Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-19-2023, 07:29 PM   #1621
calgarywinning
First Line Centre
 
calgarywinning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Field near Field, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torture View Post
In the meeting council discussed with legal that they cannot override restrictive covenants that they are not a party to and they do not have a legal stake in. So no, they aren't overriding them.
Excellent good to know this was addressed. I've read a few articles and this wasn't mentioned.
calgarywinning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2023, 10:06 PM   #1622
timun
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Hahahahaha, what a joke. Don't believe City Council for a second when they say anything about restrictive covenants. They absolutely will work to override them. Witness what happened in Banff Trail: Direct Control districts were created with the expressed purpose of countermanding the existing restrictive covenant. https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....umentId=205729
timun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2023, 10:35 PM   #1623
cal_guy
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Exp:
Default

deleted

Last edited by cal_guy; 09-20-2023 at 02:31 AM.
cal_guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2023, 11:14 PM   #1624
timun
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Nonsense, the City was not a party to the restrictive covenant. All the encumbered parcels were jointly and concurrently dominant and servient tenements.

What the City did was pass the DC district bylaws in direct conflict with the restrictive covenant, not only allowing for row houses to be built but barring anything less dense than row houses from being built. It made it impossible to comply with both the restrictive covenant and the LUB, and the owners of the subject parcels got the restrictive covenant discharged from their properties on the basis that it is "in the public interest". This is "allowed" per section 48(4) of the Land Titles Act, which states "... any such condition or covenant may be modified or discharged by order of the court, on proof to the satisfaction of the court that [...] the condition or covenant conflicts with the provisions of a land use bylaw or statutory plan under Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act, and the modification or discharge is in the public interest."

All Council needs to do to help developers get restrictive covenants tossed is create a conflict by upzoning the properties. It's absolutely within their power to do this, and they are 100% full of #### by insinuating they can't/won't do 90% of the legwork to get restrictive covenants tossed.
timun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 09:34 AM   #1625
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
Ah, someone ok with the poors! But what about my right to not share public spaces with those lesser than me? How can I brag about my exclusive neighborhood if they let any riff-raff with only a paltry million dollar townhouse live there?
Do you honestly think thatís why people oppose up-zoning in their neighbourhoods?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 09:54 AM   #1626
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
Do you honestly think thatís why people oppose up-zoning in their neighbourhoods?

Theyíre also worried aboutÖ?
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
Old 09-20-2023, 10:04 AM   #1627
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
Theyíre also worried aboutÖ?
The woke mind virus.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 10:16 AM   #1628
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
They’re also worried about…?
Mainly parking and traffic. Also buildings blocking sunlight.

I guess I have a hard time getting onboard with the narrative that a 73 year old retired bookkeeper who lives in a bungalow in Killarney is some sort of contemptible elite, while the high-earning professionals who will move into the fourplex that replaces her and her neighbour’s houses are downtrodden salt of the earth.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 09-20-2023, 10:38 AM   #1629
Torture
Loves Teh Chat!
 
Torture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
Theyíre also worried aboutÖ?
Change.
Torture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 10:38 AM   #1630
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
Mainly parking and traffic. Also buildings blocking sunlight.

I guess I have a hard time getting onboard with the narrative that a 73 year old retired bookkeeper who lives in a bungalow in Killarney is some sort of contemptible elite, while the high-earning professionals who will move into the fourplex that replaces her and her neighbourís houses are downtrodden salt of the earth.
Thatís definitely what jammies was suggesting so itís a good thing you are having trouble with that narrative, a narrative that, again, is definitely the prevailing one.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Old 09-20-2023, 10:47 AM   #1631
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
That’s definitely what jammies was suggesting so it’s a good thing you are having trouble with that narrative, a narrative that, again, is definitely the prevailing one.
Maybe Jammies can offer some evidence that people opposed to up-zoning don’t want poorer people living near them. Or even that they’re typically rich.

Because the stuff I cited is what people actually say in public consultations.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 10:54 AM   #1632
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

If there’s one thing NIMBYs are known for, it’s being completely honest with their reasons for NIMBYism and not choosing reasons they think people will find more palatable.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 11:12 AM   #1633
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
If thereís one thing NIMBYs are known for, itís being completely honest with their reasons for NIMBYism and not choosing reasons they think people will find more palatable.
I guess if mind-reading and casting them as villainous elites makes you feel better, go for it.

Densification in the near-inner city typically means gentrification. The median incomes in communities like Altadore, Bankview, and Killarney are much higher today than they were 30 years ago.

I first lived in Marda Loop in 1990, when there were still lots of working-class seniors and tradespeople in the neighbourhood. The Trop was a genuine dive-bar.

Today, the typical resident is a high-earning professional. Which is fine. As someone mentioned up-thread, Altadore is an example of how densification has worked well. But letís not pretend it means a bunch of snooty elites having to tolerate regular Joes moving into their neighbourhood. In most neighbourhoods where densification makes economic sense, the class transformation is going the other way.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 11:15 AM   #1634
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
Mainly parking and traffic. Also buildings blocking sunlight.

I guess I have a hard time getting onboard with the narrative that a 73 year old retired bookkeeper who lives in a bungalow in Killarney is some sort of contemptible elite, while the high-earning professionals who will move into the fourplex that replaces her and her neighbourís houses are downtrodden salt of the earth.

Maybe unpleasant, but thatís life. Youíre not always going to have the parking and levels of shade/sun that you want. It seems superficial enough of a gripe to me that Iíd not feel bad discounting that concern. If thatís the worst thing that happens, so what?
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 11:31 AM   #1635
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
Maybe unpleasant, but that’s life. You’re not always going to have the parking and levels of shade/sun that you want. It seems superficial enough of a gripe to me that I’d not feel bad discounting that concern. If that’s the worst thing that happens, so what?
Those concerns shouldn’t prevent re-zoning. But they’re also more benign than wanting to keep non-rich people out the neighbourhood.

I don’t see why people have to project the worst possible motivations onto those who have different policy preferences.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 11:55 AM   #1636
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
Those concerns shouldnít prevent re-zoning. But theyíre also more benign than wanting to keep non-rich people out the neighbourhood.

I donít see why people have to project the worst possible motivations onto those who have different policy preferences.
Yeah, it would be weird to do that. Like suggesting someone wanted to evict people and bulldoze their homes because they donít see a need for SFH.

Who would do something like that? So strange!
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 12:23 PM   #1637
Slava
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Yeah, it would be weird to do that. Like suggesting someone wanted to evict people and bulldoze their homes because they donít see a need for SFH.

Who would do something like that? So strange!
Someone responding to the idea that no SFH should be allowed within a certain radius of downtown.
Slava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 12:38 PM   #1638
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava View Post
Someone responding to the idea that no SFH should be allowed within a certain radius of downtown.
I donít believe that children should be allowed in pubs but that doesnít mean I want them to be taken out back and hung.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2023, 12:50 PM   #1639
woob
#1 Goaltender
 
woob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Exp:
Default

I mean, lets not kid ourselves. There's definitely a strong aspect of NIMBYism which is driven by not wanting lesser than's living in their neighbourhood. It's the same with safe injection sites, transit projects, low income housing, etc. Sure there's other factors at play, but you're kidding yourself if you think its a small part of the overall NIMBY view.
woob is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
Old 09-20-2023, 01:08 PM   #1640
Slava
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woob View Post
I mean, lets not kid ourselves. There's definitely a strong aspect of NIMBYism which is driven by not wanting lesser than's living in their neighbourhood. It's the same with safe injection sites, transit projects, low income housing, etc. Sure there's other factors at play, but you're kidding yourself if you think its a small part of the overall NIMBY view.
I think that if anyone is being honest, no one wants that in their neighborhood. It's not on the same planet as a duplex or townhouses going in.
Slava is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:38 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021