MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by Torture

In the meeting council discussed with legal that they cannot override restrictive covenants that they are not a party to and they do not have a legal stake in. So no, they aren't overriding them.

Excellent good to know this was addressed. I've read a few articles and this wasn't mentioned.

[timun]

Hahahahaha, what a joke. Don't believe City Council for a second when they say anything about restrictive covenants. They absolutely will work to override them. Witness what happened in Banff Trail: Direct Control districts were created with the expressed purpose of countermanding the existing restrictive covenant. https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....umentId=205729

[cal_guy]

deleted

[timun]

Nonsense, the City was not a party to the restrictive covenant. All the encumbered parcels were jointly and concurrently dominant and servient tenements.

What the City did was pass the DC district bylaws in direct conflict with the restrictive covenant, not only allowing for row houses to be built but barring anything less dense than row houses from being built. It made it impossible to comply with both the restrictive covenant and the LUB, and the owners of the subject parcels got the restrictive covenant discharged from their properties on the basis that it is "in the public interest". This is "allowed" per section 48(4) of the Land Titles Act, which states "... any such condition or covenant may be modified or discharged by order of the court, on proof to the satisfaction of the court that [...] the condition or covenant conflicts with the provisions of a land use bylaw or statutory plan under Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act, and the modification or discharge is in the public interest."

All Council needs to do to help developers get restrictive covenants tossed is create a conflict by upzoning the properties. It's absolutely within their power to do this, and they are 100% full of #### by insinuating they can't/won't do 90% of the legwork to get restrictive covenants tossed.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

Ah, someone ok with the poors! But what about my right to not share public spaces with those lesser than me? How can I brag about my exclusive neighborhood if they let any riff-raff with only a paltry million dollar townhouse live there?

Do you honestly think that’s why people oppose up-zoning in their neighbourhoods?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you honestly think that’s why people oppose up-zoning in their neighbourhoods?

They’re also worried about…?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wormius

They’re also worried about…?

The woke mind virus.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Wormius

They’re also worried about…?

Mainly parking and traffic. Also buildings blocking sunlight.

I guess I have a hard time getting onboard with the narrative that a 73 year old retired bookkeeper who lives in a bungalow in Killarney is some sort of contemptible elite, while the high-earning professionals who will move into the fourplex that replaces her and her neighbour’s houses are downtrodden salt of the earth.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Wormius

They’re also worried about…?

Change.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Mainly parking and traffic. Also buildings blocking sunlight.

I guess I have a hard time getting onboard with the narrative that a 73 year old retired bookkeeper who lives in a bungalow in Killarney is some sort of contemptible elite, while the high-earning professionals who will move into the fourplex that replaces her and her neighbour’s houses are downtrodden salt of the earth.

That’s definitely what jammies was suggesting so it’s a good thing you are having trouble with that narrative, a narrative that, again, is definitely the prevailing one.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s definitely what jammies was suggesting so it’s a good thing you are having trouble with that narrative, a narrative that, again, is definitely the prevailing one.

Maybe Jammies can offer some evidence that people opposed to up-zoning don’t want poorer people living near them. Or even that they’re typically rich.

Because the stuff I cited is what people actually say in public consultations.

[PepsiFree]

If there’s one thing NIMBYs are known for, it’s being completely honest with their reasons for NIMBYism and not choosing reasons they think people will find more palatable.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If there’s one thing NIMBYs are known for, it’s being completely honest with their reasons for NIMBYism and not choosing reasons they think people will find more palatable.

I guess if mind-reading and casting them as villainous elites makes you feel better, go for it.

Densification in the near-inner city typically means gentrification. The median incomes in communities like Altadore, Bankview, and Killarney are much higher today than they were 30 years ago.

I first lived in Marda Loop in 1990, when there were still lots of working-class seniors and tradespeople in the neighbourhood. The Trop was a genuine dive-bar.

Today, the typical resident is a high-earning professional. Which is fine. As someone mentioned up-thread, Altadore is an example of how densification has worked well. But let’s not pretend it means a bunch of snooty elites having to tolerate regular Joes moving into their neighbourhood. In most neighbourhoods where densification makes economic sense, the class transformation is going the other way.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Mainly parking and traffic. Also buildings blocking sunlight.

I guess I have a hard time getting onboard with the narrative that a 73 year old retired bookkeeper who lives in a bungalow in Killarney is some sort of contemptible elite, while the high-earning professionals who will move into the fourplex that replaces her and her neighbour’s houses are downtrodden salt of the earth.

Maybe unpleasant, but that’s life. You’re not always going to have the parking and levels of shade/sun that you want. It seems superficial enough of a gripe to me that I’d not feel bad discounting that concern. If that’s the worst thing that happens, so what?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Maybe unpleasant, but that’s life. You’re not always going to have the parking and levels of shade/sun that you want. It seems superficial enough of a gripe to me that I’d not feel bad discounting that concern. If that’s the worst thing that happens, so what?

Those concerns shouldn’t prevent re-zoning. But they’re also more benign than wanting to keep non-rich people out the neighbourhood.

I don’t see why people have to project the worst possible motivations onto those who have different policy preferences.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Those concerns shouldn’t prevent re-zoning. But they’re also more benign than wanting to keep non-rich people out the neighbourhood.

I don’t see why people have to project the worst possible motivations onto those who have different policy preferences.

Yeah, it would be weird to do that. Like suggesting someone wanted to evict people and bulldoze their homes because they don’t see a need for SFH.

Who would do something like that? So strange!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, it would be weird to do that. Like suggesting someone wanted to evict people and bulldoze their homes because they don’t see a need for SFH.

Who would do something like that? So strange!

Someone responding to the idea that no SFH should be allowed within a certain radius of downtown.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

Someone responding to the idea that no SFH should be allowed within a certain radius of downtown.

I don’t believe that children should be allowed in pubs but that doesn’t mean I want them to be taken out back and hung.

[woob]

I mean, lets not kid ourselves. There's definitely a strong aspect of NIMBYism which is driven by not wanting lesser than's living in their neighbourhood. It's the same with safe injection sites, transit projects, low income housing, etc. Sure there's other factors at play, but you're kidding yourself if you think its a small part of the overall NIMBY view.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by woob

I mean, lets not kid ourselves. There's definitely a strong aspect of NIMBYism which is driven by not wanting lesser than's living in their neighbourhood. It's the same with safe injection sites, transit projects, low income housing, etc. Sure there's other factors at play, but you're kidding yourself if you think its a small part of the overall NIMBY view.

I think that if anyone is being honest, no one wants that in their neighborhood. It's not on the same planet as a duplex or townhouses going in.