Victoria Adams

RE: Dumb questions and their (possibly) profound consequences

David Broadland’s article on bad decisions, hard questions, and the need to elect prosecutors in public office, not patsies, is revealing and thought-provoking.

“Due diligence” of major infrastructure projects such as the Johnson Street Bridge replacement and “the need for public oversight of council and the City administration,” seems beyond the scope of our elected officials.

Councilor Madoff’s admission re lessons learned from the Blue Bridge saga is an indictment of our current civic governance—the unwillingness of political representatives to face reality, assume responsibility, be held accountable for their own role (and that of the previous Council who approved the project). All have contributed to this mess.

Mr. Broadland asks, “Why do Victoria councilors ask so many dumb questions of experts?”   Benjamin Franklin provides a clue: “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” Dumb questions are easier for experts to answer. Providing correct and timely information, or having to admit doubt and/or uncertainty is more difficult. Given our culture’s fascination with “bread and circuses,” our aversion to asking ‘elephant in the room’ questions that might reveal truth, is not surprising.

Benjamin Franklin also said, “The first responsibility of every citizen is to question authority.”

The lack of smart questions posed by elected officials re the Johnson Street bridge fiasco is a glaring shortcoming. Their collective failure to sniff out inaccuracy, under-estimation and oversell information provided by experts has real consequences for citizens who live with that failure. Taxpayers will bear a heavy burden of hidden liability, and debt which can be traced to these elected officials’ poor decisions.

Shining a light on critical public policy issues—housing, public safety,  the City’s liability for a seismically compromised new bridge (a result of ‘cost-cutting’ measures taken by councilors and technical experts)—has been left to investigative journalists like Mr. Broadland. The elected “illuminati” hide their light under a bushel.  

Excusing bad decisions as “too complex” for elected officials, administrative staff, and humble taxpayers to understand, is an attempt to justify what cannot be justified. If as a society, we can trust 12 ordinary people on a jury to render a reasonable decision in often complex and difficult legal matters, why should elected officials be abrogated of their responsibility to act reasonably in the public interest? Why should they not be held accountable for their role in the decision-making process?

Those who do not wish to ask hard questions that serve the public interest should not hold public office.

Those whose easy answers cater to special interests, compromise the democratic process and undermine the common good.

Those who do not recognize the two active fault lines that lie beneath our City, have little interest in undertaking critical measures to mitigate the potential damage to property and loss of life during an earthquake.  They are the same individuals who find no fault in their roles as elected officials. And find no problem with their decision to approve the construction of a less than fault-proof bridge.

Victoria Adams

Victoria, B.C.

From Parking Lot to Paradise?

Congratulations Leslie! Ingenious way to leverage older public assets (downtown parkades/lots owned by the City) into much-needed affordable, workforce housing. Too bad, the City isn’t committed to affordably sheltering the majority of its citizens.

Elected officials and enablers in the administration have pledged their fealty to market forces. “Trickle-down” economics propels their “trickle-down” housing myth. If the meek do inherit the earth one day, the palaces now being built will lie in ruins, their previous owners bound for a new paradise on Mars.

Mayor and Council favour homeless individuals who tent overnight in Beacon Hill Park, low-income workers who stay in their cars (if they own one), and fixed-income seniors living in a closet (if they can rent one unoccupied by a student via a loan).

City politicians, staff, and real estate investors have one only vision for Victoria: to create premium-priced properties that cater to millions of tourists and privileged members of society, many of whom live in their towers on a seasonal basis.

Developers want lucrative projects built in the shortest time, with as few restrictions as possible. What poses as City planning is rampant deregulation re: unit size, increased density and decreased parking requirements. Zoning relaxation now permits unlimited growth of short-term vacation rentals downtown and in nearby residential areas.

The City promotes secondary suites in homes and garden cottages to enhance property value for owners, many of whom see this as a boon to accommodate profitably tourists rather than offer long-term rental units for workers, students, and pensioners.

The vacancy rate hovers near zero. The average one-bedroom monthly rental rate in Victoria is more $1,200. Not surprising that 59% of the city’s households (tenants) currently spend more than a third of their monthly budget on shelter. Our capital city is now unaffordable to a large number of residents. Many face displacement. Developers demolish affordable, older low-rise wood frame apartment blocks. And, erect expensive multi-storey condos for high-income retirees, well-paid high-tech workers, and professionals in government.

The City now owns more than 600 properties and facilities, including the five parkades mentioned. Many of these are near the end of their life-cycle and will need costly seismic upgrading to avoid public liability. The City has allowed corporate owners of aging multi-storey apartment blocks undergoing retrofits, and an older hotel conversion to residential units in James Bay to avoid seismic upgrades. Are tenants expendable? Are only tourists and condo-owners worth saving in an earthquake?

Two major geological fault lines lie beneath the City. These seem not to be a major concern to politicians, owners of rental properties, or even the financial institutions.

Likely the City will try to sell their white elephant (Crystal Garden) and perhaps their parkades to developers in order to finance the new Johnson Street Bridge, and multi-million dollar amenities—segregated and painted bike lanes, David Foster Inner Harbour Pathway, costly makeover of Ship Point, and the replacement of Crystal Pool, Fire Hall etc.

The City is reluctant to undertake any facility risk-assessments and serious mitigation measures to reduce liability from earthquakes, storm surges, or toxic contamination in soil resulting from leakage of industrial chemicals or fuel from old underground storage tanks.

Does the City really have any assets that have not deteriorated badly due to lack of care, maintenance, and critical upgrading?

What good is building high-priced downtown condo towers, decorative pathways and segregated bike lanes, when much of the City’s infrastructure (roadways, sewers and storm drainage system, and potable water pipes) need costly repairs and would almost certainly be destroyed during any major seismic event?

It’s time to look beyond wonderful dreams and grapple with some hard questions:

Is putting a roof over everyone’s head a universal human right, or a luxury available only to those deemed successful?

What serves the public interest – what really matters to the majority of Victoria residents?

Are the elected representatives sustaining a City for everyone? Or are they building a gated paradise reserved for the few?

Should unvalued members of our society be considered expendable? Un-sheltered?

Victoria Adams

Victoria, BC