Canmore population to double? Legal battle?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Why can't we just eject people from houses after then have kids and shove them into 1 bedroom apartments?

Have you considered that politicians, even the ones you like, have no idea what the hell they're doing?

Oh, I don't like any politicians, and I've accepted that most of them have no idea what they were doing.


Back when decisions of importance were being made in Canmore in the 90's, most of the councillors were golfers who got wined and dined by the developers and collapsed like so many of the mystery mine shafts they paved over. Even then, the residents were against these developments but money talks pretty loudly. The result is an absolute loss of what most people found valuable about the town in the first place. That it wasn't Banff. Now it's arguably worse.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

People are welcome to live somewhere. Residents want residents, not second or third homes sitting empty taking up space and increasing their taxes.

So why should people looking for a first home to raise a family in a nice community be displaced by those who can afford 2 or 3? I've watched endless people grow up in the town and be forced to move out becuase they can't afford it, even after giving it a good try. Basically young people and families move out so boomers can visit 20 times a year. Is that good?

I think it's great from where I'm sitting, yeah.

I also think more affordable homes should be built because I don't think the fact that "I got mine" means somebody else shouldn't have the opportunity to get theirs. Guess who isn't standing in the way of more development? Me. Guess who is standing in the way of more development? NIMBY Canmore people.

If Canmore residents can recognize Canmore is an amazing place (it is), then they're shocked Pikachu face at others wanting to spend time there is beyond ridiculous.

If you want a quiet town, maybe check out Field?

Why should I care what a "resident" wants? And at what point am I a resident? I spend three nights a week out there and almost all my vacation time. Will probably be 70% Canmore/30% Calgary when I retire.

It's like any vacation area, though. You don't think Nice, France went through this at some point? Whistler? I mean, name your awesome place and you'll see this pattern repeat itself.

I do empathize and understand that it sucks for the people born and raised there who would like to stay. Maybe they could band together and separate from Canada and turn Canmore into a communist state? Everyone gets the same pay and the same drab apartment? Until then, though, Canmore is in the capitalist country of Canada and here we are allowed to spend our money as we please. It pleases me to spend mine on a place in Canmore and I am honestly at the point where I'm saying fk it to the NIMBYs right to their face.

I was fighting with a NIMBY Canmore Karen on Reddit who was blabbing about how she had a basement suite she was only going to rent to local residents with local jobs and not remote workers. Fk her. No concept that the economy and town is now supported by tourists and second home owners. Sorry, there aren't a lot of coal-mining jobs anymore. My fight ended with me promising not to buy my son's new snowboard in Canmore since the residents are outwardly antagonistic to vacation home owners instead of grateful for their contributions to the economy. True to my word, I didn't buy the snowboard there, which took some money out of Canmore and out of her neighbours' pockets. Great job, lady. That reminds me...I've been meaning to do my grocery, weed and liquor shopping in Calgary to punish the Canmore pricks a little more since there is no appreciation whatsoever for our efforts to be supportive of the community.

[MoneyGuy]

I’m not a NIMBY or BANANA person but think there should be tight controls in Canmore. I haven’t followed the issue closely enough to have an opinion on what an acceptable growth rate is. Growth is acceptable, but how much growth; that should be up to the municipal council - the ones actually elected by the community to make these decisions.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Why can't we just eject people from houses after then have kids and shove them into 1 bedroom apartments?

Have you considered that politicians, even the ones you like, have no idea what the hell they're doing?

Something has to change. The current model of babyboomers owning multiple properties and young families being unable to own any is not working. Many people are foregoing having children. Many children are growing up without financial opportunities, including paying for better schooling, extra-curricular activities, or even stable housing. How many children are growing up never having experienced having a bedroom they don't get evicted from every 2-3 years?

But hey, the number one priority needs to be giving old people their peace and quiet in the exact location they feel entitled to it.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Oh, I don't like any politicians, and I've accepted that most of them have no idea what they were doing.


Back when decisions of importance were being made in Canmore in the 90's, most of the councillors were golfers who got wined and dined by the developers and collapsed like so many of the mystery mine shafts they paved over. Even then, the residents were against these developments but money talks pretty loudly. The result is an absolute loss of what most people found valuable about the town in the first place. That it wasn't Banff. Now it's arguably worse.

I guess you'll have to get your kicks elsewhere then.

Like literally the feds are giving billions to developers, so yeah whatever notion you have of a goldilocks mountain town, you should change your expectations.

[Fuzz]

Sliver, if you a sucker enoguh to believe what developers say about building affordable housing, well, I'd refer you to the last 25 years of not nearly enough affordable housing being built. It's pretty obvious it hasn't happened, so what magic fairy dust is making you think this time will be different?


The FYGM is pretty strong with your post. You have 2 homes, but don't really care that others can't even afford rent in one. Hope you never complain about poor service when you are out there. And your point about spending all your money in Calgary and ####ing over locals is exactly why this model is so crappy for the town. Good effort though! As long as you are happy, that's really all that matters.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sliver, you've got a whole lot wrong there but I know I won't change your mind. But the idea that vacation homes are paying more than their share in taxes is nonsense. Same with "plenty of trails". You have no idea what it was like before they were all paved over, or you could just show up on a patio for a weekend and not stand in line for an hour, or even a mid week afternoon and not be told "we have very few staff, it will be a long wait".

To pretend this is better is just perspective of someone that didn't experience the town in all it's glory. I'm really sorry you missed that opportunity.

Were there more trails before? Sure. Did they pave some? Yeah, and I personally love that. We rip around on those on our scooters sometimes. Usually bike them TBH, but it's nice to go into town on them, have a few beers and then bike back up. I don't want to offroad all the time.

But Fuzz, there still are a bazillion trails still, c'mon.

And you're waiting in line for an hour and everywhere is short staffed because the residents lose their GD minds whenever somebody tries to build more restaurants and housing (including low-cost housing that would accommodate more servers, etc.!). It's a problem entirely the making of NIMBYs haha.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sliver, if you a sucker enoguh to believe what developers say about building affordable housing, well, I'd refer you to the last 25 years of not nearly enough affordable housing being built. It's pretty obvious it hasn't happened, so what magic fairy dust is making you think this time will be different?


The FYGM is pretty strong with your post. You have 2 homes, but don't really care that others can't even afford rent in one. Hope you never complain about poor service when you are out there. And your point about spending all your money in Calgary and ####ing over locals is exactly why this model is so crappy for the town. Good effort though! As long as you are happy, that's really all that matters.

He's the one suggesting that they need to double the amount of housing in Canmore to have a remote chance in hell of making things affordable (ie. what this developer is doing). You're the one saying that nothing should ever change and somehow affordable housing appears out of thin air.

It sounds like you already own/live in Canmore.

Who is really saying FYGM?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Were there more trails before? Sure. Did they pave some? Yeah, and I personally love that. We rip around on those on our scooters sometimes. Usually bike them TBH, but it's nice to go into town on them, have a few beers and then bike back up. I don't want to offroad all the time.

But Fuzz, there still are a bazillion trails still, c'mon.

And you're waiting in line for an hour and everywhere is short staffed because the residents lose their GD minds whenever somebody tries to build more restaurants and housing (including low-cost housing that would accommodate more servers, etc.!). It's a problem entirely the making of NIMBYs haha.

That's absolutely not happening, now you are just making stuff up.

[Slava]

This thread delivers! Also, Fuzz, I'm curious how you want the development to stop but somehow want affordable housing to be built? Like it seems like there is some cognitive dissonance at play here?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by blankall

Something has to change. The current model of babyboomers owning multiple properties and young families being unable to own any is not working. Many people are foregoing having children. Many children are growing up without financial opportunities, including paying for better schooling, extra-curricular activities, or even stable housing. How many children are growing up never having experienced having a bedroom they don't get evicted from every 2-3 years?

But hey, the number one priority needs to be giving old people their peace and quiet in the exact location they feel entitled to it.

Why are you telling me. I already know this.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sliver, if you a sucker enoguh to believe what developers say about building affordable housing, well, I'd refer you to the last 25 years of not nearly enough affordable housing being built. It's pretty obvious it hasn't happened, so what magic fairy dust is making you think this time will be different?

The FYGM is pretty strong with your post. You have 2 homes, but don't really care that others can't even afford rent in one. Hope you never complain about poor service when you are out there. And your point about spending all your money in Calgary and ####ing over locals is exactly why this model is so crappy for the town. Good effort though! As long as you are happy, that's really all that matters.

That's not true at all. I even had a letter of mine read out at Canmore city council in support of building more homes. I hate that so many people who want to live there are unable to. But it is not me blocking development. It's Canmore NIBMBYs. How can't you see that?

Also, I have two small homes, FWIW. I think that' relevant because let's take my 1500sf Calgary house and my 1100sf Canmore house. Divide that by the four people in my family and we're each occupying 650sf. I just don't think I'm some land baron real estate pig. It's totally modest. I see empty mansions all over Canmore and around Lake Bonavista, too. That's not me. I split my time between two pretty modest places. I guarantee you there are a ton of CPers reading this who own one home larger than 2600sf. I've allocated my living budget and space different than many, but when I look around I just don't accept that I'm being a total dick or something with my properties.

Really, if we want to zoom out a bit and talk about what's really bad for the planet, let's throw in guys that fly everywhere for travel or take cruises. That's as wasteful as it gets. Me buying a condo that served as a rental for 15 years and upgrading to a nice home using Canmore trades and businesses was the best thing that little condo did for the area since it was built.

The more I think about it, the more I think I should be honoured in a parade down main street.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's absolutely not happening, now you are just making stuff up.

Are you joking around with me? You didn't see all the Almond Moms out there protesting against TSMV?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Are you joking around with me? You didn't see all the Almond Moms out there protesting against TSMV?

haha, Almond Moms? Am I going to have to Google this one?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Regorium

He's the one suggesting that they need to double the amount of housing in Canmore to have a remote chance in hell of making things affordable (ie. what this developer is doing). You're the one saying that nothing should ever change and somehow affordable housing appears out of thin air.

It sounds like you already own/live in Canmore.

Who is really saying FYGM?

If the developer actually had a plan for affordable housing that made sense, council would have approved it. Developers have been saying these things for years, and every time they end up creating more problems than they solve. You know this is true, becuase the problems are getting worse.


I do not own/live in Canmore, I grew up there. My dad is still there so I have a connection to the place, but so many of my friends lost that as their parents were forced to move away and they themselves couldn't raise a family there. It's not that development is bad, it's that it has been handled so poorly over the years. Like, you know some of the area they want to develop has been an ugly scar of a half finished golf course for 20 years, right? Because developers failed at their promises?



But hey, Boomers need a weekend getaway, so it's all good. I don't really understand how there is so much support for second homes when so many can't afford a first.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That's not true at all. I even had a letter of mine read out at Canmore city council in support of building more homes. I hate that so many people who want to live there are unable to. But it is not me blocking development. It's Canmore NIBMBYs. How can't you see that?

Also, I have two small homes, FWIW. I think that' relevant because let's take my 1500sf Calgary house and my 1100sf Canmore house. Divide that by the four people in my family and we're each occupying 650sf. I just don't think I'm some land baron real estate pig. It's totally modest. I see empty mansions all over Canmore and around Lake Bonavista, too. That's not me. I split my time between two pretty modest places. I guarantee you there are a ton of CPers reading this who own one home larger than 2600sf. I've allocated my living budget and space different than many, but when I look around I just don't accept that I'm being a total dick or something with my properties.

Really, if we want to zoom out a bit and talk about what's really bad for the planet, let's throw in guys that fly everywhere for travel or take cruises. That's as wasteful as it gets. Me buying a condo that served as a rental for 15 years and upgrading to a nice home using Canmore trades and businesses was the best thing that little condo did for the area since it was built.

The more I think about it, the more I think I should be honoured in a parade down main street.

Well that's the crux, right? You aren't living there, you are just taking up space. The second homes are preventing people form having first homes.


And your Canmore house is bigger than my Calgary one...not that it's a competition. But you also admit it is the empty homes taknig up space that are the problem. SO you agree with me, but are also trying to pretzel your way into thinking you are doing good.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Slava

haha, Almond Moms? Am I going to have to Google this one?

lol, my son just called my wife that the other day. I think it's like the type of chick who has a special container with different compartments for her yogurt, blueberries and granola. Eats a few unblanched and unsalted almonds for a snack.

Similar to what we would have called granola, but with a twist. I'm pretty loose on the meaning of it, but I just thought it was a funny term and seems to fit the prototypical Canmore chick who bitches about Calgarians.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If the developer actually had a plan for affordable housing that made sense, council would have approved it. Developers have been saying these things for years, and every time they end up creating more problems than they solve. You know this is true, becuase the problems are getting worse.

From my perspective, the problems are getting worse because there hasn't been any housing built. The projects that have been completed have been woefully inadequate in terms of the numbers required to move the needle.

This development brings hope to people that want to actually stay in Canmore. Instead of their choices being a 1200sqft 1950s built home for 800k or renting the basement of said house for 1800 a month, they might be able to get something that isn't a total dump at a price that is closer to what a normal market value is. Now is that normal value "affordable"? Not to someone that's homeless, but it'd definitely be more affordable than what we have today.

I do not own/live in Canmore, I grew up there. My dad is still there so I have a connection to the place, but so many of my friends lost that as their parents were forced to move away and they themselves couldn't raise a family there. It's not that development is bad, it's that it has been handled so poorly over the years. Like, you know some of the area they want to develop has been an ugly scar of a half finished golf course for 20 years, right? Because developers failed at their promises?

But hey, Boomers need a weekend getaway, so it's all good. I don't really understand how there is so much support for second homes when so many can't afford a first.

You seem to think every new house is a second home. Why is that the presumption? What sort of housing stock needs to be developed to prevent it from being attractive as a second property, but attractive to someone that wants to live there?

Are you looking for actual municipal policy that prevents people from living elsewhere? Because I think that might be a different issue entirely, and could easily apply to everything in Canmore right now, and not something with this exact development.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well that's the crux, right? You aren't living there, you are just taking up space. The second homes are preventing people form having first homes.

And your Canmore house is bigger than my Calgary one...not that it's a competition. But you also admit it is the empty homes taknig up space that are the problem. SO you agree with me, but are also trying to pretzel your way into thinking you are doing good.

I don't admit empty homes taking up space are the problem. I think supply needs to come up to meet demand. That's hardly pretzeling. That's literally how every facet of our economy works.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If the developer actually had a plan for affordable housing that made sense, council would have approved it. Developers have been saying these things for years, and every time they end up creating more problems than they solve. You know this is true, becuase the problems are getting worse.


I do not own/live in Canmore, I grew up there. My dad is still there so I have a connection to the place, but so many of my friends lost that as their parents were forced to move away and they themselves couldn't raise a family there. It's not that development is bad, it's that it has been handled so poorly over the years. Like, you know some of the area they want to develop has been an ugly scar of a half finished golf course for 20 years, right? Because developers failed at their promises?



But hey, Boomers need a weekend getaway, so it's all good. I don't really understand how there is so much support for second homes when so many can't afford a first.

It takes years to get housing developments approved. Even if municipalities took half as long, it'd still take years.

Don't you think that home developers want to build, um, homes? Do you think it benefits them to sit on their asses for months or years?

What exactly does affordable mean to you anyhow? Do you think $50K apartments are feasible?