Saturday, 30 April 2016


A few days ago the former Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, in a talk to Stanford students described  Presidential candidate, Ted  Cruz as, " Lucifer in the flesh" and a "Miserable son of a bitch." The blunt description inspired a great column by
the distinguished American journalist, Jack Shafer. He posed this question:

Why would  politicians of all people choose to build their careers upon a bedrock of loathing?

Shafer began his analysis noting that many pricks  have held public office but somehow managed to be likable.

That, however, is not the best approach.  Politicians are different. In politics it can be better to be hated. See ( . Updating Machiavelli Shafer observes:

Experienced politicos may have determined that spending effort on getting people to like you is a mug’s game. *** once you get people to like you, your job has only begun. Additional acts of kindness, consideration and fairness must be extended or your likability will fade into the background. But hatred is a much more efficient use of emotional energy.

Three days ago,  the governing VISION gang proposed to surround Vancouver General Hospital with a moat of bike lanes. This prompted an outbreak of letters from sick people afraid that they would be unable to get to the hospital to line up for their quadruple bypasses and hip replacements. see

[I can tell you from recent personal experience the six block struggle to or from the B.C Cancer Agency is not a matter the merit of which needs a study by a committee of concerned bike riders.

Why would Vancouver City Hall send out a threat like this even as a trial balloon? Is it because they are what they seem to be: People who have  learned that in politics there is no percentage in decency. It is better to be hated. 

They have achieved their goal.

Thursday, 5 February 2015


I write to support NBC news anchor, Brian Williams, who falsely claimed to have been aboard a helicopter that was shot down during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Williams admitted Wednesday that he was on a different helicopter, just like the first one only it wasn’t shot down. He apologized to viewers and crew members of the 159th Aviation Regiment for the anxiety they would have suffered over his safety and well-being if he had in fact been with them when they crashed. Williams and I have much in common. There but for the grace of God go neither of us.

Memory plays tricks on honest people.  I was at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 when it was bombed by the Japanese. That day of infamy has stayed with me over the years and I have written about it many times. 

In my book, Flags of our Fathers, I described the pain of watching navy buddies perish. Their ghosts haunt me still. 

Recently a critic for the New York Times sneered, that in 1941 I would have been 2 or 3 years old. He also said that my book, Flags of our Fathers was written by someone else. That was hurtful.  Whether I wrote that particular book or another one, I honestly believed that I was at Pearl Harbor. I remembered it as plain as day.

I was mistaken.  What had actually happened was that I played the flute in the U.S. Army Band at Fort Ord, California. That also took a lot of daring and was easily conflated with the sinking of the US Pacific fleet. To those who doubt that one could confuse a naval catastrophe with a John Phillip Sousa march, I say, it depends on the piccolo soloist.

Friday, 7 November 2014


Yesterday, November 6,  2014 was a great day for both VISION VANCOUVER and the NPA. 

Tweeting on Twitter Mayor Gregor chirped, “Honoured that former @NPAVancouver president Michael Davis endorses @VisionVancouver team #vanpoli”.

That was just the beginning. David Cadman, formerly of COPE also swore fealty to VISION. As if that wasn’t enough the whole ménage a deux  endorsed the entire VISION slate. That was like when you buy a Fiat and Jesus comes into the agency and assures you that you have made a terrific deal and that he is going to throw in a lot of extra’s like a USB port and a portable WIFI.

As to the NPA, Robert Kasting, independent candidate for mayor dropped out of the race and endorsed the NPA’s mayoral candidate, Kirk Lapointe. Better yet, the latest polls are trending in the right direction. Best of all VISION s Councillor Meggs and Mayor Robertson sued Lapointe for defamation. What better plug for their ads could there be.

 L’Affaire Local 1004 

The law suit serves both parties' purposes. For the NPA it calls attention to L’Affaire Local 1004 which LaPointe in the Vancouver Province and the Huffington Post described as “Corrupt.” Someone had taped the proceedings of a union meeting in which money was committed to VISION. The audio was given to the journalist Bob Mackin and was placed on YouTube. The Cedar Party picked it up and ran YouTube Links. LaPointe discussed it in the Province and ran ads.   (VISION PRESENTATION)     (RESPONSE)

Mackin grills Cllr Louie on his appearance at CUPE 1004. Are you buying votes?

A condensed version of the transcript is as follows:

MEGGS: “My name is Goeff Meggs. I am running for VISION.” ***”Gregor Robertson our Mayor has recommitted to not expand contracting out. “****

UNION: “How much money do we have to spend to curry favour with VISION in the next round of negotiations? OUR SUPPORT IS NOT UNCONDITIONAL”

Both sides of the story are reported on CTV news:

Never to be outdone, COPE’s Tim Louis ran a hilarious ad “What has Tim Louis Not done for you lately” that, among other things, referred to VISION’s "Influence Peddling."  Louis needs to be sued for the ad to get the full publicity it deserves but it would not be in VISION'S interest to give him the extra attention. This is not the time to start a war on the Eastern Front. Here is Tim’s ad:

That was yesterday.

Today, the Vancouver Courier published Goeff Olson’s cartoon. He shows someone who looks like the Mayor in bed with two fat guys representing Labor and Developers. The Mayor is depicted saying, “This isn’t how it looks.

There was a famous law suit by Bill Vanderzalm who sued a cartoonist for a caricature showing him as minister of Human Resources pulling the wings from flies.   Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers, a Division of F.P. Publications (Western) Ltd. [1980] B.C.J. No. 1391 (BCCA). The decision produced three separate reasons for judgement. The Cartoonist was not liable.

So Olson could also be sued, not because there is anything wrong with three guys in bed but because of the company it suggests the Mayor keeps. 


VISION has disclosed its source of funding.  Concorde Pacific and Aquilini are major contributors. 

It is also alleged that they are both  owners of some of the land next to the Georgia Viaduct.

 If that is true,could the  universe contain the possibility that the money given to VISION by these corporations was "not unconditional?" Would it be possible that Megg's pushing for the demolition of the viaduct relates in some way to contributions or prospects thereof to the party? 

Once the viaduct has been demolished will these land owners be offered development rights with tremendous density?

Listen to the tapes and tell me that such speculation is unreasonable.  

The problem with a system in which the people who are regulated by local governments finance the party is that there is in fact something wrong with it. It causes people to lose faith in the system  precisely when it deals with the matters central to their jurisdiction. 

When I am told that a developer has given $40,000 it is hard to believe that there are no strings attached and that it is not the way it looks. Casey Stengel once said, "Only half the lies they tell about the New York Yankees are true." The same may be said of VISION.

A fine municipal defamation action was Ralston v. Fomich [1992] B.C.J. No. 463, a decision of Spencer J.

During a Surrey City council debate the defendant alderman called the plaintiff alderman a "sick son of a bitch". The Plaintiff won.

In my opinion the words "son of a bitch" by themselves are not capable of any defamatory meaning. They are peculiar, in that they take their meaning either from the tone of voice used or from whatever adjective accompanies them. They are a translucent vessel waiting to be filled with colour by their immediate qualifier. Thus, one has sympathy for a poor son of a bitch, admiration for a brave son of a bitch, affection for a good old son of a bitch, envy for a rich son of a bitch and, perhaps incongruously, dislike for a proper son of a bitch. Why right thinking people should dislike anything that is proper is rather a mystery unless proper is used to mean "real", but I am confident that is the colour that adjective gives to the expression. It is perhaps a throw-back to an earlier use of the expression when the mere words themselves carried an opprobrious meaning, see for example Kent's apostrophe to Oswald: "(thou) art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch:" (Shakespeare, King Lear, Act 2, Scene 2)

That brings me to the qualifier in this case, the adjective "sick". Whatever innuendo the word may be capable of must be disregarded, for none is pleaded. Instead, the statement of claim relies upon its ordinary meanings, that the plaintiff was either mentally ill, unstable or unbalanced, that he was perverted, unwholesome or morally corrupt, or that he was unfit to hold public office or to practise his profession as a barrister and solicitor.

So you can call a politician a son of a bitch but don’t ever say he is sick.


Section 123 of the Criminal Code is set out below:

In summary it provides:

123. Municipal corruption

123. (1) everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years who *** being a municipal official, directly or indirectly *** accepts from any person for themselves or another person — a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the official

(a) to abstain from voting at a meeting of the municipal council or a committee of the council;

(b) to vote in favour of or against a measure, motion or resolution;

(c) to aid in procuring or preventing the adoption of a measure, motion or resolution; or

(d) to perform or fail to perform an official act.

It may be that in back rooms, promises have been exchanged on conditions or with strings attached but Meggs and Robertson v Lapointe is the first one that I am aware of that have been videotaped. One interpretation of what is shown on the Video  is that the Mayor has agreed to maintain the status
 quo as they enter negotiations and that the support of the union is provided in exchange for the promise not to change anything. 

I don’t see a commitment to maintain the status quo as legally distinguishable from a commitment to change it. To a passenger in an airplane that has not crashed, a promise to maintain the status quo would provide a distinct advantage.


Ironworkers Local 97 of The International Assn. of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers v. Liberal Party of British Columbia [1997] B.C.J. No. 2357 was an action for defamation that had some elements similar to what has happened here. 

The defendant Liberal Party issued a press release. They alleged that the plaintiff, Ironworkers Local 97, was involved in a kickback scheme benefiting the provincial New Democratic government. The release formed the basis of a newspaper article written by the defendant, Brian Kieran, and published by the defendant, Southam. 

Unlike the situation with VISION there was no evidence at all that there were strings attached to the deal. Nevertheless the Union’s action was dismissed. The release and article were in fact held to be defamatory. The use of the word "kickback" and a reference to unrelated criminal charges by other parties carried the inference that Ironworkers Local 97 was involved in unethical behaviour.

The plaintiff's problem in these political cases is that he must establish on a balance of probabilities that there was actual or express malice on the part of the defendants. A defence of fair comment is available and means that the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant acted with malice. 

 Kieran and Southam were covered by the defence of fair comment. Kieran's column was an opinion column. He discussed a matter of clear public interest. It contained an honest expression of his views. It was technically possible for money paid by the government to the Ironworkers Local 97 to have been legally diverted to the New Democrats through the unions. It had not happened but there was no malice behind the actions of any of the defendants. 

If this case goes to trial, one defence will likely be "truth" i.e. that the words if not the money mean what they say and are true. The union donated $206,000 to VISION. This support was allegedly not unconditional, whatever that means. 

Monday, 3 November 2014

FRAUD ON THE LAW - The Heritage Action Plan

When a scheme is devised to evade the law, it is referred to by the courts as a “fraud on the law.” The City operates under the Vancouver Charter and must comply with it. One reason Vancouver faces so many law suits is that the public relations people running the show do not seem to understand much less care about this  simple concept.

The VISION Vancouver Council has had years to deal with the rate at which Vancouver residential areas are changing. It is not that tough. (In 1988 Gordon Campbell’s NPA Council enraged developers by enacting 'rate of change' bylaws to slow down the demolition of apartments and renovictions of seniors.) In addressing the issue, however, the City must act within the 4 corners of its powers under the Vancouver Charter.

Which powers? In land use matters, the City generally has to hold public hearings after which it enacts  regulatory bylaws. The Council is not bound to adopt what the public wants but they have to follow requirements of procedural fairness.

Vancouver has all the powers it needs to either ignore or to deal with the rate of demolition of affordable housing, the loss of character and / or  heritage homes. It could have at any time directed its staff to prepare a bylaw applicable to all pre 1940 or for that matter post 1940 houses. It could have directed staff to prepare zoning bylaw and plan amendments to carry out any planning policy it wanted.

It must do it, however, in the manner prescribed by the law. The Courts are fussy about the way cities do these things because there is a lot at stake.

Here is how it must do it: Under s. 570 of the Vancouver Charter it can withhold the issuance of a permit for 30 days if it considers that a proposed development is at variance with a plan in the course of preparation; after that it can withhold the permit for a further 60 days and then adopt the bylaw. If, at the end of 90 days it has not enacted the bylaw then, in the interest of fairness, it has to compensate the owner for damages he or she may have suffered as a result of the delay.

Under section 588, it can specifically withhold demolition permits respecting heritage matters. (The sections are set out below.)

The Vancouver Charter thus gives the Council plenty of time to catch up on what it should have done in advance. As the Mayor says in his current TV ad there is supposed to be a plan in preparation. The City is supposed to be going somewhere with it. It may not jerk people around. It cannot freeze permits only to worry and wonder and study and ponder and then do nothing it all. 

If people are entitled to permits the City must promptly issue them unless there is a lawful basis for delay.

The VISION Council may be accused of many things. Generally, transparency is not one of them. In this case, they are very transparent. They are evading the requirements of the statute which is to regulate by bylaw – not by report or policy. Instead, they have a scheme to delay the issuance of the permits at least until after the election even though they do not have a bylaw in the course of preparation.

After the election, they will either go back to issuing demolition permits or there will be a series of very expensive law suits to compel their issuance and damage claims on the grounds that the Heritage Action Plan is a fraud on the law.

Jonathan Baker

Current to October 21, 2014

S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, s. 570

 [eff since March 18, 2013](Current Version)


SBC 1953, CHAPTER 55

 Part XXVII --
Planning and Development



Withholding of permit pending adoption of zoning by-law

570. (1) Before the adoption of a zoning by-law, an official development plan or a by-law under section 593 designating a heritage property, or of an amendment to a zoning by-law or an alteration, addition or extension to an official development plan, the Council may cause to be withheld the issuance of any development or building permit for a period of 30 days from the date of application for such permit.
(2) Where any permit is so withheld, the application therefor shall be considered by the Council within the said period of thirty days, and, if in the opinion of the Council, the development proposed in the application would be at variance or in conflict with a development plan in the course of preparation, or with an alteration, addition, or extension to an official development plan in course of preparation, or with a zoning by-law in course of preparation, or with an amendment to a zoning by-law in course of preparation, the Council may withhold the permit for a further sixty days from the expiration of the thirty-day period hereinbefore referred to, or the Council may impose such conditions on the granting of the development permit as may appear to the Council to be in the public interest.
(3) In the event that the Council does not within the said period of sixty days adopt any such plan, alteration, addition, extension, or by-law, the owners of the land in respect of which a development permit was withheld or conditions were imposed pursuant to this section shall be entitled to compensation for damages arising from the withholding of such development permit, or the imposition of such conditions. Such compensation shall be determined by arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act.
(4) Despite subsection (1), an owner of property for which a permit has been withheld before the adoption of a by-law designating a heritage property may agree that a permit may be withheld for a period longer than the 30 days referred to in subsection (1) and, in that case, subsection (1) continues to apply during that longer period and subsection (2) is deemed to read as if the longer period applies.

Current to October 21, 2014

S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, s. 588

 [eff since July 28, 1997](Current Version)


SBC 1953, CHAPTER 55

 Part XXVIII --
Heritage Conservation

Division (3) -- Temporary Protection


Withholding of demolition permits pending other approvals

588. (1) Without restricting section 587, the Council may, by by-law, direct or authorize a board, committee, officer or employee who issues permits for demolition to withhold approval in the following circumstances:

(a) in the case of protected heritage property, until a heritage alteration permit and any other necessary approvals have been issued with respect to alteration or redevelopment of the site;

(b) in the case of real property identified in the heritage register established under section 582, until a building permit and any other necessary approvals have been issued with respect to the alteration or redevelopment of the site.
(2) The Council may establish restrictions, limits or conditions on a duty or power under subsection (1).
(3) Nothing in this section authorizes the withholding of any approvals other than permits for demolition of heritage property.

For an excellent review of the plan see:

heritage action Plan lElizabeth Murphy

Saturday, 1 November 2014


When the people who write the Mayor and Council's stuff tell us that they have created thousands of affordable housing units, to what extent is it true? It all depends on what we mean by truth. If we define "affordable" as what someone could afford, then the statement has a certain truthyness but within a context of falsyness.

Section 523(d)(10.3)-(10.5) of the Vancouver Charter authorizes the City of Vancouver to waive or reduce Development Cost Levies (DCL’s)  for “for profit affordable rental housing”. In 2009, the City endorsed a program called 
Short Term Incentives for Rental Housing (STIR). Its goal  was to create market rate rental housing for moderate income households who cannot afford home ownership in Vancouver.

The City Manager was empowered to decide what development she considered to be “for profit affordable rental housing.”  Under STIR, the City granted developers enormous tax breaks and rezoned their lands to allow for massive increases in density and height but did not cap the rents in any way. Not surprisingly, actual rents ended up being significantly higher than the rents the City Manager deemed affordable at the time of providing the breaks and rezoning.

In May 2012 STIR was replaced with Rental 100. As with STIR, the goal of Rental 100 was to increase the supply of market rental housing. On the eve of a court hearing brought by the West End Neighborhood Association, the City amended the  bylaws to re-define “for profit affordable rental housing” as follows:

(a) all dwelling units in the building are rental units;

(c) the average size of the dwelling units is not greater than:

(i) 42 square meters for studio units,

(ii) 56 square meters for one bedroom units, or

(iii) 77 square meters for two bedroom units,

(d) agreed upon average rents per unit type for initial occupancy do not exceed the following specified rents:

(i) $1,443 per month for studio units,

(ii) $1,517 per month for one bedroom units, or

(iii) $2,061 per month for two bedroom units,

Annual rent adjustments were allowed.  The proposed construction costs were not to exceed $2,475 per square meter, annual adjustments. A covenant restricted the tenure to rental for 60 years.

 The Bylaws 
  • create tiny rentals at very high rents. 
  • result in the demolition of old stock “affordable rental housing”  being replaced by expensive housing.
  • create an incentive for developers to decrease the size of the units while simultaneously increasing the rents. 

The rental rates in the bylaw are based, not on average rates of all existing old and new units, but on average rental rates for new construction in Vancouver (regardless of size or location) as determined by CMHC in its annual Rental Market Report. If a
verage rates had included both new and existing rental stock they would have been set significantly lower. 

Developers are given  tax breaks and  density bonuses for creating tiny expensive units. Vision’s argument is that they are affordable by virtue of being “rental” as opposed to ownership. As they age, so the argument goes, the rents will drop.

Substandard housing is the market's response to substandard incomes. 

The fact that the maximum rents are based on average rents for new construction in Vancouver allows developers to create very high-end rental housing in less expensive neighborhoods. Thus a 500 sq. ft. one-bedroom unit in Marpole or East Hastings for example, where the average rents according to CMHC are 850 and 893 respectively could rent for $1,500 a month and meet the definition of affordable rental housing. A 700 sq ft. two bedroom unit could rent for $2,000 a month and meet the definition of “affordable rental housing” even though the average rents in these areas for a 2-bedroom is $1,122 and $1,179 a month respectively.

The City claims that these units are “affordable”  because the City’s target, moderate income earners ($21,500 to $86,500), can theoretically rent them without paying more than 30% of income. But low income and even moderate income earners on the lower end of the moderate income spectrum ($44,000 per year or less) and median income renter households (approximately $35,000) could not even rent a studio at the City “affordable rents” rents without paying more than 30% of income.

Vision's effort to provide affordable housing brings to mind Alice in Wonderland:

Would you tell me, please,which way I ought to go from here?
That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
I don't much care where-
Then it doesn't matter which way you go.


I just received a package that included a copy of the City of Vancouver Annual Financial Report 2007 with a link to the full report:

Also enclosed was a copy of the 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements with the Link to the full report at

If the author's analysis is correct, and it seems to be, then, notwithstanding VISION's claims, the following is the true state of affairs for the City of Vancouver.

Assets have been depleted by nearly 5 billion dollars since 2007, when VISION took over.

Liabilities have ballooned by $800 Million dollars.

Long Term Third party debt has increased by $275 Million.

As of 2013 79% of the debt will mature outside of a five year period.

This analysis is consistent with the following one that was published on Vancouver's debt addiction in mid July, 2014.

Below is a slightly edited text that accompanied these documents. I assume it has been distributed to others already. The links were correct and the analysis seems also correct.

Dear Sir:
"The following package contains the audited (See Page 9) financial statements for the City of Vancouver in 2007 as well as in 2013. The purpose of your receipt of this package is an effort to demonstrate the corruption and lies that Vision Vancouver and Gregor Robertson have been placing upon the city for the last 6 years.
The Vision Party's Mayor and Council are responsible for the dramatic deterioration of the financial well being of the City of Vancouver. The audited statement of the City of Vancouver for 2007 was the year before Vision was elected.
Page#               2007                              2013                                  Difference
10 * Assets $10.9 Billion                         $ 6.1 Billion                  ($ 4.8 Billion)
• Note 6 references on page 18 of 2013 audit
Page 10 (see “A") demonstrates that the City has nearly $5 billion dollars fewer in assets. 2007 note 4 vs 2013 note 6, the City has $4.2 billion less in land. These are audited financial statements, where has the money and our city's assets gone?
10     Liabilities    $ 1.05 Billion               $ 1.85 Billion (                  $ 800 Million)
It would be expected that the city should have a slightly greater number in liabilities after 6 years. However these increased liabilities are largely in the form of long-term debt and financing. The party is developing massive and unmanageable levels of debt. (See "B"). The next note demonstrates more clearly.
Pages 17&18 Long Term third party debt $ 514 Million       $ 789 Million    ($ 275 Million)
Note “C” demonstrates the excessive debt that Vision Party has built-up, this debt largely matures after 2018. In 2007 the debt was manageable, and the amount maturing outside of a five-year period was only 37% of the total. In 2013, this climbs to 79% - Gregor Robertson is NOT planning for the future.
Since Vision was elected in 2008 the party has controlled all aspects of the management of the City of Vancouver. After Vision was elected in 2008, the Mayor and Council fired the City's manager and appointed a new City manager. Three hundred department managers of the City of Vancouver were fired or retired due to conflicts with the inept management of Vision. The morale of the City's employees is at an extreme low as Vision's policy is that if an employee does not agree with Vision's policy, they are fired. How does this create an open and democratic situation for the city and citizens?
Vision has been in control of the City of Vancouver for 6 years. The coming election could have Vision in control of the City of Vancouver for another 4 years.
Can the residents of the City of Vancouver cope with another four years of the financial and management wreck that is the Vision party?
On a related matter the Supreme Court of British Columbia has held that a lie told by an elected candidate for municipal office is grounds for immediate removal but the application must be filed promptly after the election.

Sunday, 12 October 2014


As I said before, upon receipt of its affordability report the VISION Council or whomever pulls its strings, decided that there was a market rental housing emergency

There was at the time no such thing. The problems faced by people who could not find cheaper market rental housing or, for that matter, reasonably priced single family dwellings, was not quite the holocaust the authors made it out to be. It was a market!  

In case the bold, italicized and underlined fonts don't make it clear enough, they were not talking about the mentally ill or the hungry or the homeless. They were talking about the market.

Those who can't find market rentals in  Vancouver find them in surrounding suburbs. Middle class families who can't afford an apartment in Shaugnessy or Kerrisdale are not sleeping under bridges. They are sleeping in Yaletown, the West End, Coal Harbour or even Surrey. That is not a cruel or unusual punishment.

Vision's contribution to policy has been to apply modern social media techniques to politburo politics. It reeks of a Brezhnev era Five Year Plan. It started with the immediate imposition of a uniform standard in all neighborhoods, relating to the distance from certain sized streets. All neighbourhoods near such streets, if the Manager and Council have not noticed, are not alike. Some are ripe for change and others are not.

City Hall aimed a blunderbuss at all residents in Vancouver who happen to live near any street. Any street can be reclassified to an arterial. They created an incentive to consolidate lots in these neighbourhoods. The disruption caused by construction including noise, traffic, loss of trees, blocked views etc. has accelerated. The report called this "making transitional neighbourhoods."   So stable neighborhoods were destabilized into transitional ones.

The Vision Council had no mandate to make these kind of changes. It is ironic that an earlier Council under Larry Campbell held a referendum on whether or not to host the Olympics. By contrast this Council, funded by developers, appointed a gang of them to tell them what they wanted to hear, but has consistently ignored Community Groups from Norquay to Dunbar.

It should not take long for a politician to realize that the democratic process does not end with his or her election. It begins there. These inflated martinets didn't get it.

Hopefully, the election will bring this nightmare to an end. Whomever replaces these people should start with the following:

  1. Require an Official Community Plan in all areas of the City. These should be established through local planning offices. 
  2. Spot zoning, the practice of rezoning one parcel of land, should be subject to new strict regulations.
  3. Discretion in zoning should be brought into line with Development Permits under the Local Government Act so that it is limited to changes in siting but not changes in use or density. 
  4. The Affordability programs must be reworked from the ground up. I may have more to say on that later.