compiled-rp+5-session-1-notes-by-theme
DESCRIPTION
http://pdcentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Compiled-RP+5-Session-1-Notes-by-Theme.pdfTRANSCRIPT
1
GROWTH ISSUES
• The intent in the current draft is unclear o Works for developers o Keeps with the 2006 plan o Lacking in vision o Does not define how to achieve targets o No rationale or real targets are given for density or incentive to
achieve it. o No distinction made between urban/rural o Too many loopholes (Clause G16 allows developments on
adjacent lands to service boundary o No protection against corruption o Not connected or holistic ( each theme is
separate/disconnected). o No standards
§ e.g. greenspace integrated into developments § greenbelts to limit growth outside
o Does not define inside growth o Nothing radical in this plan o Secondary plans have no timelines for deliverables or leverage
for the community to hold city accountable. • Green space → protected • Transportation options • Housing options • Objectives seem to reflect values, but no resulting in communities we
want o Mechanisms are missing
• HRM deferring to province on housing o No municipal vision for housing
§ “HRM will support province on housing.” – HRM staff o Lack of collaboration
• First objective tells the story → everything is about property rights • Largest property owners tend to set the agenda • Very last policy gives veto on zoning (G-16) • Property rights more important than ecologically-sound development • How is a plan for high-density development carried forward? Do we
have such a plan? • Forrest clear-cut for subdivision
o Lack of regulations?
2
o Lack of enforcement? o A better form of development must be possible
• Fiscal responsibility • Tragedy of the commons is happening • Attitude at City Hall: “Might is Right” • Don’t put developers first! • Consult community, letting people know as soon as possible and hold
upfront participation before permits are issued • No surprise planning
SUGGESTIONS
• Respect human decency, common sense (ecological), value of
community over individual property rights o Consider public interest
• Identify a conceptual greenbelt • Building on some of the existing protected areas • Clarity on how new development process and the community voice
input • How to decide on urban reserve lands • Incentives to use existing property • Also incentives for urban redevelopment • Tax incentives, development fees, development process • User pay tax system, true-costs of development • Remove exceptions and contradictions (Birch Cove for eg.) • Looking at more neighbourhood plan process–growth/ open space • Build on unique strengths of places • Growth scenarios A+B would force more radical vision of development • More clarity on community engagement • Form of design of community • Urban/ suburban/ rural • Define and Plan development from planners, not developers • People value green “natural”/ open space • Define terms clearly • Community defined value of environment driving development • Neighbourhood + villages–sense of active life on streets • Extend planning efforts/shared values beyond tools currently available
to planners • Conversation about community value needs to be broadened if we are
going to get enough buy in • Work with developers – less confrontation • Growth targets
o Plan doesn’t address shortcomings and doesn’t mention much larger potential savings with higher urban target
3
• Progressive Growth Strategy • Targeted incentives to direct growth • Clear, simple, distinct growth areas • Integrated community design focus • Affordability as part of the vision • Green infrastructure (not from a regulatory body) • Food security focus • Relaxation of secondary suites • Remove restrictions for people with mobility challenges • Quicker process to make real changes • Private property rights
4
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
• Currently focused on the suburban commuter
o It’s about roads and vehicles o Chaos Theory—everyone for themselves mentality
• No definition of what a sustainable transit system is and should be—a major component which the plan is lacking
• Cars have priority over people • Transit is more than a terminal • No public transit in rural areas
o Big challenge / poorly funded • #8 is being cancelled! It’s not possible to get to the seaport market.
The line was not supported or understood by community members. • Connect growth centers through Transit Oriented Development
(European model). • Urban-rural connection → need public transit • Less cars on the peninsula!
SUGGESTONS
• Transit downtown terminal • Connect/provide access to healthy food • Bylaws should reflect community values • Add HOV lanes to dedicated bus lanes • Reduce vehicles in downtown core • Commuter/H20 taxis • Understand the mentality of the non-user.
o MetroX has it right: clean, fast, convenient • Think about using roundabouts instead of traffic lights for efficiency • Accurate signage • Widen one street e.g. Robie, instead of many. • Buses cannot give change, develop more progressive payment options • Rural/urban transit needs to have a relationship • If you can do it all for school children, why not us? • Integrated light system • Targeted development timetable for things we value (e.g. park n rides) • Make using of existing parking structures • Incentive people to change lifestyles by offering quality transit, (e.g.
HOV lanes) • What are we doing and how?
5
• RP+5 to tell us what the Transit Plan will do specifically • Bring the vision! • Show us deliverables • Connected, human focused, innovative • Use what we’ve got (ie. train, rails) • Measurable targets • Timetable needed • Targeted transit development plan • Focus on active transit • Public transit designed for life and safety of women, not simply
commutors • Development should follow transportation • Look at developer contributors to support transit on corridors • Develop integrated transportation plan → support alternatives • Make clear commitments to transit in regional centre
6
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ISSUES
• Focus on RP+5 at expense of secondary community plans • Lack of human scale in RP+5 • Lack of community planning/community empowerment a legacy of
amalgamation
SUGGESTIONS
• Easy to engage people about where they live • Could we have an urban plan, suburban plan, rural plan? • Decision making lumps everything together
o Explore alternative governance structure • Community engagement not a sustained process • Each discussion is new people, new issues • Planning Advisory Committee in each district to engage communities • Current culture of engagement doesn’t encourage youth participation • Have to push your way in • Holistic approach with real, meaningful opportunities for citizens to get
involved • Better note-taking • True participatory democracy at community engagement sessions • Transparency • Better communication from planning department • Need a communications officer • Need to let the public know how to affect change • Ensure accountability and integrity of the process • Categorized raw data so valuable recommendations don’t get lost—one
could be redirected to specific areas • Build on what is already in place like ourHRM Alliance • Perform debriefings at the community level • Move forward collectively • More recourse for people who are negatively affected by planning • No right of appeal is unconstitutional • Who is being engaged? Engagement has to cross cultural and
socioeconomic lines; it must represent a cross-section of society. • Community based human scale approach • Shouldn’t get to shoot your mouth off • More protocol • Clear understanding of what’s expected • HRM to follow their own guidelines • Work with local communities to make transit terminal decisions
7
• RP+5 needs to provide clear foundation for secondary plans • Need deliverables • People should know the expectations of what will come out of the meeting • Provide the public with factual, widely disseminated, easily acceptable
information • Don’t manipulate the process • Follow the guidelines written out • We want the ability to comment on things we dislike so we may positively
affect change
8
ENVIRONMENT ISSUES
• No new water lots created in Bedford Basin or anywhere (HRM) • Stewardship as a framework--protect whats there. Identify natural
existing features. • Process objectives/no vision • “Greenbelting” in name only
o Does not implement greenbelting as tool to manage growth • Whole chapter lacks credibility • HRM could be world leader on coastal management and climate
change adaptability o Controls in RP+5 now are weaker, why? o Opportunity: (what the rest of the world wants)
§ Mix of urban and rural § Define boundaries along watershed limits § Green spaces/belts § Connectivity § High-quality water § Unspoiled coast line § Wetlands § Soil for reforestation
• Support the environment vs. manage o HRM staff not engaged in this
§ Lack of resources? Background? • No mention of the coast line in the plan (ie. access, protection) • Need to find common ground with developers
o Community involvement leads to better developments o ie. Fleming Park, Williams Lake – community-based planning
process § Supported by HRM staff (individual volunteer planning
staff)
SUGGESTIONS
• Define greenbelt • Need a specific area, define the boundaries don’t put any exceptions in
plan • A minimum of 30 metres fresh water course buffer • Define, contain development space • Focus on creation neighbourhoods in rural areas • Preserve 10 minute ride to nature from downtown