paulhillsdon.com

During the Surrey Mayor’s State of the City address, while discussing transportation in BC’s second largest city, Dianne Watts said:

“I for one am a firm believer that instead of SkyTrain expansion in Surrey we should be looking at At Grade Rail. At Grade Rail is significantly cheaper, easier to build and much more aesthetically pleasing than Sky Train. Surrey cannot wait until 2020 for improved rail transit. At Grade Rail can be completed much faster. I have great confidence in the potential of At Grade Rail, and I am currently having City staff analyze this option so that we can move it forward.”

This is a terrific move on the part of the Mayor. It great to know that she understands the added qualities that LRT presents to Surrey over SkyTrain - not just cost efficiency per km, but also aspects like the streetscape asthetics.

While I understand the reasoning for SkyTrain to UBC and to Coquitlam, I am a vehement supporter of the development of a new rail transit network based on LRT. Surrey is in the perfect position to be the beginning spot for this new network and will set the city apart from the North of Fraser’s transportation planning of the past few decades. It’s saying “We will chart our own path, learn from your mistakes, and build the best rail transit we can”. And that rail transit will be based on LRT!

Hopefully Surrey City Council will take a nod from Vancouver, and continue to push forward on the Heritage Rail Project. It would be a fantastic business case for LRT South of the Fraser if we can have a demonstration up and running in the next few years!

Good job Dianne! You just got my vote for November!

There’s a story in The Province today about Surrey continuing it’s so-called “made in Surrey” approach to regional growth, although this time the city has a leg to stand on.

There’s a strong possibility that following the LRSP update, Metro Vancouver will gain stronger powers to enforce cities in the region to play along properly with the regional growth strategy - something Surrey has a reputation for “derailing” due to it’s sprawled development.

One of the current large problems in the region is a growing lack of industrial land. As most should be aware, Vancouver and Burnaby are actually making the situation worse by rezoning industrial land for high density condos. Just take a look downtown: False Creek North and South, Yaletown, Coal Harbour - all former industrial lands. Burnaby is playing a similar game, building condos along the SkyTrain lines, usually on land that is or was industrial.

Now, it’s perfectly debateable whether or not these rezonings were justified and are actually improving quality of life. Certainly, it’s a very complex debate, ranging from the Province building rapid transit along industrial corridors in the first place (in an attempt to avoid NIMBYs), to Vancouver pursuing a word renowed smart growth strategy for the Downtown Penninsula.

The fact remains though, that industrial land is disappearing quickly and cities north of the Fraser are doing nothing to replace the lost plots of industrial lands.

This leaves Surrey is a difficult situation. Jean Lamontagne, General Manager of the City of Surrey’s planning department:

“Many municipalities have converted large areas of industrial land to higher uses, such as residential,” Lamontagne said in a report to council.

“Surrey is now being expected to make up for the shortcomings of others.

“It is expected to provide storage, distribution and truck storage for the region. It is clearly not acceptable . . . as they do little for the tax base of the city,” he said.

In the article, Dianne Watts, Mayor of Surrey, outright dismisses the option that Metro Vancouver will be able to overrule the City’s land use authority:

“The pressure to convert industrial land to residential is very high in Surrey, but we’re saying no,” she said.

“The region is looking at other communities to pick up the slack. It wants to fix mistakes of the past, but one community can’t supply industrial land for the region.”

Then, Vancouver Councillor Suzanne Anton steps in and completely misreads the whole situation with this statement:

“Surrey wants to be able to upgrade industrial land to commercial land [and produce more tax revenue]. Surrey is saying more loudly than others that they don’t want to be told what to do,” said Anton, who sits on the Metro planning committee.

Surrey has never wanted to replace industrial with commercial. Frankly, industrial lands provide better jobs in the long term for residents. In fact, Surrey has pursued a very intense strategy of protecting or expanding industrial lands in the city.

But it gets better. Anton then goes in for the knockout:

She admitted Vancouver recently converted industrial land in Southeast False Creek for a future residential community of 15,000. But she said Surrey shouldn’t point fingers.

“Do we want to get into who shoots up on the Downtown Eastside and where they come from?” she asked.

BAM!

How dare Anton try and claim that all the homeless, mentally ill, and drug addicted in Vancouver are somehow Surrey’s problem?! How dare she reinforce a negative persona on both Surrey as a city and claim to define it’s type of residents?!

That type of verbal attack on a neighbouring community should not be occuring by any mayor or councillor in the region.

In fact, it’s quite debateable, but if it wasn’t for the SkyTrain, Whalley wouldn’t have even gotten half the problems it did in the 90’s. And where do you think those people were coming from - oh, right, VANCOUVER!

For a while I felt as though my blog was steering too far into posts on Surrey. I mean, obviously it’s something I feel is important to write about as it is my home city. However, I know not everyone is interested in such posts.

On that front, I’ve launched a Surrey specific blog: civicSurrey. It will cover important future developments and major news stories in the city. I may crosspost a few interesting articles, but generally from now on, most Surrey posts will be on civicSurrey. So, go check it out and I hope you stick around!

Two maps I worked on recently to show you. First off, here’s the ALR in Surrey. Sure, it’s nature I suppose, despite the fact that none of it is public land (meaning the nature is inaccessible to most people), and that very few of these places actually make any edible food for our region. Still, it’s good for containing sprawl.

Secondly, here’s the other green spaces in the City - basically areas that were densely green on the aerial map (mostly forests and whatnot). Some of this greenery is parks (i.e. you can see Tynehead, Green Timbers, and Bear Creek), other areas are sections like the grass along the power line corridors.

Nature truly is the arteries of our cities. It’s too bad politicians and developers don’t understand this.

Not much of a “city in a sea of green”, is it?

This is the second pillar in my civic platform

Green Spaces ties quite deeply into Surrey’s long standing problem of “development at any cost” reputation. It’s quite clear to any Surrey resident that this is a huge problem, as we watch the creeks get piped up, the forests get chopped down, and animals lying dead on the roadside.

The other night walking home around 12, I spotted a pack of coyotes meandering across the road into private yards. It’s no wonder pets die from wild animals - we have stolen their habitats and forced them to either live in tiny parks or attempt to make home in urban areas. Preserving green spaces for these animals will not only improve their lives, but our lifestyles as well.

In addition, there is evidence that humans with greater connection to nature will enjoy less stress and have a general improved wellbeing than those who don’t. Surrey residents need increased access to doses of “vitamin g” ;)

The tree bylaw has failed, and council must make drastic moves now to secure important green spaces before the city is fully built out. This Green Spaces pillar goes leaps and bounds farther than any current land policy in Surrey, with the ultimate goal of achieving a prime balance between preserving our natural areas, while still allowing sustainable developments to take place.

1. Nature Preservation Strategy

This is the major initiative of the Green Spaces pillar. Working with staff and citizens, council needs to develop a plan of strategic green spaces that should be secured throughout the years, for the benefit of both residents and nature.

This strategy should be based around the goal of establishing biotopes - continuous stretches of green space. Just as you would expect there to be transportation corridors for human movement, nature needs corridors for safe animal and plant movement. Green spaces cannot be established as patchwork throughout a city - it must be the other way around.

In addition, these biotopes can be used for recreational use by citizens - for example, for cycling routes as laid out in the Transportation Alternatives pillar. The strategy will obviously take into account the size, location, and current usage of the land in it’s quest to lay out strategic areas of green space.

A major goal that should be part of this strategy is an acceptable distance of access that all urban settlements should have from green spaces. For example, most major transit centres are “accessible” based on a radius of 800m - a standard acceptable walking distance. A similar number should be set out in this strategy. This goal could also take into account the density of the surrounding area, as a place like Downtown Vancouver would need more green spaces simply because there’s more people that would be sharing the area.
There should also be a defined timeline to accomplish the set out goals in the strategy.

Potential sources of long term funding for strategic land acquisition could include a partnership with Metro Vancouver and increased DCCs (development cost charges).

This strategy will give the City a long term plan to both reserve and acquire key parts of land throughout the years to ensure Surrey is truly a city in a sea of green.

2. Guaranteed funding for eco programs and associations

Surrey currently runs a number of innovative programs that help support the environment and foster citizenship in our community. For example:

• SHARP: Salmon Habitat Restoration Program.
• SNAP: Surrey’s Natural Areas Partnership.
• Surrey Youth Stewardship Squad
• Adopt-a-Street
• Releaf
• Bulbs for Beauty
• Friends of the Forest

You’d think with so many programs and such wide citizen support, Surrey would be one of the greenest cities in Canada. Not quite so.

Thus, with some real council support via the Nature Preservation Strategy, the City will ensure it preserves the green spaces. Through a program of guaranteed funding, we are enabling citizens and volunteers to have the resources they need to be stewards of these new and expanded green spaces. Because, without true citizen support, there’s no real point in strategically acquiring more green spaces in Surrey.

With that said, I propose that council have a memorandum of understanding that guaranteed funding will be written into the City’s next five budgets to continue to support these programs. In addition, any other citizen’s associations that prove they are helping to protect and enhance Surrey’s green spaces should be provided with some grant money from the City.