' Council on Transportation in restating their call for a full audit of TransLink: Not a penny more in new funding without a full, independent examination of its books.
Yet during her March 13 State of the City report and in the name of equity, Watts took up the refrain of Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender in calling for tolls on all bridges to help pay for regional transportation.
Presumably, that would mean tolls on the two North Shore crossings.
Washed away by the tide of Watts' Rapid Transit Now proposals for three light-rail lines in her city was any mention of the Mayors' Council line in the sand.
Nevertheless, audits aside, residents throughout Metro Vancouver should take heart from the fact that the strongest municipal voice urging some affordable light-rail decisions at TransLink shows no sign of coming down with laryngitis.
With or without development, North Shore residents are overdue for some meaningful transit upgrades for the taxes they pay.
