Posts

Infrastructure lagging! Can Grandview function?

This blog piece, by GHSA board member Ted Willmer, focuses on the growing congestion in and around 24th Ave, the crucial highway of Grandview Heights, and the lack of necessary new infrastructure causing the problem.

Below is his letter to the Editor (Peace Arch News, January 27, 2017} and below that, his views on the issues in a letter written to Councillors Starchuk and Woods.

http://www.peacearchnews.com/opinion/letters/412014876.html

Dear Councillors Starchuk and Woods,

A sincere thank you for taking the time to respond to our letter about the urgent infrastructure improvements needed in Grandview. We moved to Surrey in 1994 and have been proud to call Surrey home. The rapid and seemingly unmanaged building boom particularly in Grandview is taking a lot of joy out of our retirement years. We thought we were moving to an area with a well thought out OCP and were looking forward to enjoying the new Grandview pool facility. The deterioted infrastructure we now are being forced to live in is not enjoyable.

What we need to see from the City are actual dates for specific improvements for Grandview.

There are numerous roads that should have been upgraded prior to the massive building spree that has been happening in Grandview since we moved in 4 years ago. None of the main arteries or collector roads have been upgraded and yet thousands of new citizens are now living here with thousands more on the way. We have focused in our previous letters on what is the one area most in need (24th Ave between 161a St and 168 St) which also affects us directly. I truly believe if you saw what we had to endure on a daily basis you would order immediate improvements. 24th Avenue is our and many citizens main arterial road. Our strata is in the unique position of being on the border of the original Grandview town center area built over a decade ago part way down 24th Ave. and the WAR ZONE that 24th avenue starting at 161a street has now become. We lived in the hope that once the several projects were approved/underway (Breeze, Smiths, Soho, Morgan plus others that we would finally be in line for upgrades to 24th Avenue. Sadly nothing you have told us gives us any comfort that improvements will happen this year or any sooner than within a decade. This area of 24th is not driveable many times daily due to the crumbling road surface pounded by dump trucks. All of my neighbours are inconvenienced daily by traffic control stops for the multiple construction sites. (24th Ave., 160th Street, 164thSt, 168th Street) We are constantly forced to deal with severe darkness due to no street lighting and the danger of trying to access 24th street with large construction vehicles parked on the sides of 24th blocking oncoming traffic. This is extremely dangerous for drivers, pedestrians and the occasional cyclist that dares this obstacle course. We currently have put up with construction noise and constant dust in the air due to the extreme volume of construction.

If this part of 24th avenue had been upgraded to 4 lanes we could navigate our area much more conveniently while providing room for the numerous construction vehicles. You are telling us that we might get a small improvement as you are going to find a consultant for a small part of 24th avenue. There is no timeframe for this modest start and the general theme still is significant improvements along 24th avenue for a decade. 24th avenue between 161a street and 168th street should be upgraded this year complete with lights and sidewalks.

Grandview area’s has major infrastructure needs:

The massive building boom in Grandview over the past 3 years has serious consequences. These consequences include the almost total lack of infrastructure improvements and road maintenance. While I have focused my letters on this one area of 24th, it is but one of numerous main arteries and collector roads in Grandview that require improvements. It is the huge number of completed and approved building projects that have exasperated the lack of infrastructure improvements. I list for you Grandviews needs in no particular order of need which all should be completed in the next 5 years not ten.

  1. 24th Ave between 168st and 176st.
  2. 32nd Ave between 168 st and 176 st.
  3. 160th street between 24th and 32nd avenues
  4. 168th street between 24th and 32nd avenues
  5. 168th street between 24th and 16th avenues
  6. 164th street between 26th and 32nd avenues
  7. 16th Ave between hwy 99 and 176th
  8. Croyden is a dysfunctional mess for the completed projects and now multiple large high rises are proposed! Does anyone at City Hall look at the traffic mess we live with?

In addition to these upgrades lets also add to the list 2 seemingly updated arterial road areas that are already deeply congested. It is hard to believe that any quality and accurate planning was completed prior to their build.

  1. 24th street at Croyden Road. This is a complete dysfunctional mess.
  2. 32nd avenue which congests back across 152 street because the freeway entrance is completely dysfunctional.

All of the public services for Grandview are in serious shortcoming due to the massive building boom. The Surrey School Board has been vocal about the infrastructure short comings due to the massive building boom. The Province has only recently recognized the error of not building schools based on reality rather than some out dated modelling.

Councillor Starchuk and Councillor Woods with your backgrounds in Fire Security and Policing we would hope you can recognize the importance of proper infrastructure for Fire and Police to be able to do their jobs safely for themselves and the citizens they serve. Are the modest fire stations at 32nd and Croyden and the one at 176th and 20th avenue sufficient for the existing Grandview citizens not including the thousands of new citizens coming? These have been there for years with no expansion, in fact the fire stations at 32nd and Croyden have had their expansion eliminated due to a recently completed townhouse project surrounding it Are there any policing increases planned for Grandview, there currently is low visibility?

My Grandview home is in crisis. We can not emphasize strongly enough that we need urgent help.

We invite you to meet with us and let us show you the unliveable conditions we have described.

Ted Willmer

 

 

 

GHSA Mayoral “Virtual” Forum

GHSA “Virtual” Mayoral Candidate Forum

The Grandview Heights Stewardship Association recently invited non-incumbent Council Candidates to participate in a “virtual” forum to address land use issues. We have been posting responses on our website and tweeting them as well to broaden voter awareness of one of the less-topical areas that, as you know only too well, Councillors have to deal with on a routine basis.  The questions, method of delivery, and posting have been executed with all neutrality to enable readers to form their own opinion of who will be good stewards in land use issues.

It has been suggested that we also pose a similar question to the leading contenders for Mayor of Surrey as identified by the CBC in their recent hosted debate.

On Friday, Nov 7th, we emailed the following questions to Linda Hepner, Doug McCallum (via Al Payne as the SafeSurrey Coalition server was bouncing back emails) and Barinder Rasode. To date, we have received one reply, from Barinder Rasode but will post others if received before Nov 15th. To read Councillor Rasode’s reply, click the link below the question which is reproduced as sent.

THE FORUM QUESTIONS

Dear XXX,

The Grandview Heights Stewardship Association recently invited non-incumbent Council Candidates to participate in a “virtual” forum to address land use issues. We have been posting responses on our website and tweeting them as well to broaden voter awareness of one of the less-topical areas that, as you know only too well, Councillors have to deal with on a routine basis.

It has been suggested that we also pose a similar question to the leading contenders for Mayor of Surrey as identified by the CBC in their recent hosted debate

Because we appreciate that your time is at a premium, if interested please email your thoughts and ideas regarding land use planning and development and the goal of environmental sustainability as it applies to Grandview Heights in Surrey.

Please reply within 750 words to the following questions ( below)

Your submission will be posted on our website in a section similar to our Non- incumbent Council Candidate’s submissions ( click here to see them.)

Please email your answer to info@grandviewstewardship.org no later than Nov 10, 2014 so we can post and circulate for your prospective voters.

These are the questions:

-Is the current Grandview Heights Land Use Plan (GLUP) meeting the objectives of the City of Surrey and residents who reside in Grandview Heights?

-Is the Neighborhood Concept Plan (NCP) an effective process to establish and guide new development, re-development in Grandview Heights?

-Is the citizen advisory committee (CAC) meeting its objective to provide local input for land use planning initiatives?    

-What does ‘environmental and social stewardship’ mean to you as it relates to city land use planning?

 

Thank you in advance for participating in this dialogue,

Sincerely

The Grandview Heights Stewardship Association

 

THE FORUM ANSWERS

Barinder Rasode, One Surrey

GHSA “Virtual” Non-incumbent Council Candidate Forum

City Councillors deal with a wide variety of issues in their position as a community liaison between the residents of their municipality and the City government. Much of the discussion during the Surrey election 2014 has focused on crime, and rightly so. However, land use is also a central topic in many minds because good development,  infrastructure, and environmental stewardship creates sustainable and safe communities. City councillors vote on land use issues routinely and are involved in planning and development initiatives.

Recent articles by Daphne Bramham in the Vancouver Sun and by Amy Reid in The Now have stressed the importance of choosing councillors wisely; its not just all about the Mayoral vote. Since currently-sitting Surrey councillors are already on record about their views about land use and development AND since we really haven’t heard much from non-incumbent council candidates about land use, the GHSA Board decided to hold our own “virtual forum” to ask new council candidates their views on land use and more specifically, land use in Grandview Heights.

To be completely fair and transparent, here is how we conducted our “virtual” forum.

Every non-sitting council candidate was contacted by email on Friday, Oct 31 either by their personal/party email or by the contact form on the City of Surrey website. All but one candidate supplied an email contact on the COS website or had an email address.  We asked each candidate the same question, framed by a statement, and requested their responses by the morning of November 4th.  Although we gave this deadline to give readers more pre-election time to read them, of course, as other replies are emailed, they will be posted as received for a day or two. Some candidates chose to include a bit of general platform information so answered more than our five questions, but because that was their initiative, we have not edited their answers to delete those “extra” statements.  The responses were then converted into a PDF file.

HOW TO USE THIS FORUM

The email request for forum responses we sent to the candidates is below. This includes a “context” section for five questions we asked.

Below our logo are the links to the forum participant’s answers: the name of candidates who responded, in alphabetical order. Click on the name and the linked page will take you to a PDF of their answer which will open in a new window. As always, the GHSA presents this information as a resource for readers to read and form opinion.

THE FORUM QUESTIONS

Dear Candidate,

The Grandview Heights Stewardship Association (http://www.grandviewstewardship.org) is hosting a “virtual forum” to find out more about non-incumbent Council Candidates and their views about Grandview Heights. To be fair and inclusive, we are asking all potential council candidates to participate.

This is your opportunity to share with Grandview Heights/ South Surrey residents your thoughts and principles regarding development planning and environmental sustainability. We view this as a promotional opportunity for you as well as a way for residents in our area to find out what you may bring to Council regarding select land use/sustainability issues of neighbourhood concern.
Please address your reply to the following questions below (no longer than 500-700 words).
Your submission will be posted on our website in a special blog section. Please email your answer to info@grandviewstewardship.org by 9 am Tues Nov 4th to enable responses to be posted asap and viewed well in advance of the election.
Thank you in advance for participating! Our Association feels that the voice of Council is so important and we appreciate your personal commitment to building a better Surrey.

Context
Social research puts great importance on community design and ongoing resident-driven evolution as the major factors in the livability, sustainability, crime level and happiness and health of it’s residents.
Grandview Heights was, and still is, as much-loved as any area in Surrey. Long-time residents treasure Grandview’s forested areas, wildlife, large mature trees, and wooded roadways and pathways. New residents in recent more urban developments tell us they love it for the exact same reasons: that there are still trees, space and character all around them.
Residents are concerned that we are experiencing unsustainable growth and urban sprawl, at the expense of quality re-development that respects healthy existing neighbourhoods and a variety of lifestyle and residence choices, and genuine preservation of the natural environment.

Questions

How well thought-out do you think the current Grandview Heights General Use Plan (GLUP) is?

What do you think about the extensive density increases that often occur at the Neighbourhood Concept Plan (NCP) level?

NCPs are “guidelines” not by-laws. What do you think of the ability of developers to apply for amendments to zoning and other NCP elements?

What does ‘good environmental and social stewardship’ mean to you in relation to city planning?

In your opinion, who ‘owns’ a neighbourhood? How do you weigh the ‘ownership value’ of long-term residents and new residents who plan to stay, over other, shorter term interests such as political pressures and the development industry?

Grandview-Heights-logo

THE FORUM ANSWERS

Click on the name of the candidate to read their answer

Maz Artang – One Surrey

Merv Bayda – One Surrey

Michael Bose – One Surrey

Darlene Bowyer – One Surrey

Cliff Blair – Independent

Nav Dhanoya – Independent

Shawn Francis – Independent

Laurie Guerra – Safe Surrey Coalition

Brenda Locke/Stephen Gammer – Team Surrey

Jim McMurtry – Independent

Martin Rooney – Independent

Beau Simpson – Safe Surrey Coalition

Rick Scorsese – Independent

Brian Young – One Surrey

 Thank you Council Candidates for the time and thought you gave to these questions. We look forward to hearing from more Candidates soon to both help further your message and help residents understand your ideas about land development in Grandview Heights.

The 164th Infill

There is an old axiom that you can’t fight city hall. There is some truth in this, unfortunately, but sometimes the issues you are faced with are worth the fight.

Our quiet suburban neighbourhood of one-acre homes, which stretches from 26 to 28 Avenues, and 164 to 168 Streets, is part of Area 5 of Grandview Heights. It is zoned for 1-2 units per acre and has no Neighbourhood Concept Plan at this time.

We had always been told that no development would take place until there was an NCP for our area, and many of us made long-term plans based on these assurances. When a mysterious attempt was made to rezone 6 acreages on 164 Street between 26 and 28 Avenues around the time Morgan Heights was being built, our neighbour, the late Ken Hall, investigated and those plans were promptly dropped.

Read more