Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug
I am not that familiar with the Banff Trail situation, but isn't the issue that there is a blanket restrictive covenant that directly conflicts with the ARP and a desire for increased density in that area? In that case I would expect the city to step in and side with more development. I don't see the problem with the existence of other restrictive covenants in the city. It doesn't need to be a "let'er buck" situation. That seems like a bit of a strawman.
|
The "let 'er buck" situation is a reductionist argument on my part; I'm not really advocating for it (I think it's a terrible idea), just musing aloud what might happen.
But speaking of strawmen, the ARP being used as justification for overturning the restrictive covenant
is a strawman of a sort. The conflict with the ARP exists because the City passed an ARP that conflicts with the restrictive covenant.
The City created the "conflict". This is part and parcel of why I think this situation is nucking futs.