*Updated* Ongoing Bank of Canada Benchmark Rate Announcements

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

Allow upzoning in all areas. 2-3 story townhouse with no yards should be permitted everywhere as part of base zoning. Tax base on best use rather than current property value. Kick old ladies out of there houses by making the the taxes unaffordable to allow for densification.

Presumably there are no elections in this alternate universe.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by GGG

Allow upzoning in all areas. 2-3 story townhouse with no yards should be permitted everywhere as part of base zoning. Tax base on best use rather than current property value. Kick old ladies out of there houses by making the the taxes unaffordable to allow for densification.

For Toronto in particular fix the missing middle problem by eliminating the multi family restrictions. https://99percentinvisible.org/episo...issing-middle/

Next you create a crown corp to build rental housing on a break even basis.

I thank you for the article on the "missing middle". However, I strongly disagree with changing the zoning regs. People invest in areas and houses because of these zoning laws. They don't wish to invest most of their hard earned money in a piece of property where the next door neighbor is free to sell to a developer that can then subdivide and put up row housing next door. I think it would be dangerous to allow city planners and other bureaucrats too much freedom in making decisions that will seriously affect people's lives.

Also kicking the elderly out of their houses by raising taxes would be judged
immoral by most of the electorate.

I like your crown corp idea.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

People invest in areas and houses because of these zoning laws. They don't wish to invest most of their hard earned money in a piece of property where the next door neighbor is free to sell to a developer that can then subdivide and put up row housing next door. I think it would be dangerous to allow city planners and other bureaucrats too much freedom in making decisions that will seriously affect people's lives.

How does reducing zoning restrictions give planners and bureaucrats freedom in decision making? It takes away their need to make decisions in the first place. If you think they're dangerous, why do you want to give them more control by needing to make more decisons? More zoning restrictions means more government control, more opportunities for social engineering, less market forces in the economy, etc.



Surely demanding the government restrict people's freedom to do with what is typically their largest investment is what's dangerous.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I thank you for the article on the "missing middle". However, I strongly disagree with changing the zoning regs. People invest in areas and houses because of these zoning laws. They don't wish to invest most of their hard earned money in a piece of property where the next door neighbor is free to sell to a developer that can then subdivide and put up row housing next door. I think it would be dangerous to allow city planners and other bureaucrats too much freedom in making decisions that will seriously affect people's lives.

Also kicking the elderly out of their houses by raising taxes would be judged
immoral by most of the electorate.

I like your crown corp idea.

The old ladies can stay if they can be afford the new taxes we wouldn’t actually kick them out. I just have no sympathy to the argument that you can buy a house at 20 and expect that zoning should remain constant for 50 years of development.

If you want the same lifestyle that you have in your SFH surrounded by SFH then you need to move to an area that is less valuable to the public good. The individuals in these situations already made substantial amounts of money as a result of the increase in property value. That is reasonable compensation for the required change in zoning to accommodate the change in society and a the city between 1970 and 2020.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

How does reducing zoning restrictions give planners and bureaucrats freedom in decision making? It takes away their need to make decisions in the first place. If you think they're dangerous, why do you want to give them more control by needing to make more decisons? More zoning restrictions means more government control, more opportunities for social engineering, less market forces in the economy, etc.



Surely demanding the government restrict people's freedom to do with what is typically their largest investment is what's dangerous.

Because it allows them more choices in housing development, while possibly overriding what may be considered in the best interest of the SFH owner.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Because it allows them more choices in housing development, while possibly overriding what may be considered in the best interest of the SFH owner.

No.

It allows property owners more choice in housing development. What you’re proposing ensures property owners have as few freedoms as possible.

Restrictive zoning is giving bureaucrats and planners more power because they need to set and enforce the rules and parameters of the zones they create.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

No.

It allows property owners more choice in housing development. What you’re proposing ensures property owners have as few freedoms as possible.

Restrictive zoning is giving bureaucrats and planners more power because they need to set and enforce the rules and parameters of the zones they create.

If you lived in the house of your dreams, with large lot, well landscaped, great neighbors, close to work and all amenities, etc. would you be happy with a change in zoning?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If you lived in the house of your dreams, with large lot, well landscaped, great neighbors, close to work and all amenities, etc. would you be happy with a change in zoning?

So we should still have single family homes downtown then, as that was the original "character of the neighbourhood".

It's a necessary fact that a growing city needs to change and redevelop. It's not reasonable to live in a growing city and have the expectation that your neighbourhood won't change for the entire span of your life.

Generally, if there is a lot of development around your house, your property value has outpaced the rest of the city and you have enough money to piss off somewhere more like what you originally wanted. I get it, moving sucks, but we've got a lot of people to find homes for as our city is still in rapid growth mode.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If you lived in the house of your dreams, with large lot, well landscaped, great neighbors, close to work and all amenities, etc. would you be happy with a change in zoning?

With all of these things already existing in your neighborhood, what are you threatened by with a zoning change?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

With all of these things already existing in your neighborhood, what are you threatened by with a zoning change?

I don't want my neighborhood looking like some of those where zoning change has led to problems with street parking, traffic and security issues, lessening of community spirit, etc.

I understand that cities change with time for many reasons, mostly financial in nature. I have been fortunate to live in an ideal community most of my life, and feel disappointed that the city fathers are willing to change it for the worst, in my opinion, for the "almighty buck". Surely there has to some kind of compromise between increasing the density and preserving some of the grand old neighborhoods.

[CliffFletcher]

You can change zoning bylaws, but that doesn’t mean people will sell and move. Most seniors in Calgary are going to stay in their homes until they die. That may seem odd to people in their 30s who have moved several times. But once people reach middle age they grow attached to their homes and neighbourhoods.

I rented from age 20 to 32. Lived in 8 different places. I’ve been in the house we’re at now since I was 40 and I don’t plan on moving again. It’s our forever home. Our neighbours are the same age and feel the same. The neighbours on the other side are in their 80s and aren’t going anywhere until they die.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1678199858254188544

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You can change zoning bylaws, but that doesn’t mean people will sell and move. Most seniors in Calgary are going to stay in their homes until they die. That may seem odd to people in their 30s who have moved several times. But once people reach middle age they grow attached to their homes and neighbourhoods.

I rented from age 20 to 32. Lived in 8 different places. I’ve been in the house we’re at now since I was 40 and I don’t plan on moving again. It’s our forever home. Our neighbours are the same age and feel the same. The neighbours on the other side are in their 80s and aren’t going anywhere until they die.

Sure, and then the children can sell the property to a developer, and with zoning changes the developer can build 2 homes.


I live in an older community and infills are popping up. It's fine. I don't care at all, and I'm not sure why I should. I park my vehicles in the garage so street parking is meaningless to me, as it should be for most in older homes on big lots.


I really don't get why people care so much.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GGG

The old ladies can stay if they can be afford the new taxes we wouldn’t actually kick them out. I just have no sympathy to the argument that you can buy a house at 20 and expect that zoning should remain constant for 50 years of development.

If you want the same lifestyle that you have in your SFH surrounded by SFH then you need to move to an area that is less valuable to the public good. The individuals in these situations already made substantial amounts of money as a result of the increase in property value. That is reasonable compensation for the required change in zoning to accommodate the change in society and a the city between 1970 and 2020.

Doesn’t your logic break down though the second you do the re-zoning as property values will drop, won’t they? With the drop in value, it kinda blows up the theory that these people will be reasonably compensated no?

[timun]

Lolololol, property values don't drop when you upzone.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by timun

Lolololol, property values don't drop when you upzone.

Well, what exactly does “upzoning” mean?

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I would rather see huge apartment complexes built for immigrants on the edge of the city, like along the 407 in Toronto, instead of ruining neighborhoods with the current subdividing lots and putting in expensive infills that is going on in the name of densification.

Speaking of Toronto

https://twitter.com/user/status/1678017986701979649

[timun]

"Upzoning" means changing the zoning to allow taller, denser buildings.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Well, what exactly does “upzoning” mean?

R1 - you can sell your 50 foot lot to:
1) someone who wants to live in your tiny old house
or
2) someone who wants to knock down your tiny old house and build one big house.

Up zoned - you can sell your 50 foot lot to:
1) someone who wants to live in your tiny old house
or
2) someone who wants to knock down your tiny old house and build one big house.
or
3) someone who wants to knock down your tiny old house and build a duplex (or 3/4/5/6plex if applicable)


It'll really depend on the nature of the community and the lot, but having more prospective buyers will always garner a higher price. The market will generally have a lot more demand for 2x$700k duplex than a single $1.4M home. A big corner lot might mean 3x or 4x$600k becomes an option. Most people who want a $2M SFH probably don't want it on a random corner lot in Killarney, so the lot owner is probably limited to a final best-use price of like $1M, when $2.4M might be possible.

Which also isn't to say there is anything wrong with option #1...but the eventual best-use case will inform the lot price either way.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Doesn’t your logic break down though the second you do the re-zoning as property values will drop, won’t they? With the drop in value, it kinda blows up the theory that these people will be reasonably compensated no?

People who chose not to sell likely will perceive a reduced quality of living as their neighbours sell and the area is redeveloped so that certainly would be an impact. But they would realize gains as described by others above when they sell their properties.

People against up-zoning generally are trying to preserve a lifestyle by restricting their neighbors ability to maximize profit. Alternatively you could argue the people trying to upzone are trying to turn a profit at the expense of their neighbours lifestyle.