I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Build another lane so deerfoot is 3 lanes all along.

That is obviously easier said than done at Deerfoot and Anderson/Bow Bottom. Expanding a causeway section is never an easy task.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

That is obviously easier said than done at Deerfoot and Anderson/Bow Bottom. Expanding a causeway section is never an easy task.

Definitely not easy (or it would have been done years ago), but it is the solution to the problem.

[kevman]

What was the actual value of the land the city just sold at Stadium Shopping Centre? $210,000 seems like a pretty low valuation.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by kevman

What was the actual value of the land the city just sold at Stadium Shopping Centre? $210,000 seems like a pretty low valuation.

An undevelopable (sp?) strip of land on a highway? $210K seems like a good price for the city?

[calgarygeologist]

City Council is asking for another report on secondary suites. If I'm not mistaken there are already 30 reports on the matter. How much time and money is this secondary suite issue eating up at City Hall?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

City Council is asking for another report on secondary suites. If I'm not mistaken there are already 30 reports on the matter. How much time and money is this secondary suite issue eating up at City Hall?

This is not a simple "yeah, let's do it, wtf" issue. An absolute majority of people living in Calgary does not support approval of secondary suites in the areas where Land Use Bylaw does not allow them. Affordable housing shortage is pressing the need and the debate heats up accordingly, but the reality of people's opposition remains the same. Councilors representing their respective wards must reflect this opposition or face not being re-elected.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is not a simple "yeah, let's do it, wtf" issue. An absolute majority of people living in Calgary does not support approval of secondary suites in the areas where Land Use Bylaw does not allow them. Affordable housing shortage is pressing the need and the debate heats up accordingly, but the reality of people's opposition remains the same. Councilors representing their respective wards must reflect this opposition or face not being re-elected.

An absolute majority? Where are you getting this data? According to the Sun, in a 2009 survey 71% of the people were in support of secondary suites. In a survey this month that number dropped to 57% but is still representative of a majority.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/12/14...to-recent-poll

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is not a simple "yeah, let's do it, wtf" issue. An absolute majority of people living in Calgary supports the bylaw, but the old people who yell at their councillors about expensive bridges and such does not support approval of secondary suites in the areas where Land Use Bylaw does not allow them. Affordable housing shortage is pressing the need and the debate heats up accordingly when regular Calgarians try to get something passed in spite of the vocal minority, but the reality of old and rich people's opposition remains the same. Councilors representing their respective wards must reflect this opposition and possible lack of fundraising in spite of regular Calgarians preferences, or face not being re-elected because of better funded opponents.

Fixed your post.

[mac_82]

I thought Councillors were just voting based on who was in Carl Wenzel's pocket.

Keating (w12), Colley-Urquhart (w13) and Demong (w14) got campaign donations from Wenzel, and were all named in that video from 2013.

[Fahrns]

Valuation is closer to $2M, but the developer must incorporate the same area (~3000m2 I believe) into the overall development as public park space. So really it's kinda like buying a piece of land that you can't do more than turn it into a park. I'm not sure what teeth council put into the approval and what's going to prevent the developer from turning the green space into more condos down the road.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by mac_82

I thought Councillors were just voting based on who was in Carl Wenzel's pocket.

Keating (w12), Colley-Urquhart (w13) and Demong (w14) got campaign donations from Wenzel, and were all named in that video from 2013.

Kind of makes sense to see why Councillor's funded by developers would be against opening up housing to people who can't afford to buy/build their own homes..

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

An absolute majority? Where are you getting this data? According to the Sun, in a 2009 survey 71% of the people were in support of secondary suites. In a survey this month that number dropped to 57% but is still representative of a majority.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/12/14...to-recent-poll

I wouldn't believe anything the sun says. They predicted a majority win for the wild rose last election. Was even on the front page. Pretty much a tabloid paper.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

City Council is asking for another report on secondary suites. If I'm not mistaken there are already 30 reports on the matter. How much time and money is this secondary suite issue eating up at City Hall?

Don't get me started for I shall start to weep and curl up into the fetal position in the corner of my living room.

After a ridiculous debate, Council decided on a couple more reports on some stuff. The tangible thing it did end up doing is asking for a bylaw change to come to Council for consideration this spring to allow suites in all applicable land use districts in the Wards 7, 8, 9, 11.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by mac_82

I thought Councillors were just voting based on who was in Carl Wenzel's pocket.

Keating (w12), Colley-Urquhart (w13) and Demong (w14) got campaign donations from Wenzel, and were all named in that video from 2013.

Keating voted in favour of the (city-wide) proposal, as did Colley-Urquhart.

Actually homebuilders and developers were very vocally in favour of legalizing suites City-wide. Virtually every business, anti-poverty, religious, arts, and student group came out publicly in favour.

[Bunk]

Indeed - in no matter what the poll, no matter how the question is asked a majority has supported legal suites across the entire City and within their own communities. Even the latest one (over 4000 surveyed) had a majority of support or ambivalent of 2/3. Less than a 1/3 opposition. Yep, what we have is a very vocal minority (many in Community Associations) that has somehow convinced several Councillors of widespread community opposition.

[JamMan23]

I don't get why this is so hard. Just add secondary suite as a discretionary use on R-1 and RC-1. Tell the administration as what "discretion" to approve the development permits (I've heard talk of some sort of approval matrix). Done.

Development permits can be appealed, so it still gives NIMBY neighbours plenty of opportunity to argue about suites in their area. The solution is so simple.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by JamMan23

I don't get why this is so hard. Just add secondary suite as a discretionary use on R-1 and RC-1. Tell the administration as what "discretion" to approve the development permits (I've heard talk of some sort of approval matrix). Done.

Development permits can be appealed, so it still gives NIMBY neighbours plenty of opportunity to argue about suites in their area. The solution is so simple.

That sir was EXACTLY the solution we brokered. And that's what failed in Monday's vote 8-7.

[CaptainYooh]

Hi Bunk. There has been a lot of recent commotion coming from Access Calgary about the lack of sustainability of Handi Bus transportation service delivery to the disabled. Someone was quoted about the door-to-door service becoming too expensive and even redundant due to other means of public transportation being more accessible by physically disabled people. When I read this language, I immediately see the Government laying the groundwork for upcoming service cuts.

The brutal reality is this: cutting door-to-door transportation will mean no activities for the severely disabled. There is no other way of interpreting it. The stuff about public transportation is not gonna do it for most of them, as they need to get to the transit locations, first, which is challenging enough to most of them and then, from the last transit stop to their destination point. Also, mentally and developmentally disabled individuals are rarely able to use public transport due to a variety of reasons.

Whenever the services are being taken away from the disabled, I cringe, as they are the least vocal and the most vulnerable, incapacitated and sensitive part of our society that does not have the ability to influence politics. Yes, providing this service might cost the City a few extra dollars, but it is the sign of a civilized and caring municipality. If some dollars must be taken off the program, find them through better operating efficiencies and through savings in other programs. Don't cut the access service to the disabled. It's vital for all of them.

Where does Mayor's office stand on this issue?

[para transit fellow]

um...

I think you have a mis-read of the news. The challenge is that many folks confuse Calgary handi-bus Association with Access Calgary.

One of Access Calgary's contractors (i.e. Calgary Handi-bus Association) has announced it won't continue operating buses for Access Calgary. There was no announcement of cuts to Access Calgary budget. There was no announcement that door to door service was being reduced.

Calgary Handibus is actually the second contractor to leave Access Calgary. Associated Taxi didn't renew their contract in 2013. Another contractor (from Toronto) answered the RFP and now provides the same door to door trips (with little notice by the general public).

[Bunk]

^^ Basically what is said above. We supported an expansion of door-to-door service, including changing the coverage from within 1km of a fixed transit route to the entire geography of the municipality.