I think you've already written about it but casting the problem as a sampling error seems mistaken. Or perhaps it is not only a sampling error.
Isn't it more an issue of 'dispersed' interests? A homeowner cares about the area they live in. The people who want to buy a house, townhouse, apartment, etc., have an interest in more affordable housing in basically any area in their city that would/could work for their lifestyle. For any given project, I want to go through, because it will, in aggregate, bring down demand -- but I can't attend every hearing, and I don't live in every area, but I have an interest in all those areas as a person who would potentially live there. A homeowner only cares about the project that will impact the character of their neighbourhood (and their property value).
I think that's a fair comment - you can describe it as a problem of concentrated costs and diffuse benefits, or as a collective action problem.
But from the perspective of Vancouver city council, when they're trying to decide whether to approve a rezoning or not, public opinion plays a major role in their decision. After all, they're democratically elected. (Sometimes a councillor may decide to spend down political capital by casting an unpopular vote for what they believe is the right decision, but most of the time they're going to be keeping an eye on public opinion.)
Public hearings are a terrible way to assess public opinion, but councillors do it anyway, just as we all rely on Wikipedia - it's convenient. For example, at a recent public hearing Adriane Carr said that she'd added up all the comments for and against.
Public hearings are always going to make an impression on councillors; I'm just trying to counterbalance it with some data from a more representative sample of public opinion. I've cited this data myself when speaking at public hearings a couple of times, in 2021 for the Streamlining Rental Plan and in 2022 for the Broadway Plan. https://morehousing.substack.com/p/public-hearing-twohttps://morehousing.substack.com/p/broadway-plan-notes
I didn't know about the Burnaby workshop. It's so frustrating that that occurred in 2019 and four years later council is still debating whether or not to allow laneway homes, let alone 4-6 storey apartments.
I don't know much about the temperament of these specific council members but it does seem likely to pass at this point. Council+current mayor have been at it since at least 2018 though!
Thanks! I don't follow Burnaby municipal politics that closely, so it's interesting to see what kinds of issues and conflicts arise with respect to housing.
I think you've already written about it but casting the problem as a sampling error seems mistaken. Or perhaps it is not only a sampling error.
Isn't it more an issue of 'dispersed' interests? A homeowner cares about the area they live in. The people who want to buy a house, townhouse, apartment, etc., have an interest in more affordable housing in basically any area in their city that would/could work for their lifestyle. For any given project, I want to go through, because it will, in aggregate, bring down demand -- but I can't attend every hearing, and I don't live in every area, but I have an interest in all those areas as a person who would potentially live there. A homeowner only cares about the project that will impact the character of their neighbourhood (and their property value).
Am I missing anything?
I think that's a fair comment - you can describe it as a problem of concentrated costs and diffuse benefits, or as a collective action problem.
But from the perspective of Vancouver city council, when they're trying to decide whether to approve a rezoning or not, public opinion plays a major role in their decision. After all, they're democratically elected. (Sometimes a councillor may decide to spend down political capital by casting an unpopular vote for what they believe is the right decision, but most of the time they're going to be keeping an eye on public opinion.)
Public hearings are a terrible way to assess public opinion, but councillors do it anyway, just as we all rely on Wikipedia - it's convenient. For example, at a recent public hearing Adriane Carr said that she'd added up all the comments for and against.
Public hearings are always going to make an impression on councillors; I'm just trying to counterbalance it with some data from a more representative sample of public opinion. I've cited this data myself when speaking at public hearings a couple of times, in 2021 for the Streamlining Rental Plan and in 2022 for the Broadway Plan. https://morehousing.substack.com/p/public-hearing-two https://morehousing.substack.com/p/broadway-plan-notes
Thanks Russil, put much better than I did, and agreed re public hearings be unrepresentative but also essentially required.
I didn't know about the Burnaby workshop. It's so frustrating that that occurred in 2019 and four years later council is still debating whether or not to allow laneway homes, let alone 4-6 storey apartments.
Is anyone on council opposed? It sounds like the plan is definitely to allow laneway homes, the city's just going through the process of putting a proposal on the table and getting feedback. (I know it's frustratingly slow when there's such a need for more housing!) https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/burnaby-could-see-laneway-homes-approved-next-fall-5986468
I don't know much about the temperament of these specific council members but it does seem likely to pass at this point. Council+current mayor have been at it since at least 2018 though!
https://www.burnabynow.com/real-estate-news/laneway-homes-duplex-suites-proposed-at-testy-burnaby-council-meeting-3088728
Thanks! I don't follow Burnaby municipal politics that closely, so it's interesting to see what kinds of issues and conflicts arise with respect to housing.