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

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I'll say this - The City, led by the Mayor has taken an unprecedented step of trying to transform how its planning system works, largely because of the feedback we get from the homebuilding industry, and we've invited many industry partners to advise on how to do that. Together, we’ve started the cut red tape program and begun a process formally called Transforming Planning that aims to completely re-invent the system.

I should point out that the process and regulations are often the biggest barrier to changing/improving how new communities are designed and built It's often developers trying to push the envelope, but default back to the "standard" when they run into brick walls in approval. That is why we're trying to change it. Developers often get a lot of blame from people, but I think that can be misdirected.

Isn't that one of their concerns though; that the red tape reduction program isn't moving forward fast enough?

The CHBA is one of many industry organizations that we invited to help chart a path forward, and as I mentioned, we have been extremely pleased with the CHBA’s role on those committees. However, the CHBA has chosen to misrepresent the process to their members and the general public. It's as much the "system" as anything else.

Specifically: by doing this, the CHBA has shown disrespect to the other partners (and many City of Calgary employees) at the table that have come together to make a better system. This is why the Mayor, with support of PFC Council Committee disinvited the CHBA from the special committees we had created until they choose to rebuild this relationship by apologizing to the committee partners and City staff (not to the Mayor or Mayor's Office) who are all working together. Is it a strong reaction? Yes - but this is really, really important.

Where is this misrepresentation? Is there copy of the speech or is it available on video?

Hopefully, we can come back together to continue the good work we've started in a respectful manner (even if we disagree!). That is the ideal situation.

Indeed.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Isn't that one of their concerns though; that the red tape reduction program isn't moving forward fast enough?

Where is this misrepresentation? Is there copy of the speech or is it available on video?

Well on one hand their representation on the committee says things are on track, they're pleased the progress - understanding the planning system is a big beast that takes some time to engage and find solutions - on the other hand their leadership did nothing but complain about the City, its vision and its process and not even mention anything was being done about it, or they were a key partner in that change.

The reason why Transforming Planning was separated from Cut Red Tape was that the issues with planning are far more systemic than simply changing this discrete process or regulation. As such, it takes some time. Cut Red Tape is those non-systemic and easier changes that can just be made without big systemic change. CRT has already led to a lot of changes.

We weren't at the speech, but we have talked with several members that were there. We also discussed directly with Charron Ungar about the tone and the content of the speech.

There were also published comments in the Herald and Sun on January 12th and 13th related to the suburban development freeze, which we also discussed at length with them in a meeting a few weeks ago.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by pylon

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.

Higher density does not mean high density. It is very possible that Calgary can increase its density without having everyone living atop each other.

Originally Posted by transplant99

I have no idea what else was involved in this whole thing blowing up to the degree it has,but demanding an apology before being allowed back into committee is extremely childish from my perspective.

It's like the city council equivalent of "taking your ball and going home" until someone else says sorry for upsetting you. I agree that some comments were likely out of line before by home bulder reps, but this is no way to handle the situation as the mayor of a major metropolis and a guy that ran a campaign on getting along with others and openness in council.

If the CHBA have been the ones acting like children not getting their way and made false, slanderous statements then I can see the Mayor being spot on. In this open, collaborative environment he is attempting to create, there is no room for the CHBA's alleged behaviour and it must not be tolerated.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bunk

We weren't at the speech, but we have talked with several members that were there. We also discussed directly with Charron Ungar about the tone and the content of the speech.

There were also published comments in the Herald and Sun on January 12th and 13th related to the suburban development freeze, which we also discussed at length with them in a meeting a few weeks ago.

I've heard it referred to as "essentially" or "virtually" (a development freeze).

Whether real or not, it would seem that is their perception of the current situation. I'm not convinced it did (does) any damage and whether an apology is needed.

I think the Mayor's response has drawn more attention to it, than the initial comments he feels were offbase.

Do you really think it's a good idea for one person to be determining who can or can't be at the table? Sounds a bit dictoral to me.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Do you really think it's a good idea for one person to be determining who can or can't be at the table? Sounds a bit dictoral to me.

Question.

Originally Posted by Bunk

Specifically: by doing this, the CHBA has shown disrespect to the other partners (and many City of Calgary employees) at the table that have come together to make a better system. This is why the Mayor, with support of PFC Council Committee disinvited the CHBA from the special committees we had created until they choose to rebuild this relationship by apologizing to the committee partners and City staff (not to the Mayor or Mayor's Office) who are all working together. Is it a strong reaction? Yes - but this is really, really important.

Answer. So perhaps not with other members of council, but with the support of the PFC Council Committee.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

fyp.

Noted and added to post

Also noted that we have to avoid the maddess that is the GTA and massive urban sprawl and ridiculous traffic congestion of their highways.

[Table 5]

Anyone who thinks Calgary is turning into Hong Kong clearly has never been to Hong Kong.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

We weren't at the speech, but we have talked with several members that were there. We also discussed directly with Charron Ungar about the tone and the content of the speech.

Is it possible this is hearsay blown way out of proportion? I voted for Nenshi, and will again (realistically Calgary mayor is a job for life once you win) but this very much seems like an overreaction. In politics dealing with disrespect and people saying two different things is likely to be part of the job.

Basically, I think solving our collective problems matters a lot, and everyone getting along and being nice to each other ultimately matters very little.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Anyone who thinks Calgary is turning into Hong Kong clearly has never been to Hong Kong.

I'd also wager to say that many people against densification here sure haven't seen some of the benefits that densification has provided other modern and innovative cities around the world. It's unfair to allude to densification as simply stacking people on top of each other. That's quite short-sighted.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Question.



Answer. So perhaps not with other members of council, but with the support of the PFC Council Committee.

Is that an elected committee?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Is that an elected committee?

Priorities and Finance Committee. All members are elected officials.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'd also wager to say that many people against densification here sure haven't seen some of the benefits that densification has provided other modern and innovative cities around the world. It's unfair to allude to densification as simply stacking people on top of each other. That's quite short-sighted.

At times I probably come across as being against densification (I'm not entirely). I just get tired of the holier than attitude of some of the people pressing for this, and specifically those who rent rather than own and are ideologues on this topic largely due to their current stage of life.

I also better note that I don't even mean that comment to specifically apply to CP as I've run into some of the people at various times and places. I should also note that I'm not makig the rent v. own distinction as a comment about whether people owning should mean they have greater say either; its just that renting a 500 sq. foot apartment in the beltline and saying "we can densify" as compared to someone who actually owns and pays taxes is a night and day scenario IMO.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'd also wager to say that many people against densification here sure haven't seen some of the benefits that densification has provided other modern and innovative cities around the world. It's unfair to allude to densification as simply stacking people on top of each other. That's quite short-sighted.

Could you provide some examples of the cities you're talking about and the benefits they have accrued? I would be genuinely interested.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Priorities and Finance Committee. All members are elected officials.

Oh, okay so it's made up of all Alderman then.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Oh, okay so it's made up of all Alderman then.

You seem to be alluding to a point here, are you going to get to it?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Slava

At times I probably come across as being against densification (I'm not entirely). I just get tired of the holier than attitude of some of the people pressing for this, and specifically those who rent rather than own and are ideologues on this topic largely due to their current stage of life.

I also better note that I don't even mean that comment to specifically apply to CP as I've run into some of the people at various times and places. I should also note that I'm not makig the rent v. own distinction as a comment about whether people owning should mean they have greater say either; its just that renting a 500 sq. foot apartment in the beltline and saying "we can densify" as compared to someone who actually owns and pays taxes is a night and day scenario IMO.

Why? Renters contribute to property taxes (albeit indirectly). I don't see why renters are necessarily less-committed citizens just because they rent.

[Minnie]

I don't even know what this is about but if DCU is speaking against, then I'd probably be for. She drives me up the wall.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by pylon

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.

It doesn't sound like you live in a condo, it sounds like you live in prison. Either get out of jail, or move out of the dump you live in.

I'm sure you can find a place where you don't have to listen to sexually-active overweight people, or deal with brown folks and their mysterious meals.

Why do you need an excuse to build a giant energy hog house? Those are allowed. What are you waiting for?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

At election time I found it really hard to get a read on Nenshi. Is he arrogant, naive, both, neither?

3 years in I am still not sure. Sometimes he is pragmatic. Then he pulls a stunt like this.

If he felt the need to call out the chba so be it. But to take your toys and go home is ...weak.

No matter whether people like or not 20,000 people a year come to Calgary and they don't all want to live in 600 sq ft condos, nor do all the people who live here now. And the housing industry is a big one. Again like it or not its a fact.

It is not a conversation where only the mayor or his brain trust should have a voice.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Could you provide some examples of the cities you're talking about and the benefits they have accrued? I would be genuinely interested.

To start, there is a continent full of them on the other side of the Atlantic.