their answers mostly hovered around it being “divisive.” if you’re wondering what the fuck that means in the context of more housing for people, I’m right there with you.
they also said the provincial regulations will take care of this. That’s literally not true because of Shaugnessy’s exclusive zoning status.
in short, they don’t have a coherent argument against Boyle’s motion outside of pettiness.
Just read the press release on their website.The main reason they said is because it would waste city staff time and resources… So basically as u said, no reason.
In a statement, ABC Vancouver councillor Rebecca Bligh said the motion would have “wasted precious staff time” and called the motion redundant, given motions recently passed by the city and province to add more housing.
Don’t worry, they’ve already solved the housing crisis!
I am interested to hear how the ABC will explain this decision?
their answers mostly hovered around it being “divisive.” if you’re wondering what the fuck that means in the context of more housing for people, I’m right there with you.
they also said the provincial regulations will take care of this. That’s literally not true because of Shaugnessy’s exclusive zoning status.
in short, they don’t have a coherent argument against Boyle’s motion outside of pettiness.
Just read the press release on their website.The main reason they said is because it would waste city staff time and resources… So basically as u said, no reason.
Don’t worry, they’ve already solved the housing crisis!
wow thank godness for their restraint, god forbid we have too much housing in this city and it becomes too cheap to live here. BULLET DODGED!