Minimum parking requirments for 4-pack and 6-pack townhouses?

Gordon Price is one of the most prominent urban thinkers in this city, and I am always interested to see the latest posts on his blog pricetags. Today, it's an item about a recent decision in Seattle to reduce parking requirements for new townhouses in certain neighbourhoods in Seattle, covering about 8% of the city. The goal is to deter the development of 'four packs' and 'six-packs' which is the somewhat derogatory term used to describe higher density townhouses that are often built as infill developments on 50 and 60 foot lots.

The homes are usually built in two rows, one fronting the street, and one fronting the lane. In between is an 'auto-court' that leads to garages under the units. Sometimes the units have their principal entrances off the 'auto-court'. While the area between the units can be quite tight, and the 'auto-court' can be bleak, the concept is clever, in that it allows townhouses to be built on small lots in an incremental fashion.

A few weeks ago I went to Seattle to explore neighbourhoods offering this form of development. I took some photos which I shared with a few people around Vancouver. However, Gordon's post has prompted me to post a few photos here. There is no doubt that eliminating the parking requirements will significantly improve the design of these projects; however I can understand why many Vancouver neighbourhoods would not support zero parking....although with suitable design, I think they might support some four-pack and six-pack projects with appropriate design.
Here is another project that is not as attractive from the street, but does have a better courtyard character.While I have been advocating for years that we should consider making our minimum parking standards the maximum standards, I am the first to admit that completely eliminating parking requirements for townhouse developments may be going a bit too far, too quickly. That being said, I do support eliminating parking (except for visitor requirements) for some very well located apartment projects, if a developer is willing to take on the market challenge. After all, eliminating underground parking in a dense urban centre can save $50,000 from the cost of building a small apartment.

Now, as for the four-packs and six-packs, I am actively looking for a Metro Vancouver site where I might be able to design and develop an improved 'Vancouver version' of this form of townhouse infill project as a 'demonstration project'. With improved design, I think it would be an excellent housing choice for those wanting a ground oriented form of development, at a price comparable to an apartment.

So if you know of, or have a 50 or 60 foot lot for sale in an area that might be suitable for rezoning, just let me know. I'll be happy to buy the property, or partner with someone interested in rezoning and redevelopment, and possibly moving into one of the units, and/or keeping one or more as a future investment. I can always be reached at geller@sfu.ca.

Happy Chanukah, or whatever!

Chanukah, which is how I was brought up to spell it, is often considered the Jewish version of Christmas. It begins at sundown tonight, and continues for 8 nights. From Wikipedia:

Hanukkah also romanized as Chanukah, also known as the Festival of Lights is an eight-day Jewish holiday commemorating the rededication of the Holy Temple (the Second Temple) in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabean Revolt of the 2nd century BCE. Hanukkah is observed for eight nights, starting on the 25th day of Kislev according to the Hebrew calendar, which may occur at any time from late November to late December.

The festival is observed by the kindling of the lights of a unique candelabrum, the nine-branched Menorah or Hanukiah, one additional light on each night of the holiday, progressing to eight on the final night.

From the Hebrew word for "dedication" or "consecration", Hanukkah marks the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem (Second Temple) after its desecration by the forces of the King of Syria Antiochus IV Epiphanes and commemorates the "miracle of the container of oil". According to the Talmud, at the re-dedication following the victory of the Maccabees over the Seleucid Empire, there was only enough consecrated olive oil to fuel the eternal flame in the Temple for one day. Miraculously, the oil burned for eight days, which was the length of time it took to press, prepare and consecrate fresh olive oil.

In my house, Chanukah is celebrated with my children and their friends, and lots of fried foods, along with some smoked salmon, smoked meats, and dreidels! It's a wonderful, happy holiday.

There's something wrong with Market Dimensions' City of Vancouver Budget Survey Report

In preparation for a discussion re the forthcoming City of Vancouver budget deliberations on Bill Good's CKNW Civic Affairs Panel, I decided to read the Budget Survey Report commissioned by the city. I was suprised by some of the statements in the Executive Summary.

For example, on page 7, the Exec Summary says residents think the city should pay more attention to green projects or infrastructure....including placing charging stations in public areas for electric vehicles. For the life of me, I couldn't believe that Vancouver residents thought this was something warranting further attention. So I started to plow through the detailed statistics in the appendix, but never found any clear support for this. But more importantly,

On page 4 it says "after a declining trend in the past two surveys, signs of recovery are evident in residents' perceptions about the change in quality of city services. While 28.1% see a decline, 37.1% think the quality has improved.....

HOWEVER, at the top of page 61, the detailed survey results show that 46% say things are worse or much worse. In fact, whereas during the past 11 years only 4% to 8% said things were much worse, this year 35% said things were much worse. 35%! And yet this is completely ignored in the Executive Summary.

I think there is something wrong with the Executive Summary of this report, and I invite people to review the document themselves and let me know if I am mistaken. And if I am not wrong, then I would like to know why a professional firm would present such a distorted view to the public and City staff and Council. You can find the document at http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20101130/documents/rr1_appendix2.pdf

Dundarave Festival of Lights: November 28 to January 7, 2011

I spent a good part of Saturday with my daughter Georgia and former Vancouver Social Planner Susan Anderson decorating a Christmas Tree as part of the Dundarave Festival of Lights. Geller Properties, which is proposing an infill development in the 2000 Block of Esquimalt Avenue is happy to be a Tree Sponsor. Funds raised from the sponsors support the North Shore Emergency Lookout Shelter, providing services to the homeless and those in need. Yes, sadly, there are people on the North Shore in need too.

Susan was happy to help out since she lives across the lane from the proposed redevelopment and wants to see it approved. Like many West Vancouver residents, she knows there is a growing need for more well-designed housing choices in the area.

The Dundarave Festival of Lights can be found at the foot of 25th Street and continues until January 7th. A number of different events are planned including a Christmas Wassail and Bonfire Night on December 18th. Details can be found at http://www.dundaravefestival.com/ Thanks Georgia for helping out. And congratulations to Mary and all the organizers for what seems like a very well organized and successful event.

Helping the Homeless: a few propositions and provocations

France Bula reported this morning that the City and Province have reached an agreement on the funding for additional homeless shelters this winter. While I was pleased to read this, I couldn't help but think about some other cost effective approaches that might be worthy of further consideration to help the homeless. So here's what I posted on Frances' Blog. I'd welcome any comments, or better still, I'd encourage anyone who agrees with some of these ideas to help promote them and make them happen.

When I first started volunteering with the Building Community Society in the DTES, my first proposition was that we should build more shelters as a short term solution. I was attacked by a number of community organizers for proposing this, noting that shelters are nothing more than stop-gap. But the realty is that they are an effective way to get people off the streets. I think the current administration should be complimented for getting some new shelters in operation. But they can be surprisingly expensive to operate, so other solutions are required.

Two years ago this administration also supported proposals from Gregory Henriquez and myself to create additional housing stock using prefabricated modular housing, located on ‘temporary sites’. It could then be relocated to other future development sites. I was encouraged by the city’s interest; however, other than a subsequent announcement by Kerry Jang that he would like to explore the idea further, nothing has happened. I have offered to meet with Kerry Jang and Dennis Carr in the housing department to discuss this approach further. Both indicated an interest in getting together, and I expect to meet with them in the coming weeks.

However, the real purpose for this note is to suggest some other things that the Mayor and city could be doing, in concert with the Province, the private sector, and the non-profit sector to further address homelessness. I have written about some of these ideas before, but here they are again, since they may warrant further consideration.

1. house the homeless in existing apartments, rather than wait for purpose built housing to be completed. This is the approach followed by Toronto’s Streets to Homes program, with considerable success. In addition to getting instant housing, Toronto also arranged for a variety of support services. This program took more than 2000 people off Toronto’s streets in a cost effective way. I don’t understand why we haven’t tried it. To those who say it’s because we don’t have available rental stock, I say, nonesense. We have hundreds of units coming available every month…many would be suitable.

2. help create more employment. I have supported Shirley Chan’s BOB and EMBERS in the DTES. I am convinced that with a concerted effort by City Hall, these organizations and others could do much more. We need to talk about this, and do something about it. While I appreciate many of the homeless are not able to work a full time job, or even a part time job, many could benefit from some employment programs. Christmas is a time when many of us feel a bit more charitable…perhaps we can help get a few more people working.

3. one reason the homeless have a hard time getting a job is that they don’t have an address, and they don’t have suitable clothes and they often need support with hygiene. Since the shelters do not offer an ‘address’, I would like to think that we could come up with a creative way to give people an address, if only for the purposes of job applications. Why not Post Office boxes for the homeless who want them? the city doesn’t have to provide them…just promote the idea.

Similarly, the city could be helping people get cleaned up…..why aren’t there free barber shops for anyone who wants to get a haircut and shave in order to get out and find work? Again, the city doesn’t need to hire barbers and hairdressers…just be a catalyst…talk about the idea, promote it and it may well happen. there are lots of retired barbers and hairdressers who I suspect would be happy to help out…

Similarly, the city could help find clothing for those who need clothes… Many of us have clothes we would happily donate to those looking to keep warm or clean themselves up to get work. Often, we just need a nudge and info on where to take things to follow up. I think the city could work with other social agencies to help in this effort.

Many people can’t find work because they need dental work and other similar assistance. Again, I know there are some volunteer programs operating in the DTES, but we need more. I’d like to think the city could make this sort of thing happen. Perhaps what is needed is a public call to get dentists to help out, in the DTES, or in their own offices. I’m convinced that some real help could be offered in a short period of time.

4. family/friend reunification..I know that many are on the streets to escape unhappy family lives. But many more have cousins and uncles or grandparents or just friends with whom they might like to be reunited, if only they had some encouragement and assistance. There are lots of us who love surfing the internet who could volunteer some time to help people reconnect. I am told the Salvation Army has such a program…But so much more could be done. Just as libraries have a day when people can bring back their overdue books without fines, we should establish a day when people are encouraged to reestablish overdue relationships.

I’m sure some of you are probably thinking that I have lost my mind by suggesting that the Mayor should be doing some of these things…

I know that many people have mental illnesses and addictions that need to be addressed. These are major challenges. But I know there have been successes in other communities with the kind of programs I am suggesting.

I would like to think that this Mayor, with all of the publicity and attention his office can muster, could and should play a role in promoting a broad range of intiatives to help improve the lives of the homeless and destitute. And why not do so at this particular time of year.

Last year Pete McMartin, one of my favourite columnists, wrote about school kids who helped create Holiday Greeting Cards for the homeless and others in the DTES to send to family and friends…they got stamps and helped find addresses …. it was a lovely story and I’m convinced that so much more could be done along these lines.

So to conclude, yes it is important to build new, suitable designed permanent housing. And yes, additional shelters are helpful, especially if they have lockers (and too many do not). And yes we need more facilities for those with mental illnesses and addictions…..

But there are many more small, complimentary things that could be done. They take leadership and caring, and I’d like to see some of these ideas discussed, and if valid, implemented this holiday season.

Official Opening! University Highlands Elementary School

It's not often that I spend Tuesday morning in a school gymnasium with Andrew Petter, George Abbott and Derek Corrigan listening to 175 children singing a song. But that's what happened this past Tuesday as hundreds of public officials, proud parents, and local residents gathered to hear the ringing of school bells to celebrate the official opening of the first new school at UniverCity.

As one of the onlookers said to me, it's gratifying to see a dream come true.

Here's the story.

While there is much talk these days about the City's Olympic Village in South East False Creek, many people forget about the City's highly successful first phase redevelopment of the South Shore of False Creek which began in the 70's. I worked on this new community as the Federal Government's Special Coordinator. To ensure a broad social and economic mix, it too had a high level of social engineering. In order to attract families to what had been a derelict industrial area, the city planners included a school as part of the intial phase of development. If you take a look, it was designed to look not unlike the adjacent housing development, the False Creek Cooperative.

Twenty five years later, when I was appointed President of the SFU Community Trust, I wanted a new school to be an integral part of the new community at SFU, and built as part of the first phases of development. I was convinced that this would help attract new families and contribute to the sense of a complete community.

During the initial planning charrette when three different architectural teams developed conceptual plans, it became obvious to me that the best location for the new school had unfortunately already been taken.... by the East Academic Anex, part of the university. However, as one of my early professors once suggested, "If you have a mistake, make a feature of it".

In this case, I decided to approach the university administration with the proposition that the building be converted to an elementary school. I suggested this might accelerate the timing of the school, and contribute to the community's proclaimed 'sustainability', since the most sustainable building is one that is already built!

As you can appreciate, this led to a lot of head scratching and complex negotiations involving the Minister of Education, the Minister of Advanced Education, the City of Burnaby and its School Board and many others. But where there's a will there's a way, and while it took a lot longer than I would have liked, thanks to the efforts of MLA Harry Bloy and many, many others, the school opened this fall with 175 students. At the opening, Greg Frank, with whom I worked many hours on the school planning advised me that there is already a need to think about expansion!

UniverCity has been founded on four cornerstones of sustainability: environment, economy, equity and....education. Now the fourth cornerstone has been realized. Congratulations to Gordon Harris, President and CEO, and David Gillanders, Chair of the Board of Directors for making it all happen. And thanks to former President Michael Stevenson and all those university officials who didn't do their best to get me fired when I suggested converting much needed academic space into an elementary school!

ps...The if you look at the two illustrations above, you'll observe that the elementary school, including its signage, is quite similar to the conceptual drawing prepared by Paul Nowarre ten years ago...although there is a slight change in the name of the school!

Olympic Village in Receivership: Now What?

Here is the announcement made by the city on Wednesday:

The City of Vancouver and Millennium agree to receiver

The City of Vancouver and Millennium Southeast False Creek Properties, the company that owns the Millennium Water development, have today negotiated an agreement that will see Ernst & Young Inc. appointed as the receiver for the company. Ernst & Young Inc. will assume control of Millennium Southeast False Creek Properties and the Millennium Water development

Over the past few days, many media outlets and people have been asking me why this happened, and what it means. Since I am not a lawyer or accountant, I must confess that I do not fully understand what exactly has been agreed upon, or why. Furthermore, I think it is easy to misunderstand what is really happening, and what might happen. However, here are a few questions and answers, along with some specific recommendations for the city. I would encourage those who have a better understanding of the situation to correct me where I am wrong.

Why have there been so few sales since the sales program started last spring?

I think there are a number of reasons why the sales program was so unsuccessful. For one thing, the prices were too high. Who set the prices at this level? The developer and Rennie, in conjunction with the city in its capacity as the lender. Why were the prices so high? Presumably to recover the increased construction and development costs and generate enough revenue to pay off the city loan and make some profit for the developer.

Another reason for the poor sales was the 'ghost town' feeling. This is a challenge faced by many new communities including the first phase redevelopment of South Shore False Creek and St. Lawrence in the 70's, and more recently, the first phases of UniverCity at SFU.

What is particularly odd in this case is the status of the 252 city developed 'social housing' and rental housing units. These units were completed prior to the Olympics, and could have been occupied as soon as the Olympics were over.

While I suggested last November that the city should sell, rather than keep these units, at that time city staff and members of Council essentially agreed to keep the units, rather than sell them.

However, rather than select the operator last November, as they were urged to do, the City chose to wait until late summer before issuing a Proposal Call to select non-profit owners and managers. As we now know, given the city's business terms and other considerations, only three proposals were received, and all were rightly rejected by the Province. Now, you might ask why was the province involved. It was involved since it was being asked by the city to guarantee the loans the non-profit operators required to purchase the projects from the city.

While many want to blame the Campbell and Sullivan administrations for the current situation facing the Village, one thing is undeniable. It was this administration that allowed these units to remain empty for almost nine months. And the fact that they were empty contributed to the 'ghost town' feeling and project controversy that most definitely affected sales. The uncertainty as to who would manage and live in the social housing units was also a factor affecting sales.

While some people want to blame the province for allowing these units to remain empty, I think this is ridiculous. The city owned the units and it should have put arrangements in place to ensure they were occupied as soon as the Olympics were over.

Bob Rennie claims to have been trying to get the city to allow him to reduce prices for the past four months, but the city would not let him. Why?

The city did not allow the Rennie Marketing campaign to proceed because if the units were sold at the lower prices being proposed, Millennium would not receive enough money from the sales proceeds to pay off the city’s loan and outstanding land payment. For this reason, the city wanted the developer to put up additional equity to secure the loan and land payment. The developer was not prepared to do this.

Now, some might ask why would the developer and Rennie even propose a sales program that would not generate enough money to pay off the loans…and expect the city to accept it (as lender). One explanation is that they did not expect all the units to be sold at the lower prices. Rather, the reduced prices would be used to resurrect the sales program, and start to create ‘momentum’ in the sales.

Why did the city and developer agree to the appointment of a receiver?

Some city officials have been saying in confidence that this development has been in a 'soft receivership' for some time. However, given the poor condominium sales, it was increasingly evident that the developer would not be able to meet his next loan payments. While he did try to sell the 119 rental units that he owned, there were no buyers at the price being asked. While he could have sold the retail spaces, their value was less certain given the current situation. With few residents, there was only one commercial tenant (Canada Trust) and uncertainty as to when the others might move in. Furthermore, not all the space was leased.

If the developer did not pay up, the city would have had the right to go to court and this would have set in motion what may well have been a very unfortunate chain of events, no doubt involving lawsuits from both sides. This could have further delayed any sales activity. I don't think either side really wanted a lawsuit, especially since the city's very substantial control and decision making related to the project would have been exposed for all to see. While an extensive legal process might have allowed the city to recover more cash and assets from the developer to offset its potential losses, on balance the parties agreed it was best to reach a more amicable settlement.

Frankly, I think this was the right thing to do. Just as I hate family divorces that result in significant legal fees and ill-feeling, I would not have liked to see an extended legal battle between the city and the Maleks, who I like and believe to be very genuine in their desire to create good communities. There is no doubt that both sides were to blame for the current situation. What I will be interested to know, however, is just what additional monies and properties did the city get in return for effectively forgiving the outstanding land payment of $171 million, and allowing the developer to walk away from its other obligations.

What is the financial condition of the project?

None of us know for certain the value of the unsold condominiums, the rental building and the retail space. However, Rob Macdonald did put forth his estimate of values in his October 16, 2010 Op-Ed article in the Vancouver Sun. The full article was posted on this blog on October 16 , but here is his assessment of the situation:

So what is the real financial condition of this project? The value of the market condos after paying sales commissions, marketing costs and further interest charges is about $500 million. In addition, the extra residential rental tower and the commercial space in the project are together worth about $70 million, so the total net asset value is about $570 million.

The city now owes about $530 million on its debt, so the surplus of about $40 million could be applied to the remaining purchase price for the land on which the developer purportedly still owes the city $170 million.

So now what will the city do?

Ironically, we may now see the city do the same thing with Rennie, that the Maleks wanted to do…lower prices to get the sales underway, and then increase prices as there is more interest and confidence in the project.

However, there are other options. The city could sell some of the units as a block to another developer, who would then undertake their sale. While this might not seem like a viable way to recover the costs, since the units would be sold ‘wholesale’ rather than ‘retail’, it might be worthwhile exploring, especially since there may be some international buyers willing to buy a block of units at prices much higher than what a local developer might pay.

When I was in Shanghai this past summer, there was considerable interest in how one might buy some of the Olympic Village units. While I am sure some local politicians and officials would cringe at the thought of marketing the project overseas, as Roger Bayley, one of the project designers has very publicly noted, the project is held in much higher regard around the world than it is here, at the moment.

Renting vs. Selling?

Both Rennie and the city have indicated that they might not sell all the units. Rather, they may well chose to rent some of them, until market conditions improve, in order to bring life to the community. This will have pros and cons. One of the pros is that it might help populate the community, and reduce the ‘ghost town’ feeling. And indeed, it could well be that in time the units will sell for considerably more than at current prices.

However, while I do not know all the numbers, the market rents that might be achieved will not cover the financing costs, strata fees and property taxes for these apartments…especially the more expensive apartments. Indeed, in some cases the rents may only cover 1/3 to 1/2 of the costs, (and this assumes that the city has a very attractive borrowing rate, and the operating costs for these very energy efficient units will be lower than normal.) The city will also be losing property taxes from the community, and potentially upset some of the people who have already bought, since they did not expect to be living in a community nwith a large rental component.

Furthermore, one should not underestimate the challenges of renting these units at acceptable rent levels. My understanding is that not all of the 119 Millennium rental units are yet leased (at rental rates averaging $2.40 a square foot), and we now have another 126 city owned rental units coming to market.

Should these 126 city owned rental units now be sold? Of course they should be, so that we can offset some of our losses. However, the city is now in the process of negotiating with the Coop Housing Foundation to convert some into a coop. Some may ask why I think they would they sell when the expensive condos have not? Because they could be sold at $600 a foot, while other units are currently priced at twice this price. As Rennie boasted yesterday, he has sold over 400 units on a site adjacent to the Olympic Village, at very similar prices. (Yes, these are pre-sales, but I am convinced the OV rental and yes, Social Housing units could have been sold as finished product, if brought to market.) Maybe the receiver can convince the city to reconsider this option once it realizes just how much money we could lose.

Recommendations

I expect that the receiver, in consultation with the city and Rennie will start ‘crunching the numbers’ to determine which units should be sold, and at what prices, and which should be rented. Presumably they will also consider 'block sales' to other local or international developers.

While I know that neither the city nor Rennie were particularly impressed with my previous suggestions as to how best increase revenues, I do have a few more suggestions which I hope will be considered.

In addition to rebranding...it may be time to change the name from Millennium Water to something else, and repositioning the marketing materials...I would also redo some of the display suites which, to my mind, were more about showing off the designers than showing off the suites. Many of the 'look at me' furnishings are too large for the rooms, something any of the city's many fine apartment stagers can attest to. Here are three more ideas:

1. Increase the value of Millennium's 119 unit Rental Housing Apartments

Over the past few months, Millennium has preparing to sell its 119 rental housing units to another investor. The city could increase the value of these units by allowing them to be 'strata-titled' now, and sold-off after a predetermined date. Say five or ten years. SFU did the same thing with the Cornerstone Rental units at UniverCity, with considerable success.

This could add tens of millions of dollars in value, without affecting the current lease up program, since few, if any renters are expecting to be in these units for 10 years.


2. Offer Innovative and Creative Financing Programs: Rent to Own, Shared Equity, Shared Ownership, etc.

I do not think the city should be renting out too many more units. On the contrary, more owner-occupiers will benefit the community character and the value of the other condominium homes.

While we tend to think in terms of buying or renting, there are many 'hybrid' forms of tenure elsewhere in the world, especially in the UK and US. These programs often allow people to purchase homes that they might not otherwise be able to afford through 'shared ownership'. While such programs may not be appropriate for the very high priced units, they could be effective for the lower priced units. Furthermore, when properly structured, these arrangements need not cost the partnering agency money.

In this case, while the prices may be lower in the beginning, the city would recover the balance of the purchase price over time. And the city does have a long term horizon. While I generally prefer to avoid programs that depend on price appreciation, in this case, given the nature of the area, I think it is reasonable to assume that values will increase over time.

From Wikipedia:

Equity sharing, also known as shared ownership or in the US as housing equity partnership (HEP), allows a person to purchase a share in their home even if they cannot afford a mortgage on the whole of the current value. It is generally used in affordable housing, providing a "third way" of land tenure between home ownership and renting.

There are various detailed methods to implement equity sharing, and it is implemented in over a hundred community land trusts in the United States. The remaining equity share may be held by the housebuilder or by a landlord such as a housing association. In some models the resident pays rent on that share.

3. Enliven the Community

As I wrote in previous posts, and reported by Jeff Lee in the Vancouver Sun, in order to accelerate sales there is a need to create more community life. This means more than just filling up units. It is necessary to get more retailers in place, if only on an interim basis, to provide services and activity. For example, there are no cafes or places to eat at the moment. Why not set up businesses in the vacant spaces? I'm told that the Salt Building was going to be a pub, but the tenant has decided not to proceed. If this is true, why not set up a temporary pub operation in the large space, until a permanent tenant is ready to lease and undertake costly improvements?

The city also needs to carry out some repairs and improvements. Unfortunately, a vehicle has driven into one of the columns ourside of a future retail space, breaking the pre-cast panels. This and other deficiencies need to be repaired right away. The city should also finish off the landscaping it was planning to do. It should also remove the gravel areas along First Avenue and ugly chain link fencing surrounding its social housing/rental projects. Now that the Hornby Bicycle Lane is almost finished, those crews should be mandated to upgrade the grounds around the Olympic Village with a similar level of diligence and haste. Other landscaping needs upgrading and improving. Much could be done to improve the general look of the neighbourhood.

The city should also start planning a program of festivals, sustainability fairs, and other events to bring people down to the area. We could start with a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony and other similar activities. While I know the sales program may not start until February, let's not put this off too long. If nothing else, the city owes it to those residents who have moved in to see a better community environment.

And finally, the city should instruct its traffic wardens never to ticket and tow cars parked in front of the presentation centre ever again. This is not good for sales!

I hope this is helpful.