Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Macman]

nm

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

No. As with her anti-fluoride agenda Druh was wrong. Calgary's development appeal board sided the Shim family and overturned Druh's (city hall) decision. Suspiciously the owner of the land decided to sell shortly after the appeal.

I'll spell it out for you.

These are the comments that had Corbella weeping.

“We are sympathetic to the owner and the franchisee, but this situation actually represents an opportunity for them to build something so much better on the site than what is proposed,” wrote Farrell, as she strongly recommended refusal of the development application.

Farrell wrote to the board that she wants “a mixed-use, high-density development at this location, either with this site alone or combined with the adjacent parcel that is prime” for redevelopment.

“Such a project could even include a new Dairy Queen, but of course without a drive-thru. This is a tremendous opportunity for the owner to extract significantly more financial value out of the site than with what is proposed,” wrote Farrell.

Which, even though the owner got his approval for the modified drive-through, is exactly what he ended up realizing.

The question mark was a trick to see if you could come up with the right conclusion yourself. Druh was right.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'll spell it out for you.

These are the comments that had Corbella weeping.



Which, even though the owner got his approval for the modified drive-through, is exactly what he ended up realizing.

The question mark was a trick to see if you could come up with the right conclusion yourself. Druh was right.

Like a spurned lover, EE will never admit that Druh can be right on anything.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'll spell it out for you.

These are the comments that had Corbella weeping.



Which, even though the owner got his approval for the modified drive-through, is exactly what he ended up realizing.

The question mark was a trick to see if you could come up with the right conclusion yourself. Druh was right.

Was she though? Just because the landowner decided not rebuild doesn't mean the city shouldn't have let them.

I'm strongly in favour of upzoning everything. If I had unlimited power I'd convert all zoning in the city +1 immediately. Ie rc1--> rc2, rc2-->mcg, mcg--> mc1, RC1L--> mc2, etc

But that doesn't mean the city shouldn't allow people to rebuild a business they have with some changes when it burns down.

Different landowners will have different priorities and timelines for intensification. It's reasonable that the regulatory process respect that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I don't think the realization of what the land was truly worth really hit until after all the free advertising came.

Why am I patiently waiting for outrage over underhanded developers screwing over the Shim family from the same people outraged over city planners denying their expansion request... when I know it will never come?

Feel bad for the Shim family here. Won a decision, got a ton of public support in the process, and now they're going to take a loss while all those people who were on their side don't give them a second thought.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Seems strange to bother filing a development permit and the fighting the refusal if you're just going to sell. That wouldn't have been free and would have taken some time.

The owner of the DQ and the owner of the land are different people.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Burninator

The owner of the DQ and the owner of the land are different people.

Wasn't it the landowner filing for the DP to rebuild the building for the purposes of renting it to the owners of the DQ?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Wasn't it the landowner filing for the DP to rebuild the building for the purposes of renting it to the owners of the DQ?

Ah I think you are right (although reading the articles who applied is all over the place). Then that is even more bizarre.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Was she though? Just because the landowner decided not rebuild doesn't mean the city shouldn't have let them.

I'm strongly in favour of upzoning everything. If I had unlimited power I'd convert all zoning in the city +1 immediately. Ie rc1--> rc2, rc2-->mcg, mcg--> mc1, RC1L--> mc2, etc

But that doesn't mean the city shouldn't allow people to rebuild a business they have with some changes when it burns down.

Different landowners will have different priorities and timelines for intensification. It's reasonable that the regulatory process respect that.

Well there can be a give and take when it comes to a new development. Just because the building burns down doesn't mean you can build whatever you want. From the City's tweet it seemed the issue was the new drive thru orientation. If the issue was a concern of the drive thru backing up onto a busy road that is not an unreasonable request for them to change it. There are a bunch of examples of this around the city and it's brutal. Obviously it's tough to know what exactly happened for this but I am sure the City said that something was an issue with their design and recommended that they change it (which they didn't').

[Torture]

Not entirely surprising, that lot has been for sale for ages. Not sure what the whole story is here as it's odd that they filed, won, and then decided to sell, but I think they've been trying to sell it for awhile. Ops @ my company looked at the property PRE-pandemic.

[Cappy]

Not sure where to put this article, but its criticism of current city planning and limitations is certainly welcome given it appears to be a big election issue for some:

https://theline.substack.com/p/danie...10cxagurQyGRww

It would be interesting to consider where Alberta could build a new city. Perhaps on highway 22 across for Red Deer? Maybe somewhere closer to the border like McLeod or Pincher Creek?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Not sure where to put this article, but its criticism of current city planning and limitations is certainly welcome given it appears to be a big election issue for some:

https://theline.substack.com/p/danie...10cxagurQyGRww

It would be interesting to consider where Alberta could build a new city. Perhaps on highway 22 across for Red Deer? Maybe somewhere closer to the border like McLeod or Pincher Creek?

Interesting idea, certainly radical, and may have merit, but I have my doubts over its viability. People flock to cities largely because of their critical mass of jobs and services, and that takes time to accumulate.

[Torture]

Posted this in the AB Politics thread but also works here...

You know what we need in municipal politics? More corrupt politicians and less ethics.

The Alberta government is considering walking back a law requiring all municipal councils to have a code of conduct.

The discussion comes after two Alberta city councillors with conservative ties have been publicly cited for breaching these codes.

A document obtained by CBC News shows the government was considering two options: making municipal codes of conduct optional, or keeping them mandatory but limiting the sanctions councillors can hand out to their transgressing colleagues.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...onal-1.6136565

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by SebC

Interesting idea, certainly radical, and may have merit, but I have my doubts over its viability. People flock to cities largely because of their critical mass of jobs and services, and that takes time to accumulate.

For sure. Traditionally, planned cities have not faired well. Brasilia and Canberra are the only two i can think of (i believe Egypt is building one) and they are related to producing a government center.

Company towns faded, but it sounds like a few large tech companies are planning their own in Texas.

Perhaps with the rise of WFH will make it a more viable option? Small city close to nature/natural recreation with the promise of bigger city amenities. It is certainly a risky concept for any private entity to undertake

[Bunk]

Perhaps bulldoze Edmonton and try again.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by SebC

Interesting idea, certainly radical, and may have merit, but I have my doubts over its viability. People flock to cities largely because of their critical mass of jobs and services, and that takes time to accumulate.

also, I don't believe the article mentioned how to finance the building of said city.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'll spell it out for you.

These are the comments that had Corbella weeping.



Which, even though the owner got his approval for the modified drive-through, is exactly what he ended up realizing.

The question mark was a trick to see if you could come up with the right conclusion yourself. Druh was right.

Ha ha nice try. The development appeal board found that she failed to exercise her discretion appropriately. This is what they call being wrong at your job.

Calgary’s development appeal board ultimately sided with the landowners and overturned the city’s decision last May. The board ruled the city had “failed to exercise its discretion appropriately” in denying the application.

The land owner at the end of the day made their own decision which could be for a variety of reasons.

[Wormius]

So what are the chances the landowner just did this to satisfy some obligation with the franchise leasee with the expectation that it would be rejected and they would come out looking all rosy for not being the one to crush the DQ franchisees dream?

If that wasn’t the landowner’s intent, then he should be thanking Farrell for showing him the error in his thought process. A stand-alone DQ in prime real estate location couldn’t be a worse business decision. Regardless of whether it should be their decision to make. The City did them a solid.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

also, I don't believe the article mentioned how to finance the building of said city.

I think the idea was it would be a mix of private investment (traditional developers) with tax incentives to promote moving there?

Tencer is likely spitballing against the NIMBYISM pervasive in the current cities we all inhabit and the resulting housing crises that has resulted.

I placed it in the Municipal thread as a big issue during this election is the guidebook that seeks to make changes to these "established" communities

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Ha ha nice try. The development appeal board found that she failed to exercise her discretion appropriately. This is what they call being wrong at your job.

That isn't entirely true. The Development Authority was found to have failed to exercise its discretion appropriately. Semantics, but she wasn't the one who made the decision