MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

It would if one of the 5 was Sean Chu.

I mean, if people keep voting the guy in, his constituents must love him!

[Torture]

So let me see if I've got this straight:

1) City Council asks expert task force to come up with recommendations to help make housing more affordable.
2) Task force presents those recommendations.
3) In a 7-8 vote, City Council says "nah, we're good".

One of the 8 that voted no, Terry Wong word salads an explanation as to why he voted no:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1666286655232421888

[surferguy]

My perception of this council has taken a sharp sharp dive in the last month or so.

[PsYcNeT]

If nothing else, it's pretty obvious who all the NIMBY councilors are now.

EDIT: Pleasantly surprised Spencer voted For however, give him props for at least that.

[Flames0910]

Terry Wong is ####ing useless.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

Terry Wong is ####ing useless.

Ward 7 vote splitting gifted us him.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by Torture

So let me see if I've got this straight:

1) City Council asks expert task force to come up with recommendations to help make housing more affordable.
2) Task force presents those recommendations.
3) In a 7-8 vote, City Council says "nah, we're good".

One of the 8 that voted no, Terry Wong word salads an explanation as to why he voted no:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1666286655232421888

Terry Wong shows up (unannounced) at our CA meetings pretty often. This tweet is a fair representation of listening to him talk. It's nothing buy NIMBY catchphrases blended with nonsense

[bizaro86]

I thought this part was interesting:

Some councillors asked that the mayor call four recommendations surrounding the motion separately, which would have allowed them to receive the report without directing city administration to begin the work. However, Gondek declined that request, making it a single all-or-nothing vote.

Gondek has all of Nenshi's stridentness without the intellectual and interpersonal heft he used to get things done. I wish we could have him back.

And some of these recommendations are counter-productive. For example, if we start investigating rent control that will absolutely reduce the development of rental housing, because it creates uncertainty around the return a developer can expect.

I do think upzoning the entire city all at once is an interesting idea, and would probably make a real difference in housing affordability. That said, from an equity point of view I'm only OK with that if the DC large lot districts (eg Mount Royal) get the same treatment. If the deal is everyone changes then it needs to be everyone, not everyone except the richest people.

For those interested the recommendations are publicly available at the bottom of this page.

https://engage.calgary.ca/HATaskForce

Edited to add: I'm in favor of upzoning even though higher rents benefit me, because I think it helps people. I'm less certain about removing parking requirements - the city isn't designed for car free lifestyles in many/most neighborhoods, and I think if everyone is going to have a car removing the requirement that they have somewhere to park it is a bad choice.

[Faust]

PROPOSAL TO INCREASE NUMBER OF CITY COUNCILLORS IN CALGARY STALLS OUT, BUT WILL SEE FURTHER CONSIDERATION

https://www.iheartradio.ca/newstalk-...ion-1.19755728

Meanwhile, the councillor representing Calgary's most populous ward, Ward 5's Coun. Raj Dhaliwal, says boosting the number of councillors should take a backseat to bumping up support staff and resources.

"Do we really want to get more mouthpieces?" said Dhaliwal.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm less certain about removing parking requirements - the city isn't designed for car free lifestyles in many/most neighborhoods, and I think if everyone is going to have a car removing the requirement that they have somewhere to park it is a bad choice.

Removing the requirement doesn't mean developers won't consider it. The minimums aren't needed and the market will determine if they can stand having no parking on a development.

[Bill Bumface]

I understand that buying a property is a long term commitment, and it sucks if what you thought you were buying, with respect to neighbouring buildings etc., isn't what you end up with after a few years.

That said, we live in a rapidly growing city. There needs to be ongoing change to support that growth. It's a good thing downtown is no longer single family housing. The residents of Elbow Park etc. need to figure out they aren't immune to supporting some of this change themselves.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Removing the requirement doesn't mean developers won't consider it. The minimums aren't needed and the market will determine if they can stand having no parking on a development.

In that case you are socializing the parking challange. If we banned on street parking for residents then letting the market take care of the issue might work.

In our current world of parking where parking on the street has no or low cost and even reserving on street parking has low cost the market is distorted. Secondly reducing the cost of the supply only lowers the cost of the product if the constraint on new housing is investment return. So you would need to show that decreasing the cost of the requirements wouldnt just directly increase the cost of land a corresponding amount because the current supply constraints all still exist.

Lowering development cost is a trickle down theory. At some point these cost do provide real obstacles to new development but also at some point lowering them more doesn’t change the amount of entrants it’s just increases profit.

So before implementing the mistakes we are seeing from the pre-bylaw rules which we are currently actively dealing with we should have evidence this would actually lower pricing. I’m not confident it would.

[Table 5]

Would RC-G have allowed the building of laneway/garage suites for homes currently zoned as RC-1? I'm hoping at some point I'll have the chance to do that, as my property is pretty ideal for it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by surferguy

My perception of this council has taken a sharp sharp dive in the last month or so.

Yeah, of the 8 who voted against, which of them have property that would have been directly effected by this?

This is such BS.

I mean, the PM wants to bring in, what, like 400,000 immigrants to Canada every year? Cool. They're going to need someplace to live.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Removing the requirement doesn't mean developers won't consider it. The minimums aren't needed and the market will determine if they can stand having no parking on a development.

I think once you've decided to allow all properties to have a secondary suite and a laneway suite with no added parking you're going to have issues.

On new construction multi-family I agree developers will still put in parking. But the people converting SFH to multiple dwellings are much more likely to say "just park on the street"

My next door neighbor has an (illegal) basement suite. The single person who lives there parks 2 vehicles on the street, which uses up a big % of the available street parking. If they added a backyard suite and no parking that wouldn't be great, imo. If they were required to add a parking pad I'd have no issue with them adding a backyard suite.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Would RC-G have allowed the building of laneway/garage suites for homes currently zoned as RC-1? I'm hoping at some point I'll have the chance to do that, as my property is pretty ideal for it.

Yes, but not as a result of that particular recommendation, a different one from the task force specific to suites.

[Bunk]

By the way, they’re reconsidering it as we speak.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Yes, but not as a result of that particular recommendation, a different one from the task force specific to suites.

Well, it's sort of redundant. If you change all the zoning to R-CG it has suites as a permitted use, so that would also allow suites everywhere.

[calgarygeologist]

Does anyone know if there are stats on secondary suites in Calgary? It would be interesting to see numbers for applications and how many were granted or denied. I just had a look at the Development Map from the city and was pretty surprised that there are currently about a dozen applications for secondary suites within a few blocks of my house. I suspect that inflation, real estate prices and higher mortgage costs might be driving people to find an additional source of revenue to help with costs. The proximity of my area to the University and student renters is probably a contributing factor as well.

[MrCallahan]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Would RC-G have allowed the building of laneway/garage suites for homes currently zoned as RC-1? I'm hoping at some point I'll have the chance to do that, as my property is pretty ideal for it.

This is a long term plan/dream of mine for my property as well. I have a pretty basic run down garage that I would love to tear down and build a bigger suited garage! either for guests to use, or to rent out. Just seems like it would be efficient use of space. Not something I can do financially anytime soon though.