MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[fotze2]

We’ve been looking to downsize but cannot find anything to even go look at. I’d rather spend less that current. Problem is we idiotically got this big ass dog. Older kid is basically at u of an all year round, younger will probably play hockey somewhere else next year. It’s an attached currently so not a huge footprint but do not need all this space but would like a room or two for kids possibly coming back. It’s basically lakeview but don’t want to spend $1.2mm since anything else was clearly geezer owned and I don’t want to Reno’s because they are a nightmare. Couple bungalows in Bragg creek have caught the eye but that commute will make me suicidal (moreso ).

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

It is extremely difficult for the incumbents to defend their arena deal vote. Walcott is my councillor and he told me there was no path to victory for him based on the amount of feedback he received about it.

Well that's his fault.

He could have voted "no", or alternatively he could have not opposed it in his 1st campaign and then supported it when it actually came up (at least then he wouldn't have had a mandate to do the opposite of what he actually did). Nothing forced him to do either so I have no issue with him running into problems because of it.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Theiseen was in law school with me (not same year though) and I have had some interaction over the years. Seems pretty decent, and his slate is certainly a nice combination of non-career politicians but still community experienced people.

I get not wanting parties, but I tend to think this party was formed as a defence mechanism against RW slates. I'm a little surprised Theissen hasn't gotten more traction - his messaging seems good. Maybe debates will help him.

I 100% agree the party was created as a counter to the use of the party system by the right (the reason it was created in the first place); and i am not opposed to using the same ####ty mechanisms to get people that align with me get elected.

It's quite surprising that the other 2 party leaders don't seem to have much traction either.

[Cappy]

It's quite telling that a lot of incumbents are not running again.

[Johnny Makarov]

one good thing is we won't see Sharp at city hall after this year.

Can Chu and Mclean run for Mayor too?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

one good thing is we won't see Sharp at city hall after this year.

Yeah, I have no idea how Sharpe thinks she has the juice to run for mayor. Davison got smashed last election (and will get smashed this election) and if someone were to tell me that Sharpe was just Davison pulling some kind of Mrs. Doubtfire routine I wouldn't automatically disbelieve it.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by GGG

Compare that to the two infills beside it. Both have significantly full lots I don’t see the fuss between those two options.

All situations are always equal.

[Faust]

Candidate Debates For Calgary’s 2025 Municipal Election:

https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/calgar...on-forums-2025

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Ya, like I said, you need to first understand the problem statement. It really does not appear that you do.

1) Demand is high because there isn't enough housing to go around. This is not an opinion, this is a fact that is so prevalent that it was a key issue in the last federal election. This is why the blanket rezoning happened and why there have been so many initiatives to build more housing across the country.

2) Cost of living is getting uncontrollably high. Insurance is high, electricity is high, gas is high, food is high, cars are high... there is no aspect to the cost of living that is "substantially lower". This was also a primary issue in the election and things have only gotten worse with the global tariffs.

3) Salaries are not keeping up with costs. In fact, in a number of places salaries appear to be shrinking instead of growing and unemployment is very high. Look at the multiple unions threatening to strike because of this fact.

Your stance is to ignore the problem and the dismiss the facts because... you are not seeing it in your personal life? Maybe you should go do some reading about the "housing crisis" - yes, search that exact term.

It is the "housing crisis", not the "housing preference".

Of course I understand all of that. You're the one that kicked this off by complaining about how housing is being built. But it's a big enough problem that it needs to be attacked from all angles: infills big and small, brownfield & greenfield big and small. And believe it or not, Calgary is actually doing a pretty damn good job of all of this and essentially leading the country in housing starts. Which isn't to say it couldn't be better, because of course it could.

To your specific complaints/ideas:

West Village makes no sense until East Village is built out

Westbrook is a longer story and a bit of a mess, but it will get there eventually. It should be mostly towers, and more planets have to align for those to happen. In the meantime, there is tons of TOD happening in all directions around it. Midrises on the SE corner of Westbrook, 8 blocks south on 37th, on 17th near 45th (where the AMA building is also going to be redeveloped), and tons of appropriate density along Bow Tr, including the redevelopment of the SE corner of the golf course.

The CP Yard idea is fanciful for a number of reasons, but we already have a half dozen projects ongoing exactly like you want: University District, West District, Springbank Hill, Quarry Park, Currie Barracks. Each project is generally very good.


I'm pretty much a socialist. But I don't think government should be in the business of building homes very much at all. Some of the stuff the feds are doing right now is pretty good.

[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Well that's his fault.

He could have voted "no", or alternatively he could have not opposed it in his 1st campaign and then supported it when it actually came up (at least then he wouldn't have had a mandate to do the opposite of what he actually did). Nothing forced him to do either so I have no issue with him running into problems because of it.

I agree. It was a friendly conversation but I told him this is the reason I wouldn't consider voting, donating, or volunteering for him this time around.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

People have been priced out of single floor bungalows on large lots. That’s ok. It’s the reality of of the growth required to support their retirement on the taxes levels they paid.

But in many cases, the modest bungalow on a large lot in an older community is owned by a senior. That type of housing is already ideal for them, with easy single floor living, usable yards and good location. There's no incentive or for them to move away, especially when there is nothing as good new. With the density requirements and lot dimensions in new communities, new build bungalows have become extremely rare (and premium). With the house paid off, the owners can afford to stay as long as their healthy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by accord1999

But in many cases, the modest bungalow on a large lot in an older community is owned by a senior. That type of housing is already ideal for them, with easy single floor living, usable yards and good location. There's no incentive or for them to move away, especially when there is nothing as good new. With the density requirements and lot dimensions in new communities, new build bungalows have become extremely rare (and premium). With the house paid off, the owners can afford to stay as long as their healthy.

In my very unpopular opinion houses like this should be taxed on best use for property value so would be taxed as two infills rather than one small bungalow. This provides the incentive to move.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by accord1999

But in many cases, the modest bungalow on a large lot in an older community is owned by a senior. That type of housing is already ideal for them, with easy single floor living, usable yards and good location. There's no incentive or for them to move away, especially when there is nothing as good new. With the density requirements and lot dimensions in new communities, new build bungalows have become extremely rare (and premium). With the house paid off, the owners can afford to stay as long as their healthy.

It is usually a pretty good set up for them, but IMO it's not quite 'ideal'. Small issues can become big challenges pretty quickly. There are usually still some stairs to deal with, and it usually necessitates a pretty high level of car dependency. One or both of those will become a big problem at some point, leading to more isolation/etc

But I completely understand there are strong reasons many are resistant to moving.

Originally Posted by GGG

In my very unpopular opinion houses like this should be taxed on best use for property value so would be taxed as two infills rather than one small bungalow. This provides the incentive to move.

This is also called Georgism aka Land Value Tax. It would be a much better system; it's kinda dumb to tax more for improvements on land.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

In my very unpopular opinion houses like this should be taxed on best use for property value so would be taxed as two infills rather than one small bungalow. This provides the incentive to move.

As a non senior living in the type of property you describe, please don't run for office.


It's funny, because when I bought these were a dime a dozen and nobody wanted them. They all bought vinyl palaces with no yard miles from downtown, which I thought was crazy when you could buy a home with 65 ft frontage with a huge yard 5km from downtown. Never made sense to me they were the same price. Even now I think they are great value in areas like Thorncliff.

[CFO]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As a non senior living in the type of property you describe, please don't run for office.


It's funny, because when I bought these were a dime a dozen and nobody wanted them. They all bought vinyl palaces with no yard miles from downtown, which I thought was crazy when you could buy a home with 65 ft frontage with a huge yard 5km from downtown. Never made sense to me they were the same price. Even now I think they are great value in areas like Thorncliff.

Because people like new. It's a strange world. I'd prefer central and value.

[Fuzz]

Ok, so they can pay the new tax. No need to try to reclaim it from those who make different decisions through taxes. Servicing distant communities, even with density has its own costs.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As a non senior living in the type of property you describe, please don't run for office.


It's funny, because when I bought these were a dime a dozen and nobody wanted them. They all bought vinyl palaces with no yard miles from downtown, which I thought was crazy when you could buy a home with 65 ft frontage with a huge yard 5km from downtown. Never made sense to me they were the same price. Even now I think they are great value in areas like Thorncliff.

As long as you never complain about sprawl given that you are the cause

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

As long as you never complain about sprawl given that you are the cause

I dunno if I am the cause. I chose not sprawl. Others voted with their dollars for sprawl. If more people bought what I bought, prices would rise, increasing tax payments on my property. I think you have this wrong. There is nothing I could do differently in my property purchase to send a signal for less sprawl than not buying on the edge of the city.


I could have built a suit on top of my garage, but that was expensive and I dislike people. It also would drastically increase my taxes.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I dunno if I am the cause. I chose not sprawl. Others voted with their dollars for sprawl. If more people bought what I bought, prices would rise, increasing tax payments on my property. I think you have this wrong. There is nothing I could do differently in my property purchase to send a signal for less sprawl than not buying on the edge of the city.


I could have built a suit on top of my garage, but that was expensive and I dislike people. It also would drastically increase my taxes.

You occupy a large lot, the location of that lot is rather immaterial to the size of the city. Your ownership of said lot prevents its redevelopment. Where you choose to live is not the cause of sprawl. How much land you choose to occupy does.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

You occupy a large lot, the location of that lot is rather immaterial to the size of the city. Your ownership of said lot prevents its redevelopment. Where you choose to live is not the cause of sprawl. How much land you choose to occupy does.

If I sold it or didn't but it, someone else would. Essentially my only option to satisfy your wants would be to tear my house down, divide the lot or put a MF home on it, and, I dunno, move to the sprawling outskirts or in a new unit on the property that would cost me as much as my current arrangement but lose everything I enjoy about it? And it wouldn't sell to others, because the density wave is still 20 blocks south of me currently? At best it makes two million dollar infills today. No, sorry, you don't make any sense here. Nothing I could do personally at this point would improve sprawl.
The funny part is one of the big selling points for me was the lot size and future desirability for development. Bet we are not there yet. So I'm good.