MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What did Sharp say or do?

Sharp apparently took a few shots at Gondek last night. Trying to find a video.

[GullFoss]

Sharp was lobbed a softball question right after Gondek conceded. The question was clearly worded to give Sharp the opportunity to say something conciliatory about gondek. Some options would have included thank gondek for her 8 years of service, saying something about her character, or something vague like "how hard she worked" or "how much she cared." Instead Sharpe basically said "yeah, Calgarians didn't like her. Not surprised she lost."

Right after Farkas gives a speech about how Gondek is both a top calgarian and of really strong moral character.

It was night and day

[Johnny Makarov]

Well at least not-so Sharp will have a guaranteed seat as a MLA for the UCP in the next election...

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Instead Sharpe basically said "yeah, Calgarians didn't like her. Not surprised she lost."

So did Sharp...

Did Sharp forget she was running in the same election?

[chemgear]

Acting on the main Calgary voter issue "as soon as possible" versus wanting to immediately sending Calgary tax dollars to fight for social credits in a different province on the other side of the country.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/artic...nket-rezoning/

Jeromy Farkas, Calgary’s new mayor, unveils vision for city, including repeal of blanket rezoning

Say goodbye to blanket rezoning

Farkas’s election campaign included a focus on repealing Calgary’s blanket rezoning, something he says he wants to begin “as soon as possible.”

“We’re going to be starting the initial conversations about the mechanics of that with the incoming council,” he said. “But it’s very important to also focus on the replacement approach.”

[Wormius]

Could we opt to keep our current zoning if we want to? Seems like it would be advantageous to hold onto R-CGs if you’re in certain neighbourhoods.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Could we opt to keep our current zoning if we want to? Seems like it would be advantageous to hold onto R-CGs if you’re in certain neighbourhoods.

I don't really think there is. The product type is overbuilt. Building duplexes is more lucrative and there's many completed townhouse projects available at or below development cost. People overestimated the rental returns and there's a limited pool of buyers.

There's value in the sense of optionality, but the incremental value on land of R-CG for most people today would be $0 vs r-2.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I don't really think there is. The product type is overbuilt. Building duplexes is more lucrative and there's many completed townhouse projects available at or below development cost. People overestimated the rental returns and there's a limited pool of buyers.

There's value in the sense of optionality, but the incremental value on land of R-CG for most people today would be $0 vs r-2.

any individual will always be better off with more flexible zoning. It’s your neighbours zoning you want to be restricted.

Sharpe had vaguely proposed this.

[DownInFlames]

First act as mayor is a regressive one. Same ole Jeromy.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

First act as mayor is a regressive one. Same ole Jeromy.

There was no chance blanket rezoning would survive the new council. Only two of the councillors who supported it were re-elected.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by GGG

any individual will always be better off with more flexible zoning. It’s your neighbours zoning you want to be restricted.

Sharpe had vaguely proposed this.

Yes...agreed. The optionality value is driven by the flexibility it affords. If townhouses become more lucrative in the future, then you have the optionality/flexibility to do that instead of being stuck building a duplex.

Never say never, but I think the demand for these infill towns is gone for a long time outside of niche options: super trendy walkable areas (Marda, Mission, bridgeland), near universities. And to the extent there is demand, there's going to be such a large oversupply that they should be easily buyable on the second market below development cost for a long time

So in my head, that flexibility value is quite low in most neighborhoods.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Yes...agreed. The optionality value is driven by the flexibility it affords. If townhouses become more lucrative in the future, then you have the optionality/flexibility to do that instead of being stuck building a duplex.

Never say never, but I think the demand for these infill towns is gone for a long time outside of niche options: super trendy walkable areas (Marda, Mission, bridgeland), near universities. And to the extent there is demand, there's going to be such a large oversupply that they should be easily buyable on the second market below development cost for a long time

So in my head, that flexibility value is quite low in most neighborhoods.

Folks should really look at the zoning maps to see where the blanket rezone could be implemented. Many of these neighbourhoods you describe are already zoned for higher density than the blanket re-zoning would apply.

Mission has been zoned to permit 4-6 stories since the 1980's. Indeed, I managed to down-zone my property to R-2 in the early 90's when the ARP was re-opened

[Fuzz]

So how much is it gonna cost us in admin money and time to undo this, and going forward in zoning changes like we used to? Before anything gets "undone" I think we should know that number.

[wireframe]

Repealing the last blanket rezoning rule is just another form of blanket rezoning, right? This is such a weird branding exercise, just like "deregulation", which is always another form of regulation.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So how much is it gonna cost us in admin money and time to undo this, and going forward in zoning changes like we used to? Before anything gets "undone" I think we should know that number.

I'm sure administration will have to study it and bring a recommendation forward to council, there'll be risk of lawsuits because now we're taking away property rights. Not going to be cheap.

[The Fisher Account]

Repealing is a great election soundbite. The effort to actually do it won't be worth the squeeze

[cheevers]

I think repealing the blanket re-zoning bylaw might end up being a good thing for the city. We seemed to have elected a lot of conservative/right-wing simpletons, hopefully this will keep them busy and prevent them from hurting some of the progress the city has made.

[Wormius]

Alternatively, could add it as a council to-do item and quietly ignore it now that the election is over.

[Regorium]

Can someone inform me as to what some of the hurdles would be to repeal blanket rezoning? Isn't it just "go back to the zoning at the time of January 1, 2023 or something?

I'm imagining in my head where it's easy to give out $400 in Ralph bucks, but would be extremely difficult to take away $400 from everyone. But I don't know enough about it.

It's an interesting thought experiment though where if you have to ask every homeowner whether they want to keep RCG or revert back to R1, I suspect the optimal outcome for every homeowner is that they keep RCG while all their neighbors/neighborhood go back to R1.

Then in game theory, it means that everyone's best play is to "defect" and we're left with everyone staying RCG.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Can someone inform me as to what some of the hurdles would be to repeal blanket rezoning? Isn't it just "go back to the zoning at the time of January 1, 2023 or something?

I'm imagining in my head where it's easy to give out $400 in Ralph bucks, but would be extremely difficult to take away $400 from everyone. But I don't know enough about it.

It's an interesting thought experiment though where if you have to ask every homeowner whether they want to keep RCG or revert back to R1, I suspect the optimal outcome for every homeowner is that they keep RCG while all their neighbors/neighborhood go back to R1.

Then in game theory, it means that everyone's best play is to "defect" and we're left with everyone staying RCG.

This is my best guess. I don't believe you can just "undo" the rezoning. Basically you would need to go through the whole process again. So notifying land owners, public hearing and council vote etc.

I hope that instead of changing the zoning of the City again that they change the rules within R-CG and R-G to address the concerns. A good suggestion would be one main dwelling unit per parcel. That would remove the double semi's. I also think they should limit townhomes mid block as well.