MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I think the answer to this is that the proper people were given their cash envelopes and bribes for this development and more. Absolutely no way that more large scale bids would not have been interested in this project.

Originally Posted by timun

The land in question has a complicated history. The original Glenmore Landing developer, Intrawest, owned it in the first place. When the mall was developed in 1983 they entered into an agreement with the City to give the City the lands in question for a future roads interchange that was never (and foreseeably will never) be built. A restrictive covenant was entered onto the lands, which encumbered the mall owner to maintain the land and allow them to put signage up on that land, and which would not allow the City to build anything on that land that would disrupt the visibility of the mall from the roadway.

As such, on its own this land is basically undevelopable. No one would buy it other than RioCan. (who bought Glenmore Landing from Intrawest in 1987)

Shut up timun!
Why would you resort to facts when we can just throw pertty serious allegations out without any sort of background or facts to back them up!!!!

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So let’s be honest about it. And recognize that being unhappy about the development is perfectly normal and understandable, rather than some ignorant character defect.

Sure, I guess, but that understanding doesn't preclude some from being an ignorant NIMBY. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Sure, I guess, but that understanding doesn't preclude some from being an ignorant NIMBY. They aren't mutually exclusive.

I just think that is easy way to brush aside legitimate concerns though. Its not that every project should not go ahead, but surely there are some that shouldn't for good reason.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just think that is easy way to brush aside legitimate concerns though. Its not that every project should not go ahead, but surely there are some that shouldn't for good reason.

Perhaps, but I think there should also be some acknowledgement that there are processes and departments within the city that do review these plans and remove/change many projects. Wasn't it you that claimed that the city planners are a joke, or something to that effect? Are you sure? You have some expertise in this field? I would think that the process is working reasonably well, as the goal for the city is for more development/density rather than less and that these consultations can lead to tweaks that were otherwise overlooked. It won't likely lead to cancellation of the project, but I don't think that is the intended purpose.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just think that is easy way to brush aside legitimate concerns though. Its not that every project should not go ahead, but surely there are some that shouldn't for good reason.

And some do get defeated. Like both Stephen Ave Quarter proposals, although I think the first one with the autopark should have been approved.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Shut up timun!
Why would you resort to facts when we can just throw pertty serious allegations out without any sort of background or facts to back them up!!!!

What can I say? I bring mutha####in' receipts.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by timun

What can I say? I bring mutha####in' receipts.

Edit: Whoops, thought the wrong person was replying.

Good job tinum!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know really know how to respond, really. They put out notice saying this is what they want to do and asked for public input. got the input and then just do whatever they were doing anyway. I call that dishonest, but maybe that's the wrong term?

Honestly, I don't care enough to continue this same tired conversation (not with you, just on this topic). I know we're stuck with this and it's a done deal. Just build it already and let the chaos begin.

I will say, if they get this done and I love the new Glenmore Landing, I will admit it. Maybe they have really figured everything out and my concerns are unfounded.

I mean it probably will suck. There are certain areas (like Glenmore Landing and Beacon Hill and to some extent West Hills) that suck and will always suck and anything they add will just make them suck more.

My only point is that there seems to be a process, and it seems to be pretty much the same every time, and it does seem like they have some criteria beyond noise of opposition they look at.

I don’t think it was ever a situation of “this is what we want to do, what do you think?” if I’m reading it all correctly. It was just “this is approved, anyone can appeal it if they want to” and that’s the process we’re talking about. I would think that to actually have an appeal reverse an approval, the reasons would have to be compelling and something they hadn’t already considered in the process of approving it in the first place. I’m not sure what from any of the appeals would qualify as that.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Perhaps, but I think there should also be some acknowledgement that there are processes and departments within the city that do review these plans and remove/change many projects. Wasn't it you that claimed that the city planners are a joke, or something to that effect? Are you sure? You have some expertise in this field? I would think that the process is working reasonably well, as the goal for the city is for more development/density rather than less and that these consultations can lead to tweaks that were otherwise overlooked. It won't likely lead to cancellation of the project, but I don't think that is the intended purpose.

I never said the city planners are a joke, and you must have me confused with someone else. I called this laughable, which it is. Glenmore Landing needs improvement as it is. Plenty of people avoid it or use it as a last resort today based on the traffic flow issues. I’ve seen the proposals for how they’re going to improve with this project and it’s incredibly limited. That’s because it has to be with that location and the existing infrastructure.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Really?
Cause if you actually do, I suggest you get in touch with the Calgary Police.
Because what you're alleging is a pretty serious crime.
The kind that would definitely get the people committing them kicked off council, or fired.
Also the kind that if you made specific claims and didn't have those receipts, you'd be in for a world of legal issues.

So who's doing it?
What recepts do you have?
Have you contacted CPS, or at the very least the Integrity and Ethics Office?

timun brought the “receipts” that Rio Can bought Glenmore Landing from Intrawest in the late 80’s. It was curves thinking the site was secretly sold and that envelopes of money were involved.

[PepsiFree]

And good luck getting a receipt from curves. That guys pays in gumballs.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I mean it probably will suck. There are certain areas (like Glenmore Landing and Beacon Hill and to some extent West Hills) that suck and will always suck and anything they add will just make them suck more.

My only point is that there seems to be a process, and it seems to be pretty much the same every time, and it does seem like they have some criteria beyond noise of opposition they look at.

I don’t think it was ever a situation of “this is what we want to do, what do you think?” if I’m reading it all correctly. It was just “this is approved, anyone can appeal it if they want to” and that’s the process we’re talking about. I would think that to actually have an appeal reverse an approval, the reasons would have to be compelling and something they hadn’t already considered in the process of approving it in the first place. I’m not sure what from any of the appeals would qualify as that.

See, all my point here is really in the first paragraph you wrote though. Why are we pushing ahead to do this, knowing it will suck worse than what we have?

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Slava

See, all my point here is really in the first paragraph you wrote though. Why are we pushing ahead to do this, knowing it will suck worse than what we have?

Because that isn't a reason. If we applied that to all other projects, which would be true cause everything has an impact, then nothing would move forward. Also, does it suck for you, or for Calgary?

Am I happy that new suburbs are constantly approved further south of me and thus my travel time on deerfoot gets worse and worse every year? Of course not. But am I going to think that reason alone should stop something from being built? Hell no, things expand, and change is the only constant we have in this world.

I don't think we've seen the final engineering drawings for Glenmore Landing have we? Isn't it possible some changes due to the concerns about traffic may still implemented?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Because that isn't a reason. If we applied that to all other projects, which would be true cause everything has an impact, then nothing would move forward.

Am I happy that new suburbs are constantly approved further south of me and thus my travel time on deerfoot gets worse and worse every year? Of course not. But am I going to think that reason alone should stop something from being built? Hell no, things expand, and change is the only constant we have in this world.

I don't think we've seen the final engineering drawings for Glenmore Landing have we? Isn't it possible some changes due to the concerns about traffic may still implemented?

This is basically semantics. I’m fine with density, to be quite honest. I’m not against change. But the fix here is redesign and redevelopment of Glenmore Landing and don’t add 6 towers of people. So, sure, final drawings aren’t done but that’s not happening.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

timun brought the “receipts” that Rio Can bought Glenmore Landing from Intrawest in the late 80’s. It was curves thinking the site was secretly sold and that envelopes of money were involved.

I'm dumb.
For some reason I thougth curves was replying...
I've edited my post and humbly request we all just forget about this unfortunate incident.

Funny story though, I've been on the planning committee in my community association, and you'd be surprised how often people make this exact kind of accusation, and I tell them the exact same thing.
Basically if you've got proof of that, you should do something about it. If not, I'm not going to tolerate people accusing others of crimes while we are trying to have a productive meeting. So that kind of talk by people really annoys me.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

timun brought the “receipts” that Rio Can bought Glenmore Landing from Intrawest in the late 80’s. It was curves thinking the site was secretly sold and that envelopes of money were involved.

For anyone who's curious, here's a copy of the aforementioned caveat from the land titles registry: https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...-agreement.pdf (note: 3.2 MB PDF download)

[timun]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm dumb.
For some reason I thougth curves was replying...
I've edited my post and humbly request we all just forget about this unfortunate incident.

I will nEvAr forgive u!

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is what I hate about the sneering derision towards NIMBYs. People act as though locals have to be selfish and stupid to oppose these sorts of developments. But the truth is, in many cases these new developments do actually make life worse for nearby residents. And most people don’t want their day-to-day lives to get worse. That doesn’t make them some ugly category of citizen - it makes them perfectly normal.

Instead of gaslighting people and telling them their concerns are irrational and without foundation, I wish we could be honest and say “in order to increase housing supply, we’re going to impose changes that will make things worse for most people who live nearby.” I genuinely think that would foster less resentment than the way we go about these thing now.

I don't disagree with that, I'd just add it's important to separate people not liking it from the people actively trying to stop it. Not liking it is reasonable. I know I wouldn't. But I also recognize that it's a good thing overall for the city, we need densification and more housing. Good for the city doesn't always mean good for me, in fact it usually doesn't and I can't wait to leave the city.

The people actively trying to stop it are still dumb NIMBY's though

[timun]

Article from June 21, 1983 regarding the original development:

[Fuzz]

Threesomes in Glenmore never lead to happiness, it seems.