Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you say so.

EDIT: I mean just look at the next response. LOL. What a trip.

I don't really get the hostility.

A DQ burned down. One of the few businesses in the area that apparently isn't going under and wants to rebuild. The community association was fully supportive of the development.

Druh instead sent a comment to the planning department saying how the spot wasn't a good place for a "low quality generic DQ." She could have stayed silent if she didn't want to go against the residents in her ward that are being represented by the community association or better yet she could have backed her constituents, an immigrant family, and all fans of the DQ Blzzard™ instead she decided to voice her opposition against it. She opened herself up to the criticism, no one else.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Not sure who, after thinking rationally about it, would still elect to put a DQ on that piece of land. That seems like the epitome of poor judgement. I think Farrell provided some constructive advice for the landowner on this.

Find a developer and put a 5 story condo there with restaurants, shops, on the main floor.

You do understand the DQ people own the land. The city put out a ten page article stating they didn't approve a modified DQ or a drive thru and told them to pound sand based on they want to dictate how the owned property is zoned or utilized. Yes, they can rebuild the exact same building they had the original DP for, how asinine is that. That goes to show you how out of touch the city is.

The city and council and people forget they work for the people and small business. They should be removing barriers especially in this instance. There is such a thing, especially after what all these property owners and small businesses have been through in the pandemic to have a city council function to benefit them and their needs.

I have a property that was zoned warehouse (it's on the City DP), so we purpose built it as a warehouse and they just flip us the bird and say it's retail costing us thousands of dollars each year even though we built what we ordered to. It's a warehouse. They have even tried to tax commercial properties based on what it could be. I have a notion that if anyone had to deal with these people in real life on any substantial matter having to do with property ownership or matters effecting their livelihood or wallet would get a real eye opener.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

You do understand the DQ people own the land.

They don't.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

They don't.

You're right. It's owned by the family who use to run the DQ prior to 2013 when the Korean family took over. Who are also 100% in support (obviously) of rebuilding a DQ, and only a DQ.

I bet this passes the appeal, and all of this will be for naught. Unfortunately, just extra bureaucracy and hardships on a business already going through difficult times.

[You Need a Thneed]

Many people on here are assigning blame where there really isn’t blame to give.

SDAB is almost certainly the only possible avenue to getting approved for a drive thru, since it’s not allowed in the land use bylaw. Admin can recommend for approval on minor variances only, and this would not be considered that.

It may get approved by SDAB, it may not. The process is working as intended, and generally the process is good.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You're right. It's owned by the family who use to run the DQ prior to 2013 when the Korean family took over. Who are also 100% in support (obviously) of rebuilding a DQ, and only a DQ.

I bet this passes the appeal, and all of this will be for naught. Unfortunately, just extra bureaucracy and hardships on a business already going through difficult times.

Why did it go to appeal, again? Was it specifically because they wanted to rebuild a DQ and only a DQ, or did something else trigger the process?


If it passes on appeal, isn't that just the system working, and all the outrage is for naught?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Now let's take the city's and the councilor's rationale on this and see if this logic could apply to real estate for residential homes in similar circumstances.

An old,1940's or 50's style home that's approx 900-1000 sq on a massive 50 foot wide by 125 foot deep lot burns to the ground. The insurance company is willing to pay to rebuild the home for the insurable value for $400k.

Would you rebuild the 1000 sq foot, 2 bedroom bungalow without a front or rear garage? Or would you design and build a 3 bedroom, 1600 sq/ft home with an attached or detached garage?

What if the city and the local area councilor said your development permit was declined because, theoretically you, or someone who is LICKING THEIR CHOPS at the thought of buying you out, can buy and build a large condo project with some retail and office space by using the next door property as well? You don't have millions and millions in capital for the project? Well just sell us the dirt and a property that has been in your family for many years and SHOULD continue to be in your family for years.

In this scenario, no, I should not be building a 1600 sq ft house on a property that's zoned for a large condo project and has a developer ready to build it. I should be getting my $400k (which may not be what the policy provides, but this is how it SHOULD work), cashing in on the upzoning/gentrification that's made my land valuable enough to build a condo on, and coming out ahead when I buy a new place to live.

From a system and environmental perspective it is completely wasteful to build a house that I'm economically incentivized to demolish, or that the next owners are likely to demolish.

From the city's perspective, you're building a nail house, so they absolutely should disincentivize that as much possible without infringing on your rights. If you're going to be a holdout, suffer the consequences. It's your choice and one you don't have to make.

The only problem I have in this scenario is that without the leverage to go from low intensity to medium intensity you may be getting less than you should for the land. But in a competitive market, even that would not be an issue, as the other bidders would drive up the price to market value.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I don't really get the hostility.

A DQ burned down. One of the few businesses in the area that apparently isn't going under and wants to rebuild. The community association was fully supportive of the development.

Druh instead sent a comment to the planning department saying how the spot wasn't a good place for a "low quality generic DQ." She could have stayed silent if she didn't want to go against the residents in her ward that are being represented by the community association or better yet she could have backed her constituents, an immigrant family, and all fans of the DQ Blzzard™ instead she decided to voice her opposition against it. She opened herself up to the criticism, no one else.

Yeah, you’ve said that.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

In this scenario, no, I should not be building a 1600 sq ft house on a property that's zoned for a large condo project and has a developer ready to build it. I should be getting my $400k (which may not be what the policy provides, but this is how it SHOULD work), cashing in on the upzoning/gentrification that's made my land valuable enough to build a condo on, and coming out ahead when I buy a new place to live.

From a system and environmental perspective it is completely wasteful to build a house that I'm economically incentivized to demolish, or that the next owners are likely to demolish.

From the city's perspective, you're building a nail house, so they absolutely should disincentivize that as much possible without infringing on your rights. If you're going to be a holdout, suffer the consequences. It's your choice and one you don't have to make.

The only problem I have in this scenario is that without the leverage to go from low intensity to medium intensity you may be getting less than you should for the land. But in a competitive market, even that would not be an issue, as the other bidders would drive up the price to market value.

I dont think this is a case of one lone holdout. There is lots of single storey retail/residential on that strip, much of which is in poor condition. If there was demand to develop it into higher intensity uses that would be happening already.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by SebC

In this scenario, no, I should not be building a 1600 sq ft house on a property that's zoned for a large condo project and has a developer ready to build it. I should be getting my $400k (which may not be what the policy provides, but this is how it SHOULD work), cashing in on the upzoning/gentrification that's made my land valuable enough to build a condo on, and coming out ahead when I buy a new place to live.

Even if the land wasn't zoned for condos, you should be taking the money and potentially a loan to cover the rest of the cost to maximize the parcel coverage on that lot which people are paying a premium for. It's a 2800 sq. ft potential lot, so building a 3 bedroom 1600 sq. ft house is just bleeding value. $500K-$1M judging by neighborhoods where this scenario has been playing out (i.e. Britannia).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I don't think this is a case of one lone holdout. There is lots of single storey retail/residential on that strip, much of which is in poor condition. If there was demand to develop it into higher intensity uses that would be happening already.

This is a fair point, and I think the most salient one in favour of expanding the DQ. I was responding to the hypothetical.

[SebC]

I will say that as general rule, the biggest obstacle to high density isn't low density. Low density is cheap to displace. The biggest obstacle to high density is medium density because of its inertia.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

I will say that as general rule, the biggest obstacle to high density isn't low density. Low density is cheap to displace. The biggest obstacle to high density is medium density because of its inertia.

Thats fair, and its a point in favour of this DQ. If the green line eventually gets that far and the neighbourhood flips to 5 storey buildings a DQ won't be an obstacle. It'll get torn down then and replaces. But probably after the other lower quality buildings in the area.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Even if the land wasn't zoned for condos, you should be taking the money and potentially a loan to cover the rest of the cost to maximize the parcel coverage on that lot which people are paying a premium for. It's a 2800 sq. ft potential lot, so building a 3 bedroom 1600 sq. ft house is just bleeding value. $500K-$1M judging by neighborhoods where this scenario has been playing out (i.e. Britannia).

I doubt there are huge offers from condo developers on the table here given the complete lack of condo developments on the other parcels nearby, many of which have crappy low value buildings.

That makes a better residential analogy something like a 750 square foot bungalow in Abbeydale burning down and the city saying they want a 3500 sq ft mansion built on the lot, or the same bungalow. When the owners want to build a 900 square foot bungalow.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You're right. It's owned by the family who use to run the DQ prior to 2013 when the Korean family took over. Who are also 100% in support (obviously) of rebuilding a DQ, and only a DQ.

I bet this passes the appeal, and all of this will be for naught. Unfortunately, just extra bureaucracy and hardships on a business already going through difficult times.

Which is why the City suggested consideration for the least bureaucratic option possible, straight to Building Permit.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, you’ve said that.

I'm just going to put this down as you being a rabid McDonald's fan. Otherwise out of all the topics you've discussed it doesn't make sense this is the one you've decided to be a dick to anyone who doesn't agree with you lol.

Originally Posted by Bunk

Which is why the City suggested consideration for the least bureaucratic option possible, straight to Building Permit.

I don't think they suggested it. Just that it was an option. Either way, not letting them upgrade a bit with full support of the community and meeting all the actual requirements (guidelines are guidelines), still makes the city look like dicks here in my opinion. Should be doing what they can to help small businesses right now.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by SebC

In this scenario, no, I should not be building a 1600 sq ft house on a property that's zoned for a large condo project and has a developer ready to build it. I should be getting my $400k (which may not be what the policy provides, but this is how it SHOULD work), cashing in on the upzoning/gentrification that's made my land valuable enough to build a condo on, and coming out ahead when I buy a new place to live.

From a system and environmental perspective it is completely wasteful to build a house that I'm economically incentivized to demolish, or that the next owners are likely to demolish.

From the city's perspective, you're building a nail house, so they absolutely should disincentivize that as much possible without infringing on your rights. If you're going to be a holdout, suffer the consequences. It's your choice and one you don't have to make.

The only problem I have in this scenario is that without the leverage to go from low intensity to medium intensity you may be getting less than you should for the land. But in a competitive market, even that would not be an issue, as the other bidders would drive up the price to market value.

I should have clarified my remarks a little better. What I was trying to illustrate is that in older areas that had small homes/large lots, usually one of two things happen.

Someone purchases the property or the existing owner will demolish and rebuild a single family home. Generally speaking, large, modern with either a garage in the front, in then rear or under the home. They don't rebuild the same small home to older specs, features etc.

Or a developer or the owners will build a two unit or more side by side creating density and in essence, a large building on the same land.

The city's argument here about needing to decline the application based on a modest increase to the building is absurd. It's not materially important to anybody. How often have you driven past a commercial property and wondered if you would be upset if said commercial property was a few hundred feet larger on its existing parcel of land? Probably never cause it doesn't affect anybody.

The example of the fire and someone's home and or rental property is valid in my opinion. If our homes were on larger lot's and burned down, the insurance is paying out the insurable amount to get you as close to break even as possible. They aren't going to pay for your new real estate development project of adding density and trying to cash in on a valuable lot.

What happens in these areas is usually the senior living there or their family will than sell the property to a developer who has the experience to do this. The developer than sells the home for a strong profit. This happens when moving to a senior care home or an estate sale or a revenue property.

What is happening here is that the city and the city councilor are going AGAINST the wishes of the business and property owner, in essence forcing them to sell. The property owner said they have little desire to develop the property, probably due to lack of financial capital, experience or more.

There are other considerations as well, perhaps the owners had a plan to sell once things such as the LRT and development occurred, thus raising the value of their existing property. They could be playing the long game. That entire area is ripe for development, so I totally understand the nature of what everyone is doing. I am not some crazed DQ drive thru fan. I do think the city is being unreasonable and forcing the owners and the business operator's hand for something that is a reasonable request.

On a somewhat related note, I had conversation with a local restaurant and cafe owner about their new patio. The landlord for years resisted them having a few seat patio since they owned the land, now with the 3rd lockdown they finally relented since they know it's now a matter of survival for the business.

She admitted she just put a few tables and chairs outside, distanced and a small tent to protect from the elements. Not an official licensed patio by the city but absolutely nothing wrong with the set up. City officials showing up and demanding she take it down and apply for a permit and go through a process and review. Like how many rules and regulations do we need for people to eat eggs and coffee outside during a time of national crisis for the entire world? Can we just get on it with it for everybody?

The thing with councilor's like Druh Farrell is they are always pointing to the cool things they see in other cities and wanting to apply them to Calgary. I am all about some great, cool change but what get's in the way is their own dam regulations and the city's by and large. Government employee's dictating and being concerned where a few tables and chairs are for two adults to have coffee on a beautiful day isn't something that occurs on a regular basis in Europe. It just get's done so people can live their life.

Sorry about the long post and the rant

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm just going to put this down as you being a rabid McDonald's fan. Otherwise out of all the topics you've discussed it doesn't make sense this is the one you've decided to be a dick to anyone who doesn't agree with you lol.



I don't think they suggested it. Just that it was an option. Either way, not letting them upgrade a bit with full support of the community and meeting all the actual requirements (guidelines are guidelines), still makes the city look like dicks here in my opinion. Should be doing what they can to help small businesses right now.

I only frequent McDonalds with state of the art drive-thru configurations. Nothing else is good enough for the pink mustang my parents bought me.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I should have clarified my remarks a little better. What I was trying to illustrate is that in older areas that had small homes/large lots, usually one of two things happen.

Someone purchases the property or the existing owner will demolish and rebuild a single family home. Generally speaking, large, modern with either a garage in the front, in then rear or under the home. They don't rebuild the same small home to older specs, features etc.

Or a developer or the owners will build a two unit or more side by side creating density and in essence, a large building on the same land.

The city's argument here about needing to decline the application based on a modest increase to the building is absurd. It's not materially important to anybody. How often have you driven past a commercial property and wondered if you would be upset if said commercial property was a few hundred feet larger on its existing parcel of land? Probably never cause it doesn't affect anybody.

The example of the fire and someone's home and or rental property is valid in my opinion. If our homes were on larger lot's and burned down, the insurance is paying out the insurable amount to get you as close to break even as possible. They aren't going to pay for your new real estate development project of adding density and trying to cash in on a valuable lot.

What happens in these areas is usually the senior living there or their family will than sell the property to a developer who has the experience to do this. The developer than sells the home for a strong profit. This happens when moving to a senior care home or an estate sale or a revenue property.

What is happening here is that the city and the city councilor are going AGAINST the wishes of the business and property owner, in essence forcing them to sell. The property owner said they have little desire to develop the property, probably due to lack of financial capital, experience or more.

There are other considerations as well, perhaps the owners had a plan to sell once things such as the LRT and development occurred, thus raising the value of their existing property. They could be playing the long game. That entire area is ripe for development, so I totally understand the nature of what everyone is doing. I am not some crazed DQ drive thru fan. I do think the city is being unreasonable and forcing the owners and the business operator's hand for something that is a reasonable request.

On a somewhat related note, I had conversation with a local restaurant and cafe owner about their new patio. The landlord for years resisted them having a few seat patio since they owned the land, now with the 3rd lockdown they finally relented since they know it's now a matter of survival for the business.

She admitted she just put a few tables and chairs outside, distanced and a small tent to protect from the elements. Not an official licensed patio by the city but absolutely nothing wrong with the set up. City officials showing up and demanding she take it down and apply for a permit and go through a process and review. Like how many rules and regulations do we need for people to eat eggs and coffee outside during a time of national crisis for the entire world? Can we just get on it with it for everybody?

The thing with councilor's like Druh Farrell is they are always pointing to the cool things they see in other cities and wanting to apply them to Calgary. I am all about some great, cool change but what get's in the way is their own dam regulations and the city's by and large. Government employee's dictating and being concerned where a few tables and chairs are for two adults to have coffee on a beautiful day isn't something that occurs on a regular basis in Europe. It just get's done so people can live their life.

Sorry about the long post and the rant

Social engineering is why the City is here. They will build a better city. Not the people who put their hard earned capital at risk or invest to add value to peoples lives.

We need the urban engineers at the City to figure this out.

Or pander to multinational conglomerates with tax breaks, freebies and playing the long term game in low paying jobs where people pee in cups. Forget the locals.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I only frequent McDonalds with state of the art drive-thru configurations. Nothing else is good enough for the pink mustang my parents bought me.

Your parents didn't buy it for you they worked for Mary McKay cosmetics as multi level marketers.