WE: Well start with Occupy Vancouver. It is undeniably the election issue of 2011. My question for you is, should it be?
Gregor Robertson: No.
Why?
It certainly isnt impacting the vast majority of the city at all and isnt going to last very far into the next term of office. Im convinced the key priorities of affordable housing, transportation, vibrant city, job creation, those are the big elements. Those are what affect people every day and certainly over time what need to be addressed. Occupy is a short-term challenge connected to a huge global protest that were trying to resolve peacefully. The tent camp element is the unfortunate dispute because its deteriorating and they are unsustainable and were working to end the encampment but support the protest going forward.
How do you think it came to be such an issue in the election?
Well, my opponent has politicized it at every opportunity, grandstanding and delivering ultimatums and providing a provocative position to take forceful action, which has backfired in many other cities and caused violence and bigger protests. So thats provided some political theatre, but its been very irresponsible for trying to manage a very difficult tent camp issue that our city has struggled through many times in the past from Woodwards to the park squats of six, seven years ago. We have a history of tent camps popping up and eventually being resolved. But the connection of Occupy to a global movement is important, but its unfortunate to see the entire debate eclipsed by the tent camp.
What do you think the most pressing issue is facing Vancouver in the next three years?
Affordable housing, for sure. That ranges from street homelessness to middle-income market crunch. Most Vancouverites are part of that spectrum of finding it harder to afford to live in Vancouver and housing being the key driver of that.
Lets talk about affordability then. What is your plan to provide affordable rental housing, so not market rental as under STIR, but affordable rental housing.
Well, affordable rental ranges from SROs and social housing to income-tested rental housing at the Olympic Village, which is more affordable than market with a slight subsidy. It relies upon government support, whether thats city land or provincial rent supplements or housing allowance. So we have a very aggressive plan to build 38,000 units of affordable housing over the next decade, thats a plan that was opposed by Suzanne, but that has been created through extensive community and staff process looking at the need on the housing front and the potential supply using city land and public and private community partnerships.
How are you going to ensure its affordable? Rent caps or what?
Rent caps are a provincial piece. Basically the core driver of housing cost is the price of land and if the city or province or federal government contributes land to create more affordable housing, that reduces the cost of the housing thats built there if its structured as affordable housing. When we contribute that land we can design below-market parameters to that housing. So we want to leverage the citys land base, the city holds the largest portfolio of land in Vancouver and we want to be sure were creating new affordable housing on that land base with many different partners. So well aggressively pursue federal and provincial support. Thats the approach to get below-market housing, otherwise were counting on the market and the only way the city influences the market is by creating more supply, which we need to do as well, we need a robust new supply of rental.
How are you going to do that? The city has said repeatedly that youre not in the business of building housing.
No but we can create those conditions. Weve had the Short-Term Incentives for Rental, the STIR program that has over 1,000 units in the pipeline.
However those are market rental units, generally.
Generally. Some are quite affordable in the STIR program defending on the project and location. But thats the first new supply weve had in many years.
You said at the Nov. 7 homelessness and housing debate that inclusionary zoning wont work in Vancouver. Why?
Well, we get better value by extracting dollars from new projects to then invest in housing or parks or childcare. But if, basically a rezoning creates a windfall and that windfall can either be invested directly as inclusionary zoning within a project or it can be extracted and invested in the surrounding area or even city wide in affordable housing. In some cases you can get more affordable housing in an adjacent property or in another part of town rather than including them in a specific project, particularly if the land value is very high in that project.
Can you think of an example in Vancouver where thats happened?
Well there are lots of examples. Whats a recent one that we would have done a recent example where there was big housing dollars extracted? I think Shannon Mews had some, the new project on the East Side did not have housing dollars Every project we consider has a community amenity contribution, so in the case of a big project that can be $15 million to $20 million, on an expensive piece of land that doesnt buy you a whole lot of units through inclusionary zoning, but if its used as cash on land thats not as pricey you can get way more affordable housing units.
I understand what youre saying, but can you think of an example in Vancouver?
Weve had a number of them, Im just thinking my brains full of the last couple of rezonings which took that dollar value up but they havent like the Telus building that moneys all going to a park near by at Richards and Smithe. The last one to have housing as a big a lot of the money is not formally allocated in the rezoning process, it goes into the affordable housing fund, so most rezoning projects contribute to the affordable housing fund at the city and then that money is used to strategically acquire buildings and land for affordable housing. So its an indirect route to get an equal or greater amount of affordable housing. Raymond Louie would have it at the tip of his tongue
Its just a different the city has assessed the two pathways and continues to assert that we get more value out of the CAC process than inclusionary zoning.
Again last week at the Nov. 7 homelessness and housing debate you defended the STIR program. You said it wasnt controversial. Ive been hearing a lot of outrage from community groups about STIR and there are arguments that it seems like we dont get a lot of bang for our buck. If you look at the RIZE development on Kingsway and Broadway, the rental housing has been reduced to something like 20 units, and those are market units. So how is STIR helping with the affordability crisis?
Well its creating new rental housing. We have no help from the provincial or federal government at all since those incentives dried up. So the city, where 52 per cent of people rent, has very limited tools to create rental housing and weve been through many years now of no new supply being built because the numbers dont work. So we initiated a pilot project to relax parking requirements, increase density and give enough incentive to get rental housing built.
But if people cant afford that rental housing
Well, theyll all be full. Theres a shortage of rental housing overall, the problem is people who can afford more end up taking up lower-value units. Its a new supply and theres no other way to get new supply right now. So we either tighten the pressure on the rental market and lose people or we take a creative approach. It certainly isnt perfect but it is a way to get new rental housing when the city was basically stalled cities across Canada are stalled on new rental housing. And now weve got a rental housing coalition and the big city mayors are endorsing a plan for new incentives from the federal government, which would help dramatically to get rental housing built. But without that we have limited tools. And STIR is only controversial in a few projects, most of the units have been approved and theres been no problems and we have new rental housing coming all over Vancouver. So the hotspots have been what coloured debate about rental incentives, but were seeing a lot of units created and until we have other incentives we have to do something to address the shortage of rental housing.
Can we talk a bit about campaign finance?
Sure.
You guys have petitions the provincial government to be a little bit tighter on municipal campaign financing, but youve been accepting donations from corporations and developers during this campaign. Tell me why.
Those are the rules and were playing by the rules and not inclined to compete in an election with one hand tied behind our back. So we play by the rules, we disclose everything, we look for a balance of donations between individuals, business and labour and well keep advocating aggressively to get corporate and union donations banned and hard donation limits. But its up to the province to do that, they have not delivered on our request to take the big money out of Vancouver politics. So were stuck with the rules and well compete using those so our opponents dont have an unfair advantage.
Do you have any idea how much money Vision has received from developers and corporations during this election campaign?
No, no Im not directly in the loop on that. I dont have anywhere near the latest update on that.
Would you say its the majority? Geoff Meggs was quoted in the Mainlander a few days ago saying The Lions share.
I dont know about that. Certainly business donations are a significant percentage, much lower than the NPAs business percentage. We have a more diverse mix of donors but I dont know what the break up in the business column would be. Developers generally donate through their companies and that gets mixed in with other companies.
Would you consider releasing a disclosure of corporate contributions before the Nov. 19 election so that people know?
I dont think its feasible now, were only a few days away. We did that three years ago a few weeks before the election when we had time to do it but it didnt come up in this election as a pressing issue, so we focused on running the campaign. It cant happen at the buzzer now, everyones shifting gears going into Saturday and getting everyone out to vote.
Theres still a perception in a lot of slates that have arisen, such as Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver, their line is NPA and Vision, theres not a lot of difference between you two, youre both in the pockets of developers. You have to admit it creates at the very least a perception of conflict of interest.
Thats why we think donations from business and labour should be banned. Because that perception does persist, but its absurd to think theres not much difference between Vision and the NPA. Weve governed the city for three years and made tough choices on developments and sent some back to the drawing board and others are approved on their merits but people can scrutinize the decisions weve made and make their decisions from there. Weve worked hard to be fair and bust up that perception that thats an issue, but I think the change needs to happen. Its been really discouraging that Victoria has ignored our request. We live here, we govern here, we should have the right to set the rules for our election process and make sure that people have absolute confidence in the election system.
Whats your biggest challenge going into Saturday?
Biggest challenge? Making sure everybody votes. Thats really the key driver. Its so important to have a good turnout, to ensure people have expressed their sentiments about Vancouver politics. Thirty-one per cent turnout in the last election was the highest in the region but not acceptable for an election. Wed like to see a good bump up from that, so well be working hard to get the word out and make sure everyone knows its election time in Vancouver. That gives us the weight of support that is important going into another term. So thats what everyones focused on.
Youre not concerned about the NPA poll released on the weekend that shows Suzanne Anton is creeping up on you?
No, I dont pay any attention to polls. They go up and down and Im totally focused on Nov. 19.
Weve stuck to the basics, running on our record and looking ahead and telling people what we want to do next.
