MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by D as in David

And I'll repeat myself, if there are only going to be 1500 new units a year due to this policy, where's the problem? How many people are going to be negatively affected?

If a slow and convoluted process is a bad thing, why are people so insistent on retaining the existing slow and convoluted process of re-zoning RC-1 land?

It could never be calculated how many people are actually negatively affected. You could put a range on it being anywhere from 0 to roughly 2800 per year though.

[topfiverecords]

Oh heck, Landon Johnston has signed up to speak.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Oh heck, Landon Johnston has signed up to speak.

I'd prefer Langdon Alger or even Landon Dupont.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Which is a slow and convoluted process compared to new housing supply offered by greenfield development at all price ranges. Supposedly blanket rezoning will only add up to 1500 new units a year.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1782454323777241120


Up-zoning can be helpful as a supplement, but too often anti-sprawl groups try to make it as the primary new housing option and prevent growth on the edge.

City of Minneapolis is small and has quite narrow lots. Calgary’s default parcel is 50’, and 40 years of semi-detached infill shows the expected turnover rate and production here.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Oh heck, Landon Johnston has signed up to speak.

He says "we just want you to listen to us".

"ramming it through without public consultation"

Threats about losing their jobs if they vote this.

"Don't even have to wait for the legislation to remove you from council"

What a piece of work.

[Mazrim]

He now says there's too many people in the city. I wonder where that idea comes from.

[Cappy]

Livewire had an interesting article today about it, even mentioned Minneapolis:

https://livewirecalgary.com/2024/04/...ults-globally/

Even if people have lower risk tolerances for their homes, the risk of re-zoning affecting your property is small.

The newer the neighbourhood, the more risk you have over shoddy workmanship than actual changes to the neighbourhood.

if you live in an inner city community with 50-70s bungalows, you have more risk, but you have been seeing those changes over the last 20 years anyway

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by you&me

I'm not sure of the specifics of Mt Royal, but lots of areas have restrictive covenants registered. As mentioned previously, these covenants supercede zoning by laws and will endure any changes to them... removal of a covenant is possible, but is also a long and expensive process, so typically people will avoid the hassle in favour of lower hanging fruit... Which will be most of the rest of the city under the proposed zoning changes.

I do note that Ontario in 1990 amended it's Land Titles Act where all restrictive covenants that had no expiry date would automatically expire 40 years after the covenant was enacted which basically nuked all the old restrictive covenants. So certainly there's a political way to deal with restrictive covenants.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

I do note that Ontario in 1990 amended it's Land Titles Act where all restrictive covenants that had no expiry date would automatically expire 40 years after the covenant was enacted which basically nuked all the old restrictive covenants. So certainly there's a political way to deal with restrictive covenants.

Yes, when I referred to "long and expensive process", I meant in the case of homeowner or developer changing a single parcel... A sweeping change to the entire land titles act would be an entirely different scope... Though considering the properties that are covered under restrictive covenants in both Edmonton and Calgary, I'd be surprised if there was much, um, political will to make sweeping changes.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Which is a slow and convoluted process compared to new housing supply offered by greenfield development at all price ranges. Supposedly blanket rezoning will only add up to 1500 new units a year.

Up-zoning can be helpful as a supplement, but too often anti-sprawl groups try to make it as the primary new housing option and prevent growth on the edge.

It is odd how that particular strategy sucks up all the oxygen about the housing crisis. Not just with opponents, but with proponents who reserve all their anger and frustration over housing for NIMBY’s and restrictive zoning. You can read hundreds of comments online about housing affordability where nothing but up-zoning and the goddamn NIMBYs who stand in its way are brought up. I guess it’s an attractive framing because it has a target - stupid people to get angry at.

Once people hit middle age, they typically stay in their homes a long, long time. Often until they die. So the densification of neighbourhoods through upzoning is measured in decades. Even after this bylaw passes, we’ll be left with huge annual housing shortfalls in this city. When do we move on to talking about how those will be addressed?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It is odd how that particular strategy sucks up all the oxygen about the housing crisis. Not just with opponents, but with proponents who reserve all their anger and frustration over housing for NIMBY’s and restrictive zoning. You can read hundreds of comments online about housing affordability where nothing but up-zoning and the goddamn NIMBYs who stand in its way are brought up. I guess it’s an attractive framing because it has a target - stupid people to get angry at.

Once people hit middle age, they typically stay in their homes a long, long time. Often until they die. So the densification of neighbourhoods through upzoning is measure in decades. Even after this bylaw passes, we’ll be left with huge annual housing shortfalls in this city. When do we move on to talking about how those will be addressed?

We can talk about it anytime.

Now I'm not sure if gov't should get into the business of building housing (considering a lot of the factors challenging free-market housing like labour would apply, too)...but you know what might be a big hurdle for whatever solutions might exist out there? Restrictive zoning.

Obviously it's not that simple, but it's a powerful card that needs to be taken out of NIMBY's sleeves.


Or maybe we just need to do what a brilliant guy suggested at the committee meeting before all this to solve homelessness and throw some tarps up in a parkade and get some patio heaters.