MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not quite.

Regulations are the language or guard rails between government (the people) and companies. Deregulation is elimination of regulations.

Eliminating regulations mostly just helps companies make more profit at the expense of costly things like safety, quality, etc.

A better exercise is to streamline regulations and ensure that their intended protections are upheld while eliminating inefficiencies and unnecessary wasted time and money.

When you eliminate regulations you end up with companies who do things like put lead in your protein powder or lead in your baby's fruit puree pouches.

Regulations are good.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Not quite.

Regulations are the language or guard rails between government (the people) and companies. Deregulation is elimination of regulations.

Eliminating regulations mostly just helps companies make more profit at the expense of costly things like safety, quality, etc.

A better exercise is to streamline regulations and ensure that their intended protections are upheld while eliminating inefficiencies and unnecessary wasted time and money.

When you eliminate regulations you end up with companies who do things like put lead in your protein powder or lead in your baby's fruit puree pouches.

Regulations are good.

Deregulation is rarely outright elimination of regulation, but more typically a reduction or the streamlining that you describe.

Building codes and the land-use bylaw still exist, but the latter is now simpler and less prescriptive.

Not all regulations are good. A variety of regulations have lead us to a horrifically car-dependent city that is hostile to the humans that live here.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Deregulation is rarely outright elimination of regulation, but more typically a reduction or the streamlining that you describe.

Building codes and the land-use bylaw still exist, but the latter is now simpler and less prescriptive.

Not all regulations are good. A variety of regulations have lead us to a horrifically car-dependent city that is hostile to the humans that live here.

Deregulation is the act of eliminating regulations. That is the definition of the word: "the removal of regulations or restrictions, especially in a particular industry."

If you want to streamline regulations then say you are "streamlining regulations without eliminating any of them". If you are in fact not changing the regulations at all but streamlining the process of implementing the regulations then that is even better because you can just call that "process improvement".

In Calgary, how the blanket rezoning was implemented was a failure and it shaped the results of this election. Had they done the exact same thing but left RC1 and RC2 alone, it would have likely gone through without objection.

The other problem with how blanket rezoning was implemented is that there was no demonstratable benefit to the people. Home builders benefited and were making more profits but home owners in established communities were being negatively impacted and home buyers were being negatively impacted as prices are only going up. There is no 'win' for regular people to rally around.

[GGG]

It’s funny people wine about property values going down but give no credit when property values go up as a result of policy.

[GullFoss]

Gonna get some cheese for that whine

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s funny people wine about property values going down but give no credit when property values go up as a result of policy.

.....................

Blanket rezoning is meant to bring housing costs down. The whole point is to make housing affordable so that future generations are able to actually own a home.

If housing prices are going up then the rezoning is a failure.

I may personally benefit from housing prices going up but I can still identify a policy as a failure to meet it's objective of making housing affordable. This is not whining, it is simply a fact of the situation that can be objectively stated.

Maybe with more time the rezoning would have started to show results but, in my opinion, without more regulations on the private builders (or a public building option) prices will never go down so long as profits are the primary motivator and private corporations are driving the strategy.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Wolven

.....................

Blanket rezoning is meant to bring housing costs down. The whole point is to make housing affordable so that future generations are able to actually own a home.

Property value and house value can be two different things. If I have a property zoned for a single-family home that's worth $1.5M, somebody buys it, knocks it down to build a bigger single-family home, maybe they sell if for $2.5M


If my property can now have 8 units at an average of $500K each, my property is now worth more even if the individual housing units are valued less.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Wolven

.....................

Blanket rezoning is meant to bring housing costs down. The whole point is to make housing affordable so that future generations are able to actually own a home.

If housing prices are going up then the rezoning is a failure.

I may personally benefit from housing prices going up but I can still identify a policy as a failure to meet it's objective of making housing affordable. This is not whining, it is simply a fact of the situation that can be objectively stated.

Maybe with more time the rezoning would have started to show results but, in my opinion, without more regulations on the private builders (or a public building option) prices will never go down so long as profits are the primary motivator and private corporations are driving the strategy.

That was never the stated objective of blanket rezoning.

Blanket rezoning was to remove red tape for new housing starts. It led to the highest housing starts per capita in Canada in 2024 and 2025. Calgary had more housing starts than the GTA for instance (I might be slightly wrong but it's on that order of magnitude).

Whether the highest number of housing starts brings prices down or makes it go up slower or whatever is definitely more of an academic exercise as there are so many more variables such as immigration and interprovincial migration and local economy, but the actual outcomes were a lot more houses.

[powderjunkie]

Rezoning is also to grow the city more sustainably. We're a lot better than we used to be, but greenfield development still doesn't cover the full cost of the infrastructure it induces.

[Fuzz]

I find it pretty hilarious that traditional conservatives are so against blanket rezoning. It's exactly what they preach and demand. It gives individuals control over their own property rights, removes red tape, cuts costs and delays and incentives business to do what they do best. But then it runs into the brick wall of reality, and reveals that NIMBYism is the stronger value to them than everything else they pretend to desire.


"I want libertarianism as long as I get to tell everyone else how to live" seems to be the mantra of this new breed of Conservative Libertarians. I think we need a new word for them.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Property value and house value can be two different things. If I have a property zoned for a single-family home that's worth $1.5M, somebody buys it, knocks it down to build a bigger single-family home, maybe they sell if for $2.5M


If my property can now have 8 units at an average of $500K each, my property is now worth more even if the individual housing units are valued less.

I think your comparison numbers are off.

The problem is the $500K rowhouse is only worth $300K. when you consider the living conditions eg. parking, smaller living area, lack of trees, fire safety, neighbor conflict. Also land wise, that $500K might buy you the same amount of land, as the land the 4 rowhouses are on, with an upgradeable bungalow on it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Wolven

.....................

Blanket rezoning is meant to bring housing costs down. The whole point is to make housing affordable so that future generations are able to actually own a home.

If housing prices are going up then the rezoning is a failure.

I may personally benefit from housing prices going up but I can still identify a policy as a failure to meet it's objective of making housing affordable. This is not whining, it is simply a fact of the situation that can be objectively stated.

Maybe with more time the rezoning would have started to show results but, in my opinion, without more regulations on the private builders (or a public building option) prices will never go down so long as profits are the primary motivator and private corporations are driving the strategy.

X/8 is less than X/1

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I find it pretty hilarious that traditional conservatives are so against blanket rezoning. It's exactly what they preach and demand. It gives individuals control over their own property rights, removes red tape, cuts costs and delays and incentives business to do what they do best. But then it runs into the brick wall of reality, and reveals that NIMBYism is the stronger value to them than everything else they pretend to desire.


"I want libertarianism as long as I get to tell everyone else how to live" seems to be the mantra of this new breed of Conservative Libertarians. I think we need a new word for them.

“Fygm” could be annunciated as maybe “fugem”

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think your comparison numbers are off.

The problem is the $500K rowhouse is only worth $300K. when you consider the living conditions eg. parking, smaller living area, lack of trees, fire safety, neighbor conflict. Also land wise, that $500K might buy you the same amount of land, as the land the 4 rowhouses are on, with an upgradeable bungalow on it.

Then go buy the land with the upgradeable bungalow on it if that's what you want to do, what's your point? The rowhouses are worth whatever anybody pays for them. Blanket rezoning isn't forcing you to buy the rowhouse. It's there as an option because that $500K land with an upgradeable bungalow on it is somewhere else where the land and house isn't worth as much, and you need to also pay to upgrade the bungalow.


If it were on land with less restrictive zoning, it would be worth more, because you could compare the upgrade cost of the one bungalow with the cost of building 4 rowhouses with 4 basement suites and sell them all for $300K instead. If you don't want to do that, you don't have to, because blanket zoning doesn't force you to upgrade to the maximum allowable build type just like it doesn't force you to buy a rowhouse if you don't want to. Which is the core of the example. Property value can rise while the cost of housing can go down.

[WideReceiver]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s funny people wine about property values going down but give no credit when property values go up as a result of policy.

Red or white?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Regorium

That was never the stated objective of blanket rezoning.

Blanket rezoning was to remove red tape for new housing starts. It led to the highest housing starts per capita in Canada in 2024 and 2025. Calgary had more housing starts than the GTA for instance (I might be slightly wrong but it's on that order of magnitude).

Whether the highest number of housing starts brings prices down or makes it go up slower or whatever is definitely more of an academic exercise as there are so many more variables such as immigration and interprovincial migration and local economy, but the actual outcomes were a lot more houses.

The whole point in building houses (and thus the point of the blanket rezoning) is to increase supply and bring down prices.

Except, you are seeing private developers buy $700,000 bungalows, knock them down, build a couple of infills and sell them for $1.4M each.

Land parcels are getting smaller but prices are skyrocketing. Without some additional regulations to try and reign in housing prices or a public home builder that can prioritize affordable housing over profits and bring down the cost of housing, the objective of the regulation will not be met.

Private developers and realtors will always reference "market value" to justify increasing sale prices of homes because they are motivated by profits and do not care about the objective of the deregulation.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Wolven

The whole point in building houses (and thus the point of the blanket rezoning) is to increase supply and bring down prices.

Except, you are seeing private developers buy $700,000 bungalows, knock them down, build a couple of infills and sell them for $1.4M each.

Why aren't the people who are able and willing to pay $1.4M for an infill duplex paying $800K for the bungalow to outbid the private developer?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Wolven

The whole point in building houses (and thus the point of the blanket rezoning) is to increase supply and bring down prices.

Except, you are seeing private developers buy $700,000 bungalows, knock them down, build a couple of infills and sell them for $1.4M each.

Land parcels are getting smaller but prices are skyrocketing. Without some additional regulations to try and reign in housing prices or a public home builder that can prioritize affordable housing over profits and bring down the cost of housing, the objective of the regulation will not be met.

Private developers and realtors will always reference "market value" to justify increasing sale prices of homes because they are motivated by profits and do not care about the objective of the deregulation.

Yes, we can definitely say that blanket rezoning failed to have a supply response 17 months in to the policy.

Those two infills house twice as many families as the bungalow, that's a supply response. And I actually think the biggest benefit of blanket rezoning is the old rc2 bungalow to a duplex inflill now becomes a bungalow to 4 townhouses. It doubles the amount of new supply you're getting on the same lot.

I know "private enterprise == bad" is your schtick, but more supply always and everywhere causes prices to decrease. If we build more housing the cost of housing comes down. It might take a few years given the lead time to buy a property, knock it down and build new though, and we probably need a second order response where trades wages go up increasing the supply of construction labour to really get more building.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Why aren't the people who are able and willing to pay $1.4M for an infill duplex paying $800K for the bungalow to outbid the private developer?

Development time, labour and material cost is a thing. These 70,80 year old bungalows need a lot of work to be livable hence why infills literally tear them down and start anew. Plumbing, insulation, heating, structural condition... these bungalows "should" cost about as much as those Airdrie mobile homes but their price is hiked up profoundly by their inner city location. Really, the $800k is just the cost of the property. The demand to make infills is what drives up the initial cost, not the condition of the property. So buying that $800k bungalow doesn't mean you suddenly have a place to live.

I hate to take private developers' side here but infills are a big investment and they do deserve to profit off of their development. I doubt they're coming away with lottery winnings here. In a lot of cases these "private developers" are a twenty to twenty three year old kid out of Haskayne who borrowed money from their middle class parents in a startup scenario, just trying to profit enough so the parents don't go bankrupt and lose their collateral (their home). And I would want to fact check the 1.4M Number being thrown around.

[Roughneck]

I was just trying to be cheeky, buyers know why the bungalow is only $700K if infills in the area are going for over a million. Just like those towns in Italy where you can buy a place for a Euro. Just seems the poster needed to think about it.

The $1.4M new infills (continuing with the price for the sake of argument) on a lot bought for $700K are still cheaper than the $4M SFH built on a property for $1.5M. A small microcosm of this is comparing Windsor Park to Elboya to Britannia, what neighborhood is most affordable is quite relative. That said there's a $900K bungalow you can buy in Elboya right now that has less square footage than an infill you can buy in Windsor Park for $930K, but you could get a lot more for that Elboya property with either a larger SFH or a duplex if one was built, and one of those options will double the housing supply on that lot.