Calgary developer’s caught with pants down - Nenshi white knight or not?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

LOL No worries.

Looks like Bunk has pretty much posted the entire blog post and has more intelligent responses than you likely could have mastered.

You sure you want to alienate potential voters by insulting their intelligence when you run again?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by First Lady

LOL No worries.

Looks like Bunk has pretty much posted the entire blog post and has more intelligent responses than you likely could have mastered.

I'm sure they are better than I could have "mastered" (mustered?), as I don't work for the mayor's office.

You don't have to act butthurt just because we think one more big-C conservative blog in Alberta is worthy of ignoring. Internet is serious business and all that.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Good to know that when discussing an issue on CP moving forward, that anything one posts has to conform precisely and entirely with their opinion.

From FL's original link, she was doing nothing more than posting weekend blogs pertaining to the subject being discussed and yes her hubby was the author of one of those pieces...but now that means she has to take ownership for someone else's opinion?

Also Im loving the whole "up in arms" reaction to anyone who questions Nenshi's actions here or elsewhere and those that dare are labelled as "out to lunch" and the ultimate irony of in Alberta we only "elect old white people"...when discussing Nahid Nenshi.

Pure entertainment for me and Im a guy that actually has admired the way the guy has gone about his business until this (what will turn out to be) minor transgression.

Don't worry, everyone will just use my inflammatory posts as a lightning rod and ignore all the ones by good posters who make a point. That's how the internet works.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Ahh I get it. Don't like the link; take it out on the messenger.
And actually others have linked to his blog before.



To generate discussion. Mission accomplished.



Then call him out on it. Go to his blog and point out the inaccuracies.

It seems strange to state that you post excerpts from your husband's blog to"generate discussion" and then, when posters try to discuss those blog excerpts with you, you suggest that the poster leave comments on your husband's blog. If you post those excerpts to discuss them, then I think you should discuss them.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by First Lady

LOL No worries.

Looks like Bunk has pretty much posted the entire blog post and has more intelligent responses than you likely could have mastered.

You weren't talking about me when you said that but that's not a slight to PsYcNeT in anyway I'd imagine. Bunk not not only did that to him but your husband as well. It's amazing what a rational, well thought out, non-emotional response can do.

I'd glad Bunk "responded" here as well and didn't take your bait of driving up your husbands web traffic. Because let's be honest here, that's all you're constantly trying to do.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Calgary’s Petulant Purple Peacock is pouting.
Posted on February 24, 2013



Alright. That's a lot of hipsters.



Calgarians seem to like him to with an 88% approval rating. The guy eats, sleeps, breathes the mayoral role. He loves the job.




The Mayor does not hire General Managers at the City. That's the job of City Manager. The Mayor works with whomever is in leadership positions in Administration.



If he's referring to Stan Schwartzenberger. His departure had absolutely nothing to do with Rollin Stanley's hiring, or anyone else's. Mr. Schwartzenbeger was replaced by the former Director of Assessment - not even a planner - but someone viewed as an effective senior manager.



The City has a growth plan (The Municipal Development Plan) that seeks to shift some future growth to established communities. I didn't know in two years the Mayor had the power to completely reshape the urban landscape in Calgary. Is he suggesting Imperial Oil moved to Quarry Park because of the Mayor?



The Charter is not about more taxation powers necessarily. The Mayor, backed by Council would like a rebate on the taxes Calgarians send to the Province and Federal Government. For instance, he's said, let municipalities have 1% of the existing provincial income tax for capital projects. Failing that, Calgary should have more control over its own destiny. It's the province that mandated the creation of a Calgary Metropolitan Plan, and that long precedes the Mayor. Calgary and all the surrounding towns have all agreed to that vision. It's the rural municipalities that are not joining in. The Mayor has said, he wants the Province to solve the issue - he's agnostic whether they're in our out in the end, he just wants resolution.



While some developers think the 'crap' comment was directed at every developer, that's simply not true. In context, it was directed at one very specific commercial project. The mayor has consistently praised developers who are innovating and doing thoughtful projects. Mattamy's Cityscape, Walden, Mahogany, Keystone, etc.

When developers dared to speak up and address this at a dinner, Nenshi went off the handle and is now trying to ban developers from city planning activity.

The tone and condescending arrogance in the letter sent from Nenshi’s office t

The Mayor does not take issue with someone with differing views. In fact, the CHBA itself has one of the strongest critics of how the City does things - that's Amie Blanchette, their point person for working with the City on its initiatives. She's their chief lobbyist. If you read the letter, you'll see that it praises Amie for her very thoughtful approach. While she's strongly, strongly critical, she's constructive and works with integrity. Our office (me specifically) fought for her inclusion on the influential Transforming Planning Working Group.

The issue is that their President made misleading statements that the City was putting a freeze on suburban development. This has absolutely no basis in fact. The President also rebuked the City's planning process (totally fair), but also failed to even acknowledge that they were a key partner in helping the biggest ever effort to fix the problem. It was just more blame game, which Amie herself led the charge to say needed ending. Participation in these initiatives comes with certain expectations that are clearly laid out and agreed to, and his speech or subsequent statements did not model this behavior.



Again, the Mayor takes absolutely no issue with people disagreeing with him or the City. However, if you want to participate as a partner, you should do so respectfully (as they agreed to do) and not mislead their membership with disingenuous statements that damage that relationship.

Great stuff Bunk...but may I ask (and if you know) why a written apology posted in several different places has to occur before the builders are allowed back at the table? (If indeed this is really the case) And how that kind of reponse is any different to the relationship between the two sides as to what was said by someone to start it all off?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You sure you want to alienate potential voters by insulting their intelligence when you run again?

That's the great liberating thing about not running again; I can alienate everyone.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't have time to pull it up but this is really false, in the Sun they printed the correspondence between Nenshi's assistant and the CHBA asking for a verbal, written and web posted apology to the mayor. It was worded in a way that I don't blame the CHBA for taking a bit of a hard line against the Mayors office.

In short form they wanted an apology that would be approved by the Mayor, this apology would then be verbally read out at the next CHBA gathering, sent to every member in a letter correspondence and posted on the front page of their web site.

Nenshi wants way more then just a recant.

I found the letter. Way more to it than the original Herald article.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/02/23...rs-association

I like that he stood up but yeah, it's a little much.

[Bunk]

A couple comments on Chris' blog. I'm a big fan of Chris, but not working with all the information in front of him here. He's just going on what's in the media up to this point though.

Booting the CHBA is wrong
02/24/20130 Comments
Chris Harper

This unilateral action has put at risk much more than the relationship between the development industry and the City of Calgary, which I might add is already shaky. It sends the message that to disagree with the Mayor is to risk removal from participation in key initiatives and be sent to the penalty box.

The action was NOT unilateral. There was a unanimous resolution of the Priorities and Finance Committee of Council, which deals with these matters.

Again, the issue was not disagreeing with the Mayor, but making inaccurate and misleading statements about freezing suburban development.

How can any participant or representative organization participating in a City initiative or task force speak honestly to its members after the removal of the CHBA?

The CHBA should speak honestly to its members. It didn't.

The removal of the CHBA has damaged the credibility of engagement. It makes the outcomes of the various task forces underway illegitimate. The Transforming Planning and Cut Red Tape initiatives are primary opportunities to build better efficiency and improve service. After the removal of the CHBA, the outcomes of these initiatives will lack credibility. The outcomes will be illegitimate. How can you “transform” planning and “cut red tape” without a key stakeholder at the table? How can you validate acceptance and understand impacts without a key stakeholder at the table? You can’t. Just look to recent discussions around the Calgary Regional Partnership. Without key communities participating, the Calgary Metropolitan Plan just won’t happen. And so is the case with the CHBA and the City of Calgary.

I think unfortunately, it was the CHBA President that undermined the engagement that was happening. Amie is THE best contributor to Cut Red Tape and Transforming Planning. They were saying one thing in committee, and something completely different to their members. That said, it's a suspension, CHBA has every opportunity to clarify their comments and rectify the situation.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Ahh I get it. Don't like the link; take it out on the messenger.

It has nothing to do with the content, it's your little 'oh me? I didn't say anything of the sort' game that you play over and over again. You like to dip your toe in through his words but then you duck for cover. It's lame.

You clearly understand the issue, at least to the point to be conversant on it, so perhaps if you don't want the rambling blog of your husband attributed to yourself you should present your own viewpoint, not his.

[Hack&Lube]

Unchecked urban sprawl is unhealthy for this city and a burden on your taxes.

All those people that complain about the lack of snow removal, the thinning of services, etc. have to realize the reason that these systems are getting stretched thin is the ever-expanding roads and utilities that need to be built out to the fringes of the city and beyond.

The more sprawl the city gets, the more roads and pipelines and infrastructure that need to be built out for fewer and fewer people that actually use it and the more it costs everybody. That's just what happens when you increase the surface area of the city but decrease the density.

Spend the money on upgrading existing infrastructure, encourage builders to focus on more urban redevelopment, etc. and you have a much more beautiful, diverse, and sustainable city with public infrastructure that more people can take advantage of.

We are not building a Hong Kong Calgary, but I'd much rather have a Vancouver or Toronto like Calgary than an Houston or LA Calgary.

-edit yeah, Houston/LA sprawl is a better representation of what I was trying to say. And I would definitely want to avoid the sprawl and stupid traffic that is the GTA but most of the GTA towns have their own municipal governments.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by pylon

This seems like a very childish reaction by Nenshi. "How dare you disagree with my vision, so get out. And you better say you are super sorry, and bow down to me, your leader in a written apology before you are allowed to grace my committee again." And I was actually starting to like the guy. But this is the same BS cronyism of years past.

I really have to agree with a lot of what is said in the article posted by First Lady. Not everyone wants to live in Nenshi's version of a Hong Kong Calgary. Where we all live on top of each other. I am all for Urban Sprawl. We can keep expanding for decades. And big companies are starting to move out of the core to accommodate this. That is what makes Calgary great IMHO. I live in a condo now, because it is just me, and it is convenient...for now. But I am getting really tired of walking down a hallway, smelling cigarette smoke from one suite, someones massive crap that is wafting under the door of another, and some rancid cuisine from from unpronounceable island nation from the person next door. I also do not like having to listen to my whale of a next door neighbour getting stuffed like a thanksgiving turkey every second night. Some have a huge boner for that type of melting pot environment, and want to gather in the common area to sniff each others buttholes, and pick bugs out of their dreadlocks. But I pine for the day, I have an excuse to build a giant, energy hog house, with double insulated exterior walls, and a 10 foot fence, on a 1 acre lot so I don't have be forced to listen, see, smell, or interact with disgusting people I have nothing in common with, and no desire to get to know. Not everyone wants to live like a Sardine, and have a house 6 feet away from their neighbour.

He did not take issue with a "disagreement with his vision" or him. It was misleading its memberships with statements they now have no basis in fact. CHBA members that contacted us, the ones that are in the know about what's going on at the City, expressed their discomfort with how Charron Ungar was expressing things. Participation in these engagement exercises comes with expectations, and they violated those expectations. They have every ability to rectify the situation.

The Mayor does not espouse a "Hong Kong Calgary" He supports sensitive intensification of established communities and continually improved new subdivisions in line with the City's (Council endorsed - pre-Nenshi) Municipal Development Plan. This is not a radical change to the city by any stretch of the imagination. The notion that is often put out there like Alderman Colley-Urquhart that "every has to live in a downtown condo" under the vision of the MDP is just not true.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

At the beginning I was all like "I think you're wrong about such and such" but by the end I started to wonder if maybe this was a parody. Still not sure if serious.

MOD EDIT: What is the point of a post like that?

[AR_Six]

I am of the view, at present, that the demand for a written apology acceptable to the office of the Mayor, or any similar demand, is baffling. What purpose does this serve? I can see a demand that a correction be made publicly, but what's with the apology thing?

Either way that is a minor issue compared to the major thrust of this news item, which is that the Mayor is visibly not beholden to a large lobbying group which in my view is clearly profiting at the expense of the Calgary rather than to its benefit. My views and Nenshi's on the issues with this city's development and the best path forward cohere, from what I can tell, basically 100%. Consequently, this is going to make me more likely to vote for him and to encourage others to do likewise. Not that it particularly matters - he might as well be running unopposed (and is, for all I know; I've heard nothing of any challenger).

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by valo403

It has nothing to do with the content, it's your little 'oh me? I didn't say anything of the sort' game that you play over and over again. You like to dip your toe in through his words but then you duck for cover. It's lame.

You clearly understand the issue, at least to the point to be conversant on it, so perhaps if you don't want the rambling blog of your husband attributed to yourself you should present your own viewpoint, not his.

Fair enough, I will comment on both the blogs I posted.

Re: Chris's. Chris says booting groups from dicussion is wrong and I agree with this.

Re: Cory's. Cory says it was a very childish way to handle the issue and I agree with this.

And just so it is on record, Cory and I don't agree on what furture development should look like. Though I don't see this thread being about that; it's more focused on how this situation was handled (or mishandled).

[kermitology]

I am getting sick and tired of hearing people slam increased density as creating Hong Calgary where people are living "cheek to jowl" as if living in the inner city is for either the super elite, or those living in slums (and reading the comments on some of these articles, that's the description.)

Before everyone espouses nonsense, how about we actually take a look at what is going on around the city. Why is deep south straining so much right now? Why are people saying it's a problem for the city to maintain the infrastructure services to the deep south, and why do we need to look at alternatives to simply growing outward rather than upward for a period of time?

If you want to see why the CHBA is getting up in arms, look no further than what they enjoyed for years under Bronconnier. Bronco initiated the CPAG business office, a group that does nothing but baby sit the timelines of planners. They established guidelines on how long it should take an application to be process, but don't bother to take into account applicant delays meaning that for a period of time, applications were being pushed through without being truly complete.

If you want an example, the development of neighbourhoods in Copperfield and New Brighton had to be stopped for a period of time because the plan had been approved without consideration to the choking traffic that would be generated on 52nd Ave as a result of the massive increase in car volume. 52nd had to be widened as well as alternative access further east on 130th.

And First Lady, how about you provide us with YOUR thoughts rather than these cursory shots from your husband that you present as yours then walk away from when people criticize.

[bizaro86]

I'm all for restricting suburban development, but then the city needs to upzone enough land within the developed area to provide a similar capacity for new residences every single year.

I would be very interested to see how much land has had it's residential zoning increased every year for the last few. There's been a few good increases (TOD at westbrook, East village) but to make that theory work you need wholesale zoning increases.

It's currently BS that no new ARP exists for areas with adjacent train stations like Houndsfield Heights adjacent to Lions Park or the area just east of Banff Trail station. The fact that lots 50 ft from a CTrain station are zoned R1 makes a mockery of the planning process.

Bunk once said (http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?p=3988883) the community association is the group needing to request an ARP/upzoning, but none of them ever will. That benefits the city as a whole, but the NIMBYs running the associations will never request it.

If we're going to restrict suburbs then we need to replace the growth in the developed area, or housing prices will increase unsustainably. (That benefits me as a real estate investor, but disproportionately hurts poor people, and reduces Calgary's competitiveness)

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Which century are you living in?

Are you seriously saying I must think exactly like my husband?

Or are you just suggesting I can't "think for myself"?

And cue First Lady's denial that she doesn't support the message of any of the links she posted - even though they all take the same side of the debate.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I don't think 2012 stats alone are the correct ones to look at in the context of this debate. The housing starts that are occurring now are in development plans that were completed and approved long before Nenshi's and Stanley's time. Rather contrast those stats with what the planning department is up to these days and Stanley's comments that 'maybe only 2 plans actually get started in the next 10 years' and it becomes obvious why an industry that's made a lot of money on slapping up single family homes in record time is having a cow.

I can't speak for Rollin Stanley, but from my conversations with him, the "maybe only 2 plans actually get started in 10 years" stems from a conversation before Christmas when developers were lobbying to get the next 7 Area Structure Plans written and approved within 2 years, whereby the City had proposed to do them over 6 years. The City has a policy around "planned land supply" of 15 years. Recently approved ASPs (Keystone - 2500 acres + others) brought us to well over that 15 year supply. Rollin, from my understanding, was making the point that of these 7 new ones, likely only 2 of them are likely to get actual development started, because there's already a lot of other planned areas ahead of them in the queue. Not that the City would stop writing ASPs, or would not process applications within ASP areas.

As Rollin Stanley states in that article posted earlier, the City continues that policy and applications continue to be processed under the rubric of the Growth Management Framework.

I'm not sure if they're misinterpreting those statements, but the CHBA knows full well there is no development freeze. They and UDI sign off on the absorption and land supply data that the City uses to measure against its land supply policy!

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by kermitology

And First Lady, how about you provide us with YOUR thoughts rather than these cursory shots from your husband that you present as yours then walk away from when people criticize.

Which I've done.

At times though, it really doesn't matter what I post or comment on; the same group (Ozy, Muta, Valo403, oh and there's longsufering, a little late to the party) always come in and bombard me the same reactions.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by hack&lube

we are not building a Hong Kong Calgary, but i'd much rather have a Vancouver or Toronto like Calgary than a Houston or LA Calgary.

fyp.