FCC1982
Senior Member
^ How “high” are the proposed townhouses ?
Insufficient infrastructure - come on.
Did this get approved today ?
Insufficient infrastructure - come on.
Did this get approved today ?
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Dārayavauš
Active Member
Honestly I have no idea why Canada gives so much power to NIMBYs.
Is it legally required to have all these stupid voices heard, or is it just something that’s been done for a while?
Other places I’ve lived, communities have a certain degree of input, tweaks here and there, how to increase green space/parks etc, but the overall design they have no say over nor any power to kill a development.
Albertasaurus
Senior Member
The townhouses did get recommended approval by Planning Commission. But it now goes to Council, I believe in September, and it's an election year, so I don't have much hope it'll pass at Council.
trtcttc
Senior Member
I think it'll pass. The CBC site unanimously. There's councilors that complain of spending and taxes, but really not that many that oppose development.
DiscoStu
Senior Member
Listening to "all these stupid voices" is a Canadian pastime, and why it's hard/expensive/time-consuming to build anything. And it's probably worse the bigger the stage. It's all a balancing act in a democracy, but imagine trying to build the trans Canadian railroad today? Unpossible!
darwink
Senior Member
trtcttc
Senior Member
I'd like to see this chart control for population. We might be building at the same pace as Hong Kong/Taiwan/SK, but they're literally losing population. Same with "Developed Europe" (that's an interesting way to phrase Western Europe lol), where they're mostly losing or growing very slowly their population. The fact we increased dwellings while growing our population among the fastest in the world, is pretty impressive.
Theoretically, yes, new people should add to the building capacity, but it takes time. We added a million people (mostly "students" anyways), but that doesn't mean the lumber and tool mill is suddenly running much faster than before. There's a ramp.
darwink
Senior Member
We've seen clearly that Ontario and BC haven't ramped in response the way Alberta has, despite higher prices. Canada as a whole produces fewer units than in the 70s, on a much larger base. If the entire country built like Alberta, there wouldn't be a housing crisis. Things can't turn on a dime. but two things, they should change over the course of a decade and it is clear there is a culture reason the anglo countries are clustered together. Sure Houston or Calgary would have a different place on the chart, but that is despite the culture around land use and a continual fight.
Weird chart. Isn't the important thing which side of 0 on the X axis we're on, not which side of that arbitrary line on the Y axis?
Arguably we have more in common with Hong Kong and Taiwan than Ireland here.
Arguably we have more in common with Hong Kong and Taiwan than Ireland here.
DougB
Senior Member
A downside of Common Law
DougB
Senior Member
It would be lower now, and way down from the peak. SMART had more than 1,000 Calgary employees around 2011
lemongrab
Active Member
Seniors rarely downsize — here’s why that’s hurting first-time homebuyers
I suspect there is a sweet spot age for empty-nesters to downsize, but once they cross a certain threshold (probably a little over 70) then they are likely staying put until assisted-living is necessary.
It's easy to dream up policy solutions, but the most fair/sensible solutions will almost certainly be construed as punitive to seniors and politically untenable. So as unfair and icky as it is, perhaps a 'carrot' based policy approach would be most effective - (e.g. moving expenses deductible when downsizing; lower property taxes for seniors living in higher density/lower sq footage, etc).
There's no real reason these reforms need to be targeted directly to seniors other than reality. Any attempt to reform property/land taxes is going to be spun as attack on establish SFH owners, so I'd plug my nose and treat these as a first baby step in that direction. The status quo is also a bit silly where my empty nest neighbours pay less property tax than I do for my family of 4 for similar homes/lots (because they purchased long ago and have made fewer recent improvements).
The article also suggests extending the GST rebate, which I have mixed feelings on but also maybe not a bad idea. NIMBYs should have been excited about Glenmore Landing developments as amazing downsizing opportunities within their community...maybe some policy ideas can help shift these mindsets
Dārayavauš
Active Member
It’s a Canadian/Anglo thing to be sure. However these endless engagements that frankly only give voice to the frankly uninformed it is just performative and have nothing to do with democracy. Canada doesn’t have a direct democracy, we elect those to make decisions. They need to stop wasting time and money. If you want to have a direct democracy then that’s great, but we’ll have to make our education a lot better.
Dārayavauš
Active Member
Is this common law? Or just the Anglo love of performance politics?
TooBizzy
Active Member
Yes, it's a legal requirement coming down from Alberta's Municipal Government Act that we are to conduct proper community engagement and hold a public hearing for any modification to statutory plans like the Land Use Bylaw.
Manitoba changed this requirement recently, requiring some threshold of signatures before a public hearing is required, something like a few dozen, or a couple hundred for Winnipeg.
I should add that there is no requirement to do these things lot-by-lot, or reactively. We rezoned the entire city with one big public hearing, which saved a lot of time from doing thousands of tiny ones.
There's also no legal requirement for journalists to bias their coverage of housing issues so radically toward one side, but it generates more outrage and thus ad revenue.