So first of all, what do you think of today's announcement?

Well, I think if I was on the NDP campaign team, I'd say this is a very good idea.

Because the speculation in vacancy tax has always been terribly popular with the general public.

People love the idea of taxing empty homes and so forth.

So it seems very logical.

But the problem is, so far this year, not one condominium project in concrete got underway in Metro Vancouver this year.

And by bringing in this tax, it will help ensure that next year there's about the same number of new projects.

Is there any way you could speed up the sale of these $5,000 without this tax? In your mind, could the market do that in some way?

And does it kind of bring in a question or ask the question then, what's the point of having this study looking at the taller building plan? If these towers go ahead, the tallest towers in the city, does that not set a precedent?

Well, I thought it did.

And in fact, the city, anticipating this question, put out some frequently asked questions and answers.

And the first question was, if we approve this development or if council approves, does it not set a precedent? And the planning department said, not necessarily so.

And as I was quoted as saying the Vancouver Sun today, that's preposterous.

Of course, it sets a precedent.

In fact, one can now begin to question, you know, ultimately will come out of this planning review.

Does a building, a development, these three huge towers, do those fit, do you think, in that area?

Mm-hmm.

And I'm not necessarily opposed to allowing taller buildings, but to suddenly say, "Well, we'll, uh, let this one jump to the front of the queue and, uh, and be a- considered and perhaps approved in two weeks," to my mind, it sort of makes a hypocrisy to the extent that, well, why are we talking about whether or not we should have tall buildings? Now, the city was smart enough to realize some people might have that question and put together online-

Mm-hmm

... about whether or not it should be approved, but that it's being rushed through at the last minute, you know, because this meeting and in two weeks, these are the last meetings that council can do serious deliberations about, uh, s- development matters before the election.

It, it is so significant.

I, I, the, in the report it notes this is over three million square feet.

Now, that doesn't mean anything to anyone, but I managed the redevelopment of the Westin Bayshore Hotel and parking lot.

Aren't these already kind of villages?

Yes, they are.

But the city thinks that as the population increases over time, there is a need for a greater concentration of retail and office uses.

And as you discussed yesterday, to create sort of more walkable neighborhoods so you don't always have to get into your car.

And I think most of us would agree with that.

I don't think that is a problem.

The problem for me and for others is what's being proposed in these existing villages.

And doesn't that seem a little overreaching?

So what would a government do in that scenario?

Well, I spent 10 years at CMHC.

And, you know, while we like to pretend we were acting like the private sector, we never acted like the private sector.

As soon as people started writing letters to the minister to say, it doesn't seem fair.

The value of this unit has gone down since you sold it to me.

And now you want me to either walk away from all the money I've given you and on and on it goes.

Governments invariably end up spending a lot more money than they need to in order to address those sorts of political realities.

However they did it, managed to, on their own, get a down payment and buy into that building.

In what way?

Well, the concept that the government might purchase these units, and we'll assume they're gonna buy them i- from receivers, that they're gonna buy them at bottom prices, and then offer them to the marketplace on a rent-to-own or rent-to-buy, uh, program, has merit to it.

And, uh, and I say that because rent to own is a concept that does help people get into the market who might otherwise never be able to do so.

And the way it works, very simply, a potential buyer would put down an initial deposit, but it's not 10% or 20%, might be 2%, 2.5%.

Do we need to go back to that, do you think?

Yes, we do.

Because, in fact, if the federal government does want to do something, and I would argue they shouldn't be doing this, they should be getting back into funding the nonprofits, the Kiwanis, the Lions Club, and the co-ops to build projects be- and then because you also have an higher level of management.

I mean, we haven't even, you know, got into the whole question of will these units, uh, if they are, uh, sold through rent to own, be treated any differently than the rest of the strata units.

Right.

Um, John is a case.

Yes.

My husband, um, who went to Sam Ohio, also very local guy.

So I was the first class ever of ninth grade at Pali High, which is a very interesting dynamic at that point, right? You're a ninth grader on the same campus with seniors, guys that also looked up to my brother a couple years younger than him, right? My brother was basically a semi-professional skateboarder, very accomplished surfer.

So he had sort of paved the way for me.

He paved the way for me.

pancreatic is so

So is it a good idea then?

Well, here's where it gets interesting.

People who are listening to us right now who live in the city of Vancouver are probably saying, well, just a second.

If you live on the west side, I go over to Dunbar or go to Carisdale.

Or if you live on the east side, you go to different neighborhoods in Mount Pleasant.

We have what we call arterial streets or high streets, Nanaimo, 41st, Dunbar, Broadway, 4th Avenue, where we have quite a lot of shops.

And in most instances, they're doing fairly well, although there are increasingly more and more vacant shops and storefronts along some of those streets.

Shouldn't we be able to do what we want to do with the property that we own without the imposition, like something like this?

Why does that worry you?

The, so this is the corner of Second and Alberni, Alberta.

It's land that's designated in the metro regional growth strategy as industrial.

It's identified in Vancouver's industrial land plan as industrial.

The Broadway plan identifies it as industrial.

The Vancouver plan will de- designate as industrial.

But a, a good developer, Strand, has come forward with a proposal which follows an earlier proposal that was going to be for office and industrial on this site for a 25-story building at about 12 FSR, so tw- quite a significant increase from anywhere else.

[laughs] That's right.

Why does that worry you?

So this is the corner of 2nd and Alberni, Alberta.

It's land that's designated in the Metro Regional Growth Strategy as industrial.

It's identified in Vancouver's industrial land plan as industrial.

The Broadway plan identifies it as industrial.

The Vancouver plan will de- designate it as industrial.

But a, a good developer, Strand, has come forward with a proposal which follows an earlier proposal that was going to be for office and industrial on this site for a 25-story building at about 12 FSR, so tw- quite a significant increase from anywhere else.

Mm-hmm

Wow

... was purchased by an institutional investor.

Now, we do have a number of single-family houses in Vancouver and elsewhere across Canada owned by investors, but they're not the large institutional investors.

It's what we call the mom and pop.

People, your listeners, who may have bought the house next door or bought a house for their student, uh, child to, to live in while they went to university and so forth.

So there is a fair degree of ownership, but the point that Trump is hitting on is something we've heard a lot from our politicians.

Housing is a place to live.

You, you get a return?

Uh, eh, from a redevelopment standpoint, obviously a pretty big project.

It would be, but there's so many precedents and there's a growing number.

You know, it's interesting, Rob, when you first invited me to join you I was thinking, in the old days, if you think of the old stadiums, especially the ballparks, they were often just integrated in an old neighborhood in Chi- Chicago and New York and so forth.

Then we start to build facilities outside of the city, often surrounded by a sea of parking.

But today, all over North America, we're starting to see new stadium district developments where you mix not just the stadium, but new, w- en- an entertainment district, which is what's being talked about here, along with housing, uh, restaurants, uh, park space, and it becomes a, a real experience.

You know, closer to home, people who are familiar with Edmonton know about the Ice District that is being created.

And, uh, and so although I must admit I initially had reservations about this concept just because of transit, we don't have a SkyTrain going there, realistically the more I've thought about it, there are, I think, great potential solutions to bring people out to that stadium should it be built at the PNE.

But I mean, with all of the projects that they've got going on right now going out towards the valley and whatnot, I mean, Michael, we're talking about a, I gotta think at minimum a decade, no?

You, you gotta, you gotta change the mix of people living there.

Yeah.

I think one of the problems in the downtown east side is there just isn't a broad enough mix.

There aren't enough people who own property, who take pride in the neighborhood, who complain when someone's urinating against the building or defecating in the streets and so forth.

And so in 2014, the city came up with a plan, and I spoke to council because I said, from my experience, this area will only improve if we get a much broader income mix, including some rich people, or at least first-time buyers and so forth, people who'll use the shops.

And, uh, council came up with a proposal that every new building in a certain area had to be 60% social housing, 40% rental.

I said it won't work.

We're not actually trying to solve the real problem.

Mm.

7.5.

The other point, the other point is the municipal fees are 9.3 million.

Those are the cons- what we call the community amenity contributions, the development cost levies, the engineering fees, the permit fees.

$9.3 million for 61 units.

So that's why these projects aren't proceeding.

Now, some commentators are gonna say, "Well, just reducing the fees by 20%, is that enough to make these projects viable?" No, probably many of them still will not be viable.

Why was he so, um, impactful in your mind?

Mm-hmm.

So what the government wants to do is try and remove that uncertainty that, yes, if you're within the, what the overall plan...

And, and the truth is we are, not just in Vancouver, in all the municipalities, more and more zoning land properly in order to say you don't have to rezone every time.

Before, I mean, on, up until a couple of years ago, Jas, you almost had to rezone everything because that was the only way the government could get you to give those hundreds or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in community amenity contributions-

Mm-hmm

... to recite to me how many apartments are being rented.

So for all of you out there looking at possibly moving into new rental buildings, you have a very strong negotiating position.

The, the, the landlord is gonna quote you a rent, make it up 2,800 a month.

Uh, can it recalibrate? A- and where I recalib- recalibrate, I mean can it build something that is the affordable for the local, for the local populace based on what it costs today to build?

Well, I think it has to.

And one of the ways that it can do this, and this article that you've mentioned, it's an important one, is it said instead of always building these large high-rises, why aren't we going back to the way we used to build when we would build smaller apartments, maybe three stories, infill on a street, uh, with maybe four or six suites per floor, generally larger suites, with just one stair that took you up.

Oftentimes, those older buildings didn't even have an elevator.

Well, today they will have an elevator.

But if we could change some of the rules, and this is what this Globe article is suggesting, by having maybe just one stair instead of a long corridor with a stair at each end, we could begin to design and build much more affordable and attractive apartments.

And, uh, unfortunately there are some fire marshals in the Lower Mainland who are balking at allowing this, even though full mark should go to Ravi Kahlon because when he was housing minister, he was promoting this very idea and, uh, it would, it could pay great dividends.

... actually move forward?

Can it recalibrate? A- and by recali- recalibrate, I mean can it build something that is the affordable for the local, for the local populace based on what it costs today to build?

Well, I think it has to, and one of the ways that it can do this, and this article that you mentioned, it's an important one, is it said instead of always building these large high rises, why aren't we going back to the way we used to build when we would build smaller apartments, maybe three stories, infill on a street, uh, with maybe four or six suites per floor, generally larger suites with just one stair that took you up.

Oftentimes those older buildings didn't even have an elevator.

Well, today they will have an elevator.

But if we could change some of the rules, and this is what this Globe article is suggesting, by having maybe just one stair instead of a long corridor with a stair at each end, we could begin to design and build much more affordable and attractive apartments.

And, uh, unfortunately there are some fire marshals in the Lower Mainland who are balking at allowing this, even though full marks should go to Ravi Kahlon because when he was housing minister, he was promoting this very idea and, uh, it would, it could pay great dividends.

Are we still in the midst of debating this or do you think this can actually move forward?

Yes.

But do tell me what you

mean by that.

1983 was a very difficult year for the development community and a lot of homeowners in Metro Vancouver and across Canada.

And the main reason in those days is the interest rates were 19%.

Hmm.

Now, we complain about having high interest rates at 3%, 4%, 5%.

They were 19%.

Do you need to drop prices where the industry believes that it can be affordable for people?

But do

tell me what you mean by that.

1983 was a very difficult year for the development community and a lot of homeowners in Metro Vancouver and across Canada.

And the main reason in those days is the interest rates were 19%.

Hmm.

Now, we complain about having high interest rates at 3%, 4%, 5%.

They were 19%.

Do you need to drop prices where the industry believes that it can be affordable for people?