MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Whoosh...

Alberta Municipal Affairs minister Ric McIver introduced a new bill Tuesday that would automatically repeal all municipal codes of conduct as soon as it is proclaimed into law.#

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...duct-1.7505306

How do so many Albertans not see that the UCP is trying to turn us into our neighbour down south?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yes, that’s the long-term outcome - different people would shop at Glenmore Landing, people who lived on site. And that’s a good thing.

In the short to medium term, it would displace the people who currently drive to Glenmore Landing. They would get crowded out and need to find a new bank, a new barber, a new bakery, and a new coffee shop to hang out with friends in*. So those who weren’t happy with the proposal were not all being complete morons and defending an empty parking lot. They were being selfish. But being selfish isn’t dumb, and almost everyone is selfish about stuff that affects them personally.

That’s why I don’t like how we frame these issues in public discourse: this new thing will be awesome for everybody, and anyone who disagree is ignorant or a bad person. In reality, every big change is a tradeoff with winners and losers. When those in authority can’t even acknowledge downsides, it fosters a distrust of institutions. People feel they aren’t being presented with the full picture - because they aren’t.

* Not to mention the lab, one of the busiest in the city. Between patients and staff, it probably has a footprint of 30 parking spots, and is one of the main reasons the parking lot is a ####-show.

I'm certainly not calling anyone a bad person...but I think I would call a lot of it hyperbolic bull####. People will make value decisions based on their perceived experience whether new stuff is built or not. Despite being a pretty poor parking/egress situation, people continue to visit. But it's important to state this clearly:

Glenmore Landing is already one of the worst strip mall parking experiences in the city. We can't possibly change it because we may make that already bad experience worse!.

Never mind any possibility that new investment could catalyze improvements - e.g. a traffic circle instead of the main lights. Never mind that we've already made it a worse experience by closing a main entrance and now nobody parks on the east end (look at google maps). But people continue to come. Never mind the inflation of vehicle size has made the narrow margins in parking worse. Never mind that the local demographic has aged and now many of the visitors are old and slow (especially when they have the audacity to walk SO SLOWLY from their car to the store front).

The construction phase would probably be annoying. Such is life in a big city. We already went through a few years of it for the BRT. People continued to come.

I'm betting people will continue to come. Because here's the thing: nearly every medium-large parking lot in the city is a poor experience. Parking your car in any busy place is a subtly aggravating experience (sometimes not so subtle). We've normalized and accepted it, and that's fine. But it's an asinine reason to uphold the status quo.

Glenmore Landing is the holy trinity of limited access/egress, crowded+tight spaces, and poor pedestrian experience from car door to store door. I'd grade it a C- or D+. But honestly it's not even that bad - I've never had trouble getting a spot fairly close to our paediatrician, and it's never taken me an extra light cycle to get out. There is usually just an extra 30-90 seconds somewhere along the process, which one perceives to be a lot more annoying than one should when they are sat behind the wheel and want to go vroom vroom. I'm sure it sucks at rush hour. Because of course it does.

Doing a quick mental inventory of every similar parking lot that I visit with any kind of regularity and I can't actually think of a single one that I'd grade higher than a C. So what if some people decide they need to try a new bank/bakery/barber? We're irrational beings...I'd probably drive an extra 5 minutes to avoid what I perceive to be an agonizing 90 second delay, too. That doesn't make it a good argument against a new housing project.

And yes I am aware that my post contains a lot of hyperbolic bull####. It's performance art.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

A lot to unpack here, and maybe I'll bite off more tomorrow. You seem to have a lot of disdain for corporations/developers (fair enough I guess), but seem to ignore the part where they need people to like what they build enough to buy it...restrictive zoning is the primary thing hindering their ability to "meets the diverse needs of a larger number of people". People vote with their wallets mortgages here more than any other product (except those at the bottom of the housing ladder who really feel the pain of our unnecessarily constrained housing supply).

On the topic of corporations. Disdain is not the right word. Some companies I am really excited about and some I think are doing really cool things. Overall I do not have disdain for them because they are necessary for organizing people into work to accomplish things.

The problem with corporations is that ultimately they will do anything for profit. Poison people, wreck the environment, cut corners on manufacturing in ways that endangers people, planned obsolescence, fight against the right to repair ... if it makes them a profit they will do it unless there is a law or a regulation saying not to (and some of them will disregard the law/regulation).

The responsibility of government is to maintain the relationship between corporations and the people. This is primarily done through regulations. Note: Regulations are a good thing because it is the language that government uses to speak to a corporation. However, like any language it can get messy and confusing if not done correctly.

America has a massively unhealthy relationship with corporations. Alberta is on the same path with having an unhealthy relationship with corporations. The corruption in the UCP is accelerating the corporate power in Alberta and that is not a good thing.

I think most people would agree that we do not want a corporate overlord. I do not want corporations to own our government and I do not want corporations to own all of our resources. I do not accept that corporations have more rights than people, I do not accept that corporations have equal rights to people, and I do not think that they should get preferential treatment.

If we are willing to mess with people's assets (land/homes) then we should be going after corporate land first. Once we have exhausted all of the big ticket development opportunities within corporate owned land then we can turn to the people owned land. Even at that point, I would want a more thoughtful strategy than just "eliminate zoning".

Beyond all that, I do not agree that restrictive zoning is the primary thing hindering healthy housing development. I would say that the primary issue is that private developers only like to build things that make them profit and they will avoid building if profit is not guaranteed. We would likely either need to regulate the builders into making a percentage of their work affordable housing or establish an affordable housing builder that gets first choice at acquiring any available land.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

The problem with corporations is that ultimately they will do anything for profit.

...

If we are willing to mess with people's assets (land/homes) then we should be going after corporate land first. Once we have exhausted all of the big ticket development opportunities within corporate owned land then we can turn to the people owned land. Even at that point, I would want a more thoughtful strategy than just "eliminate zoning".

I am generally with you until these last two paragraphs. But to the bolded I would point out that in this case making a profit involves building something people really really really want to buy (it's a 6 figure+ purchase based on the desirability of human occupation, after all), and the land-use and building codes are still heavily regulated. Of course this may not always jive with a neighbours desires, which is the crux of the whole thing.

How are we messing with people's assets? Rezoning does not require anybody to do anything with their property that they don't want to, nor does it stop anybody from building a SFH if they wish. Again...its about what neighbours MIGHT do with their own property. To your plan...what about people who live next to corporate owned land? Do those people matter less?

And it does NOT "eliminate zoning"! It consolidates about 15 different (often barely different) residential zones into 3 zones. A dozen mixed use zones into 3. And similarly cleans things up for commercial/industrial/etc. It still specifies setbacks, heights, uses, etc. Give it a read (or maybe a skim...it's 300+ pages) and tell me if you still think it isn't "thoughtful":

PDF of the proposed bylaw

Beyond all that, I do not agree that restrictive zoning is the primary thing hindering healthy housing development. I would say that the primary issue is that private developers only like to build things that make them profit and they will avoid building if profit is not guaranteed. We would likely either need to regulate the builders into making a percentage of their work affordable housing or establish an affordable housing builder that gets first choice at acquiring any available land.

It doesn't matter if it's the primary hindrance or not. But it is definitely a hindrance. Again, builders make profit by building things people want to live in (or have other people live in). Do they always get it perfect? Of course not. City building is messy and we've been getting things wrong for decades under the current land-use bylaw (particularly wrt car dependency). But we can do better, and rezoning helps.

Also FYI large scale developments already have to include affordable housing or contribute to the Affordable Housing Fund.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Glenmore Landing is already one of the worst strip mall parking experiences in the city. We can't possibly change it because we may make that already bad experience worse!.

I do think that Glenmore Landing is brutal and we need changes. I’m not sure the traffic circle you’re talking about is a good solution, but sure, let’s see a proposal for that. Let’s see the redesign of the shopping centre without the 6 towers and 3000 people.

I agree with Cliff, thst you can be in favour of development and these things overall, and still be against some of these proposals. I go to the Oakridge Coop all the time, and have no opposition to the tower they’re building as we speak. It’s just far more sensible than the plan at Glenmore Landing.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by Torture

20% between the three progressive candidates and 17% for Terry Wong. My worst fears confirmed and Wong is going to waltz right up the middle while the progressives split the vote. Ugh.

Objection! Heather McRae is not and has never been progressive. She is the same as Terry Wong - a do-nothing centrist running to be a manager.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I am generally with you until these last two paragraphs. But to the bolded I would point out that in this case making a profit involves building something people really really really want to buy (it's a 6 figure+ purchase based on the desirability of human occupation, after all), and the land-use and building codes are still heavily regulated. Of course this may not always jive with a neighbours desires, which is the crux of the whole thing.

No, developers just need to build a house. If it looks as fancy as that house down the street that sold for $1.4M then this house can also sell for $1.4M, even if it only cost 900K to develop. If someone built the exact same house for $400,000 less then there would be a tidal wave of buyers trying to get to the cheaper house. But no private developer would want to give up that much profit and neither would the private realtors.

You would need a non-private developer to step in and change how the market works.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

And it does NOT "eliminate zoning"! It consolidates about 15 different (often barely different) residential zones into 3 zones. A dozen mixed use zones into 3. And similarly cleans things up for commercial/industrial/etc. It still specifies setbacks, heights, uses, etc. Give it a read (or maybe a skim...it's 300+ pages) and tell me if you still think it isn't "thoughtful":

PDF of the proposed bylaw

All of the "R" zoning gets smashed into a single H-1 zoning. So yes, that is exactly what I was talking about when I said it is pretty thoughtless considering the impact to people who invested to live in those areas. If this is just about cleaning up the zoning then fine, what they should do is clean up the zoning and leave the R1 and R2 designations separate as that impacts a lot of people's homes and communities. I would bet that 99% of the complaints are coming from the changes to those 2 zones specifically.

However, providing (incomplete) details about the new zoning does not make the strategy thoughtful. All it really shows is that they are copy/pasting details that were in the old zoning documents while mucking with the numbers a bit to allow houses to take up more space on the lot.

I guess the real joke to how thoughtless the rezoning effort is can be demonstrated by how many "Placeholders" they have in that document.
"How to use this Zoning Bylaw" - "Placeholder"
"Zoning Maps" - "Placeholder"
"Flood Hazard Areas Map" - "Placeholder"
"Sunlight Protection Overlap Map" - "Placeholder"
etc.

In my opinion, it is a poor move when you are trying to handle the change management of a diverse city where people intentionally bought houses in locations that they want and now the city is rolling in these changes with half assed details and limited support. They say it is to bring down costs but costs are only going up and the only people that seem to be winning are the private developers who are extracting more and more profit out of home buyers, but that's okay because "someone buys it" (like they have a choice...).

Maybe they should have put more time and energy into making their last strategy (Main Streets) more successful and build trust with the people as to how these plans can create the correct results.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

How are we messing with people's assets? Rezoning does not require anybody to do anything with their property that they don't want to, nor does it stop anybody from building a SFH if they wish. Again...its about what neighbours MIGHT do with their own property.

You mentioned yourself (when defending private builders) that people are making a massive investment when buying a house. When you buy a house you are not just buying what is inside the lot, you are also buying what is outside the lot - the street, the traffic, the neighbourhood, the choices to live in a place that is more or less busy based on what you prefer. Disregarding the impact of this rezoning strategy just shows a lack of empathy, which again will lead to more failure in the strategy, failure in the execution, and will lead to an election where this zoning issue will dictate who will be on the next city council.

People are not worried about what their neighbours might do, they are worried about what developers will do when a neighbour decides to sell. Corporations have the advantage here. They have enough money that they can buy up lots and pay above list prices and take those houses offline, redevelop them, and then sell the new houses for a significantly higher cost than the original house.

The game is rigged against home buyers and most people know it. Those developers will not make choices that are best for the people living in the area, they will make profit. This is why people are talking about building restrictive covenants to try and protect the neighbourhood from developers.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

To your plan...what about people who live next to corporate owned land? Do those people matter less?

I would love to hear an example of how you think developing a warehouse or a downtown at grade parking lot would negatively impact anyone. Like that patch of gravel that was on 17th ave and 11th street forever. Just sitting there with a "no parking" sign as the landowner was refusing to build but also wouldn't sell because they wanted more profit.

As long as the project is good and the supporting infrastructure is there (or is included in the project) then I expect most people would celebrate the effort.

Or, ignoring the likelihood for a moment, who would actually object to the railyard redevelopment? I highly doubt that the people living in Inglewood love living beside train tracks or warehouses or any of that stuff around Blackfoot Tr and Ogden road. They would likely welcome a massive development project to convert all of that land into livable space.

Or, going back to Westbrook. They could build 6 30+ story towers and people would be happy to get that field developed and that one project would likely generate more density and homes than the rest of West Calgary combined. With the two other towers already there, it is hard to argue against building more towers right on top of a train station. That could be an amazing project, unless they give it to another private developer that puts in half the effort and totally blows the opportunity.

To flip the question back to you: Why do you want to go after people's assets more than corporation's assets?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It doesn't matter if it's the primary hindrance or not. But it is definitely a hindrance. Again, builders make profit by building things people want to live in (or have other people live in). Do they always get it perfect? Of course not. City building is messy and we've been getting things wrong for decades under the current land-use bylaw (particularly wrt car dependency). But we can do better, and rezoning helps.

I mean... it does matter. Otherwise you are just moving the goal posts and/or disregarding the bigger issue for the smaller issue that you think is more fun (even if it is less important to the success of the overall strategy). Neither of those arguments are very good.

If you change the zoning but do not change how the private developers dominate the market and make all of the decisions as to what is built and what is not built, how it is built, and what price it is sold for, then the rezoning strategy is just going to be a free-for-all for developers to profit and for housing costs to continue to climb. We already know what strategies like this look like as the city/private developers have a history of failing to deliver these strategies.

If the rezoning does not reduce or even slow down the rising housing prices then it is a failure. However, by the time people figure out that the strategy has failed, it will be too late to go back and do a better job.

The oversimplification of how housing developers "make profit" and then convert it into a self fulfilling argument that what they do is acceptable because "someone buys it" really scores no points. Of course someone is buying whatever the private developers build, what choice do they have? There are no alternatives in Calgary aside from buying something from a private developer. That doesn't mean that it is good or that the private developers are not inflating prices in order to inflate their profits... what it means is that there are no alternatives. People are just hoping that they are buying from an honest private developer instead of one that cuts corners while also overcharging for what they built.

It is also interesting that at the same time you are advocating that the city is doing a great job in this rezoning effort you also say that they would be "messy" at doing the building themselves. Which one is it? Is the city clever or a hot mess?

[Mazrim]

Looks like a bunch of school trustee candidates aren't as independent as they claim...

https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/cbe-el...western-impact

The five Calgary Board of Education (CBE) candidates—along with a sixth, Gordon Ferguson—all use the same website template, and their campaign videos on YouTube appear to be filmed in the same room. Some of their flyers and signage look identical as well. On their websites they all ask voters to support "common sense leadership" to "save our schools."

"No policy that forces teachers to keep secrets from parents can ever be good," says Dar Zuch (Wards 12 & 14) in his video.

"No policy that forces teachers to keep secrets from parents can ever be good," says Jennifer Steward (Wards 6 & 7) in hers.

"No policy that forces teachers to keep anything from parents is going to help anyone," says Gordon Ferguson (Wards 8 & 9) in his.

It's not unusual for party candidates to share talking points and campaign templates—just look at The Calgary Party on the city council level for an example. But it is unusual to see independent candidates doing it.

[Looch City]

####ing political parties. #### off.

Common sense my ####ing ass.

[puffnstuff]

'We are all independently identical but not affiliated' LOL

[Faust]

@MahpoyRenee2019

After extensive deliberation, the A Better Calgary#Party Nomination Committee#is recommending that our Party endorse Jeff Davison for Mayor.

This was not an easy decision. Many hoped a strong, undisputed conservative candidate would emerge early enough to mount a winning campaign. That has not happened.

Why Jeff Davison?

Among the leading contenders showing up in the polls (Jeromy Farkas, Jeff Davison, Sonya Sharp, and Brian Thiessen), we believe Jeff Davison is the best choice for mayor to defeat Gondek and lead a centre-right Council at City Hall.

Jeromy Farkas#– despite high name recognition, since 2021 Jeromy has radically shifted away from previous conservative positions. In fact,#Farkas campaigned for Rachel Notley#and against the UCP in 2023. His current policies and his advisory team align more closely with Gondek than with the values and priorities of Calgarians. Our concern is that uninformed conservatives will naively believe he is the same person he campaigned as in 2021. He is not.

Brian Thiessen#– who is the mayoral candidate for#The Calgary Party, is closely tied to Stephen Carter, the strategist who managed the campaigns that elected both Naheed Nenshi and Jyoti Gondek. Carter’s brand of politics, heavily backed by public sector union interests, has helped shape Calgary’s recent hard left-leaning trajectory. For these reasons, Thiessen is not an option for those seeking a centre-right alternative.

Sonya Sharp#– shares some positions with conservatives, but her approach to politics has raised serious concerns. Her refusal to engage in unity discussions, her self-appointment as mayoral candidate under “Communities First,” and her role in hand-selecting ward candidates (including some with NDP and Nenshi ties) all suggest a top-down, compromised, and divisive approach.

Jeff Davison#– while not without past votes that deserve scrutiny, has shown genuine respect for grassroots conservatives and has consistently engaged with A Better Calgary Party. From day one, his campaign team worked with us in good faith. He has acknowledged and explained controversial past votes, including his regret over certain panemic measures, and has outlined a platform that aligns closely with A Better Calgary Party priorities.

Davison’s commitments include:

Voting to repeal blanket rezoning on#Day One

Also on#Day One, voting to end the so-called “Climate Change Emergency”
Significant increase in funding front-line policing, making Calgary’s streets and public transit safe again
Prioritizing infrastructure investment
Implementing a four-year freeze on taxes
A Better Calgary Party leaders have pressed Davison directly on the details of these positions, and we are satisfied with both his answers and his willingness to listen. Importantly, Jeff has a track record of supporting conservative causes — including donations and volunteer work with both the UCP and the Conservative Party of Canada. In contrast, Sonya has no record of donating to a conservative party (federal or provincial) and refused to support the Conservatives in this year’s federal election.
You can hear Jeff’s positions in his own words in these interviews:

Sydney Fizzard (Rebel News):#Calgary mayoral candidate speaks out on public safety crisis

Cory Morgan (Western Standard):#Interview with Jeff Davison

https://x.com/mahpoyrenee2019/status...873101983?s=61

[surferguy]

In a single post A Better Calgary Party has articulated in simple plain language why I would never vote for them and why they should never be near city council.

Screw political parties at this level

[Faust]

Jeff Davison

“Implementing a four-year freeze on taxes”

Factoring in population growth and inflation, can someone explain how this would be achieved without major budgetary cuts to essential services and programs?

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Faust

Jeff Davison

“Implementing a four-year freeze on taxes”

Factoring in population growth and inflation, can someone explain how this would be achieved without major budgetary cuts to essential services and programs?

Along with a major increase in police funding. I guess Calgary Transit will be "safer" if it's completely shutdown and no longer exists...

Anyone who says Sonya Sharp is not right wing enough certainly tells me who not to vote for.

[puffnstuff]

As just one vote how exactly would Jeff freeze taxes for four years?

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Faust

@MahpoyRenee2019

After extensive deliberation, the A Better Calgary#Party Nomination Committee#is recommending that our Party endorse Jeff Davison for Mayor.

This was not an easy decision. Many hoped a strong, undisputed conservative candidate would emerge early enough to mount a winning campaign. That has not happened.

Why Jeff Davison?

Among the leading contenders showing up in the polls (Jeromy Farkas, Jeff Davison, Sonya Sharp, and Brian Thiessen), we believe Jeff Davison is the best choice for mayor to defeat Gondek and lead a centre-right Council at City Hall.

Jeromy Farkas#– despite high name recognition, since 2021 Jeromy has radically shifted away from previous conservative positions. In fact,#Farkas campaigned for Rachel Notley#and against the UCP in 2023. His current policies and his advisory team align more closely with Gondek than with the values and priorities of Calgarians. Our concern is that uninformed conservatives will naively believe he is the same person he campaigned as in 2021. He is not.

Brian Thiessen#– who is the mayoral candidate for#The Calgary Party, is closely tied to Stephen Carter, the strategist who managed the campaigns that elected both Naheed Nenshi and Jyoti Gondek. Carter’s brand of politics, heavily backed by public sector union interests, has helped shape Calgary’s recent hard left-leaning trajectory. For these reasons, Thiessen is not an option for those seeking a centre-right alternative.

Sonya Sharp#– shares some positions with conservatives, but her approach to politics has raised serious concerns. Her refusal to engage in unity discussions, her self-appointment as mayoral candidate under “Communities First,” and her role in hand-selecting ward candidates (including some with NDP and Nenshi ties) all suggest a top-down, compromised, and divisive approach.

Jeff Davison#– while not without past votes that deserve scrutiny, has shown genuine respect for grassroots conservatives and has consistently engaged with A Better Calgary Party. From day one, his campaign team worked with us in good faith. He has acknowledged and explained controversial past votes, including his regret over certain panemic measures, and has outlined a platform that aligns closely with A Better Calgary Party priorities.

Davison’s commitments include:

Voting to repeal blanket rezoning on#Day One

Also on#Day One, voting to end the so-called “Climate Change Emergency”
Significant increase in funding front-line policing, making Calgary’s streets and public transit safe again
Prioritizing infrastructure investment
Implementing a four-year freeze on taxes
A Better Calgary Party leaders have pressed Davison directly on the details of these positions, and we are satisfied with both his answers and his willingness to listen. Importantly, Jeff has a track record of supporting conservative causes — including donations and volunteer work with both the UCP and the Conservative Party of Canada. In contrast, Sonya has no record of donating to a conservative party (federal or provincial) and refused to support the Conservatives in this year’s federal election.
You can hear Jeff’s positions in his own words in these interviews:

Sydney Fizzard (Rebel News):#Calgary mayoral candidate speaks out on public safety crisis

Cory Morgan (Western Standard):#Interview with Jeff Davison

https://x.com/mahpoyrenee2019/status...873101983?s=61

That basically solidified my vote for Farkas hahahah

[Fuzz]

Carter’s brand of politics, heavily backed by public sector union interests, has helped shape Calgary’s recent hard left-leaning trajectory.

These people have gone so far right they couldn't even recognize their left hand anymore. We do not have far left politicians anywhere near power Canada. This is a fallacy driven by fear, stupidity, and a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world functions.


Anyway, it would be nice if these parties just said what they were so I don't have to google the name every time I read an article

K, cheat sheet, feel free to add:
A Better Calgary Party - Conservative
Mayor:Jeff Davison
Colour:Blue and gold


Communities First - Uh, also Conservative
Mayor:Sonya Sharp
Colour:also...Blue


The Calgary Party - Communist. Wait, no. Progressive centrism?
Colour:Magenta
Mayor:Brian Thiessen

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

As just one vote how exactly would Jeff freeze taxes for four years?

Can he convince Danielle Smith to keep her grubby hands off our taxes?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

No, developers just need to build a house. If it looks as fancy as that house down the street that sold for $1.4M then this house can also sell for $1.4M, even if it only cost 900K to develop. If someone built the exact same house for $400,000 less then there would be a tidal wave of buyers trying to get to the cheaper house. But no private developer would want to give up that much profit and neither would the private realtors.

You would need a non-private developer to step in and change how the market works.

I'd love to argue point by point, but we disagree on a few fundamental issues that probably makes that pointless. But I'll try to sum up what I think you're missing

Private developers aren't really steering the ship here...buyers are. Developers don't set the prices, buyers do. Of course developers look to maximize profit by optimizing the demand vs cost ratio. This is actually a pretty damn strong safeguard (though certainly not perfect, but it's backed up by building codes and land-use) that ensures builders build things that 'make sense'. If they build something undesirable to buyers, it won't sell or will sell cheaply.

Demand determines viability of projects. There is only so much demand for any given type of housing in an area at a given time, be it condo towers, SFHs on the outskirts, or infills. We are well below meeting demand for infills compared to the other two, and we also know that infill development is more sensible and sustainable for the city as a whole in the long run (which isn't to say neighbours are wrong to dislike it). This is why it's called the 'missing middle', and why there is a lot of untapped potential that can be unleashed through better land-use.


The challenge with starting a public developer is that private housing starts would drop by a roughly corresponding amount, and we'd add very little extra supply. Unless of course you build so much publicly that you completely eliminate the private sector, but it's unfathomable to me how we'd ever actually achieve that (or if it would actually be beneficial) - at least without a lot of pain in the process. The one way you might be able to build publicly without significantly undercutting private starts is to focus exclusively on very cheap housing, which sounds good in theory, but usually doesn't work out very well (but I'm not opposed to trying!).

The oversimplification of how housing developers "make profit" and then convert it into a self fulfilling argument that what they do is acceptable because "someone buys it" really scores no points. Of course someone is buying whatever the private developers build, what choice do they have? There are no alternatives in Calgary aside from buying something from a private developer. That doesn't mean that it is good or that the private developers are not inflating prices in order to inflate their profits... what it means is that there are no alternatives. People are just hoping that they are buying from an honest private developer instead of one that cuts corners while also overcharging for what they built.

It is also interesting that at the same time you are advocating that the city is doing a great job in this rezoning effort you also say that they would be "messy" at doing the building themselves. Which one is it? Is the city clever or a hot mess?

To the bolded: they have the choice to not buy or buy literally any other home for sale in the city. It's the ultimate free market (albeit heavily regulated) - thousands of unique products at any given time, with new offerings every single day. Again, builders don't set prices; buyers do. The barriers to entry aren't low (lowest for small-scale infill, which is artifically constratined), but if building is really as lucrative as you say, why wouldn't more builders enter the game? For all of capitalisms many many faults, it actually works pretty well for housing because it is so diverse and competitive.

To the last point, I'm not one to automatically lament bureaucracy as most people like to. Again, I'm a socialist, and most 'red tape' is important, beneficial to society, and makes sense for most government functions...but it is also slow, expensive, and frustrating. There is a balance to be struck (which re-zoning itself seeks to better achieve), but public projects simply cannot magically avoid it all, nor should they.

I say city building is messy and complicated. I say the city is a lot better in its role as regulator than most people give it credit for (albeit far from perfect) because most people don't understand how detailed and complicated things actually are. But building is another story. The financial side would involve multiple levels of gov't (slow), and even if it didn't the city is still bound by the MGA (limited in what it can do). I'm skeptical they could build any cheaper than long established big builders, and removing the profit motive removes urgency.

There are just so many other fanciful 'think big' societal ideas that could actually move the needle on making our world better (I'm obviously not convinced public building is going to move the needle at all)