John Lesow Guest Writer

 

In May of 2024, I suggested in a Guest Editorial that Planners in Washington and British Columbia were on the same page–the Wrong one–in their efforts to address the “Housing Crisis” and “Affordability” in their respective communities of Bellingham and North Vancouver, B.C.

The results of the Provincial election in British Columbia on October 19 show that the electorate remains deeply divided on the government’s plan to tackle the housing “crisis”.  With over 2 million votes cast in one of the closest elections in B.C. history, the fledgling Conservative Party led by John Rustad came from out of nowhere and nearly formed a majority government.

When the smoke cleared and the mandatory recounts were tabulated, the incumbent Socialist New Democrats garnered 47 seats vs. 45 for the Conservatives and 2 for the Green Party.  The Greens lost their leader in the election, but managed to hang on to two seats in the BC Legislature.

With that shaky margin, Premier David Eby’s New Democrats will be mired in fending off the Conservatives on every non-confidence vote in the coming months.  And there will be many challenges to bring down the government.  One of the advantages of the Parliamentary System.

The voters in normally laid back British Columbia are angry.  And they have every right to be.

If all politics is local, then all local politics is about Land Use. As well as the increased taxes on homeowners that inevitably follow. The majority of voters, on the Right and Left do not like “top down decisions” about their neighborhood plans. They resent being undermined by distant, overpaid bureaucrats and career politicians.

Some of these local community plans have been in the works for years.  Why ignore them ?  Local citizens fail to understand how “shoehorning and stacking” more people on smaller lots will improve their lives. Particularly in the absence of comprehensive traffic capacity analysis of their streets.  They are tired of hearing, “take Mass Transit”.

The intent of Bill 44 in British Columbia, which eliminates an entire Single Family Zoning classification, provides no assurance that the increased density would provide “affordability” to the prospective homeowner. And it hasn’t.

Nor has it provided a “better quality of life” for families that still value ground level living with trees, yards, quiet streets and cohesive neighborhoods. The same advantages that these aging bureaucrats and boomer politicians enjoyed in their youth.

Can you successfully raise a child in an apartment with a balcony? Our career planners and politicians seem to think so.

Keep an eye on the further implementation of E2SHB 1110, which effectively eliminates Single Family Zoning in Washington State.

Politicians that support authoritarian, top down mandates will likely suffer the same electoral rebuke as their counterparts in British Columbia.

They deserve it.

John Lesow