MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by MrCallahan

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.

Yeah, that's similar to what I'm hoping for too. We currently have a rental condo, but would much rather use that equity for a laneway suite that has more flexibility of use (rental, home office, guest/family use) and no stupid condo fees!

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

I wasn't thinking about costs. I was solely thinking about what potential buyers will be willing to buy. You can target specific groups when remove the parking minimums, but that doesn't stop someone from still providing them. If you build a new condo building downtown but all the units are 400 sq ft studios and minimal parking, you're only aiming for a specific group. If you're converting SFH to Multi-family in the suburbs, is someone going to buy (or rent) if the parking situation is atrocious? You could drive potential customers away. Like was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, many developers would probably add a parking pad on their own volition to entice people.

[Cappy]

Does re-zoning nullify restrictive covenants?

[#-3]

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

How does one know who voted which way on this?

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by #-3

How does one know who voted which way on this?

Its on the website but I saw it on twitter

https://twitter.com/user/status/1666229298699857923

[TorqueDog]

"I'm holding back tears" -- oh shut the f-ck up, you voted for the arena, you moron.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Does re-zoning nullify restrictive covenants?

Nope. In fact a few communities had engaged lawyers to prepare RCs to be registered against their residents' properties to prohibit additional density. That kind of RC would be enforceable as it would be a reasonable restriction against use.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Nope. In fact a few communities had engaged lawyers to prepare RCs to be registered against their residents' properties to prohibit additional density. That kind of RC would be enforceable as it would be a reasonable restriction against use.

It's easy to talk about restrictive covenants, but I suspect most will balk at signing aways their property rights to someone else especially if a large group of people in the neighborhood refuse to join.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Does re-zoning nullify restrictive covenants?

Depends on where you live... Read from post 894 in this thread up to #926ish...

[Texas]

Not sure what people expected from an elected chat bot

[Johnny Makarov]

kinda late but they did a re-vote and it was passed 14-1. Guess who is the 1? lol

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

So what exactly does this mean?
Does this mean the blanket zoning change is immediate?

[Weitz]

This council sure seems competent.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Texas

Not sure what people expected from an elected chat bot

This post is like those stereograms back in the day. I'm the idiot staring at it trying to figure out what it is but can't see it.

[timun]

"Councillor Chatbot"

[powderjunkie]

https://livewirecalgary.com/2023/06/...commendations/

Ward 13 Coun. Dan McLean said given the original decision was just the prior evening, the public’s view of what’s happening at council would be tainted.

“There’s an old saying: democracy dies in darkness. If city council takes a vote and then the next day, boom, we come back out here and we just change our minds in public the perception is going to be maybe there’s some undue influence or coercion,” McLean said.

“I’m not saying there was. But that’s just the perception of public.”

No, Honourable Drunk McLean, the public perception was you are a bunch of buffoons who don't know what the #### you are doing.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So what exactly does this mean?
Does this mean the blanket zoning change is immediate?

No, and even if they voted sensibly the first time, it doesn't sound like it would have even set anything in pencil, let alone ink.

Tim Ward, chair of the housing task force, said that instead of beginning implementation of the recommendations immediately (with recos from prior night), they would have to wait until the items were debated at committee and council later this year.

Ward also said even with prior recommendations there would have been a year-long process, with engagement, to bring something forward to council.

Perhaps an oversimplification, but my understanding is that this report delivered somewhat broad recommendations, and the vote was whether to proceed with developing detailed recommendations, which would still need to be written as policy and voted upon.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by fotze2

This post is like those stereograms back in the day. I'm the idiot staring at it trying to figure out what it is but can't see it.

It's a sailboat.

[#-3]

I'm not actually certain that the issue is a simple as a lot would want to make it. The recommendations are more aspirations than actions.

Recommendation 1: Make it easier to build housing across the city.
Recommendation 2: Make more land available to build more housing across the city.
Recommendation 3: Ensure that the supply of affordable housing meets the needs of Indigenous people living in Calgary and Equity-Deserving populations.
Recommendation 4: Convene the housing sector to facilitate greater collaboration.
Recommendation 5: Increase the investment to support housing providers.
Recommendation 6: Ensure more individuals have a safe place to call home.

I think it's pretty legitimate to ask, how are you going to make it easier to build houses?

I'd say at the mid to high end Calgary does not have a huge affordability problem.

We saw 15 years of pricing stagnation leading into covid, followed by what would be a reasonable amount of inflation on housing if spread over those 15 years, all at once. And as per the housing bubble thread, I think there is as much risk of a drop or another 15 years of stagnation, as there is risk of Vancouver/Toronto runaway inflation.

Where we have real problem is the low end housing, and it's not like condos are seeing massive price increases the houses did the past 2 years. the problem just is, there aren't good condo options in good places in Calgary with a good resale market, the housing is approaching affordable, it just doesn't exist.

I think they have a really challenging task here, where they need to develop a robust market for 900-1000 sqft 3 bedroom condos @ $250K-$350K along transit corridors. But their isn't demand yet, because development of 1500-2000 sqft houses at $450K-$600k on the outskirts hasn't stopped yet. But if they stop building on the outskirts, either prices start to go up or they just give the tax base away to Rockyview county, and on paper the problem starts to look worse for the first few years.

[timun]

You should read the full recommendations report (PDF). They elaborate on the measures to take to meet the recommendations. E.g., to "make it easier to build housing across the city":

a. Include policy in the Municipal Development Plan immediately that every Local Area Plan should enable a minimum of 15% of the total housing units to be non-market Affordable Housing (as defined by The City) to provide equal distribution across the city.

b. Rescind the Single Detached Special Policy Area in the Guide to Local Area Planning, immediately.

c. Enable diverse housing types by incorporating the full spectrum of Neighbourhood Urban Form categories in each Local Area Plan.

d. Prepare the necessary bylaws to immediately:

I. Make the base residential district Residential - Grade-Oriented (R-CG) with guidance for single, semi-detached, row and townhouses into a single land use district.

II. Enable secondary suites and backyard suites on one parcel of land.

e. In the new Land Use Bylaw:

I. Remove minimum parking requirements in all residential districts.

II. Make dwelling units in all multi-residential land use districts Permitted Use to enable simplified approvals processes.

f. Complete City-initiated land use redesignations by Q2 2024 to:

I. Implement R-CG as the base residential district across Calgary.

II. Implement Housing-Ground Oriented (H-GO) in residential areas within proximity to transit, main streets and other corridors.

g. Create incentives for more affordable non-market and market units:

I. Establish an incentive program of at least $10,000 per unit for secondary suites, to produce at least 400 net new secondary suites each year.

II. Amend city-wide, local area and land use regulation to exempt non-market affordable housing from multi-residential and mixed-use density
calculations, in particular non-market units with three or more bedrooms to accommodate large or multi-generational family units.

h. Advocate to the Government of Alberta for legislative change to the Municipal Government Act to allow affordable housing to be defined in a manner that exempts it from certain planning process requirements such as public hearing, which increases certainty and reduces timelines for developers and providers.

i. Develop and implement a new program by Q4 2024 to facilitate a private/public partnership where The City would provide City-owned land to the private sector and others to build affordable housing. Housing would be managed by qualified partners to operate and maintain for no less than 40 years.

j. Support co-op housing, co-housing and other alternative housing forms that create cooperative living options to be included in the City of Calgary’s existing programs to support non-market housing.

The bolded are going to be very contentious, and presumably why so many of the councillors voted the recommendations down in the first place. Now that they've had clarification that they vote wasn't to implement any of this (yet), they voted it through on the re-vote. When it comes time to make these changes actually happen, don't be surprised if they get voted down again.

[cheevers]

Minimum parking requirements have to be one of the dumbest ideas any one has had. They have really ruined so many cities. Would be amazing to get rid of them.