December 19, 2012
To: City of Whitehorse Mayor and Council
Dear Mayor and Council,
Thank you for the December 12, 2012 consultation
meeting regarding the proposed Porter Creek D (PC-D) subdivision, and for
delaying your decision about whether to proceed with additional planning for
PC-D in order to hear once again from the public. We appreciated your
open-minded approach at the meeting and the useful questions that you raised.
I have summarized below a number of the points that I
presented at the December 12th meeting on behalf of the Yukon
Conservation Society, and some that I did not have time to present.
The Yukon Conservation Society is asking you not to
proceed with planning for PC-D, because:
- there
is no need for PC-D;
- moving
ahead with planning for PC-D would be a waste of money, and prejudice a
decision in favor of developing PC-D;
- there
is no compromise or “smaller, gentler PC-D” that will end the opposition to
this contentious proposal;
- Whitehorse
people gave up a well loved green space – the Porter Creek Lower Bench, and
helped plan Whistle Bend with the understanding that Whistle Bend was the
alternative to PC-D;
- Middle
McIntyre Creek has far more to offer as a natural area for recreation,
education and wildlife than it would as a housing subdivision.
No need for PC-D
At the November 27 Council and Senior Management Meeting about PC-D, the
highest forecasts for population growth, and hence housing needs, were
presented as the ‘safe’ assumption, to ensure that Whitehorse does not again
experience a housing shortage. The information presented by City staff assumed
a Whitehorse
housing demand of 6,000 units (Yukon
government’s high prediction) to 9,500 units (Official Community Plan’s high
prediction) over the next 20 years. A ‘unit’ is a household of 2.5 people. The Yukon
government’s high growth scenario assumes the need for 300 units per year. The
OCP high growth scenario assumes 450 new units will be needed per year.
The difference of 3500 units between the Yukon
government and OCP 20 year estimates shows how imprecise these predictions of
housing requirements are.
YCS examined population growth numbers for Whitehorse for the 20 years
between 1991 and 2011. During that time the population grew by about 3757
(about 188 people per year). This means that over that 20 year period, at 2.5
people per unit, 1503 units would have been required, not 6,000 – 9,500 units.
It is unclear how many units were actually built or the number of occupants per
unit. What we can determine from these numbers is that over the past 20 years,
75 units per year would have been required at a rate of 2.5 people per unit –
not 300 to 450 units per year.
Even in the 10 years between 2001 and 2011 when population growth was
faster than the previous decade, it has been nowhere near the high growth
predictions. Between 2001 and 2011 Whitehorse’s population grew by
4,218. At 2.5 people per unit of housing, this translates into 1687 units, or
169 units per year. This demand is still far short of the high growth
predictions of 300 to 450 units per year.
Part of the reason that City staff suggest basing planning decisions on
the highest forecasts is the Conference Board of Canada’s prediction that “over
the next decade, several new mines will come into production. Between 2013 and
2020, mining output in Yukon
will grow by an average compound rate of 10.7 per cent per year.”
However, we all
know that the likelihood of all proposed mines coming on line is highly
questionable given that mineral prices have already slumped since last year. And
we know that new mines in remote locations do not lead to much housing demand
in Whitehorse,
since so many workers live outside of the Yukon and fly in and out of the mine site.
Using the highest population growth forecasts does not
seem ‘safe’ unless citizens agree that, in order to be ‘safe’ they are willing
to trade their green spaces for housing that may not be needed.
Even assuming the high forecasts for growth in housing
demand, the numbers do not show a need for PC-D. Here are the estimates that
City staff provided for potential new housing units coming on line over the
next 20 years:
Public:
• Whistle Bend 3500
• Porter Creek D 600
• Infill 730
Total Public Units: 4830
Private:
• First Nations land 850
• Vacant/Underused lots 1500
• Existing Residential with zoning changes 400
Total Private Units: 2750
TOTAL UNITS
(Public and Private): 7580
If the 600 units that were assumed for PC-D are
subtracted from the total, according to these estimates there will be
approximately 6980 units coming on line over the next 20 years. This number
sits between the high forecast scenarios presented by Yukon government (6000) and
the Official Community Plan (9500). And this number does not include the new
rural residential housing that is being developed around Whitehorse.
Even at 600 units PC-D would be a small contribution
to overall housing needs for the next 20 years.
Whistle Bend properties are not selling at
the moment with so many private housing options coming on line. It doesn’t make
sense to create competition for both private developments and Whistle Bend by
creating PC-D.
Single family dwellings along this beautiful creek
would only be accessible to the wealthy, which does not address the pressing
need for low cost housing in Whitehorse, regardless of how much or little our
population grows.
There are
several reasons not to proceed with planning for PC-D:
City staff tell Mayor and Council that a decision to
move ahead with pre-design and consultation about PC-D, including a Charrette,
does not constitute a decision to move ahead with developing the subdivision.
This may be technically correct. But, as Counsellor Irwin pointed out at the November
27 CASM meeting, it is obvious that the more money spent and the further along
in the process the City of Whitehorse gets, the more pressure there will be to
build PC-D.
Creating a plan now, to potentially “put on the shelf”
if the City decides not to go ahead with PC-D at this time does not make sense.
The 2005 Pine
Street Extension Porter Creek
Feasibility Study commissioned by the City isn’t useable now because
conditions, costs and situations have changed. Spending more money on
developing a plan for PC-D that may never be used does not make fiscal sense.
The number of housing units proposed for PC-D is a
moving target: is it 400, 600, 250, or 150? City staff have said that the
minimum number of housing units required for cost recovery for PC-D is 400.
Therefore, there will be pressure to have at least 400 houses in Middle
McIntyre Creek.
The City doesn’t necessarily have to recover costs
when creating the infrastructure for a new subdivision; currently City Planners
are talking about something in the range of 150 to 250 units. Regardless of the
number of units being proposed, one has to ask why contemplate creating a huge
conflict, including possible civil disobedience, and ruining a beautiful natural
area, for such a small housing gain?
It has been suggested that there needs to be a plan on
the table so that everyone knows what we are really talking about. We disagree,
because any amount of housing and roads in Middle McIntyre Creek is too much. YCS, Friends of McIntyre Creek and others
have already extensively laid out our concerns about the likely impacts of
housing and associated infrastructure in this area. These are the predictions
of people who are familiar with development practices in the city, and the
ecology and recreational and educational uses of Middle McIntyre Creek.
If not PC-D,
where?
At the December 12th meeting we were asked
“If not PC-D, then where is new housing development acceptable?”
We would like to clarify that it was our understanding
that Whistle Bend was the alternative to PC-D. Before the land for Whistle Bend
was cleared, the Porter Creek Lower Bench was a very popular recreation area.
It was used by horse riders, walkers, skiers, bird watchers, and ORV users.
Nonetheless, the Yukon Conservation Society and many other community
organizations and individuals supported the development of Whistle Bend. We
spent much staff and volunteer time helping to plan Whistle Bend through the Charrette
process.
We supported and helped plan Whistle Bend in good
faith, with the understanding that by building this massive new neighborhood,
PC-D would not be required. While we may
never have been explicitly promised that Whistle bend negated the need for
PC-D, that was our assumption. Local people have already voluntarily and
cooperatively made a huge sacrifice by supporting Whistle Bend. Whistle Bend is
one of the answers to the question “If not PC-D, then where?”
In addition, City planners have identified other options to meet housing
demand over the next 20 years: infill, First
Nations land, vacant/underused lots, and
existing residential with zoning changes.
On behalf of the Yukon Conservation Society and the
many people who use and enjoy Middle McIntyre Creek every day all year round,
as well as the wildlife that live in, and travel through this area, I am asking
you, Mayor and Council, to vote not to proceed with further planning for Porter
Creek D. Please let us end this conflict
and work together to create affordable housing solutions elsewhere, and a new
plan for Middle McIntyre Creek that protects and enhances the environmental,
educational and recreational values of this cherished area.
Sincerely,
Karen Baltgailis
Executive Director
Yukon Conservation Society
No comments:
Post a Comment