How to save the Pantages Theatre: Expropriation

There is a renewed grassroots effort to stop condo development on the site of the historic Pantages Theatre at 138 East Hastings. Worthington properties currently has plans to build 79 condo units on the site. The project may be approved by the Director of Planning, Brent Toderian later this summer unless there is a public outcry. In order to force a hearing, the public has until August 12 2011 to address concerns to:

Alice Kwan: 604.871.6283, alice.kwan@vancouver.ca and
Scott Barker: 604.873.7166, scott.barker@vancouver.ca

A coalition of community groups has launched a website called The DTES is not for condo developers, which includes a petition and outlines the coalition’s concerns about condo development in the “heart” of the Downtown Eastside. The 100 block of East Hastings includes many community assets that could be negatively affected by gentrification, including the Carnegie Community Centre, Insite, and 400 low-income housing units.

The coalition is calling on the City to reject the developer’s proposal, and asks “the Pantages owner to sell the property at its 2010 assessed value of $3.7 million to the City of Vancouver.” Worthington Properties bought the Pantages Theatre in 2004 for only $440,000. Worthington also purchased the adjacent lots, spending just over $1M to assemble the block for redevelopment. By 2010, the City assessed the value of the lots at $3.7M. But when Worthington Properties tried to sell the block to the City in the spring of 2010, the corporation asked for a price well above market value, and City Council turned down the offer at an in camera meeting on March 22, 2010.

The developer has made millions simply by speculating on an affordable block. Beyond that, they are now insisting on even more profits instead of working with the City to restore one of Vancouver’s three historic theaters, and to build desperately needed social housing. When the City makes every reasonable attempt to purchase a property to meet the ‘public interest’, but the owner won’t sell at a fair price, the City’s next legal step is expropriation. Under the provincial Expropriation Act, the City has the authority to expropriate properties to meet its policy goals in the public interest.

Deconstructing STIR: Vancouver’s Tax-Cuts-for-Developers Housing Strategy

Many Vancouverites are wondering what the City is doing to make Vancouver affordable and therefore liveable. Unfortunately, the City’s main affordable housing initiative over the past two years has produced no new affordable housing.

Under the guise of a program supposed to “address the issue of rental and affordable housing supply in Vancouver,” the City has handed tens of millions of dollars over to real-estate developers through tax breaks in order to ‘incentivize’ unaffordable market rental development. It is but one an example of Vision Vancouver’s neoliberal approach to fiscal policy, pushing aside the interests of residents for those of big business.

The policy in question is called the Short Term Incentives for Rental (STIR). It was adopted in June of 2009 with limited public discussion or consultation. Some residents have been fighting it ever since.

INTERVIEW | Vancouver Citizen’s Voice

The past three years of civic politics have been rich in spectacle, poor on substance. Politicians brought us the Olympic Games, hoping to cash in on Olympics-associated political capital. Then they brought us the Stanley Cup finals celebration, hoping again that street parties might translate into electoral favour. Meanwhile, our city became the most unaffordable on earth, and we even managed to fill a massive social housing project with only the fabulously well-to-do.

With the the right-wing NPA and the ‘centrist’ Vision identical on all core policy planks, these two parties are forced to highlight the most inane and trivial sideshows to distinguish themselves (bike lanes, lawns, etc.). Meanwhile, Vancouver’s working class party (COPE) has conceded the next three years to Vision-NPA rule. The established parties are avoiding all discussion of substantive issues. It appears that the coming civic elections will include many politicians but no politics. In this context of political oblivion, it is inevitable that other voices will begin to speak out. They may be unconventional, and we may not agree with all they espouse, but such is the cost when major parties impose political black-out. The Mainlander intends to highlight some of these less heard voices.

Gerry McGuire, of Vancouver Citizen’s Voice, is one of the individuals challenging the city hall scene. He has decided to run for Mayor against, among others, Gregor Robertson and Suzanne Anton. The Mainlander recently sat down with Mr. McGuire to find out why he’s running for Mayor, and why he thinks Vancouver needs a new political party.

ML: Why does Vancouver need a new political party?

GM: Because, from my viewpoint, none of them are representing the average Vancouver citizen very well.

Vision, by taking COPE in, has neutered the left, yet Vision is not a left wing party. They’re more developer friendly than the NPA would ever dare to be, which should be shocking for anybody that voted for them. You can’t stop progress, but what they’re doing is beyond the pale. They’re letting the developers run wild.

80%-90 of community amenity contributions don’t really reach the neighbourhood in the way they’re supposed to. $834,000 at Cambie and South-West Marine, for a bicycle facility. What about the kids in the neighbourhood who don’t have parks, swimming pools, libraries, community centers?

The NPA’s Campaign a ‘Riot’

Vancouver’s two developer-funded parties, the NPA and Vision, are identical on core policy issues. Both put developers before people, and hold their breath for the market to solve our affordability and homelessness crisis. With an election on the horizon, the NPA is desperately attempting to distinguish themselves from their Vision doppelganger. In the absence of substantive differences, much is made of minor sideshows, especially environmental ones. The NPA first opposed backyard chickens, then eschewed downtown bike lanes, and recently denounced the Greenest City Neighbourhood Grants program.

But now the riot has given the NPA a new way to frame its opposition to these environmental sideshows. The NPA team is arguing that the mayor was too distracted by environmental concerns to pre-empt the Stanley Cup riot. But it is the NPA who is directing the sideshow, and it is the public who is distracted. Even with respect to the riot there is little meaningful difference between the NPA and Vision. Despite criticizing the Mayor for inviting masses of people into a confined area downtown, it was an NPA candidate who proposed the idea. He even claimed that opening up BC place stadium could be paid for through food and alcohol sales. At bottom, the NPA’s claim is that it would have implemented a different crowd management strategy involving more aggressive policing. Looking to history, we saw the results of such an approach in 1994 when riots exploded under the nose of NPA Mayor Phillip Owen: police over-reaction led to more cracked heads than windows.