Neighbourhood Boundaries

As a resident owner on the east side of the 2800-block, Shelbourne St., it always felt odd that we were part of the Jubilee areas, when our interests - in land use, in traffic, and so many other aspects lay with Oaklands. The subdivision of the Jubilee areas into two also felt odd - and it would seem was, in that both were too small to field a suitable team of representatives. Again, the change makes complete sense. The others seem to make sense, as well, though I do not have very strong feelings either way. But then, I've only been a resident here for 41 years.

I am strongly opposed to the Oakland/Fernwood boundary changes. The reasons that city provided for proposing these changes are ambiguous at best, and potentially dishonest. It is my belief that the city is proposing these changes in order to facilitate new development without the influence and oversight of the Fernwood NRG. In particular, I believe that these changes would allow the destruction and redevelopment of Haultain Corners. This village is one of the gems of the city, and is the emotional heart of our neighbourhood. I would have no problem with improving this part of the neighbourhood, for example, in a fashion similar to the development of the Belfry area in Fernwood. I can imagine, however, that developers are salivating over the possibility of replacing the village with multi-storey buildings full of million dollar condo units and high end professional and retail space at street level. For this reason, I think that these boundary changes should not occur. I appreciate that the city is concerned about improving my "sense of place" (I'm being sarcastic here), but for your information, my sense of place would be improved if the northern boundary of Fernwood was Hillside Avenue, not Bay Street.

I live in North Park Neighbourhood. Since formal discussions were rumoured/begun regarding shifting NP neighbourhood boundary to Chambers "Fernwood Proud" signs have appeared in windows of homes that are proposed to become part of NP neighbourhood. To me, disrupting relationships between NP and Fernwood through boundary changes is not worth the disruption. NP has a collaborative relationship with Fernwood residents and businesses. Collaboration is the way forward now and in the future. Imposing boundary changes will only cause angst and open (already seen as evidenced by the signage) hostility. Further, the words "anomalies" and "issues" are suggested reasons to change boundaries. No definition of anomalies and issues has been forthcoming. "Smoke and mirrors" comes to mind. What is council's end game here anyway. The publicity around reasons for the proposed changes has been unclear from the start and it is, I think, disingenuous of council to go forward with a survey that is based upon unclarified reasons for the changes and then ask for feedback from the public.

BC Housing has already broken their promise not to purchase more shelters within Burnside Gorge community boundaries. I fear that moving the boundary with result in more shelters in tbis area. Please distribute supportive housing around the city rather than concentrating it into one neighborhood. I constantly find needles and human feces in burnside gorge, have had numerous encounters with mentally ill and drug addicted individuals either on my property or while walking my dog (resulting in calls to police for fear of my safety), have had multiple vehicle break ins in the last year, and am awoken multiple times a night by sirens and loud bangs. We have had Individuals break into our condo complex to gain access to residences and the parking garage. Enough is enough. Until you experience what life is like in this neighborhood, you have no business changing to neighborhood boundaries in order to side step the promises made (and broken) by BC Housing.

I don't have an opinion on most of the proposed boundary changes, but as a long-time Gonzales resident -- about 39 years now -- I am concerned about the idea of separating Gonzales from Fairfield for planning purposes. The present Fairfield-Gonzales Community Association does its job well, providing community services as well as facilitating community consultations. The so-called Gonzales Neighbourhood Association is a lobby group opposed to developments that respond to the need for low-to-moderate income housing. The "neighbourhood association" label is just a disguise. I note that the Association endorsed candidates in the last municipal election who were overwhelmingly rejected by Gonzales residents. If the City does separate Gonzales from Fairfield, it should give Gonzales residents the chance to form a proper community association that represents everyone in the neighbourhood, not just a disgruntled minority.

As for the distinction between Fairfield and Gonzales , I would say that I have always thought of myself as living in Fairfield. The part of Gonzales where I live -- the little area between Fairfield Road and the sea, between St. Charles and Foul Bay -- seems like an eastward extension of the Fairfield neighbourhood, whereas the area north of Fairfield seems like something different. Let me add that when we moved into the neighbourhood it was quite mixed, socially and economically -- very different from south Oak Bay. It has become more homogeneously upper-middle class in the intervening years, which is unfortunate. Ideally, people at all income levels would be able to find housing here.

At this time, the city and Provincial government have done so much harm to Burnside Gorge that they need to just stop. The conditions in the "temporary shelters" are unsafe and illegal. Travelodge was without hot running water for days, one of the rooms was used to house a dangerous criminal under "24 hour house arrest" and Cool Aid Society is great at putting up signs, but apparently not great at actually running a safe housing facility. Now, moving the boundaries is only seen as a way around the Moratorium. Mayor and Council, you are supposed to work for the residents. This does not benefit the residents. Give it a rest. Come back to us in 2 years after those housed in the temporary shelters have been actually housed somewhere appropriate and then we can begin from a place of trust. Moving boundaries at this time looks awfully shady.

The proposal of aligning the strip along Shelbourne away from North Jubilee (NJ) to Oaklands goes against its purposeful inclusion in the first place! This strip gives NJ a more secure voice at the table of any discussion regarding the traffic management and development along the Shelbourne corridor including with our neighbouring municipality. Otherwise, the differing demands would be represented by Oaklands, a neighbourhood with a very different configuration and means to disburse traffic and development in its midst. North Jubilee has no midst! We are bounded on ALL sides by secondary arterials and need to maintain Shelbourne along the entirety of our border to retain the continuity and weight of our input and influence in decision making along this corridor. I sat on the original Traffic Management Committee for Oaklands and was a long serving member of the executive of North Jubilee. I KNOW the inclusion of this strip was not arbitrary! Also, please STOP referring to the TWO distinct neighbourhoods of North and South Jubilee as one. We are separate for a purpose. The demands and interests of each of our areas differ. There was good reason to be distinct when formed and those reasons remain. The whole purpose of having distinct neighbourhoods is to address problems, concerns, aspirations that neighbours identified within when forming. These reasons and all the hard work done to meet, create and maintain neighbourhood associations CANNOT be seen by looking at a map! There is no one-size-fits-all Official Plan that can expect to address the real differences between neighbourhoods. Council and staff must bend their ears (apply their eyes) to the local plans. The process to create these is time-consuming and painstaking and yes, they should be updated, but they are the place that you need to zoom into to see why the identities are strong and why the borders exist as they do. As another comment suggests, the arterials like Shelbourne, Fort, Richmond (for instance) are often seen as chasms. We don't need to look across the existing boundaries (chasms) for more concerns and we most certainly don't need to change the ones we have to create more. As for NJ, it is small but overarching many of its issues is the enormous presence of Royal Jubilee Hospital. It impacts our neighbourhood like no other. It fills our plate and diluting our concerns by merging us with South Jubilee does not address the specifics of its impact and vice versa We have always worked well with SJ on issues of common interest but merging us is tantamount to a return to the days when Fernwood was so farflung as to be unknowing or unable to address the specific concerns of our two areas. DO NOT merge the neighbourhoods and please stop referring to them as one!

I echo the concerns others have shared about the lack of transparency. What are the potential benefits council identified? Who do they benefit? How? When I am not provided supporting information, I doubt the good faith intention.

Hello,
If you plan to merge downtown with Harris Green,

Then the area of Fernwood abutting Harris Green cannot become part of Harris Green, because it will actually become part of downtown.

It is inappropriate for downtown to extend further east beyond Cook Street.

Therefore, do not allow Fernwood to give up the area abutting Cook Street to Harris Green/downtown.

1)The "geographic anomalies" I assume refer to the narrow strip between Oaklands and Jubilee. Yes, that component makes sense. However, the expansion of Downtown, which is really what most of the other adjustments seems to be about, does not support previous neighbourhood ideas of small village centres.
2)"Council identified potential benefits...", is the City going to share these with residents?
3)"Staff do not believe there are significant implications..." It seems as though Council is trying to adjust these boundaries to increase density that matches with the OCP of Downtown and North Park without having to go through a full revamp of the existing OCPs for Fernwood, Fairfield, and Burnside/Gorge.

Council, please make it clear what exact benefits are to changing these boundaries.

We live in an area of Fernwood at Bay that has duplex lots. On our once working class street are now over a million dollar homes, with multiple residents and cars. Many folks have driveways, but choose to park on the street, causing the street to be very narrow, PLUS it is used as a bypass around the light on Bay. Dangerous and noisy.
Our house is heritage designated (2004) as is the one next door. This was a deliberate act on our part to contain the density and maintain the integrity of our area. But we are now surrounded by massive homes that tower over our yard and space, and creeps on our privacy.
It seems that the “luxury” of owning a single family home is in jeopardy with the changes in the boundaries. Therefore I won’t support any changes to the existing system now in place.
PLUS The sentence “reconcile some geographic anomalies” is ridiculous, as if you are talking about some sort of disease that needs to be eradicated. You might want to speak to your wordsmiths about using more layperson lingo that us working folks can understand.
NONONO, I won’t support any changes. M.

A nebulous and useless action proposed by an increasingly dysfunctional council

‘Reconcile some geographic anomalies’, makes no sense. No sense. Who is going to get rich from this. You want to change my sense of place? Because? I just want to know why this neighborhood is better than that one. I’m in a better neighborhood than you? That will help our sense of community...

Neighbourhoods are defined by those who live in them and how they self identify as a community. Changes to neighbourhoods are most effective when the neighbours request a change to improve something. This proposal appears to addresses city planning districts associated with development areas and the boundaries for community association catchment areas. Originally Chambers was the boundary of the town and suburb of Fernwood was defined by spring ridge. In the 1970s Fernwood was Hillside-Quadra-Fort-Shelbourne then as sub neighborhoods organized the boundaries shifted. This current proposal seems like a natural evolution. I appreciate the city for consulting the community. The North Park boundary change is trickier as a strong Fernwood identity reaches to Cook St. I would defer to them. Do they feel they are in North Park?

I bought my house in Fernwood because I want to live in Fernwood not in North Park. Perhaps removing the North Park signage on Cook St. and renaming it would be a better solution than displacing current Fernwood residents and "re-assigning" them as North Park. Shame on the City for imposing this to me and my neighbors. When I see my neighbors our topic of discussion is never about the weather. Rather, it's usually about the City encroaching on our mental health because of their actions or inactions. Please pick on someone your own size!

Why are you directing your questions only to residents? Why are you again ignoring the commercial properties and businesses?

Thankfully Harris Green is not downtown - you should leave us alone.

The purpose of these proposed changes is unclear. I have never heard of any supposed geographic anomalies and there is no information as to what these are. Why is there no information on this?

I wonder if this is a prelude to zoning changes and increased densification of our lovely Fernwood neighbourhood, which is already getting too dense and heavily travelled.

There is also no information on any issues with residents' sense of place, whatever that means, and again - why not?

The proposals for Fernwood would seriously reduce its boundaries and, in my view, diminish the neighbourhood feel in Fernwood.

The area between Cook and Chambers is definitely part of Fernwood, as far as I am concerned, as is the area between Bay and Haultain. It seems to me the City has enough to do without carrying out this odd and ill-thought out proposal.

We have lived in Fernwood for years and strongly identify with the neighbourhood - the sense of community, the vibrant Belfry Square, the Compost Education Centre and Allotment Gardens, Fernfest, the Belfry, block parties, etc etc. In addition, we believe that changing our neighbourhood to North Park will adversely affect our property values.

It remains unclear to me why this proposal is being put forward. The ‘mailbox’ leaflet delivered to my home did nothing to elucidate. The response to the question: ‘Why are these proposed changes being suggested?’ is “City Council believes that these changes would help reconcile some geographic anomalies and improve residents’ sense of place.“ This word salad fails to shed light on the question.