MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Vedder]

Nothing but L’s for this council. Right or wrong I think people underestimate how much this will piss off a pretty reliable voting demographic. Can’t switch off democracy when it disagrees with the urban planning textbook.

[Wormius]

The Wenzels in particular will be definitely very upset with this council if people have the choice to buy nice, new inner city residences than be commuting all the way out from practically Airdrie, even if it is only 15 minutes.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm fine with neighbors on each side. Just not multiple households. Calgary's not New York, Toronto, or Chicago either. It's not like we're this massive cosmopolitan urban center than demands mass condo/multiplex living in the region. Pretty much every comparable population center in the US has affordable SFHs.

Nobody is getting rid of "affordable SFH" (debatable if thise even exist I suppose) Those will still exist. They're not proposing condos and massive multiplexes on every street. Row houses, semi detached are a small increase in density.

If you're fine with nehighbours your fine with RC-G. Again, this isn't condos everywhere, it's 4 plexes and the like. Nothing to light your hair on fire over.

[Torture]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1641881331260092417

I wouldn't have a problem with something like this as my neighbour at all. It's no bigger than any other modern house aside from the fact that it stretches longer and has 8 doors. (Oh no, character destroying!!111)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Then buy a SFH that isn’t next to a whatever-the-plex.

This isn’t hard.

But they might be really expensive because multiplexes depress property values uhhhhmmmmm

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm against this because I want to live in a SFH when I return to the Calgary region, don't want to live next to a Du/four/eightplex and don't want to have to park blocks away due to cramped streets. Upzoning the entire city all at once is insane and will ruin many great neighborhoods. I could be for this though if all density requirements for new communities were dropped concurrently (Hey why not let the market decide if legions of 4 story wood condo buildings straddling the city limits are actually desired).

I think the SFHomeowners who will see the biggest increase in value will be people who live in Cochrane, Okotoks, Airdrie & Strathmore.

Are you willing to adopt a tax on sprawl policy. Essentiallya tax per square foot of land your property occupies in addition to the the current property value based taxes. Essentially have people pay for their choices.

Ruin is such a weird word for change.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you willing to adopt a tax on sprawl policy. Essentiallya tax per square foot of land your property occupies in addition to the the current property value based taxes. Essentially have people pay for their choices.

Ruin is such a weird word for change.

If we’re doing tax on sprawl then the further from city centre, taxes should increase. The suburbs cost the city way more and should start paying their fair share. They’re nothing but parasites.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

If we’re doing tax on sprawl then the further from city centre, taxes should increase. The suburbs cost the city way more and should start paying their fair share. They’re nothing but parasites.

I believe that up until the late 90s the suburbs were taxes at a higher rate to pay for new services and utilities which is essentially a tax on sprawl. But then people got upset with the rich inner city people not paying their "fair share."

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I believe that up until the late 90s the suburbs were taxes at a higher rate to pay for new services and utilities which is essentially a tax on sprawl. But then people got upset with the rich inner city people not paying their "fair share."

But the inner city people aren’t parasites. Plus people on larger lots can pay a premium too. MFHs should pay way less. Let the people who will bankrupt the city pay for it. We literally can’t have nice things because we have to pander to these suburban dwelling leeches.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

If we’re doing tax on sprawl then the further from city centre, taxes should increase. The suburbs cost the city way more and should start paying their fair share. They’re nothing but parasites.

If we are forcing sprawl to preserve the great inner city neighborhoods west of Crowchild, only makes sense to make it a ‘neighborhood preservation tax’ (or a neighborhood stagnation tax would probably be more accurate).

It’s a small price to pay to ensure those pesky immigrants move somewhere else.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you willing to adopt a tax on sprawl policy. Essentiallya tax per square foot of land your property occupies in addition to the the current property value based taxes. Essentially have people pay for their choices.

Ruin is such a weird word for change.

A Sprawl tax would just throw gasoline on development on Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by #-3

A Sprawl tax would just throw gasoline on development on Airdrie, Chestermere, Okotoks and Cochrane.

Time for those tolls to enter city limits.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Brendone

But if you’re looking to move to your “forever” home, theres no certainty that if your neighbours house goes up for sale, it doesn’t get bought and demolished for a multi family dwelling. I don’t think it’s that crazy to want some certainty if a SFH home in a low density neighbourhood is your goal, is it? Or are we saying if that’s your goal, leave the city?

I think if that’s a deciding factor for someone, then yeah, they have to consider how much “city” they really want to sign up for.

Whether that’s choosing a different neighborhood or going outside the city limits, you’d probably want to avoid neighborhoods with a higher demand for those kinds of developments, but you’d also probably want to get comfortable with the fact that it could happen anywhere in a city.

And I don’t think that’s unreasonable. If you want to die in a SFH surrounded by SFH, nothing is stopping you from buying in Ricardo Ranch or wherever. Newer communities aren’t likely to change as quickly.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I believe that up until the late 90s the suburbs were taxes at a higher rate to pay for new services and utilities which is essentially a tax on sprawl. But then people got upset with the rich inner city people not paying their "fair share."

New developments pay significant offsite levies to pay for the capital costs to connect to city roads and utilities.

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

But the inner city people aren’t parasites. Plus people on larger lots can pay a premium too. MFHs should pay way less. Let the people who will bankrupt the city pay for it. We literally can’t have nice things because we have to pander to these suburban dwelling leeches.

Let's do it as long as it applies to everyone. New communities with low crime and no transit shouldn't have to pay much for those services and people never planning to go to the East Village or Rivers District don't have to pay for their development. It would suck to live near an underground Green Line station though, you'll probably need to take out a second mortgage.

Really, most inner city residents are coat-tailing on corporate offices, high-end retailers and the really rich paying $15K-$30K in property taxes on their mansions (and needing little services). Those are the taxpayers that have been subsidizing the City.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm fine with neighbors on each side. Just not multiple households. Calgary's not New York, Toronto, or Chicago either. It's not like we're this massive cosmopolitan urban center than demands mass condo/multiplex living in the region. Pretty much every comparable population center in the US has affordable SFHs.

And you’ll still find them in Calgary, so I’m not sure what the issue is.

Are people convincing themselves they’re going to tear down 5 year old SFH and put up rows of duplexes? What are people even talking about?

[BlackArcher101]

There is certainly a stigma about multi-dwelling homes. I've seen it myself with a few people when they find out I live in a semi-attached duplex. It's as if suddenly I've been sent down a few notches on my status with them. I see shades of the same stigma in some of the arguments here. It's quite ridiculous. In my part of the neighborhood I'm in, a large portion of homes are duplex's right across the street from detached SFH's. Those SFH's are priced just as equally as other parts of the neighborhood that are predominantly all detached SFH. Just utter BS thinking multi-dwelling homes are going to drag down the neighbourhood or it's prices. I can say for sure that if it wasn't for this home style, I would be utterly screwed right now. I wouldn't have been able to get a detached and who knows if I could have even been able to save up for one if I was renting. MORE homes of this style are needed.

IMO, if you want quiet small city living with large lots and guarantees things will never change, then maybe trying to stick it out in a fast growing large city ain't your thing.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think if that’s a deciding factor for someone, then yeah, they have to consider how much “city” they really want to sign up for.

Whether that’s choosing a different neighborhood or going outside the city limits, you’d probably want to avoid neighborhoods with a higher demand for those kinds of developments, but you’d also probably want to get comfortable with the fact that it could happen anywhere in a city.

And I don’t think that’s unreasonable. If you want to die in a SFH surrounded by SFH, nothing is stopping you from buying in Ricardo Ranch or wherever. Newer communities aren’t likely to change as quickly.

New communities are already way too packed in for my liking. Ricardo Ranch just looks like an extension of Seton, with houses so close you could walk from roof to roof. I guess there’s little chance of packing it tighter in the future though.

[Bill Bumface]

You guys know what I do when I want to park my car close to my house? Choose to live somewhere that my car fits on my private property so I can park there whenever I want.

The street in front of my house is all of yours as much as it is mine.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by accord1999

New developments pay significant offsite levies to pay for the capital costs to connect to city roads and utilities.


Let's do it as long as it applies to everyone. New communities with low crime and no transit shouldn't have to pay much for those services and people never planning to go to the East Village or Rivers District don't have to pay for their development. It would suck to live near an underground Green Line station though, you'll probably need to take out a second mortgage.

Really, most inner city residents are coat-tailing on corporate offices, high-end retailers and the really rich paying $15K-$30K in property taxes on their mansions (and needing little services). Those are the taxpayers that have been subsidizing the City.

lol. No. None of that is correct.

But sure. Let’s split Calgary into two municipalities. One inner city and one for the suburbs and we’ll see which one is healthier financially. My moneys on the one with density and jobs.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

lol. No. None of that is correct.

But sure. Let’s split Calgary into two municipalities. One inner city and one for the suburbs and we’ll see which one is healthier financially. My moneys on the one with density and jobs.

We've seen that happen in the US with many older cities in severe decline because so many people have left for the suburbs. Suburbs that are legally separate jurisdictions.


There's no reason more oil and gas corporate offices can't move out to suburban campuses, like Imperial Oil did.