The consent agenda mechanism means that the school capacity, infrastructure, and amenity questions The Visual Thinking Company (VTCo) identified as unreconciled at the ODP level now do not get examined at the project level either. At the project level, those questions could theoretically have been raised by speakers, by staff, or by Council.
Under the prior public hearing regime, the Sir Sandford Fleming precedent — where enrollment divergence was documented and put on the public record — was only possible because there was a public hearing. The consent agenda route forecloses that.
30 units at one site is immaterial in isolation. The question is what happens when dozens of consent-agenda rezonings accumulate in a single school catchment over 18-24 months, none of which individually triggers a capital planning review, but which collectively produce a enrollment pressure the VSB's Baragar model cannot see because it only tracks enrolled students, not authorized future residents. To add insult, the VSB is only planning for 76 of 100 future kids.
VTCo documented this exact dynamic in its Gap 2: no binding school capital trigger exists in the ODP. The 4088 Granville approval is an observable instance of that gap operating in practice. It is not evidence of a problem yet. It is the mechanism by which the problem will accumulate.
We've all been to the hearings. We know how this plays out, and the outcome is always the same - more ammunition for anti-housers, zero pressure on the province to reform how schools are built/sited. When the housing isn't built, the province & school boards can punt the issue forever, no matter how high the rent or price per sqft of housing goes. In fact, the higher that rents & prices go, the less pressure there is to reform school governance, since parents who aren't wealthy just leave the jurisdiction or don't come.
We'd all love a ideal plan that optimally aligns school & housing capacity, perfectly balancing the concerns of all Canadians, made by omniscient gods, just as planners & envision themselves to be. But at some point we have to consider that such plans might not actually be possible in this universe. It might be that just getting on with it and having the confidence that we can solve problems as we go, might be the only reasonable way forward.
We cannot pretend that needing 20 years to build a school is just how long it takes.
If there's a reason housing can't be built quickly where people want to live, we push for reform to make it so that's no longer the case.
If there's a reason schools can't be built quickly where people want to live, we push for reform to make it so that's no longer the case.
In the vetocracy local politics, demanding that both be planned & built in concert simply means the forces opposed to either will always win and nothing will be built at all.
A binding school capital trigger at the point of rezoning approval is not a veto; it is a funding signal that runs parallel to the approval, not prior to it.
Without it, there are too many gaps. Take a look...
"At the project level, those questions could theoretically have been raised by speakers, by staff, or by Council."
Thanks, Vik. Any councillor can withhold their consent and pull an item from the consent agenda, meaning that councillors can ask questions and there's a vote on that individual item.
My understanding is that any questions from staff to the applicant would be resolved before the staff report is released.
The consent agenda mechanism means that the school capacity, infrastructure, and amenity questions The Visual Thinking Company (VTCo) identified as unreconciled at the ODP level now do not get examined at the project level either. At the project level, those questions could theoretically have been raised by speakers, by staff, or by Council.
Under the prior public hearing regime, the Sir Sandford Fleming precedent — where enrollment divergence was documented and put on the public record — was only possible because there was a public hearing. The consent agenda route forecloses that.
https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2026/03/06/stealth-changes-vancouver-risk-school-liquidation-cheng/
30 units at one site is immaterial in isolation. The question is what happens when dozens of consent-agenda rezonings accumulate in a single school catchment over 18-24 months, none of which individually triggers a capital planning review, but which collectively produce a enrollment pressure the VSB's Baragar model cannot see because it only tracks enrolled students, not authorized future residents. To add insult, the VSB is only planning for 76 of 100 future kids.
VTCo documented this exact dynamic in its Gap 2: no binding school capital trigger exists in the ODP. The 4088 Granville approval is an observable instance of that gap operating in practice. It is not evidence of a problem yet. It is the mechanism by which the problem will accumulate.
https://council.vancouver.ca/20260310/documents/phea1other20260310_Dist4_4to7pm_Redacted.pdf
We've all been to the hearings. We know how this plays out, and the outcome is always the same - more ammunition for anti-housers, zero pressure on the province to reform how schools are built/sited. When the housing isn't built, the province & school boards can punt the issue forever, no matter how high the rent or price per sqft of housing goes. In fact, the higher that rents & prices go, the less pressure there is to reform school governance, since parents who aren't wealthy just leave the jurisdiction or don't come.
We'd all love a ideal plan that optimally aligns school & housing capacity, perfectly balancing the concerns of all Canadians, made by omniscient gods, just as planners & envision themselves to be. But at some point we have to consider that such plans might not actually be possible in this universe. It might be that just getting on with it and having the confidence that we can solve problems as we go, might be the only reasonable way forward.
We cannot pretend that needing 20 years to build a school is just how long it takes.
If there's a reason housing can't be built quickly where people want to live, we push for reform to make it so that's no longer the case.
If there's a reason schools can't be built quickly where people want to live, we push for reform to make it so that's no longer the case.
In the vetocracy local politics, demanding that both be planned & built in concert simply means the forces opposed to either will always win and nothing will be built at all.
A binding school capital trigger at the point of rezoning approval is not a veto; it is a funding signal that runs parallel to the approval, not prior to it.
Without it, there are too many gaps. Take a look...
https://thevisualthinkingcompany.com/what-304-submissions-reveal-about-vancouver-s-odp-and-what-they-don-t
"At the project level, those questions could theoretically have been raised by speakers, by staff, or by Council."
Thanks, Vik. Any councillor can withhold their consent and pull an item from the consent agenda, meaning that councillors can ask questions and there's a vote on that individual item.
My understanding is that any questions from staff to the applicant would be resolved before the staff report is released.
The school context matters; let's see what positions candidates take.