Canmore population to double? Legal battle?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This is all part of progress unfortunately. If there wasn't outside investment and attraction the community would continue to struggle and maybe it would have died altogether. Outsiders brought in life and rejuvenated the community and will continue to do so, hopefully. This is the same as gentrification in urban areas. Land has certain value and appeal and at some point it changes from what it historically was into something that serves modern society.

I’d characterize it as the economy of Canmore has been improved at the cost of community. If the people who work in a community can’t afford to live there, if children have to move away, then it’s not a living community in any traditional sense of the term. It’s worse than the gentrification of a neighbourhood, because the people who are priced out can’t just move a few km away.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So the "outsiders" I meant were developers. Council was well known to be on the take from developers at the time, so their wasn't protection from them.


I'm not against development or expansion. One of the big problems is it is a small valley, and they gave so much of it to golf courses that serve so few. Does Silvertip paying anything close to the amount of taxes that could be generated by housing? I don't have the numbers, but I highly doubt it. So that's one issue, misuse of land. Banff has a need to reside clause, and while I don't think Canmore needs to go there, I do think they need a much better balance of homes vs second homes. At this point it's all ####ed so I don't really have any hope anything will get better, and Canmore will continue to see what made it so great erode away, at least for those who care about those things. But there were many points in the past far better decisions could have been made. All water under the bridge now.

So why didn't residents vote them out? With a mayor and 6 councillors (I couldn't find exactly how long this has been the structure) every vote matters quite a bit.

Absolutely fair questions about land use planning, just as there are in every community in the world. At the time of development Silvertip and its mansions probably seemed like a reasonable use and good ROI for the land. What do you think the reaction would be of the average Canmorite if the landowner announced they were replacing the golf course with hundreds of modest and relatively affordable row-houses?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

So why didn't residents vote them out? With a mayor and 6 councillors (I couldn't find exactly how long this has been the structure) every vote matters quite a bit.

Absolutely fair questions about land use planning, just as there are in every community in the world. At the time of development Silvertip and its mansions probably seemed like a reasonable use and good ROI for the land. What do you think the reaction would be of the average Canmorite if the landowner announced they were replacing the golf course with hundreds of modest and relatively affordable row-houses?

Residents did vote them out, but a lot of the decisions had already been made. One of the reasons why the current council, who fought TSMV had to give up the fight.


I think if a golf course was converted in that way, with a return to green spaces included, residents would largely support it. It would mean regaining access to areas that they can't currently go, and provide what the town has been asking developers for for decades. The objections, I would imagine, would largely come from outside the community. Yes, there would be some calls to return the land to wild land, but I think most understand that is not a fight they would win.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I’d characterize it as the economy of Canmore has been improved at the cost of community. If the people who work in a community can’t afford to live there, if children have to move away, then it’s not a living community in any traditional sense of the term. It’s worse than the gentrification of a neighbourhood, because the people who are priced out can’t just move a few km away.

Who defines what makes a good community? When I lived in Lake Louise that was pretty much the best community ever. All transient people who lived there for a year or two and then moved away.

I lived in Banff - again, all transient people who stay for a bit then move on.

Canmore has to do what those other places did: build staff accommodations. It's so obvious it'll get to that point (it's already past it, really). That's how tourist towns work. Employees stay in staff housing.

Right now Canmore residents/business owners are too busy cashing cheques from the money raining down on them after their town turned from a mined-out old dump to a tourist mecca known the world over. Once they stop profit taking for a minute they can build a some nice places for their staff to live and things will be much better for the people who want to live/work there.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Who defines what makes a good community? When I lived in Lake Louise that was pretty much the best community ever. All transient people who lived there for a year or two and then moved away.

I lived in Banff - again, all transient people who stay for a bit then move on.

Canmore has to do what those other places did: build staff accommodations. It's so obvious it'll get to that point (it's already past it, really). That's how tourist towns work. Employees stay in staff housing.

Right now Canmore residents/business owners are too busy cashing cheques from the money raining down on them after their town turned from a mined-out old dump to a tourist mecca known the world over. Once they stop profit taking for a minute they can build a some nice places for their staff to live and things will be much better for the people who want to live/work there.

That's only the case for the people you were with, their are plenty of decades long residence there.



Your contention they are bathing in wealth is ridiculous, too. It's just not happening like that.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What do you think the reaction would be of the average Canmorite if the landowner announced they were replacing the golf course with hundreds of modest and relatively affordable row-houses?

At one point the developers did try to convert the partially developed Three Sisters golf course into a community with affordable housing and even a seniors home but that idea was rejected by Canmorites.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's only the case for the people you were with, their are plenty of decades long residence there.

Your contention they are bathing in wealth is ridiculous, too. It's just not happening like that.

Dude, Canmore has the most expensive real estate in Alberta. I can't think of anywhere in our province that has seen property values skyrocket like they have there. For longtime homeowners, they have a giant windfall just waiting for whenever they want to hit the button and grab it.

Yes, there are permanent residents in Banff and Lake Louise who have been there for years. Also a transient population. Super fun and awesome communities.

Canmore is in that league now, dude. It's a tourist town. It's not going back (IDK, maybe when it burns down it will, but until then...). There will still be the permanent people, but then there will also be great numbers of transient workers. If Canmorites want people to work their stores and restaurants, they have to do what every other tourist town does: build housing. I mean, who else is going to? If I bought up a place and turned it into a dorm Canmorites would lose their GD minds. It has to come from within (and people will lose their minds, anyway).

All I can say is Canmorites want the impossible: to go back in time and freeze Canmore's population as it was 35 years ago. Since they can't have that, by god they're going to spend all their energy bitching to anybody who will listen. IDK, maybe they could saddle up and and air their grievances on the side of the highway with the other bellyachers on the TransCanada highway? Then at least I can yell at everyone who bugs me with my megaphone at once.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Residents did vote them out, but a lot of the decisions had already been made. One of the reasons why the current council, who fought TSMV had to give up the fight.


I think if a golf course was converted in that way, with a return to green spaces included, residents would largely support it. It would mean regaining access to areas that they can't currently go, and provide what the town has been asking developers for for decades. The objections, I would imagine, would largely come from outside the community. Yes, there would be some calls to return the land to wild land, but I think most understand that is not a fight they would win.

I'm not trying to play 'gotcha', but isn't this very close to what is happening with TSMV? The course was cleared, landscaped (including bunkers, water hazards, and cart paths)...pretty much everything short of laying the unnatural sod. Of course the end-result is unlikely to be mostly modest row-houses, but that could probably be achieved to a greater degree with a more constructive process.

The other thing is that there is already a couple schools and some other commercial services down there. Add more housing and you likely see even more services like a corner store, which could reduce the need to go into the centre of town as often (ie. parking, traffic).

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I mean is Canmore really that special

It’s just Nanton with mountains

Big deal

But those mountains! Canmore with the mountains, trails and all else (proximity to Banff) is very nice.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Dude, Canmore has the most expensive real estate in Alberta. I can't think of anywhere in our province that has seen property values skyrocket like they have there. For longtime homeowners, they have a giant windfall just waiting for whenever they want to hit the button and grab it.

Yes, there are permanent residents in Banff and Lake Louise who have been there for years. Also a transient population. Super fun and awesome communities.

Canmore is in that league now, dude. It's a tourist town. It's not going back (IDK, maybe when it burns down it will, but until then...). There will still be the permanent people, but then there will also be great numbers of transient workers. If Canmorites want people to work their stores and restaurants, they have to do what every other tourist town does: build housing. I mean, who else is going to? If I bought up a place and turned it into a dorm Canmorites would lose their GD minds. It has to come from within (and people will lose their minds, anyway).

All I can say is Canmorites want the impossible: to go back in time and freeze Canmore's population as it was 35 years ago. Since they can't have that, by god they're going to spend all their energy bitching to anybody who will listen. IDK, maybe they could saddle up and and air their grievances on the side of the highway with the other bellyachers on the TransCanada highway? Then at least I can yell at everyone who bugs me with my megaphone at once.

Yeah. If you bought property in Canmore in like 1960? You're rolling in wealth.

And you don't even need to sit on it, up until COVID interest rates were a joke, you could have leveraged that and had a HELOC against an outrageously over-valued property and bought whatever you want.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's two too many. They eliminated a lot of good biking and hiking trails, for the benefit of the wealthy. Yay world. I know, nobody cares.

Ah so it’s not what you want so it’s a problem. We found the issue here.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm not trying to play 'gotcha', but isn't this very close to what is happening with TSMV? The course was cleared, landscaped (including bunkers, water hazards, and cart paths)...pretty much everything short of laying the unnatural sod. Of course the end-result is unlikely to be mostly modest row-houses, but that could probably be achieved to a greater degree with a more constructive process.

The other thing is that there is already a couple schools and some other commercial services down there. Add more housing and you likely see even more services like a corner store, which could reduce the need to go into the centre of town as often (ie. parking, traffic).

That's not what is proposed though. I thought you were suggesting the entire project would be affordable housing.

As part of the two ASPs, a minimum 10 per cent affordable housing is required to be part of the development. The two plans also have a density bonusing toolkit, which could see affordable housing go to as high as 20 per cent.

https://www.rmoutlook.com/canmore/in...dp-mla-8360614


It's not so much the traffic, the town does it's own best work messing that stuff up. It's homes for people to live in the community and provide the supports that all the tourism brings. A lot of my argument is based on when Banff was closed to further development, Canmore became a large labour supplier. Now that Canmore is also in need of that, their is no where for those lower pay workers to live.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not against development, but second homes sitting empty sure don't help our housing situation in Canada.

Originally Posted by blankall

If a 60+ year old person has an empty bedroom, in the middle of a nationwide housing crisis, how do you turn around and blame the condo in the middle of the city centre for the lack of family housing?

I think these two posts hit the root of a problem that is hurting a lot more of the country than just residents of Canmore.

Places like Kelowna/Vernon/Fernie and many more all have similar issues. We have a bunch of people hoarding interior space and land that is extremely under-utilized. Not only does this cause housing problems, it's got an enormous energy and infrastructure footprint.

Building hotels and rental condos in Canmore isn't really an issue, and actually is a great way to increase access to the mountains, which is a good thing - as Fuzz agreed to.

There must be some really clever taxation scheme out there that would make it more expensive to sit on empty space. If owners of vacation places could face massive taxes to leave them empty, or a decent windfall renting them out, maybe we see more people take on the hassle of renting out their empty space in tourist areas.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why does everyone keep saying this. I've already pointed out how it functioned as a bedroom community for Banff, and could easily survive on that alone, as it did in the past.

Right, but if the people of Banff had their way, Banff would have never turned into a thing that would support a bedroom community such as Canmore. So basically, hyper-tourism in the mountains made Canmore avoid being a dead town either way.

As you mentioned, now Cochrane is a bedroom community for Canmore. Is it fair that Banff arbitrarily goes to hell by local's standards in order for Canmore to survive, but Canmore is where the buck stops?

[puckedoff]

Not sure that this is something that needs to be fixed with a tax, rather than with the long term ebb and flow of demographics. If someone bought the place, and pays the property tax, it is their right to use it or leave it empty as they see fit.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its kind of funny of Canmore residents.

"We like hiking and biking!" in our 20s and 30s.

Now that the incumbents are in their 50s and 60s and nobody younger can afford to get in?

Golf Courses!!

Their kids dont like it because its not the Canmore of their youth! But their kids cant afford to do anything about it.

They may hate it, but they made it themselves.

Haven't the newest golf courses all been there for 25 years?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Not sure that this is something that needs to be fixed with a tax, rather than with the long term ebb and flow of demographics. If someone bought the place, and pays the property tax, it is their right to use it or leave it empty as they see fit.

I don't agree. Having wealthy people hoard multiple houses has an impact on the remainder of the population. Any choices that are detrimental to society (such as polluting, using resources etc.) should have an associated cost that hopefully is allocated to mitigating the associated negative effects.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Right, but if the people of Banff had their way, Banff would have never turned into a thing that would support a bedroom community such as Canmore. So basically, hyper-tourism in the mountains made Canmore avoid being a dead town either way.

As you mentioned, now Canmore is a bedroom community for Cochrane. Is it fair that Banff arbitrarily goes to hell by local's standards in order for Canmore to survive, but Canmore is where the buck stops?

I'm not so sure of the first bit, Banff was, from it's founding, a tourist town. People have always known that. The limitation on growth was I think a good move for Banff in general, and I think that's mostly accepted.


Just a correction, Cochrane is becoming a bedroom community for Canmore, not the other way around. Banff was actually protected from "going to hell" through the limitation. And I'm not arguing that Canmore should be offloading it's housing problems to Cochrane, that's just what individuals decide when they can't afford to live where they work. I'm saying Canmore should be able to deal with it themselves, but has failed, and giving more developers more rode to keep doing it doesn't make sense either. Building more weekend homes solves nothing.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not so sure of the first bit, Banff was, from it's founding, a tourist town. People have always known that. The limitation on growth was I think a good move for Banff in general, and I think that's mostly accepted.


Just a correction, Cochrane is becoming a bedroom community for Canmore, not the other way around. Banff was actually protected from "going to hell" through the limitation. And I'm not arguing that Canmore should be offloading it's housing problems to Cochrane, that's just what individuals decide when they can't afford to live where they work. I'm saying Canmore should be able to deal with it themselves, but has failed, and giving more developers more rode to keep doing it doesn't make sense either. Building more weekend homes solves nothing.

Fair point on Banff originating as a tourist town. Thanks for catching I reversed Canmore/Cochrane. Fixed. Too many C____e towns!

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think these two posts hit the root of a problem that is hurting a lot more of the country than just residents of Canmore.

Places like Kelowna/Vernon/Fernie and many more all have similar issues. We have a bunch of people hoarding interior space and land that is extremely under-utilized. Not only does this cause housing problems, it's got an enormous energy and infrastructure footprint.

Building hotels and rental condos in Canmore isn't really an issue, and actually is a great way to increase access to the mountains, which is a good thing - as Fuzz agreed to.

There must be some really clever taxation scheme out there that would make it more expensive to sit on empty space. If owners of vacation places could face massive taxes to leave them empty, or a decent windfall renting them out, maybe we see more people take on the hassle of renting out their empty space in tourist areas.

A solution would be to create incentives for people not loosing the space to sell. Decrease income taxes and increase property taxes. It's not an entirely pretty process, as many of the boomers sitting on the house are now elderly people who've lived in a house for decades, and you're forcing them out. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what the solution is. Canada seems to be allergic to creating proper development plans anywhere, they have absurd immigration numbers, and a huge portion of the housing stock occupied by older people who are just leaving rooms vacant.