CRD Watch Homepage

The Political Panic Behind Council’s James Bay Rejection

Arthur McInnis,
April 11, 2026


According to Andrew Duffy’s recent piece in the Times Colonist, “Victoria nixes 17-unit James Bay rental,” the City Council just voted 6-2 to kill a proposed five-storey, rental building at 50 Government Street in James Bay. After dragging the developer through nine rounds of staff revisions, the Council abruptly decided the project was “too big for the site,” citing 1.5-metre side setbacks and sudden concerns over ground ladder access for firefighters. 

From Rubber Stamp to Roadblock

Do not be fooled by this sudden display of prudence. This post breaks down why this uncharacteristic rejection is nothing more than performative. After years of rubber-stamping nearly every development big or small and radically upzoning the entire city far beyond provincial mandates, a deeply worried Council is now weaponising “fire safety.” They are desperately trying to manufacture a facade of reasonable, measured leadership to appease a mounting voter backlash.

Contrasting Council Approaches

The sudden pivot on the James Bay project creates a stark contradiction with the Council’s established legislative record. Historically, this Council has operated as a reliable “yes” for developers.  Mayor Alto herself has approved projects more than 99 percent of the time. Their abrupt 6-2 decision to kill a modest 17-unit missing-middle rental project is completely out of character.

The Illusion of Prudence

This performative shift is glaring when you examine the Council’s specific justifications. Mayor Marianne Alto’s claim that staff recommendations “carry a lot of weight with her” is entirely contradicted by her aggressively pro-development voting record, not to mention how I have seen she often treats staff recommendations. This Council has historically approved massive multi-site developments and celebrated hitting 224% of provincial housing targets in the first year, routinely ignoring neighbourhood concerns in the name of rapid densification. Feigning strict adherence to staff setback guidelines now for a modest five-storey building after nine rounds of revisions is well…a little rich.

Similarly, Councillor Susan Kim’s critique of the developer for only offering a studio apartment at below-market rates, rather than two-or three-bedroom family units, ignores the economic realities of small-scale development. Demanding below-market three-bedroom apartments in a constrained, 17-unit build ignores the financial math that caused the City to slash its own inclusionary housing requirements from 20% to 10% just a few years ago.

Councillors Dell and Thompson

Councillors Dave Thompson and Matt Dell voted in favour of the 50 Government Street project because doing so is entirely consistent with their established voting records and political ideologies.

Unprecedented Pro-Development Records

Both Thompson and Dell are part of the Council’s dominant pro-development bloc and possess virtually flawless records of approving new housing. Data compiled tracking the Council’s voting history shows that Dave Thompson votes “in favour” of developments an astonishing 99.8% of the time, tying him for the highest approval rate on the Council. Matt Dell is right behind him, voting “in favour” 99.4% of the time. For Thompson and Dell, voting to advance a 17-unit rental project, even one requiring variances, is standard operating procedure. Their philosophy is that the urgent need for new housing supply supersedes almost all localised neighbourhood  concerns or architectural non-conformities.

Ideological Alignment with Homes for Living

Both Councillors are closely ideologically aligned with “Homes for Living,” our local “pro-housing” lobby group. While Homes for Living states they are a mix of community volunteers, policy analysts, and citizens (including developers and politicians in their public forums), their core mission is to push local councils to legalise density, eliminate exclusionary zoning, and approve more housing.

Prior to being elected, Thompson was highly active in community land use and neighbourhood improvement committees. He campaigns heavily on “enabling housing choice” and building dense, walkable “15-minute communities”. He has consistently argued that rejecting projects like 50 Government Street wastes time and delays the delivery of desperately needed homes.

Dell also comes from a neighbourhood association background and champions “housing affordability” and “15-minute communities” as well. He views aggressive densification as the primary lever to solve the city’s housing crisis.

Why They Dissented

During the previous December 2024 vote that barely kept the 50 Government Street project alive (in a 5-4 vote), Thompson spoke to the effect that the need for new rental housing units trumped neighbourhood outrage. Their recent dissenting votes against killing the project simply reflect their unwavering commitment to that principle. Unlike the rest of the Council, which abruptly abandoned its pro-development posture to reject the project over supposed setback and ladder access concerns, Thompson and Dell remained perfectly consistent with their ideological mandate to approve density despite the policy implications.

Weaponising Fire Safety

The sudden weaponisation of emergency access is perhaps the most cynical element of this rejection. Rejecting this development over the angle of ground ladders for firefighters is a clear case of administrative double standards. For years, this Council has ignored alarming macro-level data, such as predictive modelling which proves that regional emergency responders are already stretched to their absolute limits by the City’s rapid densification.

Rather than addressing this systemic capacity crisis through proper strategic funding and a robust Fire Department Master Plan, they conveniently invoked “fire safety” to reject a single 17-unit building. Using 1.5-metre side setbacks as a paramount, deal-breaking hazard on top of that while simultaneously greenlighting massive high-rises across the city demonstrates that “safety” is merely a convenient political excuse.

Regulatory Hypocrisy and Political Panic

Their treatment of the 50 Government St. proposal flies in the face of their own aggressive zoning mandates. This is the exact same Council that championed sweeping Official Community Plan (OCP) changes, pushing density limits far beyond the province’s Bill 44 to legalise a ten-fold multi-unit housing  plan “as of right”. Despite their loud public commitment to eliminating bureaucratic red tape for missing-middle housing, they forced this modest proposal through an agonising nine rounds of staff revisions before ultimately killing it.

The core explanation for this uncharacteristic rejection is simple.  This Council is politically terrified and deservedly so. They are attempting to lead as “reasonable regulators” when their entire history proves they are not. Killing this minor development provides a low-stakes opportunity to project architectural responsibility, directly contradicting the rubber-stamping behaviour they have exhibited since being seated. The stark contrast between their sweeping legislative upzoning and their micro-level obstruction of this project reveals the Mayor and come Councillors abandoning their own long-held principles to project a false image of themselves.

—————————————————————————————————

See also:

Ebycrats by Arthur McInnis – CRD Watch Homepage

Marianne Alto and the Problem of Apparatchik Governance in Victoria, by Arthur McInnis – CRD Watch Homepage

Index of Articles and other Media Coverage about Homes For Living – CRD Watch Homepage

Why Setbacks Matter: Protecting the Green Heart of Saanich, by M. Rose Munro – CRD Watch Homepage