Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Same thing with your home. If you built a sun room, you’d need a DP. And you’d have to adhere to the rules.

As someone who recently had a sunroom/expansion built, exactly. We wanted to build the sunroom expansion the same width as the house so it looked like it was always there. The city rules changed since the house was built and we couldn’t go as wide because of new (I believe) fire regulations. There were also new privacy considerations for windows. In the end we could have appealed but we had a good chance of losing and then needing to start the DP process again.

Some things in the regulations make sense, some do not on the surface. The head scratcher I still have is as part of our remodel we redid our bedroom balcony and needed to put up a 6 foot privacy wall between us and the neighbour because of distance to their window. We were allowed to put up a glass privacy wall...which doesn’t provide privacy...

[Cappy]

You think this is bad, try building a new home in a mature neighborhood. Flexibility is thrown straight out the window by local residents

[Regorium]

Well the really interesting thing about this case is that the local community was extremely supportive of the development application.

Usually all the BS that comes with development applications come from NIMBYs while the City is giving a large developer everything they can to get those permits through. This case is the reverse, which is what makes it great theatre.

[manwiches]

Re: DQ and Kim Family

I no longer live in Calgary, but I follow local news closely still. Years ago I watched Druh Farrell place an unrealistic and out of reach cost on a homeowner in a Subdivision Development Appeal Board meeting, as I was there for a school project. It was out of touch, insensitive, and just plain cold. I was angered then at how it was handled and how much power she truly had.. Over the years I've read stories almost yearly about her out of touch opinions, and flexing her political muscle to create burdens and hardships for hardworking people in Calgary. She's the epitome of everything wrong with being in politics. She treats her position like an entitled child who unfortunately has the keys to a kingdom, that she has no idea what they truly need or want.

I don't often get too opinionated on social media, but this makes my blood boil. My family owned and still owns restaurants in Calgary. I ask myself, what if this was my family? How would I feel if it were mine? I pray that the City of Calgary is able to do the right thing for this family. It's absolutely pathetic and heartless that Drug Farrell continues to flex her political muscle because she doesn't like the way something looks. I hope that Calgarians do the right thing and vote her out next election.

This family deserves a second chance. They shouldn't be put at the hands of am out of touch City of Calgary employee with far too much power.

Im actually blinding mad at this.

Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk

[Torture]

They. Could. Have. Rebuild. The. Same. As. Before.

(And still can!)

[PepsiFree]

Corbella is on Twitter shrugging off criticism, saying she omitted “thousands” of facts, and insulting people who say it was irresponsible reporting...

...and people are still here reading her article going “omg can you believe this!?”

Too funny. The piper plays her magic pipe and the children follow.

[MoneyGuy]

I’m trained as a SDAB adjudicator and you might be surprised how often an appeal is accepted.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Torture

They. Could. Have. Rebuild. The. Same. As. Before.

(And still can!)

That's true.

Is it your position that not allowing a modest expansion and a change to the drive through alignment on rebuild is good public policy? When the land is zoned for that?

[Roughneck]

We should have the designs put up for a plebiscite during the election, without knowing which is updated and which is like for like, and let the people decide.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

We should have the designs put up for a plebiscite during the election, without knowing which is updated and which is like for like, and let the people decide.

I’d like to see some renderings of the proposed DQNext Dessert and Entertainment Centre.

[curves2000]

People who are defending some of this need to do themselves a favor and to start to think rationally and try, in the smallest sense of the word use some common and business sense. I don't think I have been to that DQ in years, if ever. But if it was a DQ from many years ago, it was probably built to different standards for quick service restaurants than what happens today.

Remember when places like DQ, Mr. Sub, Subway, Mcdonalds, A&W, Wendy's and more had large dinning rooms? Place's like Wendy's were marketed as a higher end burger joint because of the fact that they used fresh, never frozen beef and were grilled to order. They also had carpet, which was considered higher end "dining" than hard plastic seats or booths and tile of other quick service restaurants.

Now in 2021, with a pandemic, everybody going curbside pick up, Skip the Dishes, Drive Through and grab a go options, would a larger dining room make sense for a DQ?

I suspect what is happening here is that the expansion of the restaurant is being proposed to be built to 2021 standards for a stand alone restaurant. Having flexibility in kitchen design and concept is important in design. Canopies for kitchen's can run what some people literally make in a couple of years, it's not a joke.

The landlord, thinking about a long term investment and a rentability for ANY future restaurant is probably wanting and needing some minor flexibility. It's a reasonable and prudent decision for everyone involved.

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.

So here we have a small immigrant family who's lost their business and their income. Their business also has a value for the sales it was generating on an annual basis.

We also have a landlord, who I assume was a long term owner, who was using the above mentioned business to supplement their retirement income with some rental revenue and hoping to leave something for the other generation.

All this destruction and issues because someone doesn't like drive thru's and a fire happened? Because there's a vision for that property that didn't include the owners and the operators in the business? Also because the city's rules say a modest increase in size was a no no?

I totally understand zoning and making sure the proper homes, businesses, commercial and more go into a proper area but don't sell me garbage about drive thru's and modest expansion of a building. Meanwhile what is WANTED by the developers, the city, the councilor and the other skuzzy cat's with their greasy paws, is for the property owners to sell, the operators shut up and leave so that everybody else can get rich with the new development.

Really great way to look after the little guy in my opinion. Let's enrich the people who need it the least, made by decision makers who haven't lost a nickle during Covid and who's retirements are secured via taxpayer funded pensions.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Corbella is on Twitter shrugging off criticism, saying she omitted “thousands” of facts, and insulting people who say it was irresponsible reporting...

...and people are still here reading her article going “omg can you believe this!?”

Too funny. The piper plays her magic pipe and the children follow.

You’re aware Corbella’s article was in response to other outlets and media reporting on it, right? Like CTV had their article posted https://www.ctvnews.ca/local/calgary...1_5399171.html the day before the opinion piece. Corbella was just jumping on the train.

All of my opinions had been formed without opening up the Corbella article because its Corbella.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctv...1_5399171.html

[PepsiFree]

I’m going to need at least another 40 paragraphs based on ifs, maybes, and guesses before I’m convinced.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You’re aware Corbella’s article was in response to other outlets and media reporting on it, right? Like CTV had their article posted https://www.ctvnews.ca/local/calgary...1_5399171.html the day before the opinion piece. Corbella was just jumping on the train.

All of my opinions had been formed without opening up the Corbella article because its Corbella.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctv...1_5399171.html

You’re aware the entire conversation was kicked off with a Corbella article, right? And half the anger is derived from the half-loaded info she provided?

I don’t know man maybe if you read a post and think “this doesn’t apply to me” you could just realise it doesn’t apply to you. Good for you on not reading Corbella though. She’s painful to read.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I was just asking. Like it appeared you have no idea that this wasn’t a crusade started by Corbella but was actually gaining traction from the community because the community association and what appears to be the vast majority of residents supported the development and were displeased that it was denied.

Corbella’s really only contribution, as far as I can tell, was passing the blame on it it to Farrell.

Farrell’s POV is pretty much “look, it’s ultimately not my decision but if it was I would have made the same as I don’t want a generic DQ here” so not the most inflammatory article the Sun has ever posted.

[manwiches]

Originally Posted by curves2000

People who are defending some of this need to do themselves a favor and to start to think rationally and try, in the smallest sense of the word use some common and business sense. I don't think I have been to that DQ in years, if ever. But if it was a DQ from many years ago, it was probably built to different standards for quick service restaurants than what happens today.

Remember when places like DQ, Mr. Sub, Subway, Mcdonalds, A&W, Wendy's and more had large dinning rooms? Place's like Wendy's were marketed as a higher end burger joint because of the fact that they used fresh, never frozen beef and were grilled to order. They also had carpet, which was considered higher end "dining" than hard plastic seats or booths and tile of other quick service restaurants.

Now in 2021, with a pandemic, everybody going curbside pick up, Skip the Dishes, Drive Through and grab a go options, would a larger dining room make sense for a DQ?

I suspect what is happening here is that the expansion of the restaurant is being proposed to be built to 2021 standards for a stand alone restaurant. Having flexibility in kitchen design and concept is important in design. Canopies for kitchen's can run what some people literally make in a couple of years, it's not a joke.

The landlord, thinking about a long term investment and a rentability for ANY future restaurant is probably wanting and needing some minor flexibility. It's a reasonable and prudent decision for everyone involved.

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.

So here we have a small immigrant family who's lost their business and their income. Their business also has a value for the sales it was generating on an annual basis.

We also have a landlord, who I assume was a long term owner, who was using the above mentioned business to supplement their retirement income with some rental revenue and hoping to leave something for the other generation.

All this destruction and issues because someone doesn't like drive thru's and a fire happened? Because there's a vision for that property that didn't include the owners and the operators in the business? Also because the city's rules say a modest increase in size was a no no?

I totally understand zoning and making sure the proper homes, businesses, commercial and more go into a proper area but don't sell me garbage about drive thru's and modest expansion of a building. Meanwhile what is WANTED by the developers, the city, the councilor and the other skuzzy cat's with their greasy paws, is for the property owners to sell, the operators shut up and leave so that everybody else can get rich with the new development.

Really great way to look after the little guy in my opinion. Let's enrich the people who need it the least, made by decision makers who haven't lost a nickle during Covid and who's retirements are secured via taxpayer funded pensions.

Great post here! Seriously!

Farrell has never looked after the little guy. She is everything that is wrong with an entitled narcissist being in a position of power.

I've seen her live at SDAB meetings before. While there is a quorum of people required to make a decision, she by far has the most influential stance. Her rationale almost always is along the lines of "it's not pretty enough"

I despised her before, but I have absolute downright anger and venom for her now, for that poor family. Anybody who sides with her on this, must have cried when mom and dad bought you a 10 year old first car, but you really wanted that pink mustang. Everything that is wrong in this world is epitomized by Druh Farrell

And just like an entitled child, she chooses not to run next election, because I'm willing to bet she knows she would lose. So rather than face the music of her constituents, she'll say she's not running, and leaving on a high having down many great things. Bye Felicia.


Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I was just asking. Like it appeared you have no idea that this wasn’t a crusade started by Corbella but was actually gaining traction from the community because the community association and what appears to be the vast majority of residents supported the development and were displeased that it was denied.

Corbella’s really only contribution, as far as I can tell, was passing the blame on it it to Farrell.

Farrell’s POV is pretty much “look, it’s ultimately not my decision but if it was I would have made the same as I don’t want a generic DQ here” so not the most inflammatory article the Sun has ever posted.

If you say so.

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

[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.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by manwiches

Great post here! Seriously!

Farrell has never looked after the little guy. She is everything that is wrong with an entitled narcissist being in a position of power.

I've seen her live at SDAB meetings before. While there is a quorum of people required to make a decision, she by far has the most influential stance. Her rationale almost always is along the lines of "it's not pretty enough"

I despised her before, but I have absolute downright anger and venom for her now, for that poor family. Anybody who sides with her on this, must have cried when mom and dad bought you a 10 year old first car, but you really wanted that pink mustang. Everything that is wrong in this world is epitomized by Druh Farrell

And just like an entitled child, she chooses not to run next election, because I'm willing to bet she knows she would lose. So rather than face the music of her constituents, she'll say she's not running, and leaving on a high having down many great things. Bye Felicia.


Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk

Farrell very much strikes me as a "Let them eat cake" personality.

[Oling_Roachinen]

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.

Why not put a 5 story condo on the plot of land that was turned into 6 unused parking spots directly south of the DQ location? Or directly north instead of whatever decrepit graffit'd building with a big parking lot that goes mostly unused?

Or the closed boxing gym that's about 2 blocks north? Or the flower shop that is clearly a front (probably not but I've never seen anyone there). Go a little bit south and you have the closed record store, next to the revolving door of businesses that tank which I believe is currently an artist gallery/shop thingie.

Oh yeah, Majaz (and whatever failed restaurant it became after), I believe is closed down again (harder to separate this one from COVID but that location had failed just before). That's just on the west side of the DQ accross from the Safeway. And south of that I think is just a closed down building but could be mistaken.

If there was interest for those 5 story condos, there would be 5 story condos there. There isn't. That's why the community association and residents are in so in favour of a ####ing DQ. Because it's better than an empty lot or closed store.