Shelley Nicholl - Council Candidate

[justice4U]

FunkyBunch, you seem to be missing the point. Nobody is forcing people who can't afford to live in Kelowna to live in Kelowna. So nobody is "out in the cold" who hasn't made a decision to be out in the cold.

And you'd better believe that I wouldn't let a selfish and greedy neighbour compromise the biggest investment my family will ever make (our home). If a neighbour has "too big" a house, then why wouldn't that neighbour simply sell rather than destroy the single family neighbourhood (along with home values) for everyone else? After all, a single family neighbourhood with secondary suites scattered about isn't really a single family neighbourhood at all anymore, is it? Do you think maybe it's because their motives ($$$$$) aren't quite as noble as you suggest?

As for handouts, you've referenced a few already. There are countless others. For example, who do you think pays for the 'affordable housing' conditions city council is imposing on builders. If you think the builders are paying this out of their pockets, you're kidding yourself. It is simply passed on to the legitimate purchasers. That's yet another handout any way you slice it.

[mechanic_virus]

Please list 5 of your top priorities, and how you would deal with each issue if it were completely up to you.

[Snick]

Please list 5 of your top priorities, and how you would deal with each issue if it were completely up to you.

Thanks for the question.

First of all, though, I wanted to point out that no decision on council is completely up to one person. Not only are there other councillors at the table who vote on the issues, but the community's best interest is the top consideration -- not mine. That's really important for me to emphasize. I know, as a candidate, I have been asked for my opinion on various topics, but the replies are based on council reports, what the community has told me personally and what I have heard through public forums and correspondence. I have no intention of being an island unto myself on council.

With that out of the way, I see the city's top priorities as the following:
1. The OCP Review is underway and I hope to see the community get very involved in this process. This is the map for the city in determining where density should go, how high buildings can be and social and environmental direction. The next council will be voting on that and, again, I hope the community speaks its mind in the review process.
2. Affordable housing is a huge issue facing our city and affects almost everyone. While we may see house and rental prices soften with the market downturn, overall Kelowna's housing market is too expensive for too many. The city's initiatives go in the right direction with incentives to developers to create affordable units or cash in lieu. I think we also need to look at how to handle secondary suites to create more affordable housing and options for home ownership, without upsetting a neighbourhood. I'd like to hear more ideas how to address this issue.
3. I believe it's important to make sure new development blends in well with existing neighbourhoods. This is being addressed, but as we continue to grow and densify, this is an especially important issue to focus on. This means being diligent when proposals come forward in making sure developers are working with the neighbours.
4. It will be important to have an updated plan for downtown ready soon, in tandem with the CD zone. Also, I hope we'll all be enjoying Stuart Park downtown instead of using it as a parking lot.
5. (Only 5? I'll have to cheat a bit). Environmental sustainability, water, traffic, crime and homelessness are topics that always need to be addressed. I think it's important councillors become as well informed as possible (that means those groups that have been lobbying candidates should continue to lobby those elected). It's respectful to the community that councillors make informed, well thought out decisions in the best interest of the community. That's only possible by continuing to listen and learn.

Shelley.

[mechanic_virus]

Thanks Shelley.

[Homeownertoo]

I was seriously considering voting for Shelley Nicholl until I read her position on the latest politically correct issue, affordable housing. Unfortunately, it's getting very difficult to find a candidate who has not jumped on this bandwagon. Justice4U has pointed out, above, some of the problems with the concept of "affordable housing". Perhaps out of politeness, he did not point out the obvious -- that it is a fraud, from its name, to its methods, to its impacts.

Kelowna is not short of affordable housing. Almost all of the city's 110,0000 residents are adequately housed in homes they can afford, that being the very definition of affordable housing. So let's dispense with this idea that 45% of the city's residents cannot afford to live here. They can and do. And so obviously the city has plenty of affordable housing.

Can everyone here buy a single-family home or all the home they want? No, but so what; how many people are truly squeezed into inadequate housing? I've seen no numbers to indicate this is a serious issue, and certainly not enough of an issue to justify subverting the city's housing market. That is, in effect, what advocates are, well, advocating. When they demand that low-income people/families be shoe-horned into neighbourhoods and housing projects intended for higher-income homeowners, they are disrupting a price mechanism that allocates, and should be allowed to allocate, resources according to their most efficient economic use. To do otherwise simply wastes these housing resources, directing housing dollars away from their most economic use. This is not rocket science, folks, just basic economics.

And the end result of this free-lunch mentality, this welfare program in disguise, will be, ironically, higher housing costs and less affordable housing.

What is perhaps most repugnant about "affordable housing" is the belief of its proponents that it's alright to shove the costs of such a social policy onto some homeowners -- those who face higher costs to subsidize the welfare housing in their midst -- rather than spread it across society in the form of a subsidy to people having trouble finding housing they can afford. That would at least be an honest, honourable and economically sensible approach to the alleged problem. Unfortunately, I've yet to come accross a candidate who has either the courage or wit to support such an approach.

[FunkyBunch]

Geez, talk about word twisting.

I never said 45% of Kelowna's population couldn't afford to live here. I said 45% of Kelowna's population is LOW-INCOME. This doesn't mean that they can't afford reasonable rent, it means they may need some rental units to drive the rental prices down and increase affordability.

I never said I expected everyone to be able to live in a SFD (single-family detached) home. I am against people who think suites are worse than Satan for their neighborhood. If they don't have to park on the street I'm okay with it. I've lived in neighborhoods with suites, and it's the people in the suite that determine if they fit in with the neighborhood or not. I've met far more obnoxious home-owners making a disturbance than people who rent a suite in house where the owner lives.

I also never said I expected everyone to be able to own a SFD home. I just want it a little easier for people and families who don't make $30k/year to be able to afford a decent home (rental or otherwise).

I've been there, and I know how much it sucks to raise a family on less than $30k/year here.

For those of you saying "Well, if you can't afford just move!" Get a hold of yourselves people. If someone can barely afford to rent a one or 2 bedroom apartment how do expect them to be able to pay for a move out of the city!? Moves are EXPENSIVE. For the average family to move, it takes about 3 months worth of rent.

I want affordable housing for "low-income" families NOT free housing for the homeless.

If the city can introduce new convenience programs, pay $100k+ for a friggin bridge party, pay close to $600k for a few new tennis courts this year alone, it can afford to do something that helps people instead. These are just a very few examples of how we (as a city) could afford to do more without taxing those who can afford to own their home more.

There are countless other ways the city could save money, and not cut essential services, to make a difference to families who need just a little help.

To make myself perfectly clear, I personally do not need the sort of help I'm advocating for.

[Homeownertoo]

FunnyBunch, it's too bad you picked up on the style rather than the substance of my posting, which is that adequate, affordable housing is not a major issue in Kelowna. One can always find isolated examples of people inadequately housed. The issue is, how do you deal with that. Do we subsidize these low-income people under existing provincial/federal programs, as I suggested? Or do we let civic politicians dredge up tried-and-failed schemes that replace the market/price system with bureaucratic edicts? You don't say which you prefer, but programs that distort markets will only lead to inefficient allocation of housing dollars. How that makes housing more affordable is beyond my limited comprehension. At any rate, the market is already dealing with the affordability issues, as prices have begun to drop precipitously.

BTW, don't take that 45% figure too seriously. The low-income concept is rigged to begin with, as I would hope you know. Also, Kelowna has an extensive underground, cash-basis economy that under-reports actual incomes. And you may have heard that we have some retirees, like myself, here. Most of us live on a combination of pensions and savings that, again, understates actual reported incomes.

Finally, I never said everyone should have a SFD. Re-read what I actually wrote.

My apologies to Shelley for taking over her forum with this back and forth. This will be my final posting here on this topic.

[FunkyBunch]

My last post here also. I didn't mean to take the thread into one of affordable housing only.

I'm not really sure how to put it so everyone understands. I would rather see some of the cities resources, be put to low-income family only projects. The subsidies as they stand, don't really help the people they are intended to. Also the "affordable housing" that the city is forcing on developers isn't helping.

I want to see medium to large scale rental apartments that aren't holes-in-the-wall. Take the subsidies that the renter's would normally get and have the money allocated to help pay for the building. If the government is giving subsidies for people to pay their rent, why not have some of that money go back into a city funded project?

If the city owned to project, they could help the renters apply for the subsidies available, and any money not needed to maintain the property can be set-aside for further developments.

In short, I'd like to see providing Low-Income housing as a "business" the city could grow. No Free Lunches would be required.

Sorry for taking over your thread Shelley.

[Snick]

No problem using my thread to discuss the issue. Thanks for a good discussion with some interesting points. Affordable housing is on many people's minds and, as you all pointed out, there are various ways to address it and interpret it. Governments at any level have to be careful wading into it to make sure they're not solving a current issue, by creating a long-term one.

I've said I would prefer to encourage people to own their own homes (house or condo) in a free market; that is the most sustainable and secure for people. Subsidized housing helps those who can't afford to get in the market, but it doesn't give them an opportunity to build on their investment, which other homeowners can. Still, it is the best alternative for those on fixed incomes, especially some seniors.

The falling house prices will help some starting out, but many in Kelowna don't have the incomes (which is really the issue) to afford something suitable. One reason I support secondary suites (in certain more densified areas with neighbours consent) is that it allows people to own their own home with the income from a suite. Plus it puts more rental housing on the market. I've heard loud and clear, however, that many are concerned about falling property values with suites in their neighbourhoods. Council has to be sensitive to that (ie, don't create another problem trying to solve one, as above).

Still, I've heard too many sad stories about working people not being able to find something decent they can afford for their family and, I believe as a community, it's in our best interest to help them as we can. Affordable housing affects everyone, including businesses who can't attract skilled workers because of the cost of housing.

Thanks for your input and your interest in the issue. No matter what side you're on with affordable housing, you've shown you care about your community. That's important.

Shelley.

[Angie March]

Choose your candidates carefully! Be sure to put Shelley on your "people to vote for" list. Shelley will make you proud. She has sound smart advice for what should be done. Her critical thinking skills are high above the rest. Shelley is very interactive with community events and issues and keeps on top of current issues. Having written about some of the most important issues in our city in both the Daily Courier and the Capital News keeps Shelley's fingers on the pulse. She's the one to vote for, no question about it!
-Angie-

[leroibrown]

I quite agree. Shelley is a thinker and belongs on our council. She has so much to offer, and is a very positive person from what I've read and heard. I will definitely be voting for her.

[catbird]

Hello everyone reading these posts late in the race...just like cramming for an exam! I believe we have a golden candidate for our Kelowna council and all voters should choose Shelley Nicholl!!!

Shelley will be an important asset to the council chambers as she for one is not "cramming" at the last minute to figure out how to look out for Kelowna's best interests. She has been living and breathing Kelowna's nitty gritty issues for many years. Her research skills into important issues have been proven over and over again in her newspaper columns. She knows how to dig deep into the issues to get to the bottom of what's what and has a real understanding of the history of Kelowna's issues since she's been covering them for years.
She's not squeaky new in town and not old and mouldy and stubborn. She'll be a fresh face on council with a positive attitude and the determination to make very well informed sound choices for the citizens of Kelowna. She has a good solid head on her shoulders which will enrich our Kelowna council chambers!
Everyone get out tomorrow and vote for Shelley Nicholl.
Go Shelley Go!!!

[nkb2]

Great thread here,

Looks like we all have issues that concern us, with the way that the city has been, and where it needs to go.

Everything I've heard from Shelley has indicated to me that she understands the issues. While she has no magic bullets for all these complex issues, you have to agree that having that perspective is the most important thing for providing us citizens with the best representation we could hope for.

She has my vote.

thx-concerned citizen

PS Vote!

[leroibrown]

I'm sorry to see Shelley never made the top eight. It looks like Kelowna residents want more of the same as all the incumbents got re-elected. Very sad to see that. I thought Kelowna citizens wanted change but it seems they do not. Very disappointing. Sorry Shelley. Better luck next time should you choose to try again in three years time. I hope you do as you would have been a great councillor. You have common sense which is something our council has been lacking in the recent past. I will likely not be around for the next election as I plan on moving on to greener pastures. I do not want to watch the incumbents run the show again. I was hoping they would all be ousted. I did vote for you though. Only two of the council choices I made actually got elected. It was a valiant effort on your part for giving it a shot. Take care.

[CarMa]

I'm disappointed, too, Shelley. We lost you as a trustee to the council election and I'm sorry that you didn't win.

I hope we'll see you back in the reporter's seat!