North Cowichan looks at Bill 44 Implications

Tuesday 13th 5PM

The Province rammed through many bills in November session of 2023, all of which have huge implications, and transfers of power upwards.

I wrote about bills, 44, 46, 47, 31, 36, and the new land amendment act in the next edition of Westward Independent which will be out soon.

North Cowichan attachment : https://pub-northcowichan.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=15193

North Cowichan will be speaking about the changes that bill 44 entails, with no push back to the Province of course.

It seems that the province has decided it will take over the fast-tracking of the 15-minute city program. I have detailed this all in the upcoming article which I will share with you below. The local government’s OCP can be overruled if they do not comply with the amount of future housing they propose to the BC government, so all you Local Area Plans are garbage at this point. But no worries, the Province has paid out your tax dollars to every city to implement this plan.

North Cowichan Payout:

---

After being told by the mayor that we may not speak on the most important topic of the day, “climate change”, COAP decided that they WILL continue to speak on the topic that ALL policy must go through before being accepted - The Climate Lens.

Jan 9th :

---

COAP joined Land Keepers Society and concerned citizens to speak against the flooding of almost 200 acres of Farmland on Vancouver Island on Feb 7th

---

Bill 44-47 article:

Councilor approves of no public input. The Province overrules the local council and public input in new Bills.

The BC NDP pushed through two more large bills in Nov, Bill 44, and 47 that shift local powers over to the province on their Official Community Plans (OCP), removed public input, installed minimum heights for buildings, force maximum density, removes strata powers over who may live in them, and more, to the Province and the Attorney General of B.C.

In the January 17th North Cowichan council meeting, there were two applications to change bylaws for development. One application was to change zoning so that the owner could add a carriage house to their property at 311 Chapman Rd. Cllr. Istace welcomed the growth and stated that it fit within the Chemainus revitalization plan, targeted growth plan, and the Official Community Plan (OCP), which had "extensive public hearing and engagement." We have shown this was not the case during the creation of the OCP as most people were concentrating on the pandemic at the time of its creation, but many feel if they repeat it enough it will be true. Regardless, all that consultation seems irrelevant as Bill 44 will require the first review and update of official community plans to be completed by December 31, 2025. Cllr. Findlay stated he agreed with the development but was "ticked off about no public hearing." Because this application fit within these aforementioned plans, Cllr. Justice agreed with the lack of public input, stating: "Following up on what Cllr. Findlay said - I support the waiving of the public hearing process on this within the fact that the province is setting through this for the reasons we need to help people do their developments, and move them on expeditiously" and "Thank you for the latitude on the reasonings behind supporting the public hearing being omitted with these types of things from the new Bill from the province."

While an extra carriage home may not be any big deal, however celebrating no public input in development is a big deal. What bills was Cllr. Istace referring to? Bill 44 and 47 that were rammed through, without local government engagement, by the province in November of 2023. These Bills, heavily lobbied for by the Urban Development Institute (UDI) who have many conflicts of interest, from being funded by the BC and Federal Governments and having members such as BC transit, BC Hydro, Urban Systems (currently creating N.C. climate adaptation plan) will completely change the way your towns look and remove council and public input.

In the Local Government Act (LGA), there was always a choice for the council to allow the public to speak on a development in their areas. When researching this article I found the original LGA and inquired with our local legislative department who shared with me the incredible changes made quietly to the LGA.

"The major package of housing bills was introduced at the beginning of November, giving opposition MLAs 'only a matter of weeks to properly scrutinize them,'" B.C. United house leader Todd Stone said in the legislature Monday, objecting to the harried pace of debate in the final week before the fall session wraps up on Thursday. B.C. Green MLA Adam Olsen said he has been stonewalled when asking Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon for the data and research that informed the housing legislation, particularly the upzoning bill for single-family lots, which he said will have the impact of inflating property values for existing homeowners while failing to add below-market housing for British Columbians who have been priced out. "These laws potentially hand intergenerational wealth to people who already have it and offer absolutely nothing to renters and non-homeowners," Olsen said. - The Vancouver Sun, November 23rd.

Conveniently, the Province announced incentives (bribes?) to municipalities on Jan 18th amounting to over 51 million tax dollar handouts to implement these housing plans. Some examples on the island of these handouts include: City of Duncan: $173,943, City of Nanaimo: $619,936, City of Victoria: $582,582, Town of Ladysmith: $191,995, Cowichan Valley Regional District: $323,554.

I will attempt to break down these Bills that take a one-size-fits-all approach, dismissing local OCPs, into layman's English.

The legislation (Bill44) will force municipalities to approve three to four units on a single-family lot, without public hearings. Most residents in North Cowichan meet the 4 unit requirements. So will your property assessment now be reflective of what COULD possibly be placed on your property? The Bills remove almost all parking requirements (no need for cars when you can "active transport" within your 15 min city).

The minimum parking requirements for off-street parking requirements we currently have for 6 unit/ lots will be eliminated, meaning you can build these high-density buildings with zero parking - because we will all be biking according to government. Bill 44 requires local governments to amend their zoning bylaws by June 30, 2024, to accommodate “Secondary Suites and Missing Middle Unit Housing”.  In Auckland NZ, their "Missing Middle" housing campaign caused property taxes to rise up to 12%. While Bill 44 prohibits municipalities from restricting the number of units on a Single Family Lot to less than that permitted under Bill 44, a municipality may permit more units on a Single Family Lot. One bill removes the right of local councils to remove so-called "tent cities" unless they have the ability to provide housing for these folks. Stratas will now not be allowed restrictions for rentals in the strata, meaning that stratas will now have rentals who have not previously, which will decrease property values. Additionally, all age restrictions, besides 55+, will not be allowed in stratas (i.e., 19+); Up until now, the BC Vacancy Tax allowed an exemption if the vacant unit was subject to a rental restriction (i.e., in a strata), now that this is gone. Canadian citizens with vacant properties will be hit with a 2% vacancy tax, while non-Canadian citizens will be hit by 5%. Local governments previously had to give a 5-year housing and growth plan but are now required to give a 20-year plan, and if the density in their plan is not agreed upon by the Province, the Attorney General of B.C. can override these local plans and demand more units be built. The Province will determine minimum height requirements, removing local governments' powers to set maximum height requirements in certain areas. Does any of this make sense as our OCP actually sees a very low increase in population by 2050 and shows a steep decline in youth, showing a rise in elders who will age in place here? In fact, North Cowichan has already approved enough housing for their projected population growth for 2050! Canadian stats also show a steep decline in replacement birth rates, in fact, the lowest ever in the last 2022 poll. So are these massive housing projects for new people to the country? Or are they for all the people who lose our houses due to increased assessment values, higher municipal taxes, higher utility rates, forced retrofitting, and more that are being forced on homeowners? Who will then come in and buy up these once wonderful family neighborhoods to turn into mass-density, or can we surmise, 'slums'? Are previous homeowners to relocate as per the 15 min city agenda that states things such as "You will own nothing and be happy," and "you will share your small space with others who may use it as a business space when you are not in it"? The housing demands the province is forcing on local governments do not have any mandates around affordable housing. Local governments used to have the ability to require a portion of a new build to have affordable housing as part of the amenity charge from the builder but that is no more, just mass density, with units currently as small as 360 sq ft in North Cowichan’s latest apartment building that was approved to go up near the new RCMP building. We see Duncan proper accelerating at a pace to be the first to become a so-called 15 min city, with their OCP proudly showing the UN Sustainability Goals, that include ‘traffic calming’, ideas such as scramble crosswalks, bike lane infrastructure, towering apartment buildings, already blocking out light to the once cute little town and to the unfortunate owners of the houses dwarfed by these monstrosities in their backyards or right next to them. 

When the government cries “crises” and swoops in with the solution, it rarely turns out for the better. When phrases are introduced such as “Urban Sprawl” to replace “suburbs”, and “family neighbourhoods” to demonize a way of life so many strive to have for their families, there may be ulterior motives. We will look further into the conflicts of interest in this overstep of government in future articles.

- Adrienne