Calgary developer’s caught with pants down - Nenshi white knight or not?

[SebC]

So now that Ungar admits there's no development freeze, where's DCU's retraction?

[First Lady]

The Mayor's office and the Calgary Home Builders Association have kissed and made up. Both sides have signed a joint statement when it comes to suburban development and the CHBA has been allowed back onto a couple of city committees. The Mayor's chief of staff got a burr in his saddle over apparent comments attributed to the CHBA's president about a freeze on suburban development. Both sides say there's sufficient land available for development to meet current population growth forecasts and there's work taking place to determine where new suburban land will be opened up for development. Not included in the joint statement is any type of apology from the CHBA which was being demanded by the Mayor's chief of staff.

http://www.newstalk770.com/News/Loca...spx?ID=1905383

Sounds like they are creating a fall-guy.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by First Lady

http://www.newstalk770.com/News/Loca...spx?ID=1905383

Sounds like they are creating a fall-guy.

I would love for someone actually in the know like Bunk to clarify that part about Chima.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I would love for someone actually in the know like Bunk to clarify that part about Chima.

I noted that they didn't source that at all... but even if Chima was pissed at Ungar's comments, he has every to right to be, as it is demonstrably false that there is anything close to an effective freeze on suburban development. ... at least until we get the Growth Management Framework

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by First Lady

http://www.newstalk770.com/News/Loca...spx?ID=1905383

Sounds like they are creating a fall-guy.

Yeah, not at all. Not sure why 770 frames it that way, but that messaging did not come from the Mayor's Office. Perhaps they gleaned that because the letter to the CHBA was penned by the Chief of Staff? Who knows.

As the Mayor said, the true facts are now on the table. The CHBA acknowledges there is not a suburban development freeze (by any stretch of the imagination). That's what he wanted.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by SebC

I noted that they didn't source that at all... but even if Chima was pissed at Ungar's comments, he has every to right to be, as it is demonstrably false that there is anything close to an effective freeze on suburban development. ... at least until we get the Growth Management Framework

Growth Management has no effect on land supply - serviced or planned. City still has policy of minimum 5 years serviced land and 15 years planned land.

Growth Management sequences that growth in a way that is more logical and does so with transparent decision making criteria. Some say that picks winners and losers. It does, but the old system picks winners and losers too - but did so in an opaque way and the result was sequencing that was less efficient (e.g. Sliverado, Skyview Ranch).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Growth Management has no effect on land supply - serviced or planned. City still has policy of minimum 5 years serviced land and 15 years planned land.

Growth Management sequences that growth in a way that is more logical and does so with transparent decision making criteria.

Good point. As I understand it the GMF hasn't been written yet and thus theoretically could put restrictions on growth other than sequencing - such as only allowing growth that will pay for itself (), but if doing so would contradict other policies then I guess it will only be sequencing tool, and the city will have to find some other way to reach the 50% of development being non-peripheral that is in the MDP. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Bunk]

I think there is some angst from homebuilders about the availability of lots to them (across different segments of the market). What I gather is that some believe the issue is the City not supplying enough serviced lots, when in fact it is exceeding its target for serviced vacant land.

It's the land developers that release lots to homebuilders, not the City. There's a small number of very large land developers that build in greenfield Calgary. They select who they sell lots to, and how quickly they release them - and perhaps some of the smaller builders feel they get squeezed out of the picture. For obvious reasons developers don't flood the market with supply as it affects their value.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think there is some angst from homebuilders about the availability of lots to them (across different segments of the market). What I gather is that some believe the issue is the City not supplying enough serviced lots, when in fact it is exceeding its target for serviced vacant land.

It's the land developers that release lots to homebuilders, not the City. There's a small number of very large land developers that build in greenfield Calgary. They select who they sell lots to, and how quickly they release them - and perhaps some of the smaller builders feel they get squeezed out of the picture. For obvious reasons developers don't flood the market with supply as it affects their value.

Which makes intuitive sense. If I was a shareholder of Brookfield Residential or Genesis, I wouldn't want them to flood the market and drive down the price of their main product.

Of course, some transparency to their process (and not holding lots for their in-house builders only) would be nice... Probably not much the city could/should do about that, as ultimately they own the land.

[puckluck2]

Things getting heated up again.


http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines..._lsa=783a-1aac

Another day, another volley in the spat between Calgary’s suburban home builders and city hall’s leaders — recent agreement or not.
Mayor Naheed Nenshi expressed frustration Monday at Homes by Avi president Avi Amir’s advertisement in Saturday’s Herald that took aim at planning general manager Rollin Stanley, who brought up bankrupt Stockton, Calif., recently when discussing the risks of Calgary sprawl.

Amir didn’t mention his company or position in the letter, which said Stanley’s comparison was “disrespectful to us Calgarians.” Nor did Amir mention the fact his son is Charron Ungar, the home builders’ association head whose past comments prompted Nenshi’s brief suspension of the group from city committees.

“Certainly the CHBA has signed an agreement saying that we’ll work together in a more constructive way,” the mayor said. “Perhaps Mr. Amir has not read that. You know, it is his son who is the (CHBA) president, but maybe they don’t speak at family dinners on Sundays.”

[Bill Bumface]

What was the ad?

[rotten42]

The comment from Nenshi was low rent for a Mayor to make. He sure gets his panties in a knot easily....It's embarrassing.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by rotten42

The comment from Nenshi was low rent for a Mayor to make. He sure gets his panties in a knot easily....It's embarrassing.

Yeah, standing up against home builders whose only goal is to make money is embarrassing.

They try to threaten the city and use fear mongering to do it and people just eat it up.

I'm glad Nenshi is smarter than that and won't let them hold the city hostage.

The home builders have zero interest in what's best for the city and only what's best for their pocket books.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by rotten42

The comment from Nenshi was low rent for a Mayor to make. He sure gets his panties in a knot easily....It's embarrassing.

I don't necessarily disagree much with what Nenshi has said on the issue, but at the same time he's playing in the same mud in the press as the developers. He's not exactly rising above them.

Also I'm on the side of the developers with regards to their rebuke of Rollin Stanley's 'Stockton, California' example. That was an aggregious hyperbole to make (maybe as much of a hyperbole as the homebuilders claiming there's a greenfield development freeze). It would be similar to a remark argueing that Canada should cut back OAS payments even further lest we become Greece. Sure, directionally the arguement is sound, but the scale of comparing the two is out of the scope of magnitude.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Also I'm on the side of the developers with regards to their rebuke of Rollin Stanley's 'Stockton, California' example. That was an aggregious hyperbole to make (maybe as much of a hyperbole as the homebuilders claiming there's a greenfield development freeze). It would be similar to a remark argueing that Canada should cut back OAS payments even further lest we become Greece. Sure, directionally the arguement is sound, but the scale of comparing the two is out of the scope of magnitude.

The approach Stanley is taking when he brings up Stockton is a bit like the approach James Howard Kunstler uses for most urban planning issues. It is an exaggeration and a bit over the top but it does help bring attention to the issue. While I wouldn’t use it myself, I don’t mind him using it because it helps attract the general public’s attention to a really important issue. It is especially important because for much too long developers have driven the planning and development agenda without much public consultation.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Addick

The approach Stanley is taking when he brings up Stockton is a bit like the approach James Howard Kunstler uses for most urban planning issues. It is an exaggeration and a bit over the top but it does help bring attention to the issue. While I wouldn’t use it myself, I don’t mind him using it because it helps attract the general public’s attention to a really important issue. It is especially important because for much too long developers have driven the planning and development agenda without much public consultation.

I know the approach he's taking, but over the long term saying things that are greatly exaggerated will have the opposite effect with the general public and eventually lead to tuning him out or discounting what he says as not being at face value. If I knew nothing of the issues that surround this current spat and only based my opinion on what was mentioned in the news cycle then I would view Stanley / Nenshi on the other extreme of the spectrum than the builders as opposed to coming from a reasoned pragmatic and balanced position.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I know the approach he's taking, but over the long term saying things that are greatly exaggerated will have the opposite effect with the general public and eventually lead to tuning him out or discounting what he says as not being at face value.

With the massive changes The City is trying to make, it could likely be a case of bringing in Stanley to get the massive ball rolling and then bringing in someone more amiable for the next step. It would be unfortunate as he really has an excellent mind and his systematic knowledge is invaluable to The City's cause.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Yeah, standing up against home builders whose only goal is to make money is embarrassing.

They try to threaten the city and use fear mongering to do it and people just eat it up.

I'm glad Nenshi is smarter than that and won't let them hold the city hostage.

The home builders have zero interest in what's best for the city and only what's best for their pocket books.

I have no issue with him standing up to the developers. I take issue in how he did it. Very juvenile. There was nothing added to the discussion in making comments about Avi's family dinners. Not becoming of a mayor of a city like Calgary. The thing is, this isn’t the first time he has acted this way. When Nenshi gets upset he acts like a spoiled little girl in the media. The guy needs to demonstrate more professionalism.

[Tinordi]

This is about politics which is why Nenshi brought it public and turned it into a mud slinging match. The two sides just are not going to come to a compromise or understand each others' position. Nenshi is pursuing a new urbanism agenda and the home builders are actively resisting it. No amount of committee work, consultation, and discussion between them in going to broach that.

So what to do next?

You get a bigger stick, you play politics, you show that you have the people on your side and that you are more popular than the other. Both sides have tried this tactic, the homebuilders were disseminating a political position to their ranks for the hopes of spreading it wider and Nenshi then responded to build his own constituency.

So I wouldn't go out and say Nenshi is acting like a little girl. He had no choice. He firmly believes in his vision for the future of development in the city and if that means he needs to put the collar on the home builders by playing politics he's going to. This is the ugly sausage making process.

[Bobblehead]

So, are things about to get a bit more interesting?

In the video, Cal Wenzel tells the group, apparently made up of about 150 industry leaders, that while Mayor Nenshi is unbeatable, that may not be the case for other council members.

“Dimitri asked me the question a little earlier on, ‘Can anyone beat Nenshi?’ And I said ‘no, likely not’. I am not sure what he’s hoping for – I don’t think he can and I had in my notes here, ‘I don’t think he is beatable. But you know when I talked to [former mayor] Dave Bronconnier, Dave is sitting there saying, ‘it doesn’t matter if you’ve got the mayor on your side or not. You need eight votes. As long as you have eight votes you can control whatever happens.’

“So for whatever and however, we have to ensure that we end up with the eight votes.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/502394/exc...-city-council/