Post

Max Dubler 🏳️‍🌈
@maxdubler.com

The Squamish people of what is now Vancouver were illegally dispossessed of their land 100 years ago. They sued, got the land back, and used their sovereignty to ignore local zoning and build 6,000 new homes over the loud objections of nearby wealthy NIMBYs. Now other tribes are getting in the game.

eggnog slut@deus01.bsky.social

Everyone loves land back anti colonialism until they take your undeveloped land to build condos

2K reposts8.5K likes

William
@whirringsoftly.bsky.social

I am vaguely aware that Canadian zoning regulations are particularly obsessive. Anyway the buildings look nice and if the land otherwise wasn't being used, why not.

Michael Ledger-Lomas
@michaelledgerlomas.bsky.social

It's a pity that the units are so tiny (though of course people will say the only way to get the market price of space in Vancouver down is to build lots more units, which they have laudably done). howardchai.substack.com/p/senakw-squ...

howardchai.substack.comInside Sen̓áḵw As Phase One Nears CompletionThe Realist was invited to tour Sen̓áḵw today, ahead of move-ins beginning on Thursday. Here are the latest details, including the market rents.
ESG Hound
@esghound.com

It's so funny. Not sure this framework is sustainable for living as a cohesive society in the future but FAFO and all that so lol

Max Dubler 🏳️‍🌈
@maxdubler.com

I do not think preserving zoning-induced housing scarcity with mass unsheltered street homelessness is sustainable for living as a cohesive society in the present but that’s a bigger conversation.

ESG Hound
@esghound.com

Oh yeah I agree I just don't think feuding city states living next to each other is generally a good social arrangement (they deserve this win to be 100% clear and also unhoused people deserve a place to live)

Aaron
@aaronem.bsky.social

I run by these buildings almost every day. They’re pretty cool and I like the story behind them. I don’t think it’s sustainable for certain developments or people to be able to ignore rules, or receive preferential treatment. But it’s very neat the Squamish built these, hope more to come. Some pics

Jordan
@theantiwizard.bsky.social

The Squamish are ignoring the City of Vancouver's rules in the exact same manner that Burnaby ignores the rules. They're different jurisdictions with different rules.

Aaron
@aaronem.bsky.social

Ok sure, I understand that. These 3 buildings and their residents are completely dependent on all services, utilities and infrastructure maintained and operated by Vancouver.

Westside Backyard
@westside-backyard.bsky.social

It's not really ignoring the rules any more than the city changing it's own rules to allow Yaletown's redevelopment was. They negotiated a service agreement with the city before construction started, and the city had over 6000 construction starts of its own in 2025.

SnowLabrador
@snowlabrador.bsky.social

In addition to providing more housing and marginally alleviating the shortage, those towers are stunning works of architecture. They look indigenous, in a good way that I can't really articulate right now.

Mr. Rochester 📎🇨🇦
@mrrochester.bsky.social

Aren’t these tiny units (like all new Vancouver condos), especially in that location (very desirable views, etc.), going to still rent for ~$3000/month? And sell for a mil plus? Not sure how this development will positively affect affordability.

KayDee1968
@kaydee1968.bsky.social

If settlers can blight the world with huge condo towers, why not First Nations? We need more housing units everywhere in Canada, not just BC. More power to them!

AU Mick, Writer
@aumickwriter.bsky.social

How is this chilling investment? Doesn't more housing mean more people to buy your product/pay for your service? People can't participate in your economy if they're homeless or shunned ffs.

AliceC
@alicehyc.bsky.social

Am I understanding this correct? Land finally returned after illegally seized and now housing is being build on their own land by mostly their own people/companies for themselves and possible profit is upsetting the "neighbors" who didn't get a cut/benefit?

Bram Stolk
@bramstolk.bsky.social

“…got their land back…” Not really. In 1877 they were marginalized to 80 acres of land the colonists didn’t want. In 1913, colonists took that too. Homes torched! In 2002, 12 acres of 80 (crappiest part) returned. 2019: crappy land became valuable. Nimbies protest towers.

Mirel 🇨🇦
@miralelian.bsky.social

Good for them! The Métis in Manitoba have been buying up a fair number of buildings, and building things like group homes near hospitals so that families can stay close when loved ones have extended medical crises. Some wounds are still fresh, and things still aren't perfect, but there is healing.

Guerrilla My Dreams
@guerrillamydreams.bsky.social

Sadly a lot of these stories are not what they appear, and the white hat - black hat dynamic breaks down quickly. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e2OOF-1UGQA&ra=m

m.youtube.comA court ruled Aboriginal title over private land: Why it mattersA landmark B.C. Supreme Court decision to recognize Aboriginal title over privately held land in Richmond, B.C. last year has ignited debate about ownership and reconciliation. For The National, CBC’s Georgie Smyth explains the significance of the Cowichan ruling and why the legal fight is far from over. 00:00 A reconciliation reckoning 00:40 Cowichan land claim ruling 01:48 Significance of the decision 02:14 Cowichan chief reluctant to talk 02:58 Some of the evidence used in court 03:46 Government, other Nations fight back 04:20 Private land owners anxious, angry 04:57 What happens next #news #canada #cbcnews The National is the flagship of CBC News, showcasing award-winning journalism from across Canada and around the world. Led by Chief Correspondent Adrienne Arsenault, our team of trusted reporters helps you make sense of the world, wherever you are. Subscribe to get the latest news daily, and watch live starting at 9 p.m. ET. https://www.youtube.com/user/CBCTheNational?sub_confirmation=1 More from CBC News | https://www.cbc.ca/news
Gemini
@geminidrgn.bsky.social

the thing in vancouver involved an undeveloped land parcel that was being relinquished by its present owner. It's very different when the land is already developed.

Henry Fung
@henryfung.bsky.social

The other case is more difficult since it says that indigenous title is the senior right over private property rights. That is essentially a taking since no one will lend to a property owner with dual rights.

planetwaves.bsky.social
@planetwaves.bsky.social

How about a rendering plant next door to where you live? Actively wishing for suffering to people three thousand miles away isn’t a good look. In fact it’s very MAGA….. “I don’t care if my life sucks so long as people I hate also suffer”.

Patrick Matthews
@matthewsp.bsky.social

Having grown up in Stamford and Norwalk, I am 100% in favor of ceding all of Greenwich to whichever Native American tribe. Darien, New Canaan, and Westport too, for that matter 😎

silveriodide.bsky.social
@silveriodide.bsky.social

Just for reference I think it's important to note that they didn't ignore local zoning. Zoning did not apply to them, as it's their land! As you mentioned though, nearby residents did mount a court challenge against the city for signing a (frankly miniscule) service sharing agreement, and lost.

ellen teapot 🇨🇦🏳️‍⚧️
@ellenteapot.ca

Some critical backstory here… there is also an issue of potentially-overlapping aboriginal title claims between local FNs. Not really the same thing as Senakw at all.

Andrew Kurjata@akurjata.ca

Also not for nothing the case was launched while Christy Clark was premier and the Cowichan tried to engage gov't on stopping homes from being built on a grave site. The minister of the day said, sorry, but private property rights take precedent. Oops! www.focusonvictoria.ca/investigatio...

focusonvictoria.caUncharted territoryJanuary 2015 Failure to protect First Nations graves on Grace Islet may lead to the first aboriginal title claim on private property in BC. ON NOVEMBER 10, Chief William Seymour of the Cowichan Tribes...
Keith
@keithstar1100.bsky.social

The Squamish people of what is now Vancouver were illegally "kicked off" their land 100 years ago. There, fixed it for you.... and I'm glad to see this happening!

Kent Lind
@camasonian.bsky.social

They aren't "ignoring" local zoning. They are doing their own high-density zoning on land within their jurisdication. They wouldn't, for example, allow a coal-fired power plant on that location. Or a gravel mine. But yes, it is great and the city is the better for it.

Blair MacDonald
@blairmacdonald.bsky.social

NIMBY's created this perfect storm by refusing to increase density for decades. The project wouldn't have made as much sense without the dearth of housing in the GVA. The fact that it's the Squamish that get to capitalize on this situation is *chefs kiss*

Toronto Boris
@torontoboris.bsky.social

When it comes to land title, Im out in Ontario so I dont know the full details. If people not from the tribe buy any the housing, are they also buying the land title to that property or does it remain with the tribe?

mtsw
@mtsw.bsky.social

owning the condo typically means you own a share of the land and other common elements of the building along with all the other owners

Kenneth Trease
@kptrease.bsky.social

Also, pretty sure the tribe is perfectly content to be landlords. What matters most (for the housing crisis) is that more housing is built, not super important who actually owns it.

Hamiltwan
@hamiltwan.bsky.social

It's not a divisible share of it though, you don't have the rights to that land in the way that is commonly understood as "owning" the land, at least in my (now decades out of date) understanding.

Dr Grace S Peng
@gspeng.bsky.social

Not necessarily. Condo owners own a proportion of the common elements, which may include the land parcel. That's common in the US. In Singapore, the land is leased from the government so common elements include the residual value of the land lease

Hamiltwan
@hamiltwan.bsky.social

That is generally considered a coop, a condo is the specific term for owning just the interior of your space, with a third party that has ownership of the common areas and shared utilities, etc. Although that is under U.S. law, perhaps Canadian is different.