GDT: The Alberta Election 2012 - The Morning After - PC Majority Government

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

One of the major things the WRP brought up, Property Rights, is indeed a much greater issue for the rural voters as opposed to urban, specifically Bills 16, 24, 36 & 50 (link from Vermilion Standard giving a basic outline of the issue). It created a big stir with land owners but seems to have barely made a ripple with urban dwellers. I'm wondering if that is because there are more renters in the city, people are generally more mobile, or some other reason. In any respect, it created a deep divide.

I think it stems from the idea that people in the city are simply not as concerned about property rights. You don't often hear about a urban subdivision being rezoned or declared non-conforming in a way that impacts large numbers of landowners. For things like a road widening they affect a few people but the rest of the population is generally just happy that they have a better transit corridor.
Farmers and ranchers are concerned that the province will do something to affect them greatly.
An example of a legitimate concern that farmers had would be if the province decided that farmland was worth protecting so they put in a land use framework that indicates farming as the only acceptable use of an area of land. A farmer may have been planning to subdivide that quarter and the law now says they can't. It could wipe out millions of dollars in value and the original version of the law said that the owner had no recourse if he didn't like the provinces offer.

Very few people in the cities are worried about this happening to them, but people who work their land became quite concerned. Enough to have the PCs amend the acts to prevent some of the avenues for abuse.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I think it stems from the idea that people in the city are simply not as concerned about property rights. You don't often hear about a urban subdivision being rezoned or declared non-conforming in a way that impacts large numbers of landowners.

I disagree. Land uses are far more regulated and restricted in a city. Indeed, every single piece of land has significant zoning land use restrictions on it. Also, urban property is far more likely to be expropriated by a municipality than rural property is to be expropriated by the province. In my view, people who live in cities are just used to and accept these sorts of justifiable infringements of our property rights. It comes from living with a lot of neighbours.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I disagree. Land uses are far more regulated and restricted in a city. Indeed, every single piece of land has significant zoning land use restrictions on it. Also, urban property is far more likely to be expropriated by a municipality than rural property is to be expropriated by the province. In my view, people who live in cities are just used to and accept these sorts of justifiable infringements of our property rights. It comes from living with a lot of neighbours.

One of the big differences though is that for most of us the zoning was in place when we purchased our property so it won't impact our property values. As for expropriation, the Expropriation Act outlines the process of expropriating land in the province of Alberta. It is the same inside and outside of the cities and it does allow for an appeal process. The Land Use Framework gives the province additional powers to change the way we use the land. In the current system changing the zoning is a pretty drawn out process.
We accept zoning in the city because we enjoy the benefits of it, but there is potential for abuse. As an example, the city could rezone an inner city block of residential houses and declare it high density residential. Every house would then become non-conforming and the owners would be prevented from doing anything to improve their value of the property outside of required maintenance. In order for the city to do this though there is a fairly involved process that involves advertising intentions and holding public forums and the whole process still allows an affected landowner to appeal to the courts.
The land use framework originally provided a means for the province to skip a lot of these steps and block any appeal. The intention was never to enter city zoning issues, but it was to change current rural land use practices.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Gee, I can't wait until you and Cory have your own show on Sun TV.

LOL. Not me, absolutely hate how I look and sound on TV. I prefer the written word.

I'll get flamed for this but I'm sensing you guys are starting to be more about shameless self promotion than you are about 'improving the lives of Calgarians or Albertans'.

Not going to flame. Just a couple of points. Not sure how it can be seen at self-promotion, my name hasn't been in papers in connection to the WR since 2009. Even this piece is just an online blog. And really, my speaking out could cause me more harm than good.

Plus Markusoff approached me, not the other way around.

And Cory and I are two different people. Very different.

I think you meant well when you became politically active. I think now you're content with being well-known and controversial.

Markusoff was looking for an unfiltered, supporter perspective. Some may see that as controversial. What's the harm if it generates discussion? I think every party needs to be able to take a critical look at themselves.

BTW, I don't think I'm "well-known"; nor do I care to be. I don't have any political aspirations at this time beyond supporting and making the WR better and stronger.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I certainly don't think First Lady isn't in it for the fame, or self-promotion or as some controversial right wing hack. I believe the person you're thinking about who does that is Ezra Levant. First Lady seems to genuinely be in it because she is passionate about the Wildrose Party. The only thing remotely controversial I've seen from her in any of the political threads is her avatar.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by First Lady

LOL. Not me, absolutely hate how I look and sound on TV. I prefer the written word.



Not going to flame. Just a couple of points. Not sure how it can be seen at self-promotion, my name hasn't been in papers in connection to the WR since 2009. Even this piece is just an online blog. And really, my speaking out could cause me more harm than good.

Plus Markusoff approached me, not the other way around.

And Cory and I are two different people. Very different.



Markusoff was looking for an unfiltered, supporter perspective. Some may see that as controversial. What's the harm if it generates discussion? I think every party needs to be able to take a critical look at themselves.

BTW, I don't think I'm "well-known"; nor do I care to be. I don't have any political aspirations at this time beyond supporting and making the WR better and stronger.

More Wildrose party members like you should be speaking out, even though I understand the reluctance considering what speaking out has done recently to your party's chances. Still, people need to know that there are actual decent people in the party.

If the argument against muzzling certain party members was that discourse and difference of views amongst party members is allowed, then this kind of view is one that the party desperately needs. If the foot-in-mouth types are the only ones that get heard, people won't get that point.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Gee, I can't wait until you and Cory have your own show on Sun TV.

I'll get flamed for this but I'm sensing you guys are starting to be more about shameless self promotion than you are about 'improving the lives of Calgarians or Albertans'.

I think you meant well when you became politically active. I think now you're content with being well-known and controversial.

Jealousy is an awkward homage which inferiority renders to merit. ~Mme. de Puixieux

[Regulator75]

Not sure if this was posted here yet.

[burn_this_city]

Haha bus tits

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Everywhere does, really. The voting pattern that saw Rob Ford elected mayor of Toronto is rather fascinating... and an indictment of the megacity concept.

I would say it shows the benefit of the megacity concept. The high taxes generated by the core are a result of the entire region and therefore should be shared throughout the region. And the elected officials should be voted on by the entire region.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would say it shows the benefit of the megacity concept. The high taxes generated by the core are a result of the entire region and therefore should be shared throughout the region. And the elected officials should be voted on by the entire region.

It's only a benefit to the suburbs. They can fund their agenda with the core's taxes. And the core drives up property values in the suburbs - you have the cart before the horse.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by First Lady

LOL. Not me, absolutely hate how I look and sound on TV. I prefer the written word.



Not going to flame. Just a couple of points. Not sure how it can be seen at self-promotion, my name hasn't been in papers in connection to the WR since 2009. Even this piece is just an online blog. And really, my speaking out could cause me more harm than good.

Plus Markusoff approached me, not the other way around.

And Cory and I are two different people. Very different.



Markusoff was looking for an unfiltered, supporter perspective. Some may see that as controversial. What's the harm if it generates discussion? I think every party needs to be able to take a critical look at themselves.

BTW, I don't think I'm "well-known"; nor do I care to be. I don't have any political aspirations at this time beyond supporting and making the WR better and stronger.

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I'm sorry if I caused any offense.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's only a benefit to the suburbs. They can fund their agenda with the core's taxes. And the core drives up property values in the suburbs - you have the cart before the horse.

No, the suburbs provide affordable housing for the workers of the core to live in a lifestyle they want to live. Without the workers there is no core. Also if there are no suburbs the core has no value as people would buildjust outside of the core and live there.

There is no high density city without burbs. They are needed to support the core

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

We accept zoning in the city because we enjoy the benefits of it, but there is potential for abuse. As an example, the city could rezone an inner city block of residential houses and declare it high density residential. Every house would then become non-conforming and the owners would be prevented from doing anything to improve their value of the property outside of required maintenance. In order for the city to do this though there is a fairly involved process that involves advertising intentions and holding public forums and the whole process still allows an affected landowner to appeal to the courts.

That's not really how land use works here. If you're a bungalow on a 50' lot for instance, and it's zoned R2 (which facilitates two 25' lot infills) it doesn't mean that existing structure is "non-conforming". A property owner could tear down the house and re-build as one house on that 50' lot, they could renovate, they could do anything they wanted within the by-laws - they're certainly never forced to build up to the density zoned for the property. There are massive swaths of the inner city that were rezoned in this way 20-30 years ago.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

No, the suburbs provide affordable housing for the workers of the core to live in a lifestyle they want to live. Without the workers there is no core. Also if there are no suburbs the core has no value as people would buildjust outside of the core and live there.

There is no high density city without burbs. They are needed to support the core

Proximity to Manhattan is what makes Brooklyn expensive, not the other way around. If Brooklyn fell into the Hudson, Manhattan property values would go up... less supply of an inferior substitute.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by SebC

Proximity to Manhattan is what makes Brooklyn expensive, not the other way around. If Brooklyn fell into the Hudson, Manhattan property values would go up... less supply of an inferior substitute.

But would then then less people would be able to afford to live close enough to work to make it worthwhile, causing a potential labour shortage for the area, and in the long term causing downward pressure on property values?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I'm sorry if I caused any offense.

No offence whatsoever.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rathji

But would then then less people would be able to afford to live close enough to work to make it worthwhile, causing a potential labour shortage for the area, and in the long term causing downward pressure on property values?

Mitigating effects such as this would claw back some of the increase, but not all of it.

[Flickered Flame]

Redford names Farouk Adatia Chief of Staff:
http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/farou...391/story.html