MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So I heard Chabot on the radio this morning talking about repealing the R-CG zoning. Most of it sounded populist, but I am still totally unclear why it is so difficult for them to maintain R-CG for households that want to keep it. I bet it is as simple as can be.

Because the people that want it repealed don't care about R-CG on their own lots, they don't want it on their neighbour's lots.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Or really, if you don’t like it, don’t make use of it. Like is somebody going to build a multi-family building on their own lot and cry, “why didn’t anybody stop me??”

It's about their neighbours. They do not want their neighbour to sell their bungalow to a home builder who is then going to drop an 8 unit, 3.5 story complex on the lot that has no parking.

Then the street suddenly is full of parked cars and Liquiforce is in the neighbourhood 3-4 times per year trying to fix the sewers that were never built for that added density and the backyard privacy is gone because you have 4 of those units with a great view of your lot. They probably also block the sun and wreck your garden that you've been working on for 10 years.

Also, no home owner is knocking down their home to build a multi-family buiding. They sell it to a private home builder who is willing to pay the most for the lot (without conditions because they are knocking down whatever is there). In short, its corporations messing with people's lives for profit.

Whether that scenario is real or not doesn't matter, that was what the election came down to and now the outcome of the election is that the blanket rezoning is going to be partially rolled back.

I assume a bunch of the rezoning will remain, like the consolidation of a bunch of the non-residential zonings into a few cleaner sets of categories.

[Wormius]

Of course it’s NIMBYism. I just would like the people to admit that is why they’re against it and cease with the dumb excuses.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Wolven

It's about their neighbours. They do not want their neighbour to sell their bungalow to a home builder who is then going to drop an 8 unit, 3.5 story complex on the lot that has no parking.

Then the street suddenly is full of parked cars and Liquiforce is in the neighbourhood 3-4 times per year trying to fix the sewers that were never built for that added density and the backyard privacy is gone because you have 4 of those units with a great view of your lot. They probably also block the sun and wreck your garden that you've been working on for 10 years.

Also, no home owner is knocking down their home to build a multi-family buiding. They sell it to a private home builder who is willing to pay the most for the lot (without conditions because they are knocking down whatever is there). In short, its corporations messing with people's lives for profit.

Whether that scenario is real or not doesn't matter, that was what the election came down to and now the outcome of the election is that the blanket rezoning is going to be partially rolled back.

I assume a bunch of the rezoning will remain, like the consolidation of a bunch of the non-residential zonings into a few cleaner sets of categories.

I don’t know if land assemblies are a thing around Calgary, but I know back in Kelowna a lot of North End residents were doing this with their neighbours and making some good coin. I assume this is what would happen here, so nobody would be buying one single family home to put up an 8plex or something.

[gasman]

Has anyone looked at a solution where secondary suites (basement) suites would be blanket allowed, but knocking down a SFH and rebuilding an 8Plex would require the full blown review and permit process. Why does it need to be all or nothing?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Of course it’s NIMBYism. I just would like the people to admit that is why they’re against it and cease with the dumb excuses.

I think there is a bit more depth to it than "not in my back yard".

People's biggest asset is there home and you do not just buy your lot, you buy the lot within the neighbourhood and community. Having the last city council sweep through a massive change to how that is structured did not go over very well with a lot of people who felt they were not being heard.

Main streets was only a few years before that and that initiative had a lot of consultations and demonstrated adjustments to work with the communities. A lot of people were not happy with how main streets was handled but at least there was an effort to consult and work with the citizens and adjustments were made to the plans, which made people feel better about the process.

The blanket rezoning was more of a sledgehammer and it was used pretty quickly considering main streets had just wrapped up and barely delivered any builds yet (just sidewalks). The blanket rezoning also overrode and wasted all of the effort that went into main streets and the "win" that any citizens felt by participating in the main streets sessions was wiped out.

I've said it before but I think the blanket rezoning was terribly handled. It was rushed, it changed too much, and it did not give any room for the previous initiative to accomplish anything, which in turn destroyed good-will. That resulted in an election where it was the primary issue and now it is getting rolled back.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don’t know if land assemblies are a thing around Calgary, but I know back in Kelowna a lot of North End residents were doing this with their neighbours and making some good coin. I assume this is what would happen here, so nobody would be buying one single family home to put up an 8plex or something.

Sure. It is happening in areas like 17th ave or 37th street where a number of run down bungalows would all be sold to a single developer to build up a large project.

The problem, in my opinion, is that main streets sold an idea of a unified vision where the projects would have a similar look and feel and most of them would have retail on the street with condos on top. In reality, none of the projects are working toward a unified vision and most of them are fighting against the concept of mixed retail & residential, which defeats the purpose of the whole initiative to make these areas more desirable to walk and stay within your community.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I think there is a bit more depth to it than "not in my back yard".

People's biggest asset is there home and you do not just buy your lot, you buy the lot within the neighbourhood and community. Having the last city council sweep through a massive change to how that is structured did not go over very well with a lot of people who felt they were not being heard.

Main streets was only a few years before that and that initiative had a lot of consultations and demonstrated adjustments to work with the communities. A lot of people were not happy with how main streets was handled but at least there was an effort to consult and work with the citizens and adjustments were made to the plans, which made people feel better about the process.

The blanket rezoning was more of a sledgehammer and it was used pretty quickly considering main streets had just wrapped up and barely delivered any builds yet (just sidewalks). The blanket rezoning also overrode and wasted all of the effort that went into main streets and the "win" that any citizens felt by participating in the main streets sessions was wiped out.

I've said it before but I think the blanket rezoning was terribly handled. It was rushed, it changed too much, and it did not give any room for the previous initiative to accomplish anything, which in turn destroyed good-will. That resulted in an election where it was the primary issue and now it is getting rolled back.

If it’s not NIMBY, then allow home owner the right to keep their new land designations and if in the future somebody wants to buy some adjacent homes with R-CG then why not? It was obvious from the hearings that the people complain the most were in areas that were of little risk. And in the year + that it has been in effect, what negatives have arisen from it? If in fact, all rezoning applications are permitted anyway, why not cut the red tape?

[Roughneck]

The thing with the rezoning is that it was a reduction of red tape. Repealing the rezoning doesn't stop these builds, it just makes them take longer. There's a >90% approval rate for land use applications for R-CG. The blanket rezoning just allowed the elimination of that step to allow more housing starts.


So effectively the people pushing for the rollback of the changes, are simply supporting a reduction in housing supply and increased development costs.

[chemgear]

Reminds me of what Burnaby did. Basically embraced the blanket rezoning and then saw the consequences and the results of that. Then they said wait a sec, this is #### and not what we wanted and started to roll it back.

Some of these monstrosities are hilarious. Well, hilarious if you don't live there.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nges-9.6944251

Public backlash to 'gigantic' multiplex homes in Burnaby, B.C., has council scaling back

Burnaby, a city of about 250,000 residents just east of Vancouver, introduced multiplex housing in July last year, when the province mandated most B.C. municipalities to allow between four and six homes on single-family lots.

Former B.C. MLA and Burnaby resident Kathy Corrigan said it’s true that she’s a “NIMBY” — “not in my backyard.”

“I definitely don’t want it in my backyard towering over … four storeys high. No, I don’t want it in my neighbourhood,” she said.

Mayor Mike Hurley says the city is listening to residents and not just caving to NIMBYism.

He said he’s been hearing complaints for months, including from people who don’t usually voice concerns.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1978275537601671504

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Wormius

If it’s not NIMBY, then allow home owner the right to keep their new land designations and if in the future somebody wants to buy some adjacent homes with R-CG then why not? It was obvious from the hearings that the people complain the most were in areas that were of little risk. And in the year + that it has been in effect, what negatives have arisen from it? If in fact, all rezoning applications are permitted anyway, why not cut the red tape?

Its funny how both sides of the conversation are thinking that the other side is being selfish and inconsiderate.

Pro-rezoning claims that they should get the freedom to do whatever they want with their land and it is selfish of their neighbours to have an opinion or to try and restrict them in any way. Also, more houses is good?

Anti-rezoning claims that they should have the freedom to enjoy their community without private developers coming in and making massive changes and that it is selfish of their neighbours to want to be able to sell to a developer and leave the neighbourhood impacted by whatever that developer does to change the context of the neighbourhood. Also, more houses might be good but private developers are not making them more affordable, so who is really winning?

Neither group really seems to listen to the other side and instead turn to name calling (NIMBY). I think both sides think they are being the populist group in trying to do what is best for the people.

This has nothing to do with red tape. Before the rezoning it was very unlikely to buy an RC1 or RC2 lot and build it into an 8 plex. The neighbours and community associations would fight it and it would get dumbed down to align to the RC1 or RC2 rules being followed by the rest of the community.

[Bigtime]

I'm just hoping as everyone argues over this we are quietly putting bike lanes everywhere...

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm just hoping as everyone argues over this we are quietly putting bike lanes everywhere...

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Maybe I am oversimplifying, but it should be no more difficult than anything else that can be currently done online on the City’s website where you can log in and view your assessment and request changes or update info. I just think this should be no more difficult than putting a checkbox in your property assessment page. Would there be some stragglers? Maybe. That’s on them though.

i fear that you are indeed over simplifying

as a thought exercise: imagine what could go wrong with the process.
then multiply those nightmares by the average Calgarian homeowner's lack of common sense on planning/zoning issues

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Wolven

This has nothing to do with red tape. Before the rezoning it was very unlikely to buy an RC1 or RC2 lot and build it into an 8 plex. The neighbours and community associations would fight it and it would get dumbed down to align to the RC1 or RC2 rules being followed by the rest of the community.

RC-G land use applications had a 97% approval rate.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by gasman

Has anyone looked at a solution where secondary suites (basement) suites would be blanket allowed, but knocking down a SFH and rebuilding an 8Plex would require the full blown review and permit process. Why does it need to be all or nothing?

There are 3 processes here:

1. Land-use amendment - aka re-zoning if you want to build something beyond the current zoning

2. Development Permit - a very detailed process that ensures the plan complies with the very detailed regulations laid out for each zoning type in the land-use bylaw (setbacks, building dimensions, landscaping, etc)

3. Building Permit - once you have DP approved you apply for BP, which is more about fire codes, structural integrity, etc


But let's break it down a little more.

1. The land-use change process in Calgary involves an applicant submitting a redesignation application, which is then reviewed by city administration and the Calgary Planning Commission (CPC). After the CPC makes a recommendation, a public hearing is scheduled with City Council, where the applicant and the public can provide feedback before Council makes the final decision to approve, refuse, or table the application. This process can be initiated by a property owner or by the City itself for land it owns.

This process is essentially the same whether you want to change an R1 into a duplex or build a taller tower than a land-use currently permits. It's slow and tedious because it has to go in front of CPC, and then in front of the entire city council. Every. single. application.

But the rub is that the DP you'll apply for next doesn't necessarily have to match what you proposed during land-use...it just needs to comply with the regulations for the land-use. So the whole land-use process can kind of be about theoretical boogeyman scenarios rather than what will actually be proposed for DP, which has not precluded the ~95% approval rate anyways.


2. For DP, blanket re-zoning has taken us from at least 14 different residential land-uses, each with their own specific set of rules for the DP process, down to 4.

It's a rigorous process explained in detail here
https://www.calgary.ca/development/permits/process.html

There is ample opportunity for neighbours to raise specific concerns and when merited they do usually get addressed quite well.

The key thing is that we've finally decided that where cars sleep at night is not a particularly valid concern, especially since that conflict point tends to be about entitlement to public land that is not actually part of the property in question.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Reminds me of what Burnaby did. Basically embraced the blanket rezoning and then saw the consequences and the results of that. Then they said wait a sec, this is #### and not what we wanted and started to roll it back.

Some of these monstrosities are hilarious. Well, hilarious if you don't live there.

Burnaby, a city of about 250,000 residents just east of Vancouver, introduced multiplex housing in July last year, when the province mandated most B.C. municipalities to allow between four and six homes on single-family lots.

Former B.C. MLA and Burnaby resident Kathy Corrigan said it’s true that she’s a “NIMBY” — “not in my backyard.”

“I definitely don’t want it in my backyard towering over … four storeys high. No, I don’t want it in my neighbourhood,” she said.

Mayor Mike Hurley says the city is listening to residents and not just caving to NIMBYism.

He said he’s been hearing complaints for months, including from people who don’t usually voice concerns.[/I]

I'm starting to see lots of 3 storey above grade construction for infills or even new single detached homes. I'm personally curious whether it's a fad or whether it's going to be here to stay (like the 2nd story was in the 60s). In my opinion they look horribly ugly and really out of scale (like way too tall for its base).

I'm sure people said the same thing about the 2-storey home though.

A lot might be fixed just with a more reasonable height limitation that doesn't allow a 3rd story (or it'd be an extremely undesirable 3 story with 8 foot ceilings or something).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Of course it’s NIMBYism. I just would like the people to admit that is why they’re against it and cease with the dumb excuses.

You’re right.

But we should also admit that the overwhelming majority of people wouldn’t want an 8-plex built beside their detached home, including the majority of people who denounce NIMBYism.

[Bill Bumface]

They should just cap these things at 2 stories.

- NIMBYs feel like they scored a win
- Affordability is probably improved because right now they are selling 3 story units of larger floor area for higher prices, and this would knock it down to smaller units presumably of slightly lower price
- Less ugly crap will go up

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm starting to see lots of 3 storey above grade construction for infills or even new single detached homes. I'm personally curious whether it's a fad or whether it's going to be here to stay (like the 2nd story was in the 60s). In my opinion they look horribly ugly and really out of scale (like way too tall for its base).

They are (and the stairs are annoying) but I think it's a consequence of increasingly narrower lots. Somebody might be willing to play infill pricing for a house that has >2000 sq ft but won't when it only has 1500-1800 sqft so you need that third floor on a <25 ft wide lot to reach a desirable amount of interior space.