2.) Neighborhoods in Vancouver were decided long ago and they mostly developed around racist an exclusionary ideology, these “communities” exist simply to separate the haves from the have-nots. Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth, the city has grown where it can and now the same people who complained are gleefully cashing out on the growth the tried so desperately to disrupt. By the way, home owners are a minority in Vancouver so I suspect most Vancouver residents just want somewhere affordable to live! And since NIMBYs own all the land, the only economically viable developments are high rises!
3.) The land was taken from them and only returned in part after decades of lawsuits. Despite that, the “community” still thinks they deserve to be able to decide what can and can’t be built.
"Neighborhoods in Vancouver were decided long ago and they mostly developed around racist an exclusionary ideology, "
Completely false. It's worse than false.
" Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth,"
More complete rubbish.
It's hard to read past any of that complete misinformation, but here's some help:
Any historical issues regarding segregation 1) have little to do with growth and 2) there's nothing even residual regarding housing today.
The population of Vancouver at the turn of the last century was only 26 000 people. It has nothing to do with what Vancouver in 2021.
Vancouver's growth has been very consistent since it's inception, which disputes your made up claims about 'conservatives wanting to stop growth'.
Vancouver is a city with almost a 50% foreign born population. Demand to live there among 7 Billion on earthy who might want to live there is almost infinite.
If Vancouver wants to turn into Pacific New York, that's fine.
If they want to keep it mostly homes, that's also fine, it's entirely up to them, not ideologues on the internet.
I was born in Vancouver, I live downtown. You seem to be ill-informed of Vancouver's past, or are deliberately trying to white-wash its history. Take a look at Harland Bartholomew's contribution to Vancouver's city planning[0] or hear from many local historians and experts on the development of Vancouver's zoning and districts[1]. I'm sure it's impossible that Chinatown's relatively poor condition, or the complete razing of Hogan's Alley has no roots in racism, and certainly I'm imagining that residual impact.
Suburbs were designed to isolate their residents from the poor (and predominantly visible-minority) people who lived in the denser urban areas. Single-family zoning was created to make illegal the development of more dense/affordable living options such as row houses or apartment buildings. That is limiting growth, clear and simple. It is limiting growth (by your own admission!) to "keep it mostly homes" as opposed to turning the city into "Pacific New York."
I said nothing about Vancouver's growth having been "stopped." What I said was, there were - and continues to be - efforts to eliminate growth. The city grows despite the NIMBYs (albeit less quickly and less efficiently), but it is absolutely their objective to inhibit growth for their own benefit. Growth is often exponential, too, so if the city has been growing somewhat linearly that's a good indication that its growth is being inhibited.
If people want to live here, good. Let them in, let them build. Not sure why you believe it's your right to live here and keep others out. Perhaps you're someone who has benefited greatly from Vancouver's growth, despite yourself.
2.) Neighborhoods in Vancouver were decided long ago and they mostly developed around racist an exclusionary ideology, these “communities” exist simply to separate the haves from the have-nots. Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth, the city has grown where it can and now the same people who complained are gleefully cashing out on the growth the tried so desperately to disrupt. By the way, home owners are a minority in Vancouver so I suspect most Vancouver residents just want somewhere affordable to live! And since NIMBYs own all the land, the only economically viable developments are high rises!
3.) The land was taken from them and only returned in part after decades of lawsuits. Despite that, the “community” still thinks they deserve to be able to decide what can and can’t be built.