MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Locke]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It would be easier for you to build your new underwater neighbourhood at the bottom of Lake Bonavista.

You're not supposed to talk about that!!!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

You know what the real NIMBY position is? Being in favour of this kind of development because it’s in someone else backyard, and their problem.

Anyway, I’ve made my position clear. I don’t think there’s anything to debate here, because council didn’t proceed. I thought for sure they would and I’m as surprised as anyone that this thing is not happening.

Technically that would be YIYBY but as I said in my edit I would gladly have moved there.

It would only be a NIMBY position if it wasn’t consistent. I want a crackhead on every block and lot sized based taxation. Density and internal communities made paramount over the cars ability to get in an out.

I think the relevance in continuing to discuss these things is that when the taxation discussion comes up every year that these decisions incrementally increase taxation and increase housing cost. Everyone needs to be Yimbys.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

You read the city and developer analysis and found it lacking. Essentially my issue is you are using your lay preception and belief on what will happen when opposing a development. .

I’m curious as to what traffic they actually analyzed. Just 90th ave? Or the single exit from Glenmore Landing itself? Anyone who has been there can attest that the parking lot is already a ####-show. And with no way of expanding access (as Slava pointed out, the BRT cut access from 14th street), it’s hard to see how it wouldn’t get dramatically worse with 3000 more people onsite every day.

And judging by how wrong the estimates on the SW BRT passenger numbers have proven*, people can be forgiven for suspecting that city planners might be in the habit of putting an optimistic spin on projects that the big-wigs are pushing.

* Projections were 12,500 rides a day, and it sure doesn’t look like anything close to that.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Slava

Anyway, I’ve made my position clear. I don’t think there’s anything to debate here, because council didn’t proceed. I thought for sure they would and I’m as surprised as anyone that this thing is not happening.

Let's not kid ourselves. It's still happening. It's just not happening right now.

They'll come back with a new proposal with some minor tweaks and couple of racing stripes when they think they'll get a more favourable council.

[Amethyst]

Will adding 3000 people to a neighbourhood make traffic worse? Probably.

But if will make traffic worse anywhere. That's what happens when cities grow.The only way to stop making traffic/density worse is to have huge sprawl. Which comes with its own traffic (and other) issues.

Sometimes we have to make trade-offs. Yes, traffic sucks, but a growing city where people can have a home might need to take priority over someone's commute time.

[topfiverecords]

The City should expropriate a bunch of property south of 90th Ave and build a Pump Hill Penetrator freeway from Stoney Trail.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Sometimes we have to make trade-offs. Yes, traffic sucks, but a growing city where people can have a home might need to take priority over someone's commute time.

This is true. And some people will always oppose any changes or development in their neighbourhood.

But I do get the sense that a lot of convincible citizens get their backs up about these developments because proponents gaslight them about the downsides. They’re told it’s all good, everything will be better, no downsides at all. And people know that’s bull####. So they feel like they’re being manipulated and treated like idiots.

Maybe there would be even more opposition if advocates were open an honest about the tradeoffs and downsides. I don’t know.

[calgarygeologist]

I think this has been overlooked because of all the development talk but Mayor Gondek has been awarded Mayor of the Year. We should all be so proud of her and celebrate this great achievement.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I think this has been overlooked because of all the development talk but Mayor Gondek has been awarded Mayor of the Year. We should all be so proud of her and celebrate this great achievement.

I have some questions about the criteria surrounding this award.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

I have some questions about the criteria surrounding this award.

Rick Bell, Theo Fleury, and Brett Wilson were obviously not consulted.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Rick Bell, Theo Fleury, and Brett Wilson were obviously not consulted.

I was more thinking...was it 'Calgary Only?'

We've got one and ergo that one has to be the Mayor of the Year due to lack of other candidates.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

I was more thinking...was it 'Calgary Only?'

We've got one and ergo that one has to be the Mayor of the Year due to lack of other candidates.

I think any complaints are really just sour people being sour. The award should be based on being able to run a city under the thumb of the UCP.

[getbak]

Municipal World magazine: https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/i-m-compl...zine-1.7137304

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Rick Bell, Theo Fleury, and Brett Wilson were obviously not consulted.

Well thats just a shame, I'm sure they'd have had some neutral, unbiased and very significant feedback!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by getbak

Municipal World magazine: https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/i-m-compl...zine-1.7137304

In other news....its like the Jack Adams...Kiss of death.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I’m curious as to what traffic they actually analyzed. Just 90th ave? Or the single exit from Glenmore Landing itself? Anyone who has been there can attest that the parking lot is already a ####-show. And with no way of expanding access (as Slava pointed out, the BRT cut access from 14th street), it’s hard to see how it wouldn’t get dramatically worse with 3000 more people onsite every day.

And judging by how wrong the estimates on the SW BRT passenger numbers have proven*, people can be forgiven for suspecting that city planners might be in the habit of putting an optimistic spin on projects that the big-wigs are pushing.

* Projections were 12,500 rides a day, and it sure doesn’t look like anything close to that.

Were the projections based on current population or factoring potential developments like this one?

3000 people in that space sounds like a huge problem, but what about a smaller project? 1000 people? 500 people? What would be manageable?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Were the projections based on current population or factoring potential developments like this one?

3000 people in that space sounds like a huge problem, but what about a smaller project? 1000 people? 500 people? What would be manageable?

I feel like people are assuming that 3000 people means 3000 cars, which obviously it wouldn’t be.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I feel like people are assuming that 3000 people means 3000 cars, which obviously it wouldn’t be.

I don’t think that’s the case. It’s that 3000 people is a lot of people, and it’s a lot of cars for those people.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don’t think that’s the case. It’s that 3000 people is a lot of people, and it’s a lot of cars for those people.

It’s not that many people. That’s like 12 days worth of population growth for Calgary as a whole.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not that many people. That’s like 12 days worth of population growth for Calgary as a whole.

I guess by that metric it’s nothing, but my community has under 700 people, so it’s also 4x that. That’s a huge addition.