MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[WideReceiver]

Originally Posted by woob

Genuine question; Can a Mayor actually kill rezoning? Isn't it ultimately up to a council vote again?

No, a mayor has no such authority. He/she can’t make ANY decisions.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Wolven

No. I read it as the opposite. They would make the rezoning more planful so that they can work with the communities to get density while still having diversity in housing options.

"Fix Blanket Rezoning. Find a middle ground solution that supports growth and respects community input, while creating more homes where they’re needed most. This includes a full zoning review to ensure diverse housing forms are built fairly across the city."

Also, I would hope that instead of having the people turn on each other (like how you want to go after upper mount royal) the focus, in my opinion, should be getting housing density out of corporate owned lands. Houses are the most expensive asset most people own and we should be mindful of that while trying to accomplish the goals of making more housing.

I mean, the whole benefit of the blanket re-zoning is that there isn't a bunch of bureaucracy and consultations required. Those things sound really motherhood and apple pie but they add a lot of time and cost to the development process, which will absolutely reduce supply/increase costs to homebuyers.

There is tons of land in places like Upper Mount Royal right near transportation corridors (14th st) that it would be 100% reasonable to upzone. There isn't any justifiable reason for wealthy neighbourhoods to be exempt from these changes. That isn't an us-versus-them situation, it's trying to maximize the value we get as a society from the resources we have.

[powderjunkie]

Most of the candidates who say they will repeal the rezoning claim they will replace it with a better system. And then to whatever extent they offer details, they simply describe the previous system: LAPs set density and height restrictions "strategically". Of course they leave out the next steps where property owners end up applying for a land-use amendment and nearly always have it approved after an unnecessarily tedious process. And then they move on to the development permit process, aka the safeguard where the finer details actually get addressed.

Why not just 'fix' it the other direction from where we are now? They could implement a process similar to getting your laneway paved. Get __% of your neighbours onboard, and the extra costs of this low density get tacked on to their property taxes indefinitely. I suspect most of the opponents will come back to reality pretty quickly, and realize it's not worth it, as very few of their neighbours will actually redevelop in the near-mid term.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I sincerely doubt that the re-zoning is going anywhere no matter who gets in; Calgary has been a top performer in the federal Housing Accelerator Fund and I doubt anyone wants to be responsible for the City losing $22.8m of free federal money to build more housing (and possibly more if the program gets extended, etc.), given the program required the City to implement re-zoning to participate in the first place.

You don't think Conservative ideologues will throw away money to get their way? I know you aren't new here...

[TorqueDog]

I'm not voting for a Conservative ideologue who has pledged to completely eliminate it. I think evaluating the targeting of land re-zoning and development for best impact is a reasonable approach.

Originally Posted by Wolven

Perhaps I glanced too quickly but I do not see anything in there that ties the HAF to blanket rezoning.

Acceptance of the City's application was contingent on them having done so.

Canada's Housing Minister is warning that municipalities won't succeed with applications for federal housing accelerator funding unless they are flexible on zoning rules.

Speaking Wednesday at an Empire Club of Canada luncheon in Toronto, Sean Fraser said a willingness to adopt zoning reforms has been key for the communities that have signed deals with Ottawa.

Fraser said the federal government has seen "a change in approach overnight" on the part of cities that were initially resistant to such changes, as competition for the money has prompted some jurisdictions to become more open to reform.

"If you want to tap into the fund, be more ambitious than your neighbours," Fraser said.

"There are cities who won't receive funding because they don't want to end exclusionary zoning in Canada. I know who some of them are and maybe they'll change their ways."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hou...ning-1.7086920

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, the whole benefit of the blanket re-zoning is that there isn't a bunch of bureaucracy and consultations required. Those things sound really motherhood and apple pie but they add a lot of time and cost to the development process, which will absolutely reduce supply/increase costs to homebuyers.

There is tons of land in places like Upper Mount Royal right near transportation corridors (14th st) that it would be 100% reasonable to upzone. There isn't any justifiable reason for wealthy neighbourhoods to be exempt from these changes. That isn't an us-versus-them situation, it's trying to maximize the value we get as a society from the resources we have.

De-regulation doesn't help people, it helps companies. When you "eliminate red tape" it gives the corporations more decision making power on behalf of the rest of us but the corporation doesn't give a crap about you or me, they give a crap about profits.

As long as land development is 100% outsourced to private corporations, you should not de-regulate them and give them more control to make profit at our expense.

Also much fun as it might be to try and go after upper mount royal, it is a pipe dream. What will actually happen is there will be zero redevelopment in upper mount royal and the developers will buy up all of the affordable housing in other neighbourhoods in order to convert them into less affordable housing. No private developer is going to try and buy a $3M house for redevelopment when they can buy a $700K house instead and convert it into 2-3 $1.4M houses.

The developers will make a pile of money buying up all of the affordable houses and the houses will get more expensive. It is a lose-lose for the average person hoping to buy a home.

If you really want to stick it to the 'rich' people, go after their corporate owned land. Take their empty lots that they are sitting on until land value goes up enough for them to finally develop at maximum profit. Or go after their inner city warehouses and slumlord rental properties.

There are many other strategies that you can use that won't expressly benefit corporations and harm citizens.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Most of the candidates who say they will repeal the rezoning claim they will replace it with a better system. And then to whatever extent they offer details, they simply describe the previous system: LAPs set density and height restrictions "strategically". Of course they leave out the next steps where property owners end up applying for a land-use amendment and nearly always have it approved after an unnecessarily tedious process. And then they move on to the development permit process, aka the safeguard where the finer details actually get addressed.

Why not just 'fix' it the other direction from where we are now? They could implement a process similar to getting your laneway paved. Get __% of your neighbours onboard, and the extra costs of this low density get tacked on to their property taxes indefinitely. I suspect most of the opponents will come back to reality pretty quickly, and realize it's not worth it, as very few of their neighbours will actually redevelop in the near-mid term.

Yeah. That would be a reasonable outcome, like the upgraded LEAF levy for nicer community landscaping. If your community votes (every 5 years, supermajority) to pay a big surcharge to cover the incremental infrastructure charges your neighbourhood is generating by not densifying then that seems reasonable. But that should be significant (probably 50-100% of the city portion). Then you can keep r1 zoning.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

By "fix it" do they mean extending it to neighbourhoods like Upper Mount Royal where rich people have their own DC zoning scheme?

Because I'd be down for that.

I hope it means throwing out all the restrictive covenants people are proudly advertising with their yard signs.

[calgarygeologist]

There is a development permit a little bit down the street from me where they want to build a 12 unit residential project on a 65x110 foot lot. It is planned as 2 buildings with three 2 storey units (6 units) plus a basement suite in each unit (6 units.) Only 6 off-street parking stalls. This seems pretty excessive for that size of lot. Currently it is a 4 unit, single storey duplex (two units plus two basement suites.)

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

There is a development permit a little bit down the street from me where they want to build a 12 unit residential project on a 65x110 foot lot. It is planned as 2 buildings with three 2 storey units (6 units) plus a basement suite in each unit (6 units.) Only 6 off-street parking stalls. This seems pretty excessive for that size of lot. Currently it is a 4 unit, single storey duplex (two units plus two basement suites.)

pay attention if any units have a bathroom for each suite. A development near me had those and we pointed out these "Roommate units" will likely have a second car -- and that needed to be factored into the parking requirements.

we brought it up at development appeal.. and the developer relented -dropping the top floor/sixth floor from the design.

[fotze2]

Is there a zero growth party? Just enjoy what we have for a few years, sort things out, get some stuff built finally, add a Baird valve to choke the growth? I know every single person in municipal politics is being greased. I don’t get any of that grease. Just farts on the face. I know ceos of oil companies and also developers and it’s not even close who the bigger snakes are.

Rndsqr needs to burn in a fire.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Is there a zero growth party? Just enjoy what we have for a few years, sort things out, get some stuff built finally, add a Baird valve to choke the growth? I know every single person in municipal politics is being greased. I don’t get any of that grease. Just farts on the face. I know ceos of oil companies and also developers and it’s not even close who the bigger snakes are.

Rndsqr needs to burn in a fire.

Sorry everyone, Calgary is closed for business and any new people. How it is now is how it will forever be. Potholes and all. Come be part of the energy err blue sky city!

[Faust]

Sarah Elder
I'm excited to announce I'm running to be the next mayor of Calgary.

There's too much at stake to stay on the sidelines. I'm running for every Calgarian that doesn't see the other candidates as someone they can vote for.

We deserve better.

voteforcalgary.ca

#yyc #yyccc

https://x.com/sarahelder/status/1964...041406463?s=61


Trevor Scott Howell

Former Farkas campaign co-chair Sarah Elder enters mayoral race. Feels like a key detail the Herald forgot to mention.

https://x.com/tshowell/status/1965145345127817661?s=61

[GGG]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Is there a zero growth party? Just enjoy what we have for a few years, sort things out, get some stuff built finally, add a Baird valve to choke the growth? I know every single person in municipal politics is being greased. I don’t get any of that grease. Just farts on the face. I know ceos of oil companies and also developers and it’s not even close who the bigger snakes are.

Rndsqr needs to burn in a fire.

I would vote for a federal party with the goal of slowing growth to zero over 50 years and adjusting taxes and retirement benefits to make it work.

At the city level all it does is increase housing cost and promote illegal suites and satellite communities.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I hope it means throwing out all the restrictive covenants people are proudly advertising with their yard signs.

Any other mutually agreed legal protections you would like to strip people of?

Seriously, a lot of you guys are attacking other people in order to get to this end goal of ... what is your end goal?

It really just sounds like a bunch of you are land developers who want to maximize profits at the expense of the people of Calgary.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Any other mutually agreed legal protections you would like to strip people of?

Seriously, a lot of you guys are attacking other people in order to get to this end goal of ... what is your end goal?

It really just sounds like a bunch of you are land developers who want to maximize profits at the expense of the people of Calgary.

I think in general people want people to pay for the externalities of their decisions.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think in general people want people to pay for the externalities of their decisions.

Damned rights ! Thats why we need to build a Wall! And we'll get Airdrie and Okotoks to pay for it!

It'll be the biggest, most beautiful useless wall you've ever seen!

[Wormius]

Still waiting for this apocalypse that the rezoning was supposed to cause where gardens would no longer grow vegetables and people would be forced to park in their own garage.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Still waiting for this apocalypse that the rezoning was supposed to cause where gardens would no longer grow vegetables and people would be forced to park in their own garage.

I'm still waiting for useless comments like this to be clever and drive meaningful discussion.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I'm still waiting for useless comments like this to be clever and drive meaningful discussion.

Has it made the City worse?