Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Most of the candidates who say they will repeal the rezoning claim they will replace it with a better system. And then to whatever extent they offer details, they simply describe the previous system: LAPs set density and height restrictions "strategically". Of course they leave out the next steps where property owners end up applying for a land-use amendment and nearly always have it approved after an unnecessarily tedious process. And then they move on to the development permit process, aka the safeguard where the finer details actually get addressed.
Why not just 'fix' it the other direction from where we are now? They could implement a process similar to getting your laneway paved. Get __% of your neighbours onboard, and the extra costs of this low density get tacked on to their property taxes indefinitely. I suspect most of the opponents will come back to reality pretty quickly, and realize it's not worth it, as very few of their neighbours will actually redevelop in the near-mid term.
|
Yeah. That would be a reasonable outcome, like the upgraded LEAF levy for nicer community landscaping. If your community votes (every 5 years, supermajority) to pay a big surcharge to cover the incremental infrastructure charges your neighbourhood is generating by not densifying then that seems reasonable. But that should be significant (probably 50-100% of the city portion). Then you can keep r1 zoning.