MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, maybe I'm wrong, and I acknowledge that my numbers are. But, I can't possibly be the only person who thinks that multi-family beside SFHs is going to decrease the values of those neighbouring properties?

This conversation is a perfect example of why a plebiscite is a bad idea. Thank you for the demonstration and admission of wrong thinking.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, maybe I'm wrong, and I acknowledge that my numbers are. But, I can't possibly be the only person who thinks that multi-family beside SFHs is going to decrease the values of those neighbouring properties?

It’s going to decrease the desirability of your property as a single family home. However the most valuable use of your property is as a multi family home so the decrease in desirability as an SFH does not cause a decrease in value of your home.

However if you happen to be in a row of SFHs with like minded people who all refuse to sell to developers the value of your SFH away from multi-family would go up as a result of scarcity of this type of properties being more rare. Then when someone builds a multi family next to you you would get to complain about the value dropping that only existed because of increased scarcity.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, maybe I'm wrong, and I acknowledge that my numbers are. But, I can't possibly be the only person who thinks that multi-family beside SFHs is going to decrease the values of those neighbouring properties?

You're definitely not the only one, but all of them would be wrong and it can easily be backed with data. If you're looking at a purely financial perspective, your property values will increase if your piece of land is zoned for higher density. This is objective fact.

You think those acreages in Aspen/Springbank have been losing value as they get converted to subdivisions?

[Bill Bumface]

Everyone who is complaining about a single family home getting knocked down and being replaced with a 4plex next door also lives in a neighbourhood where other people established business, increased residential density and all sorts of other things that were capitally intensive that made the neighbourhood become desireable enough to start knocking down single family homes and putting up four plexes.

That only happens when the land value has gone up somewhere relative to the rest of the city.

I don't care how nice you keep your lawn, it's not fair to expect all of the upside of everyone else's investments increasing your property without also bearing the downside (or just cashing in on the free money you got from the relative appreciation and moving elsewhere in the city).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

How is that different from any other point in democracy. We have always elected people to make these decisions. That people don’t understand representative democracy demonstrates why we need representative democracy

I support densification. And a plebiscite on the issue is probably not warranted. If the motion does go through, I expect it will be a major issue in the next election. And we’ll see who it hurts and who it helps.

We face individual struggles over policy, and a wider struggle around public trust and legitimacy. Between 2020 and 2022, trust in government to do what is right dropped from 58% to 43%.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-pol...can-be-trusted

That’s bad news. Really bad news. Much of it is down to the collapse of mainstream media, the proliferation of information silos and conspiracy theories, and populists who make hay in this new environment.

However, the attitude expressed here and elsewhere that most people are too ignorant to have a say in policy plays a part. It gives ammunition to populists who can claim that the technocrats who run things have contempt for the public.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s going to decrease the desirability of your property as a single family home.

Is it though? If anything it's going to increase that too as there will be potentially less SFH options.

That said, to the earlier posters point about them being the same size, here's a SFH across from a duplex on 2nd Ave in Sunnyside. Both have the same massing but one has a second set of doors.

632 2nd Ave NW (SFH)

629A/B 2nd Ave NW (Duplex)

From on top you can even see that the SFH has a greater lot coverage, with an attached hallway to the attached rear garage, than the duplex.

Satellite View

I know which one I'd rather live beside.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

This conversation is a perfect example of why a plebiscite is a bad idea. Thank you for the demonstration and admission of wrong thinking.

Yup, agreed. Many voters would take that thought process straight to the voting both; Voting with what you feel must be the case or what you think must be the case, rather than trying to educate yourself and average out the available data from examples.

[timun]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

However, the attitude expressed here and elsewhere that most people are too ignorant to have a say in policy plays a part. It gives ammunition to populists who can claim that the technocrats who run things have contempt for the public.

When the populists are so blatantly ####ing wrong, as UCB asked earlier: how do you otherwise combat it? Give them the direct democracy they want, and watch them make stupid uninformed decisions? What happens when it turns out that they're not on the majority side of an issue, and get voted down?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by kevman

Is it though? If anything it's going to increase that too as there will be potentially less SFH options.

That said, to the earlier posters point about them being the same size, here's a SFH across from a duplex on 2nd Ave in Sunnyside. Both have the same massing but one has a second set of doors.

632 2nd Ave NW (SFH)

629A/B 2nd Ave NW (Duplex)

From on top you can even see that the SFH has a greater lot coverage, with an attached hallway to the attached rear garage, than the duplex.

Satellite View

I know which one I'd rather live beside.

632 is wild, it's as tall as the older apartment building to the east of it.

[woob]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We face individual struggles over policy, and a wider struggle around public trust and legitimacy. Between 2020 and 2022, trust in government to do what is right dropped from 58% to 43%.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-pol...can-be-trusted

That’s bad news. Really bad news. Much of it is down to the collapse of mainstream media, the proliferation of information silos and conspiracy theories, and populists who make hay in this new environment.

Not surprising given the period referenced. Will be interesting to see if when we are further and further removed from the pandemic, will those numbers will rise again.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I support densification. And a plebiscite on the issue is probably not warranted. If the motion does go through, I expect it will be a major issue in the next campaign. And we’ll see who it hurts and who it helps.

It's perfect, this council is lame anyways. Let them accomplish this one thing, and then all get turfed for it. Best of both worlds.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, maybe I'm wrong, and I acknowledge that my numbers are. But, I can't possibly be the only person who thinks that multi-family beside SFHs is going to decrease the values of those neighbouring properties?

Others have pointed out that you are wrong, and that that is the problem with a plebiscite, so maybe I'm piling on.

But, again, that's exactly the point, too often people apply what they think is common sense or simple logic.
"I don't want to live next to a 4 plex, so it must mean any house next to 4 plex is worth less".

When the reality is, any lot that can be turned into a 4 plex is immediately more valuable to a developer, and if a developer is willing to pay more for that lot, then anyone who wants to buy it to live on it is gonna have to pay more, hence...the value has gone up.

Now does that help housing affordability?
Well, now there are 4 $500k doors in that neighborhood instead of 1 $1M, so there are more doors that are less expensive. Whether or not $500k is affordable is questionable, but the answer sure as heck isn't "Don't let anyone build more doors so that the people who own $1M houses don't incorrectly feel like their house is worth less".


Letting people vote using the "This is how I feel so it must be how the whole system works" is a terrible way to make meaningful change to a very complex situation/problem.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Others have pointed out that you are wrong, and that that is the problem with a plebiscite, so maybe I'm piling on.

But, again, that's exactly the point, too often people apply what they think is common sense or simple logic.
"I don't want to live next to a 4 plex, so it must mean any house next to 4 plex is worth less".

When the reality is, any lot that can be turned into a 4 plex is immediately more valuable to a developer, and if a developer is willing to pay more for that lot, then anyone who wants to buy it to live on it is gonna have to pay more, hence...the value has gone up.

Now does that help housing affordability?
Well, now there are 4 $500k doors in that neighborhood instead of 1 $1M, so there are more doors that are less expensive. Whether or not $500k is affordable is questionable, but the answer sure as heck isn't "Don't let anyone build more doors so that the people who own $1M houses don't incorrectly feel like their house is worth less".


Letting people vote using the "This is how I feel so it must be how the whole system works" is a terrible way to make meaningful change to a very complex situation/problem.

Look, I don't care if people want to pile on, so fill your boots. I don't have any issue admitting being wrong and it doesn't bother me.

I can't say that I'm convinced that I should be hoping my neighbours are able to sell to a developer who can build a multi-family place there. I understand why other people would like that, and I understand why the developer would love that.

[CliffFletcher]

I don’t know that property value is the main factor driving NIMBYism. A lot of homeowners plan on staying in their current home a long time. Decades. Re-sale value doesn’t matter a whole lot to them.

For a couple in their 50s in a detached home, the downside of a two-story fourplex being built next door is blocking the sun to their deck or garden, loss of privacy, more traffic and cars on the street, and the perception that the new neighbours will be transient and won’t care about keeping their property well maintained. For the next 30 years.

Those may seem like dumb things to value. But it’s hard to convince someone who does that densification will be a personal benefit to them.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don’t know that property value is the main factor driving NIMBYism. A lot of homeowners plan on staying in their current home a long time. Decades. Re-sale value doesn’t matter a whole lot.

For a couple in their 50s in a detached home, the downside of a two-story fourplex being built next door is blocking the sun to their deck or garden, loss of privacy, more traffic and cars on the street, and the perception that the new neighbours will be transient and won’t care about keeping their property well maintained. Those may seem like dumb things to value. But it’s hard to convince someone who does that densification will be a personal benefit to them.

Exactly, which is why direct democracy here won't work. Of course I don't want a giant apartment building beside my house (a zoning change now allows a 6 story building beside me).

That said, I think a 6 story building there is the right call for the city. What I do wish they'd do differently is step the zoning down. If my lot was zoned for something 4 stories, I'd get an instant property value bump, and if I want to move away when the 6 story thing gets built, at least I got some personal up-side out of the deal.

Zoning for a row house beside me wouldn't even make me blink. Most single family homes going up around me would block more sun than the row housing I see going up around here.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Slava

Look, I don't care if people want to pile on, so fill your boots. I don't have any issue admitting being wrong and it doesn't bother me.

I can't say that I'm convinced that I should be hoping my neighbours are able to sell to a developer who can build a multi-family place there. I understand why other people would like that, and I understand why the developer would love that.

Well, in theory you and all of us shouldn't really care what our property values are since we're living there.

But I'd like to point out that you're the one that said that you're afraid your property values would collapse with the blanket rezoning - which is what started the dogpile.

The personal feeling of negative valuation of several poor(er) families moving in next to you is definitely real, and the feeling that there's more cars and traffic is all real. But the property value piece is definitely untrue.

[timun]

Originally Posted by kevman

Is it though? If anything it's going to increase that too as there will be potentially less SFH options.

That said, to the earlier posters point about them being the same size, here's a SFH across from a duplex on 2nd Ave in Sunnyside. Both have the same massing but one has a second set of doors.

632 2nd Ave NW (SFH)

629A/B 2nd Ave NW (Duplex)

From on top you can even see that the SFH has a greater lot coverage, with an attached hallway to the attached rear garage, than the duplex.

Satellite View

I know which one I'd rather live beside.

Haha, here's a fun little comparison not far from where I live:

16th Street b/w 48th & 49th Ave SW

On the southeast side of that intersection of the alleys, at the east side of 16th and 49th, there's a single detached house.

If you pan right, across 16th, there's a semi-detached, side-by-side duplex.

If you pan right from there, at the corner of 48th Ave, there's a rowhouse fourplex.

If you pan right back across to the east side of 16th Street, there's a four-building, 20-unit rowhouse complex.

You go from one dwelling per 50' lot, to two dwellings, to four dwellings, to five dwellings. I happen to think the fourplex and the 20-unit complex are kinda fugly (Rndsqr specials...), but the notion that these have "ruined the neighbourhood" is laughable.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I can’t speak for the people on CP but the admittedly small number of people I’ve spoken to on this issue IRL are pretty clear about their concerns. They’re also all boomers. ####ing boomers ruining everything.

Wealthy white people live in SFHs and poor minorities live in MFHs. And nothing decreases property values quicker than diversity. Therefore zoning change is bad because it’ll bring undesirables to their neighborhoods.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Well, in theory you and all of us shouldn't really care what our property values are since we're living there.

But I'd like to point out that you're the one that said that you're afraid your property values would collapse with the blanket rezoning - which is what started the dogpile.

The personal feeling of negative valuation of several poor(er) families moving in next to you is definitely real, and the feeling that there's more cars and traffic is all real. But the property value piece is definitely untrue.

But that’s the thing; all those things contribute to the property value. And sure, I don’t care today because I have no plans to sell, but I will one day. And I have zero doubt that people are going to pay more to not be beside a multifamily place as opposed to a SFH.

And nice cheap shot by trying to suggest that I don’t want poor people around.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Wealthy white people live in SFHs and poor minorities live in MFHs. And nothing decreases property values quicker than diversity.

There are plenty of rich and middle-class minorities these days who also like to live in SFHs and ambitious new immigrant families who are working hard to be able to afford one in the future (a big draw to moving to Calgary).

And if you go to any launch of a new community, many of the attendees will be East and South Asian who generally place an even higher priority on land and property.