MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah, why let people impacted by this have input?

Because you need to be informed to make an informed decision and in referendums rarely are people informed. We elect people to evaluate the consequences and make the best decision on our behalf.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because you need to be informed to make an informed decision and in referendums rarely are people informed. We elect people to evaluate the consequences and make the best decision on our behalf.

I believe you may be underestimating the average voter. In my community, 74% of the voters have a post-secondary certificate, diploma or degree, with 56% having a university degree at the bachelor level or higher. We elect people who have their own agendas, which often don't coincide with the wishes of the people they represent.

I agree with Slava that the zoning changes have such a potentially high impact on homeowners and communities, that it should go to a plebiscite.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because you need to be informed to make an informed decision and in referendums rarely are people informed. We elect people to evaluate the consequences and make the best decision on our behalf.

Yeah, we elect people but they also take direction from the citizens. I’m not a huge fan of the “well, might not like the direction we’re taking things, but we know what’s best for you” paternalistic approach. The reality is this is a sweeping change and it will have far reaching consequences. There should be input that matches that breadth. And no, electing people isn’t the same in the sense that this wasn’t a campaign issue for anyone. How could we have our say in this issue when no one was running on that platform?

And as a tangent, it’s interesting to me that the proponents seem to know that the plebiscite would fail, but at the same time think they should just go ahead and make the decision anyway.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe you may be underestimating the average voter. In my community, 74% of the voters have a post-secondary certificate, diploma or degree, with 56% having a university degree at the bachelor level or higher. We elect people who have their own agendas, which often don't coincide with the wishes of the people they represent.

I agree with Slava that the zoning changes have such a potentially high impact on homeowners and communities, that it should go to a plebiscite.

So you have been closely following this issue.

What are the consequences to tax rates, housing affordability, sprawl, cost of transit etc of not making this decision. In a plebiscite how will you get the above information and how will you ensure the information is accurate.

In a previous post you used the phrase bribed by Trudeau to describe Godnek. That suggests you are currently resenting misinformation or at least biased I framing of information from the group running the Godnek recall. How will you avoid this type of bias and make andbinformed choice on the plebiscite.

Would you support the plebiscite also including a binding tax increase for saying no to upzoning in your community.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah, we elect people but they also take direction from the citizens. I’m not a huge fan of the “well, might not like the direction we’re taking things, but we know what’s best for you” paternalistic approach. The reality is this is a sweeping change and it will have far reaching consequences. There should be input that matches that breadth. And no, electing people isn’t the same in the sense that this wasn’t a campaign issue for anyone. How could we have our say in this issue when no one was running on that platform?

And as a tangent, it’s interesting to me that the proponents seem to know that the plebiscite would fail, but at the same time think they should just go ahead and make the decision anyway.

Housing affordability and development was a campaign issue for everyone in every election in history.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

Housing affordability and development was a campaign issue for everyone in every election in history.

Sure and who ran on a campaign of changing zoning for the city?

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe you may be underestimating the average voter. In my community, 74% of the voters have a post-secondary certificate, diploma or degree, with 56% having a university degree at the bachelor level or higher. We elect people who have their own agendas, which often don't coincide with the wishes of the people they represent.

I agree with Slava that the zoning changes have such a potentially high impact on homeowners and communities, that it should go to a plebiscite.

Those numbers seem high, where do you access that type of information?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Those numbers seem high, where do you access that type of information?

You can usually pull those stats off of a listing on realtor.ca

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

Excellent voting on zoning is stupid.

Unless the question is I’m in favour of upzoning versus I’m not in favour of upzoning and a corresponds additional tax increase each to support future sprawl.

If you don’t understand the consequences of sprawl you can’t make an informed decision.

While I agree that most people don’t understand the cost/benefits of densification, I have to challenge notion that the average person can’t be trusted with these sort of decisions.

The public increasingly hears that they aren’t equipped to decide important things - just leave it to the experts. And then we wonder why populism is on the rise. It’s difficult enough to combat conspiracy theorists who warn of elites taking over our sovereignty, without technocrats themselves and their supporters basically admitting that the public are too ignorant to be given influence over policy.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

While I agree that most people don’t understand the cost/benefits of densification, I have to challenge notion that the average person can’t be trusted with these sort of decisions.

The public increasingly hears that they aren’t equipped to decide important things - just leave it to the experts. And then we wonder why populism is on the rise. It’s difficult enough to combat conspiracy theorists who warn of elites taking over our sovereignty, without technocrats themselves and their supporters basically admitting that the public are too ignorant to be given influence over policy.

So how is that combatted?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure and who ran on a campaign of changing zoning for the city?

Many campaigned on keeping municipal taxes in check. This is executing on that goal.

People will always optimize for themselves at the expense of the greater good when it comes to property.

If we went direct democracy on this stuff, downtown would still be single family homes.

Is that really what we want?

[timun]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The Liberal Government brings in an inordinate number of immigrants, mainly because they vote Liberal, causing a housing crisis. Then they bribe our mayor and council to f*** up our zoning regulations to fix the problem they created.

Wide open zoning with an anything anywhere policy has led to significant problems, and will ultimately degrade many of our best communities. A drive through the areas in the city, where it has taken place over the past decade, will show what to expect.

A person should have some control over what happens next to his house. If you think the bureaucrats at city hall will look after your best interest...think again.

Originally Posted by timun

Please flamesfever, regale us with how exactly "wide open zoning with an anything anywhere policy" has "degraded" neighbourhoods.

Bumping this to the current page. I quite sincerely want to know what it is exactly that "a drive through areas where this has taken place" will reveal as "degradation" of neighbourhoods. "Degraded" how? In what way have neighbourhoods been "ruined"?

I'm not totally unsympathetic to people not wanting a three-storey rowhouse going up next to their post-war bungalow; I live in one of those post-war bungalows, with some nearby properties having had huge (single detached) infills go up in the last 10 years or so. And I even made mention in another post in this thread of the two-storey, eight-unit rowhouse that went up down the street and around the corner from my house, and that I'm quite happy I'm not an immediate neighbour to that property.

However, these developments haven't "ruined" my neighbourhood. Traffic isn't any worse. Parking isn't any worse (and I have my own parking area on my property anyway). My "investment", such as it is, certainly hasn't suffered because of it; my property value has appreciated over 60% in less than a decade, and certainly not because of anything I did to it.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

While I agree that most people don’t understand the cost/benefits of densification, I have to challenge notion that the average person can’t be trusted with these sort of decisions.

The public increasingly hears that they aren’t equipped to decide important things - just leave it to the experts. And then we wonder why populism is on the rise. It’s difficult enough to combat conspiracy theorists who warn of elites taking over our sovereignty, without technocrats themselves and their supporters basically admitting that the public are too ignorant to be given influence over policy.

"#### you, got mine," is completely and utterly unsustainable policy, and no amount of...

Spoiler!

... is going to make the problems go away.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Many campaigned on keeping municipal taxes in check. This is executing on that goal.

People will always optimize for themselves at the expense of the greater good when it comes to property.

If we went direct democracy on this stuff, downtown would still be single family homes.

Is that really what we want?

I will never, ever understand how people who claim to be fiscal conservatives and strong proponents of free-market capitalism can so hypocritically, doggedly advocate for "big government" keeping their neighbourhoods single detached houses in perpetuity. It's insane. People bitch and complain about high taxes, and then simultaneous absolutely refuse to even entertain fixing the structural issues that cause the higher tax rates in the first place.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Many campaigned on keeping municipal taxes in check. This is executing on that goal.

People will always optimize for themselves at the expense of the greater good when it comes to property.

If we went direct democracy on this stuff, downtown would still be single family homes.

Is that really what we want?

I think that's moving the goalposts though. Of course everyone (and really, I mean everyone) wants taxes kept in check. That doesn't mean that the only way to do that is rezone the city and it doesn't mean that there are no other ways.

Originally Posted by timun

I will never, ever understand how people who claim to be fiscal conservatives and strong proponents of free-market capitalism can so hypocritically, doggedly advocate for "big government" keeping their neighbourhoods single detached houses in perpetuity. It's insane. People bitch and complain about high taxes, and then simultaneous absolutely refuse to even entertain fixing the structural issues that cause the higher tax rates in the first place.

You can't see how people would want to protect the value of their largest or one of their largest assets?

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Many campaigned on keeping municipal taxes in check. This is executing on that goal.

People will always optimize for themselves at the expense of the greater good when it comes to property.

If we went direct democracy on this stuff, downtown would still be single family homes.

Is that really what we want?

Don't you live in a single family home in downtown?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that's moving the goalposts though. Of course everyone (and really, I mean everyone) wants taxes kept in check. That doesn't mean that the only way to do that is rezone the city and it doesn't mean that there are no other ways.

You can't see how people would want to protect the value of their largest or one of their largest assets?

Upzoning increases property values though.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

While I agree that most people don’t understand the cost/benefits of densification, I have to challenge notion that the average person can’t be trusted with these sort of decisions.

The public increasingly hears that they aren’t equipped to decide important things - just leave it to the experts. And then we wonder why populism is on the rise. It’s difficult enough to combat conspiracy theorists who warn of elites taking over our sovereignty, without technocrats themselves and their supporters basically admitting that the public are too ignorant to be given influence over policy.

How is that different from any other point in democracy. We have always elected people to make these decisions. That people don’t understand representative democracy demonstrates why we need representative democracy

[Flames0910]

I don't really see how a duplex changes the character of a community any more negatively than a McMansion. I know we're in a post-truth world and the plebiscite crowd wants to act like skyrises are going up next to single-family homes but that's not what this is about. This is about enabling gentle density.

TBH, making it easier to build townhouses and duplexes makes it less likely for a developer to drop an apartment next door, not more likely. It's essentially a release valve on pent-up market demand. Gentle density provides a mechanism where we don't have to concentrate all of the housing demand into one or two towers.

If you're the kind of person who's worried about development changing the character of your community, this is a positive step.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure and who ran on a campaign of changing zoning for the city?

Many ran on campaigns to improve housing affordability. Anyone running on that was running on changing zoning.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that's moving the goalposts though. Of course everyone (and really, I mean everyone) wants taxes kept in check. That doesn't mean that the only way to do that is rezone the city and it doesn't mean that there are no other ways.

Our taxes will go up by necessecity to service our addiction to urban sprawl.

Originally Posted by Slava

You can't see how people would want to protect the value of their largest or one of their largest assets?

Protecting what? Of all the discussion here, I have yet to see a concrete example of some denser housing "ruining" the value of someone's property. I'm also still waiting to hear about all those reduced property values the SW BRT brought in.