![](\"http:\/\/spacingmedia.com\/spacingvancouver\/wp-content\/uploads\/features\/indepth_feature-VAN.gif\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Ok, so we Lower Mainlanders are well positioned to land world capital in the form of new addresses that will continue to pay their property taxes (whether folks live in the units or not) for decades to come. <\/span>An expanded tax base is the gift that keeps on giving. <\/span>Good for us, maybe.<\/p>\n The so-called best practice of TOD <\/i><\/b>(Transit Oriented Development<\/i>) continues to be referenced as justification for higher densities near transit services. <\/span>BTW <\/i><\/b>(by the way<\/i>) TOD<\/i><\/b> is the same as TOA<\/i><\/b> (Transit Oriented Areas) which is more recent professional planning lingo (read justification) for dropping towers near stations and exchanges adjacent to established neighbourhoods. <\/p>\n What happens when TOD<\/i><\/b> aspirations collide with service reductions given the recently announced transit budget shortfall ($4.7 billion by 2033)? <\/span>Shouldn\u2019t such budgetary drama, at a time when we justify blockbusting as \u201cbest practice rationale\u201d, also mean NSNT<\/i><\/b> \u201cNo Service No Towers<\/i>\u201d? <\/p>\n Should tower heights be cut in half if transit service is reduced by 50%? <\/p>\n We are heading down a dangerous road (transit arterial) when we pre-justify and don’t deliver the services, especially when daily lives become even less affordable because transit costs will increase thereby impacting the ability to pay for NECTBAH<\/i><\/b> \u201cnot even close to being affordable housing<\/i>\u201d. <\/span>The province, with its housing mandate that overrides municipal zoning, can’t have it both ways. <\/span>The same goes for the costs of infrastructure upgrades and expansion.<\/p>\n Remember, more density is supposed to mean stabilized\/lower taxes by expanding the base unless your neighbourhood zoning policy creates more lucrative \u201chighest and best use\u201d potential. <\/span>You will be forced to sell out and relocate (assuming you can find housing elsewhere) when you can no longer afford to pay property taxes that reflect the government\u2019s speculative behavior embodied in each successive planning policy overlay. <\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s (playfully) extrapolate where this is all going by inventing some new \u201cbest practice terms\u201d that help pay for the daily services we all currently cherish. <\/span>By overly relying on the \u201cmagic of exploiting density\u201d, local governments might start to excuse themselves from providing the necessary services that have somehow been delivered for decades (thank you Vancouver Parks Board for showing us how to do this before your operational budgets were taken over by previous councils).<\/p>\n Here are some future, intentionally exploitive, \u201cBest Practices<\/i>\u201d:<\/p>\n And finally,<\/p>\n You can imagine the \u201cbest practices dilemma\u201d when such service-oriented interests, disguised as best practice, compete for market share. <\/span>This is already happening with Translink\u2019s proposed tower at Broadway and Arbutus which begs the profoundly important question for our times: what is more important, transit or beer? <\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n