Does this article ever raise a lot of unanswered questions:

1) What's Metro's overall plan for their holdings? Is this the 1st of more to come? What is their rationale? Who is "they", Metro? Metro who? How is this related to Vision Vancouver's promised 38,000 units of 'affordable' housing?

How does this relate to the City's Affordable Housing Task Force and strategy? Shouldn't unelected Metro be having some kind of public discussions about this?

2) So, we go from 86 rental units to 250 to 350 new units for this location, of which 86 will be rentals. How big? Will they accommodate families? Vancouver's population has and will continue to grow, 50%+ are renters, why are there not more rental units? What is the justification for unelected Metro to be selling condos?

3) "...the projected increase in the density at Heather Place will generate about $7 million “in additional value”". So, they're taking a 100% owned Metro asset and selling 2/3's off for a one time profit (hopefully). Why does Metro need this "additional value"? What's it going to be used for?

I do not have a problem with Metro or the City densifying and increasing the value of their assets. However, there are better, more responsible ways to densify and increase "value" to Metro.

I find another question in the article related to the following comment: "Of those, 86 or more will be for rental. The rest will be market housing."
Are the 86 units subsidized rental? Or market rental? By "market housing" for the rest of the units, does Metro mean "condo"? If so, then say so, but discussions around housing need to be clear regarding terminology. Have we learned nothing from the "affordable rentals" that were not created by Vision Vancouver's mis-guided STIR program?

Bill McReery1 - Heather Place is one of 50 affordable housing complexes the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation owns and operates on behalf of the region's municipalities. The Corporation provides housing for 10,000 people, and is always looking for ways to house more. It is supportive of, but not directly linked to the City's AHTF.

All Metro Vancouver meetings are open to the public, and staff are working closely with residents through the Heather Place Tenants Association as options are pursued.

The intention is to at a minimum maintain the existing number of units - 86 - although MVHC welcomes construction of more units if viable.

Heather Place suffers from 'leaky condo' syndrome (as do many multi-unit buildings of its vintage in the region), and repairs are estimated at $6 - $8 million (and then you end up with a repaired, but flawed building). MVHC receives no tax money and is supported by tenant rents.

One notion (reflected in the story) is increasing density, selling the remaining land and using the funds generated to offset reconstruction costs.

W.End - about one-third of the 86 units are subsidized, the remaining are low end of market (non-subsidzed rents are in the range of one-half to two-thirds of similar units in its Vancouver General Hospital neighbourhood).

Hope this is helpful.

Bill Morrell, Metro Vancouver.

Thank you Mr. Morrell for clarifying a number of my concerns. I am aware that Metro meetings are open and would like to attend from time to time. I will check your web site for times and location. Having practiced architecture in Vancouver and knowing something about the subject, I am well aware of the leaky condo syndrome and wish you well in those repairs or in this case replacement.

However, I need to know more about the arguments in favour of simply replacing what's there and selling off the rest. At this point I am not convinced that is prudent. Should not the private sector provide market housing and the GVHC focus on non-market and truly affordable housing? In addition as I said, providing only 86 replacement units is not properly addressing the affordable housing crisis, especially for the 50%+ of renters in Vancouver.

It would be helpful if Metro became more out there with the public with programmes such as this one. More needs to be done than simply having meetings open to the public.

I recall an article in the Georgia Straight not long ago reporting that the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation was the subject of a Human Rights Complaint relating to the problem of second-hand smoke in multi-unit housing. Signage around the Heather Place project shows that some smoke free housing resulted. Given the lack of smoke-free social housing available in this city, where will those losing their housing find alternative smoke-free housing? I think that it is high time for the City of Vancouver to show some real leadership around the need for smoke-free housing and take steps to ensure that the Heather Place project is not demolished before making alternate smoke-free housing available. Do we really need another Little Mountain, Olympic Village fiasco? Certainly not!

RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING
Staff Recommendation:
That the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation Board of Directors close its regular meeting scheduled for February 24, 2012, pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (i) as follows:
“90 (1) A part of a committee meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following:
(i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including
communications necessary for that purpose.

Mr. McCreery: Glad to oblige.

You raise many important policy issues, ones that the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation Board of Directors continues to grapple with. Who has responsibility for addressing housing affordability? What about funding? Not my place to opine, but the discussion itself is healthy.

Bill Morrell, Metro Vancouver

Thank you Mr. Morrell for providing factual information. It is helpful in discussions such as these, and such contributions from those involved could perhaps guide these exchanges in a more constructive direction.

I'm also well aware of the difficulty doing so may put you into an awkward position due to the rather untethered nature of e-discourse. In such situations I hope that commenters will respect your and other staff positions and your limitations re: staying neutral, and accept the information and perspective and not attack the messenger.

If the demolition and redevelopment goes through, the rents in the new development will be more than double the current rents. Why should tenants want this, why accept less? It makes no sense to accept less than what is there now. Heather Place tenants' rent should have been put into renovating their buildings regularly, instead of being taken away and put in a fund that is now being used for fund market development. MVHC should not allow buildings to fall into disrepair like a slumlord would.