*Updated* Ongoing Bank of Canada Benchmark Rate Announcements

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by blankall

How does that theory account for accommodation of over one million new residents every year?

I believe you are viewing it from a short term perspective, where I believe our immigration numbers are too high, in relation to our ability to provide housing, adequate healthcare, etc. I would guess somewhere closer to 500,000 immigrants at this point in time would be more suitable. Also I believe a cap or reduction in student visas is warranted.

I do agree in the long run we are going to have to plan for a gradual increase in immigration to offset the number of people leaving the workforce. However, this will take prudent management, and should not be politically motivated.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Isn't the prevalent opinion of those in the know basically the opposite of things returning to earth? I would listen to that over a gut.

Maybe I misread it somewhere, but it sounds like Canada is going to struggle to even maintain the current situation for the next decade. Things getting better without any significant and drastic action is pretty much off the table entirely. This isn't exactly new, it's a problem that has been getting worse for... ever?

Either way, I don't think people have to like upzoning, or having their neighbourhoods change, or whatever. I don't think you have to see a few houses getting knocked down across the street and think, "Wow! They're replacing those few houses with an apartment complex? YES!!!!" But... you should also remember that your neighbourhood isn't yours alone, and to not be a dick about it, and learn to accept change.

The current situation is unsustainable. You cannot live in an unsustainable situation and expect the world not to adapt just to make you happy. Unsustainable situations are either solved before they reach a breaking point or they reach it and break. You're looking at change either way, and for those who don't want change, the kind of change that comes from hitting a breaking point is always far, far worse. So you either have to adapt to change, or leave the unsustainable situation yourself.

Sometimes people in the know don't really know.

I'm actually quite optimistic for Canada, and feel our situation will improve significantly over the next decade.

We just finished spending the last 3 years outlining a development plan for our area, and now they want to scrap that, and throw things wide open by upzoning. Can you blame us for being pizzed off?.

I realize change is inevitable, and like everyone, have to learn to adapt. However, things don't always change for the better. I don't consider myself as being a dick. I'm just an ordinary old guy expressing an opinion.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe you are viewing it from a short term perspective, where I believe our immigration numbers are too high, in relation to our ability to provide housing, adequate healthcare, etc. I would guess somewhere closer to 500,000 immigrants at this point in time would be more suitable. Also I believe a cap or reduction in student visas is warranted.

I do agree in the long run we are going to have to plan for a gradual increase in immigration to offset the number of people leaving the workforce. However, this will take prudent management, and should not be politically motivated.

The stated plan is 100,000,000 Canadians. Yeah we should plan for that.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Sometimes people in the know don't really know.

I'm actually quite optimistic for Canada, and feel our situation will improve significantly over the next decade.

We just finished spending the last 3 years outlining a development plan for our area, and now they want to scrap that, and throw things wide open by upzoning. Can you blame us for being pizzed off?.

I realize change is inevitable, and like everyone, have to learn to adapt. However, things don't always change for the better. I don't consider myself as being a dick. I'm just an ordinary old guy expressing an opinion.

So we should let old guys plan for their future, instead of families who actually need to live in that future?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by blankall

The stated plan is 100,000,000 Canadians. Yeah we should plan for that.

Whose says we have to grow to 100,000,000?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by blankall

So we should let old guys plan for their future, instead of families who actually need to live in that future?

Who said that?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Sometimes people in the know don't really know.

I'm actually quite optimistic for Canada, and feel our situation will improve significantly over the next decade.

We just finished spending the last 3 years outlining a development plan for our area, and now they want to scrap that, and throw things wide open by upzoning. Can you blame us for being pizzed off?.

I realize change is inevitable, and like everyone, have to learn to adapt. However, things don't always change for the better. I don't consider myself as being a dick. I'm just an ordinary old guy expressing an opinion.

For you.

Things aren’t meant to always be changing for the better for everyone, all of the time. It’s not just unrealistic, in a world where so many things are finite, it’s impossible.

Sometimes you have to just appreciate that the way things were was a lot better for you than a lot of other people, and a change that makes things better for those people might not make things better for you, and that’s perfectly fine.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For you.

Things aren’t meant to always be changing for the better for everyone, all of the time. It’s not just unrealistic, in a world where so many things are finite, it’s impossible.

Sometimes you have to just appreciate that the way things were was a lot better for you than a lot of other people, and a change that makes things better for those people might not make things better for you, and that’s perfectly fine.

As I see it, the younger people will have less to shoot for. Upzoning will have a negative effect on communities. If you want more parking, traffic, pollution, less community spirit, then go for it.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

As I see it, the younger people will have less to shoot for. Upzoning will have a negative effect on communities. If you want more parking, traffic, pollution, less community spirit, then go for it.

Some people just want homes. The dgafgm generation should be less selfish.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think a person would only have themselves to blame for not having the foresight to buy the neighbouring properties to create a buffer zone for themselves.

But anyway, how super pumped would you be if you wanted to cash in on your large lot and let a developer build a fourplex and your neighbour vetoed you?

Having your “cashing in” vetoed by a neighbour isn’t possible or happening though. If someone wants to sell their home/property, it will sell to the market for whatever the market is willing to pay. The neighbour doesn’t get a say in whether you can “cash in” or not. The veto would apply to the developer who purchased the property.

[Doctorfever]

Haven’t been following this much. But maybe we should be looking at the new communities and give the zoning time limits. This area is zoned a, for x years. Then it can be zoned b, for the next x years, then it can be zoned c.

This way there is no guessing. Everyone knows what can happen. Everyone knows what their neighborhood might be after 20 or 30 years, and it leaves room for growth, while bypassing any nimby’ism.

I can understand why people in established, existing neighborhoods are upset about certain changes - the changes aren’t what they expected. But in the new communities, moving forward, everyone knows that there can be changes, whether you are the original owner, or you buy a 25 year old house.



Perhaps we could even apply zoning timelines to some existing neighborhoods.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Having your “cashing in” vetoed by a neighbour isn’t possible or happening though. If someone wants to sell their home/property, it will sell to the market for whatever the market is willing to pay. The neighbour doesn’t get a say in whether you can “cash in” or not. The veto would apply to the developer who purchased the property.

I mean theoretically that's correct, but in reality it's also recursive.

The market price of land is hugely affected by the zoning of that land - no developer is going to pay high rise land prices for an RC1 lot and then be like "huh, I guess I can't build that here." So if densification gets "vetoed" then either it sells for what it's worth as-is or what it's worth as a single family redevelopment. Which is probably a lot less than what it's be worth as a 4plex.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

As I see it, the younger people will have less to shoot for.

Of course they have less to shoot for. There's not enough housing. They'll shoot at whatever they can.

Upzoning will have a negative effect on communities.

Not it won't. It will have a positive effect on communities.

If you want more parking, traffic, pollution, less community spirit, then go for it.

Government mandated restrictions on the market causes more parking and traffic and pollution. Force development further out you have longer vehicle journeys needing to travel through existing areas.

The donut has capacity to spare. Numerous neighborhoods have less people than they did 20+ years ago. Community spirit is dying as old people age in place and prevent any sort of progression in communities. Some schools are under utilized and have been converted to charter schools meaning what children live in the neighborhood need to go further away to school involving less walking, more driving, more time, less ability to get to know other kids from their own neighborhoods. Similarly, with private and charter schools becoming more prominent you get more driving, more traffic (enough to dictate a dedicated turning lane with advanced light for one private school), more pollution.



One of the schools mentioned today was Elboya and how a local resident was told they're nearly at capacity. Well that's because it has a hilariously large catchment area for a junior high school, particularly for the French immersion program. From Inglewood to South Calgary to Meadowlark, it has a massive attendance area. Compare that to Nicola Goddard, which has an attendance area almost a third of the size with double the students. The entire attendance area is within a walk-able area. Fewer young families can live in these areas served by the school, and people are having fewer kids to boot. The nature of our communities needs to change if we want the same community spirit (whatever that might have been) as there was 20, 30, 40 years ago.



As for parking, time and time again in jurisdictions around the world the market has proven to be more than capable of managing parking supply than government intervention ever could. Car centered infrastructure and government subsidization of vehicle ownership via free storage of private property in the public realm is far more damaging to community spirit, traffic, and pollution than a four-plex could ever dream to be.

[Bill Bumface]

[PepsiFree]

This is why it’s near impossible to talk about this stuff with NIMBYs.
- We must make commutes longer and more necessary to reduce traffic and pollution!
- We have to keep communities small and exclusive to foster community spirit!
- We have to stop young people from living in our neighbourhood to ensure they have something to shoot for!

You could not come up with something more out of touch with reality, even if you were trying to write a NIMBY caricature for a comedy skit. People would see it and think you were being over the top on purpose.

It’s literally just parking. He doesn’t want someone parking in front of his house and is willing to ensure people can’t afford to live there at all so that he doesn’t have to park half a block away. Amazing.

[Wormius]

I mean, Farkas & Nenshi kind of summarized the NIMBYISM and geneal opposition to it well on The Eyeopener yesterday:

“It's not perfect, but … As I think [former] Coun. [Brian] Pincott used to say, if we're more worried about where cars will sleep than where human beings will, we're in pretty big trouble.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rkas-1.6968609

[blankall]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe you are viewing it from a short term perspective, where I believe our immigration numbers are too high, in relation to our ability to provide housing, adequate healthcare, etc. I would guess somewhere closer to 500,000 immigrants at this point in time would be more suitable. Also I believe a cap or reduction in student visas is warranted.

I do agree in the long run we are going to have to plan for a gradual increase in immigration to offset the number of people leaving the workforce. However, this will take prudent management, and should not be politically motivated.

Planning ahead for future population growth is a short term prospective?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by pepsifree

this is why it’s near impossible to talk about this stuff with nimbys.
- we must make commutes longer and more necessary to reduce traffic and pollution!
- we have to keep communities small and exclusive to foster community spirit!
- we have to stop young people from living in our neighbourhood to ensure they have something to shoot for!

You could not come up with something more out of touch with reality, even if you were trying to write a nimby caricature for a comedy skit. People would see it and think you were being over the top on purpose.

It’s literally just parking. He doesn’t want someone parking in front of his house and is willing to ensure people can’t afford to live there at all so that he doesn’t have to park half a block away. in his own ####ing garage. amazing.

fyp.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

- We have to keep communities small and exclusive to foster community spirit!

Nothing says "community spirit" like a gated community with 1/4 acre lots and front drive garages to get everyone in and out without having to interact with each other.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Nothing says "community spirit" like a gated community with 1/4 acre lots and front drive garages to get everyone in and out without having to interact with each other.

You’ll be waiting a long time for that to change.