paulhillsdon.com

Yes, I have decided, that I will run in this year’s municipal elections for a seat on Surrey City Council.

Over the past year or so, as my projects have come and gone, I’ve become frustrated. I developed policies and plans to fix many of the problems I encountered in daily life. I created the South of Fraser Transit 2011 proposal because transit is lackluster out here. I created the Surrey Cycling Initiative because biking anywhere wasn’t a safe or viable transportation alternative in my city. I created the Transit Metropolis Vancouver vision because I wanted to be able to move around the region quickly, comfortably, and cheaply.

But, without political will behind any of my, or any other person’s ideas, they are worth nothing. It is for this exact reason that I have chosen to enter politics. We need more creativity and idealism in our politicians - I think those are two qualities I possess in mounds.

Sustainability is the cornerstone of my entire platform. I am part of the generation that will inherit this planet from the baby boomers. It is imperative that Surrey take a leadership role in protecting our environment, developing green transportation, and providing equal opportunities for all citizens to succeed in life.

My platform revolves around four pillars: Sustainable Development, Green Spaces, Transportation Options, and Vibrant Communities. They all interconnect and create a much larger vision of the livable lifestyle - complete walkable communities with close access to sustainable transportation options, affordable housing, and green spaces.

It is time for Surrey to become all that it is capable of being and step up to the plate. To do so, we must take the lead in developing a city that will become a sustainable urban hub of Western Canada for the 21st century.

London, Curitiba, Dongtan, New York, Copenhagen, Freiburg, Paris, Dubai, Melbourne, Bogota, San Francisco, Sydney, and Vancouver can do it.

Why not Surrey?

I think with my vision and optimism, I would be an ideal councillor to help usher in the political will needed to make this transformation.

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 first pillar in my civic platform.

Development has always been a major issue in Surrey, ever since it’s inception many moons ago. This young city has always been a place of rapid growth and change, and projections show this will continue for a long time to come. In fact, it’s estimated that within 20 odd years, Surrey’s population will surpass that of Vancouver’s.

Now, it’s certainly debatable on how well Surrey has handled this growth throughout the years. I will definitely admit that with our sidestepping of the LRSP and a continuous “anything for development” attitude, our reputation around these parts has always been that of the raunchy stepchild. The attitude still pervades the city, even despite the boot of Doug McCallum - Dianne Watts certainly hasn’t slowed anything down, or taken a long term look at the impacts of certain developments. Just take a look at Campbell Heights.

While we may be beginning to make bigger steps in terms of density by building townhomes rather than single-family houses (which I would argue is for due to the market forces of high housing costs and developers wanting the most bang for their buck), there is still a *ton* of work to do.

What new do I bring to the table?

I can tell you right now that development can be good - if it’s done properly. So I’m not about to halt all future growth in the city. However, that does not mean that all developments must proceed. Council has a duty to only accept those which advance the wellbeing of the city as a whole. And with the plans I lay out below, I will ensure that the city of Surrey becomes a national leader in terms of sustainable development.

1. Green Building Strategy.

This one is big. Building structures have a huge effects on our communities, depending on their size, style, and efficiency. Buildings can contribute not only to huge energy savings, but also to substantial reductions in greenhouse gases - if they are built sustainably. Cities across the world have implemented Green Building strategies, typically in accordance to the LEED certification system.

Under LEED, new buildings, or major retrofits, take a look at a checklist of options that make a development greener. Depending on how many they fit, they will get a better and better LEED certification. LEED certification has proven to only cost approximatively 2% more than existing construction costs, and will produce huge savings down the line.

Most cities have the strategy applied simply to municipal buildings. Some even give incentives to private developments to encourage them to adopt the specifications.

Surrey will go ten steps farther to establish itself as a true leader in this space and to take a major step forward in the fight against climate change.

Obviously, all details and specifics regulations or targets would be marked down by staff, but here’s a general idea of what the strategy would be:

Beginning immediately, all new and major retrofitted civic buildings most adopt a LEED Gold certification - the most stringent in North America. The City must broker an agreement with the Board of Education that all schools will follow the same standard. In addition, major incentives will be given to private developers to encourage them to adopt the new standards. This includes a fasttracked system for building permits, a huge reduction in the cost of the building permit, and a huge reduction in DCCs (development cost charges), all based on what level of LEED certification has been proposed. These rebates will be offset a year or two later with the introduction of a levy on all new developments that do not feature LEED certification. Over time, again, based on the level of LEED certification that has been proposed, the “carrots” or incentives will decrease, and the “sticks” or disincentives will increase. This will continue to the point, over the course of a good 8 years, where all new developments in Surrey are LEED certified.

Such a plan gives developers a timeline to work off of to ensure they receive the best deal possible, and potentially avoid larger taxation in the future. With this reasonable market based system, Surrey can ensure that it lowers in carbon footprint, which increases it’s citizens overall wellbeing. In addition, Surrey will be a newfound national leader in the transition to a green economy.

2. Affordable Housing Strategy

As housing prices continue to escalate, hopeful homeowners have been priced out of the market for a single family house. Meanwhile, new options have sprung up, such as condos and townhomes, providing residents with brand new housing for an achievable pricetag. However, as of 2005, the average annual income of a citizen of Surrey is $32,000. And considering a whopping 90% of citizens are not in a common law relationship, the typical formula of having two people share a mortgage is no longer the reality. In fact, it is doubtful a large majority of residents can even afford to buy *any* form of housing.

Although renting continues to be an affordable alternative to home ownership, these citizens are unlikely to ever be able to enter the ownership market. In such a system, we are simply expanding the split between “haves” and “have nots” - something which has huge societal rebounds in the future.

An affordable housing strategy depends on a variety of measures to ensure that *all* citizens in Surrey can afford to live in reasonable accommodations. The strategy I’m proposed has four major sections.

• 1) The legalisation of secondary suites: This has been talked a lot for a long time, but has failed to be implemented in law by the current council. Such legislation will ensure that secondary suites are safe and built to the appropriate codes, in addition to providing tenants with legal venues for protection from landlords. This step can be done quickly and efficiently and will improve the housing stock in the City.

• 2) A market based incentives program similar to that of the Green Building Strategy: The City should set a baseline for the price a typical housing unit shall cost to be deemed “affordable”. For example, in Austin, the City that this program is based off of, deems “affordable” to be developments that are accessible to citizens at or below 80% of the average median family income for the area. Based on this bar of accessibility, the City gives developers incentives based on the number of affordable units in the development. These incentives should include an expedited building permit, and could also include a reduction in the building permit cost. The goal should be to provide affordable housing for all those at or below the average median family income. For example, if 30% of Surrey’s population fits this designation, then the City’s goal should be to have 30% of all housing priced for this bracket of the market. I believe that this market based approach to increasing affordable units in Surrey is far more sustainable than having the City build and run it’s own units.

• 3) Homeless partnerships: The City needs to proceed with partnerships for homeless shelters with the ultimate goal of having enough beds for the City’s full homeless population. Homeless shelters are an essential piece of the puzzle to helping those less fortunate get back on their feet. Most shelters include bathing facilities, food, and support staff. With these facilities in place, we can ensure that the homeless, or those at risk of becoming homeless, have a place to get help and, in due course, get a job and likely live in one of the proposed affordable housing units from the second section of the Strategy.

• 4) Ensure that the City has a large, diverse market of housing units: This follows the simple economics of supply and demand. If we ensure there is enough supply to meet, or even potentially exceed, demand, then we are ensuring that prices aren’t artificially inflated for housing. This strategy will be met with other initiatives in the Vibrant Communities pillar.

I’ve been pondering a lot recently about my position in the community and how to best realize my vision for this region, and, more specifically, for my home city of Surrey. You see, a person like me tends to have a lot of projects and ideas swirling around his head - it’s just a matter of how best to make these a reality. Rather often, it seems that the power to truly improve things lies in the hands of decision makers. To that end, I’m pondering a potential run for political office in Surrey during the November municipal elections.

I’ve written before about what I believe is a lack of boldness in this region. You know, that spice of life, that energy… that ability to make, support and rally around the *best* decisions and ideas - and I think it’s something I inherently possess. It’s a quality that could make up for my lack of experience in politics and support my candidacy as I’m advocating for the important issues.

And what are the important issues?

Well, take a look at the “four pillars”, so to speak, of a Surrey civic platform that I’ve been brainstorming.

1. Sustainable Development
2. Green Spaces
3. Transportation Alternatives
4. Vibrant Communities

I’m a logical guy, so trust me when I say that I already have many plans on how to achieve measurable improvements in these four categories - something rarely seen from political candidates vying for office. November’s a long ways away still. Does the platform sound intriguing to you? Something you would support?

Stay tuned, the rest of this week, I’ll give a full rundown on each of these “pillars”, including specific policies and plans.

Naturally, I’d really appreciate any and all comments :)

Rebecca recently wrote a short post about Surrey and it’s old moniker as the City of Parks. I’m quite supportive of the move to update Surrey’s motto (and logo), in particular because I do not believe the city is worth of labeling itself a “City of Parks”. Not only does it imply the city has many parks, which is up for debate, but it also suggests that the city is green, and trust me, Surrey is anything but green.

When I first heard that the whole point of the LRSP was for the region to be a series of town centres in a “sea of green”, I couldn’t help but laugh. Sure, there may be good number of stand alone trees, a few urban parks, and a few untouched nature reserves, but overall, I would not classify this area as a “sea of green”. It’s more like a few patchy parks in a sea of grey buildings.

A “sea of green” doesn’t matter if it isn’t within close reach to people. Maybe that’s why Downtown is the closest model to a success - because the higher density allows more people to take up less land, which is then available for recreational use. The parks there are close and are in constant use. When everything is sprawled out, people end up farther from nature.

Surrey has never been worthy of the “City of Parks” designation. It boasts about it’s 500 parks, and expansive trail system. Psht. It’s all marketing. If you ask me, just from a quick look at Google Maps, two other cities are more deserving of the title.  Burnaby has Burnaby Lake Regional Park, Deer Lake, and Burnaby Mountain, all taking up significant area in the city, not to mention the large Central Park. Vancouver has it beat though, with it’s numerous golf courses and the protected UBC lands making up a huge biotope along the south east side of the city - plus it’s also got QE Park and the crown jewel that is Stanley Park.

What makes the situation worse in Surrey is that is continues to pave over large swaths of old age forest for townhomes. I just don’t understand why council accepts the proposals! They should be acting for the betterment of the city, not to increase the tax base (which, by the way, is only there to support city services for the residents!). I don’t have a problem with the redevelopment of large exurban properties, but there is something wrong with knocking down what amounts to be an “unprotected” Green Timbers.

I understand the whole tree by-law issue, and yes, they are replacing trees at a higher than 1:1 ratio. That’s not what gets me. It’s that, for naming itself the “City of Parks”, I have to drive to get to one. How’s that for irony? Or if I want to walk 30 minutes to one, I need to cross a highway, bordered with a large wall to reduce residential noise concerns.

Surrey has a bylaw that states there should be 10.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. That means that Surrey could grow by  180,000 residents before they would even hit the wall on that bylaw. The problem with such a bylaw is that it fails to recognize the need for all people to be within a short distance from nature. The current bylaw would basically allow for a huge park in the corner of the city, while the rest is paved over with construction.

Surrey is at a vital time in it’s young life as a city. Doug McCallum didn’t do many wonders for the city, and Dianne Watts, as balanced as she is, is something of a jack of all trades, not really able to successfully pull off any one thing with flying colours. Before all the usable land is built on, can the city at least do a few things to improve the green situation? Not only will the politicians get some street cred with the environmentalists - heck, their lives might be healthier in the long run as well. My suggestions:

1. Update the park bylaw requiring a certain amount of parkland be within a reasonable walking distance from any developed land (say, 800 m or so). This will allow for green space to be accessible to all people, no matter the density, but will also tighten up the amount of land that is developable and thus encourage higher density to shoot up.
2. Update the park bylaw requiring at least 60% of parkland be in it’s natural state, while 40% can be designed for recreational use.
3. Partner with Metro Vancouver to establish regional guidelines for the preservation of green space, while also establishing a means of cost sharing the purchase of properties to secure said green space when necessary.
4. Create a city-wide plan, with supportive laws in place, to develop a network of parks (or biotopes) - in effect, a true sea of green. This is accompanied by a greenway/trail network for public recreation.