Save Calgary

[longsuffering]

So, just a few minutes ago I got a call on my cell phone from a group named Tell City Hall (tellcityhall.ca).

From their website, they claim

All our surveys serve governments departments (municipal, provincial and federal) as well as non-profits. By answering the survey questions you are providing the information government departments and non-profits need to make the best decisions they can with your tax dollars.

Call me cynical but I'm suspicious of this. I've never heard of this organization before and wonder if they've just appeared because of the upcoming civic election.

Their site does not provide any information of who created or is funding the organization which raises alarm bells similar to those raised by SaveCalgary.

I've sent them an email asking who funds the organization but honestly, I'm not expecting a reply, or not a transparent one at least. I'll post if I receive a response.

Does anyone have any info on this site/group? How many posters have been contacted?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

So, just a few minutes ago I got a call on my cell phone from a group named Tell City Hall (tellcityhall.ca).

From their website, they claim



Call me cynical but I'm suspicious of this. I've never heard of this organization before and wonder if they've just appeared because of the upcoming civic election.

Their site does not provide any information of who created or is funding the organization which raises alarm bells similar to those raised by SaveCalgary.

I've sent them an email asking who funds the organization but honestly, I'm not expecting a reply, or not a transparent one at least. I'll post if I receive a response.

Does anyone have any info on this site/group? How many posters have been contacted?

A whois of the website shows that its registered under a company that conducts surveys. That part seems legit. Who hired them though... who knows. Was it an overly right/left leaning survey?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Wormius

A whois of the website shows that its registered under a company that conducts surveys. That part seems legit. Who hired them though... who knows. Was it an overly right/left leaning survey?

It seemed fairly innocuous. The question was how I felt about the job City Council (as a group) was doing and provided a range of responses from very satisfied to completely unsatisfied (paraphrasing) but yeah, the who's paying for the survey question certainly crossed my mind.

Edit: They have a survey on Legalizing Recreational Marijuana on their website if anyone feels strongly one way or another on that issue.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GGG

Sprawl is an issue of cost and density

Most people would like to live closer to the inner city if they could live in an SFH there. So what you are saying is that a person with the means to live in an SFH in the inner city does not cause sprawl and a person who only can afford an SFH in the burbs causes sprawl.

This is just economic prejudice.

If you choose to live in an SFH you are a cause of Sprawl. If you make a choice to live in a denser dwelling regardless of location you aren't.

Hah, economic prejudice. Now I've heard everything. Our entire effing society is built on economic prejudice, it's called capitalism. Rich people get #### poor people don't. News at 11. Good lord.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Where is this inner city you describe with all the 50' x 150' lots (other than Mount Royal)?

I was raised in Beltline which is full of high density apartments with a scattering of SFH.

I'm now in Bankview where the SFH have replaced by condos, duplexes, townhouses, infills (on 25' lots), etc.

In the neighboring communities - Rosscarack, Marda Loop, South Calgary, Altadore - it's much the same story.

So again, what the heck are you talking about?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Have you been to the modern suburb? It's lane homes on 25ft lots, townhouse and Condos and front garage SFHs on 35ft lots. The density of the modern burb is comparable to areas that haven't built up. My point has been repeatedly stated. The amount of land you take up is your contribution to sprawl and that is independant on of where you live.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Hah, economic prejudice. Now I've heard everything. Our entire effing society is built on economic prejudice, it's called capitalism. Rich people get #### poor people don't. News at 11. Good lord.

You completely missed the point and jumped on the phrase. It has nothing to do with rich people having what poor people don't. It's calling rich people using the resource urbanites and middle class people using the resource sprawl when they are having the same impact.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GGG

You completely missed the point and jumped on the phrase. It has nothing to do with rich people having what poor people don't. It's calling rich people using the resource urbanites and middle class people using the resource sprawl when they are having the same impact.

but people in the inner city generally aren't causing sprawl, those communities are far more dense with infrastructure that has already been bought and paid for. Living out in Auburn bay requires a tonne of NEW infrastructure to be put in place that isn't paid for by the people who live out there.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

but people in the inner city generally aren't causing sprawl, those communities are far more dense with infrastructure that has already been bought and paid for. Living out in Auburn bay requires a tonne of NEW infrastructure to be put in place that isn't paid for by the people who live out there.

A lot less true now with the new levies for growth infrastructure as well as minimum density thresholds required.

But again, you can still have dense suburbs that are planned poorly. Density is not the be all and end all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

but people in the inner city generally aren't causing sprawl, those communities are far more dense with infrastructure that has already been bought and paid for. Living out in Auburn bay requires a tonne of NEW infrastructure to be put in place that isn't paid for by the people who live out there.

So you are saying an existing resident has more right to be in the city than a new resident?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GGG

So you are saying an existing resident has more right to be in the city than a new resident?

I'm saying buy a 1950s bungalow in south calgary instead of a new house in auburn bay.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by GGG

So you are saying an existing resident has more right to be in the city than a new resident?

You know new residents are allowed to purchase or rent anywhere in the entire city and not stand in line for the next free plot of land on the edge?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bunk

A lot less true now with the new levies for growth infrastructure as well as minimum density thresholds required.

Which was, again, driven by the latte-sippers to the city-as-a-whole's benefit.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by GGG

Except that many of them cause the sprawl.

Originally Posted by GGG

So you are saying an existing resident has more right to be in the city than a new resident?

Who said anything about rights?

you started this debate by saying inner city residents 'cause the sprawl' which is patently false.

suggesting that your land use footprint is what determines sprawl misses the point. New infrastructure and the cost of maintaining that infrastructure is also part of that equation.

one can make an argument that newer suburbs are trying to be smarter with their growth and that they are becoming much denser...which is a good thing

that doesn't nothing for your initial argument that inner city residents are "causing sprawl"

[Yeah_Baby]

Make Calgary Great Again!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I'm saying buy a 1950s bungalow in south calgary instead of a new house in auburn bay.

We'll to buy in the inner city you are displacing a resident from somewhere. We don't have an unlimited supply of 1950s South Calgary bungalows and intact the 1950s bungalow is probably the worst house to own in terms of sprawl. Post war lots jumped up in size (though it might take to the 60s not sure on the exact timeline of the standardization of the 50ft lot). The 1950s bungalow in the inner city should be torn down and infilled.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

Which was, again, driven by the latte-sippers to the city-as-a-whole's benefit.

I disagree this was driven by Latte Sippers. It was driven by councillors not on the take from developers. Everyone who owns a home should be on board with charging for infrastructure at the time of lot development.

[Tinordi]

Inner city residents have an outsized impact on sprawl no doubt. Opposing rezonings and densification is a big stick that they carry that pushes development to green fields.

But I think it's important to recognize that's there's other factors at work. Likely the most important factors is simply market demand. People want to live out in the suburbs on their own little ranch. Developers are responding to that. Getting people to not wawnt that is not currently within the spectre of feasible politics. Should a carbon tax be jacked to its true social cost, like $120 per tonne, should roadway infrastructure be paid on a usage basis, should the ecosystem services of disrupted greenfields be valued then you might see peoples' preferences change. I don't think that's remotely in the cards.

If that's the case then Calgary is overdue for revisiting the town center plans that are being used to limited success in Metro Van. Multiple downtowns exist in Burnaby, Coquitlam, Surrey Center and are aimed to serve local residents limiting commute times and providing urban amenities.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

We'll to buy in the inner city you are displacing a resident from somewhere. We don't have an unlimited supply of 1950s South Calgary bungalows and intact the 1950s bungalow is probably the worst house to own in terms of sprawl. Post war lots jumped up in size (though it might take to the 60s not sure on the exact timeline of the standardization of the 50ft lot). The 1950s bungalow in the inner city should be torn down and infilled.

You can have my 1955 bungalow on it's 65x100 ft lot when you pry it form my cold dead hands. The big lot size is why I bought it, so I could build an oversized garage and have a garden. I don't care that it is a "waste of space".

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by GGG

We'll to buy in the inner city you are displacing a resident from somewhere. We don't have an unlimited supply of 1950s South Calgary bungalows and intact the 1950s bungalow is probably the worst house to own in terms of sprawl. Post war lots jumped up in size (though it might take to the 60s not sure on the exact timeline of the standardization of the 50ft lot). The 1950s bungalow in the inner city should be torn down and infilled.

If that's the case, any piece of land that is not developed to it's maximum density should be torn down and replaced.

You're reaching.

[Izzle]

Is this anything to do with the #seeMe I saw all over the train stations in downtown Calgary?

Basically, it was a chalk outline of a body with the hashtag. It was by the sidewalks close to the courts building.