Backlash begins against new Riverdale lots

Friday March 5, 2010

By John Thompson

Mike Thomas/Yukon News

Page3a
Gerard Bluteau and Anna Zeindler walk these Riverdale trails daily to feed birds and squirrels. The city wants the area developed for housing.

Gerard Bluteau, 72, has one great pleasure in life: strolling through the forest trails near his Riverdale Manor home, taking a seat at a bench he has built and feeding crushed walnut bits to chickadees, nuthatches and woodpeckers.

But that pleasure could soon disappear if Whitehorse city planners have their way. They want to cut down the trees where Bluteau and other elderly residents take their daily stroll and build houses in their place.

The area in question is a 4.7-hectare swath of forest between Boswell Crescent and Firth Road in Riverdale. Sure, there’s plenty of forest nearby. But Bluteau can’t walk far.

On good days, as many as a dozen elderly folks join him in his stroll through the woods. Bluteau started hanging birdhouses there four years ago, and the area now bustles with birds when he arrives in the late morning.

“It’s something that’s pretty precious for us,” he said. “We have so little to look forwards to - especially people who don’t have anybody, like me. My family back east have all passed away. My wife died 11 years ago.”

He’s starting a petition. And he’s not the only one upset. About five years ago, Riverdale residents howled at the city’s plans to in-fill several green spaces on the neighbourhood’s fringes. The city backed off.

But when the city unveiled its latest development plans in late February, the in-fills had returned.

“I’m totally ready for a big fight over it,” said Laura Hansen. She lives on Boswell, and her property backs on to the green space.

She’s already called Ted Staffen, MLA for Riverdale North. He and Glenn Hart, MLA for Riverdale South, both fought the original in-fill plans. Staffen remains opposed, said Hansen. She has also contacted the Riverdale Community Association.

Expect the howling to pick up shortly.

The city sent letters on February 22 to Riverdale residents, informing them of the proposed development that have yet to be approved by council. But Hansen said that she and her neighbours never received copies.

Hansen bought her home 13 years ago. At the time, one of the property’s selling points was that it backed onto the forest, which remains, for now, zoned as green space.

“You pay top dollar because it’s on green space,” she said. “It’s just not fair.”

But realtors and house-hunters would counter there’s plenty of unfairness in the current arrangement.

The shortage of residential lots in Whitehorse has driven up the price of properties to a point where it’s hard for young couples to afford a first home. And those who can afford a home can take a number: realtors have double-digit lists of clients.

Mid-priced homes, with prices between $200,000 to $400,000, have virtually disappeared from the market.

And new lots are soon snapped-up. When the city held a lottery draw for 12 lots in Takhini North on Tuesday, it had 71 applicants.

This could all be bad news for the local economy. It’s hard to attract new residents when there’s no place to live.

What caused this shortage? In the view of Mike Racz, president of the Yukon Real Estate Association, it’s partly because the city backed-down on plans to build in-fills in places like Riverdale five years ago. Now, we’re paying the price.

Pent-up demand should ease after the city’s next big new neighbourhood, Whistle Bend, is ready in 2012. Until then, the simplest solution is to build in-fill in existing neighbourhoods, said city planner Mike Gau.

Under the city’s original scheme, the Riverdale in-fill would have added 41 single-family houses to the market. Given the current push to build higher-density homes, some of these lots would likely be zoned for duplexes or multi-family dwellings if the project went ahead, said Gau.

From a planner’s point of view, Bluteau’s bird-feeding haven is the perfect place to build a new street. It’s close to existing roads and water and sewage pipes, making it cheaper to build than a new neighbourhood.

And Mayor Bev Buckway wants a greener city. Part of that means cutting back on sprawl.

Realtors have attacked the city’s push for denser developments, with more duplexes and fewer single-family lots. They say this isn’t what people want.

The results of the recent Takhini North lottery may support this assertion: the vast majority of bidders vied for one property that was one of the few single-family lots on offer.

The city’s been aware for some time there’s a shortage of single-family lots, said Gau. But it needs to consider the “character” of duplex-heavy Takhini, he said.

Still, the next phase of Takhini North will have 30 single-family lots and just 12 duplexes, said Gau. “We made some adjustments,” he said.

And new additions to the Ingram subdivision will bring another 37 single-family lots later this year.

Both Hansen and Bluteau wonder how a city as large as Whitehorse could have such difficulty finding space for new homes without eating into existing greenspace.

But about one-third of the land within city limits is considered too mountainous to build on. Take away First Nation land, greenspace and the oil-contaminated tank farm property and you’re left with few places suitable for development within city limits.

There are several other in-fills proposed in Riverdale: behind Grey Mountain School, on the corner of Lewes Boulevard and Nisutlin Drive, and along Nisutlin Drive between Selkirk Street and Blanchard Road.

There are also eight in-fills proposed for Porter Creek and one each for Crestview, Hillcrest and the downtown.

Even without these developments, there should be plenty of greenery left in Whitehorse, said Gau. The city’s draft official community plan has five parks, including an expanded Chadburn Park near Riverdale.

The idea to revive Riverdale’s controversial in-fill didn’t come from city planners, said Gau. It came from residents who touted the idea at one of the city’s public meetings, held over the past year to review the official community plan. But he concedes the idea was “disputed” by others.

It will be up to city councillors to decide whether to proceed with the Riverdale in-fill. “Now we’re getting down to the hard decisions,” said Gau.

Residents have until April 1 to submit comments to the city about the draft plan.

Contact John Thompson at

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Bookmark and Share 27 Comments

8:36am 03/24/10  |  Yukon Cornelius wrote:

bobvibert, don’t know if you’re referring to Takhini or Riverdale but two things are obvious.

1. You’ve never been to New Jersey
2. Or any real slum

11:18am 03/22/10  |  bobvibert wrote:

Build more in That Slum? It is soon to become (if not already is) like the New Jersey “Projects”.

1:31pm 03/20/10  |  Yukon Cornelius wrote:

We live near the Takhini lots recently bought. When we heard about the reconstruction and in-fill, well obviously we would prefer it not happen but 3 points were forefront in our mind.

1. We don’t own the land
2. New residents have to go somewhere, there are not enough city lots.
3. These lots are within biking / walking distance of downtown, it’s good for people who want that to have more options.

Just make sure the city responsibly develops the land.

8:06pm 03/15/10  |  gogreenforinfill wrote:

I didn’t agree with YTPaul at first but he has some excellent points, and being raised here I think we should really pay attention to his opinions. “Southern” raised residents have a different view which seems to try and change THE Yukon too rapidly without consideration for others. It takes a lot for a BAR to speak up, maybe the NIMBY people should mellow out a bit.

7:52am 03/13/10  |  YTPaul wrote:

JohnM brings some very important points to the table.
The issue of contractors buying up lots for spec homes should not be allowed in in-fill development.  In fact, I would propose to the City that in trade for the development of in-fills in Riverdale, Riverdale residents get first crack at them, and that all new homes built be constructed to the new Super Green standards.

7:46am 03/13/10  |  YTPaul wrote:

Further to LauraH’s comments, I live on Takhini Ave.  I have lived in Riverdale since 1965, that is all my life, barring 2 years downtown.
No, I’m not a developer, nor in the “city’s pocket”. Enough with your wild speculation.
And you are incorrect in that the city sold you the lot for more money.  You bought it from a realtor.  And as I said before, perhaps you should take this up with your realtor for false advertising.

7:39am 03/13/10  |  YTPaul wrote:

LauraH
Hitting below the belt?  Hardly.  Justing point out some inconsistancy on your part.  I’m sure you run a fine day home (not day care, pardon me).  Maybe your neighbours all love haveing you there, maybe not.  The point is, if even one person feels your home operated business has negatyively affected there property value, you really have no right to complain that developing green space adjacent to your lot may, or may not, affect your property value.

3:40pm 03/12/10  |  JohnM wrote:

Another thing that chaps me about this is that the city always refers to the hgih demand for lots in Takhini.  I know of 7 people who bought lots in Takhini and not a single one of them was for the development of their own home.  They each bought a lot so they could sell it at a profit to someone else, someone who bought into the real estate agents and city’s propaganda of doom in the manufactored housing shortage.

3:36pm 03/12/10  |  JohnM wrote:

Why don’t you ask the city why during the development of the watershed protection plan, they felt that development around our supply wells was not okay due to “Very High” risks to water associated with pesticide and fertilizer application and heating oil tanks around our wells. In case you didn’t know (or care), our drinking water supply wells is in the area of the infill behind Bosell and Selkirk.

9:54am 03/12/10  |  gogreenforinfill wrote:

I too would not be happy buying a home on a green belt then having someone take that value away, try to see the bigger picture. Whse is growing, I am wiling to offer my Boswell neighborhood to new families so they too can grow up with access to down town and green spaces. If you want to preserve our green spaces try encouraging Bylaw to enforce existing green belt laws and encourage easy access, don’t block it. These spaces are there to benefit everyone.

9:42pm 03/11/10  |  LauraH wrote:

Goforgreen,
If I hadn’t bought my land on GREENSPACE for more $ then I wouldn’t have anything to say.  Or if I had bought my land on future development, then I wouldn’t be here either.  It’s the principle of the matter.  Where do you live?

9:40pm 03/11/10  |  LauraH wrote:

Wow! YTPaul you really hit below the belt eh?  Just wondering where in Riverdale you actually live?  Or maybe you are just a developer or contractor in the city’s pocket?  As for me having a DAYHOME which is much different than a DAYCARE, my neighbours love me as I am home all the time and able to keep an eye on things going on in our area.  The bottom line is still the city shouldn’t sell to people land at a higher price for backing greenspace and then take it away.  BOTTOM LINE smile

10:54am 03/11/10  |  YTPaul wrote:

Gogreenforinfill-
Great points!  Amazing how quiet it is in Riverdale during spring break!
Boswell/Bell were once formerly greenspace where i played as a kid.  There was a spring there where on could find frogs etc.  But its ok now that it developed?  Remember, all subdivisions were once greenspace.
Interestingly, I wonder how many residents were happy about having a daycare as their neighbour?  I sure wouldn’t want that, it would bring down my property values.  LauraH???

6:39pm 03/10/10  |  gogreenforinfill wrote:

If the voters in the 70’s had said no to these crescents then all of us on Boswell would be in some cramped subdivision with thousands of others all commuting to work. Try and tell new comers to Whitehorse that they are not welcome in Riverdale or down town. Even now access to the green belt from Boswell is impeded by permanently parked cars,Vote infill with strict access laws and free transit passes for all new residences to reduce traffic caused by Helicopter parents thru the school zones.

6:11pm 03/10/10  |  yukoner44 wrote:

ok i rent in riverdale
still there not enough housing in the city for every one and lots
will be a thing of the past

4:34pm 03/10/10  |  yukon jo wrote:

As a home owner right now, I would like to thank all of the people that are helping drive up the price of my home.  Thanks to you, I will be making a pretty good profit off my sale, which I will then probably reinvest somewhere other than Whitehorse…keep up the good fight lol

8:31am 03/10/10  |  YTPaul wrote:

Come now, if you have owned your home for any length of time at all, you have already realized a handsome profit on it.
And I would hardly say that the City is doing this on a “whim”.  Its been a long time coming.  I’d say blame your realtor for false advertising.
In-filling is the logical, sustainable choice.  It will not affect urban scavengers such as Coyotes or Foxes one iota.

8:40pm 03/09/10  |  yukoner44 wrote:

i agree with LauraH
it so true it hurts

7:38pm 03/09/10  |  LauraH wrote:

YTPaul, I guess you never bought your house on the greenspace of Boswell/Firth and paid handsomely for it, only to have the city come in on a whim (because they haven’t put enough forethought into future planning) and tear it down.  It is those of US who live here that are upset and against this as well as those of us who appreciate the space and utilize it for our day-to-day activities. If the area was zoned Future Development when we bought it I wouldn’t even be here complaining.

7:11pm 03/09/10  |  yukoner44 wrote:

i see more here like foxes .. wolf..

5:01pm 03/09/10  |  YTPaul wrote:

What animals?  Squirrels?  Birds?
Thats what you see in the “greenbelts”, and they thrive in our yards as well.
Developing the “greenbelts” in Riverdale will not affect wildlife one iota.
Developing new subdivisions will.
Whitehorse is growing.  I don’t like it, but its a fact and i would rather see us increase density than expand ever outwards.

2:32pm 03/09/10  |  yukoner44 wrote:

next question is there enough space here in riverdale and leave some forest for the animals (not the two legged type)

1:44pm 03/09/10  |  YTPaul wrote:

I say bring on the new lots!
I have lived in Riverdale pretty much my entire life, and enjoy the proximity to REAL greenspace that Riverdale affords.  Creating new rural residential out of perfectly good hinterland makes no sense sustainably or environmentally.
I’ll apply for one as soon as they are ready!

12:38pm 03/08/10  |  taku wrote:

Another case of NIMBY!

11:34am 03/06/10  |  Jon72 wrote:

We live in the “City” of Whitehorse, not the “Green Space” of Whitehorse. So let me get this straight, the folks complaining want to live in the bush AND have high paying jobs that cities afford us? ?....man, you Yukoners want it all eh!

This is 2010, I feel that if you want to live in a forest you should go buy some land in the forest and build a house ther!  I live in Riverdale and I want to see new lots and new homes built there.

9:16pm 03/05/10  |  yukoner44 wrote:

we love riverdale can’t you find lots some where else say up the road to lake chadburn

4:09pm 03/05/10  |  LauraH wrote:

I think our main point here as residents is still that the lots cost a higher price and that we bought with the lots zoned recreational not future development.  So in all reality, realtors and the city developers shouldn’t be able to sell lots for a higher price for “greenspace” when that space can in fact, be taken away by the city at anytime.  Also, taken away without compensation for the higher price we paid for those particular lots in the first place.

Add a comment

The Yukon News has provided readers with the opportunity to post their views and opinions regarding any stories published on its website to foster dynamic discussions. Posts will be reviewed by a moderator before being published, but will not be edited or altered except for spelling and grammatical errors. Comments on this site are not the opinions of the Yukon News and comments with personal attacks, vulgar language, libelous statements or falsified facts will not be permitted. Only registered users of the website can contribute to the online conversations.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.