Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
In this scenario, no, I should not be building a 1600 sq ft house on a property that's zoned for a large condo project and has a developer ready to build it. I should be getting my $400k (which may not be what the policy provides, but this is how it SHOULD work), cashing in on the upzoning/gentrification that's made my land valuable enough to build a condo on, and coming out ahead when I buy a new place to live.
From a system and environmental perspective it is completely wasteful to build a house that I'm economically incentivized to demolish, or that the next owners are likely to demolish.
From the city's perspective, you're building a nail house, so they absolutely should disincentivize that as much possible without infringing on your rights. If you're going to be a holdout, suffer the consequences. It's your choice and one you don't have to make.
The only problem I have in this scenario is that without the leverage to go from low intensity to medium intensity you may be getting less than you should for the land. But in a competitive market, even that would not be an issue, as the other bidders would drive up the price to market value.
|
I should have clarified my remarks a little better. What I was trying to illustrate is that in older areas that had small homes/large lots, usually one of two things happen.
Someone purchases the property or the existing owner will demolish and rebuild a single family home. Generally speaking, large, modern with either a garage in the front, in then rear or under the home. They don't rebuild the same small home to older specs, features etc.
Or a developer or the owners will build a two unit or more side by side creating density and in essence, a large building on the same land.
The city's argument here about needing to decline the application based on a modest increase to the building is absurd. It's not materially important to anybody. How often have you driven past a commercial property and wondered if you would be upset if said commercial property was a few hundred feet larger on its existing parcel of land? Probably never cause it doesn't affect anybody.
The example of the fire and someone's home and or rental property is valid in my opinion. If our homes were on larger lot's and burned down, the insurance is paying out the insurable amount to get you as close to break even as possible. They aren't going to pay for your new real estate development project of adding density and trying to cash in on a valuable lot.
What happens in these areas is usually the senior living there or their family will than sell the property to a developer who has the experience to do this. The developer than sells the home for a strong profit. This happens when moving to a senior care home or an estate sale or a revenue property.
What is happening here is that the city and the city councilor are going AGAINST the wishes of the business and property owner, in essence forcing them to sell. The property owner said they have little desire to develop the property, probably due to lack of financial capital, experience or more.
There are other considerations as well, perhaps the owners had a plan to sell once things such as the LRT and development occurred, thus raising the value of their existing property. They could be playing the long game. That entire area is ripe for development, so I totally understand the nature of what everyone is doing. I am not some crazed DQ drive thru fan. I do think the city is being unreasonable and forcing the owners and the business operator's hand for something that is a reasonable request.
On a somewhat related note, I had conversation with a local restaurant and cafe owner about their new patio. The landlord for years resisted them having a few seat patio since they owned the land, now with the 3rd lockdown they finally relented since they know it's now a matter of survival for the business.
She admitted she just put a few tables and chairs outside, distanced and a small tent to protect from the elements. Not an official licensed patio by the city but absolutely nothing wrong with the set up. City officials showing up and demanding she take it down and apply for a permit and go through a process and review. Like how many rules and regulations do we need for people to eat eggs and coffee outside during a time of national crisis for the entire world? Can we just get on it with it for everybody?
The thing with councilor's like Druh Farrell is they are always pointing to the cool things they see in other cities and wanting to apply them to Calgary. I am all about some great, cool change but what get's in the way is their own dam regulations and the city's by and large. Government employee's dictating and being concerned where a few tables and chairs are for two adults to have coffee on a beautiful day isn't something that occurs on a regular basis in Europe. It just get's done so people can live their life.
Sorry about the long post and the rant