darwink
Senior Member
this is the exact opposite of the program design. Won't relitigate this here, but the number of units built in a given year doesn't demonstrate success or failure of regulatory reform.
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
outoftheice
Active Member
It looks pretty clear to me that some form of rezoning had to be part of the bargain in order to access these funds. Perhaps the funding wasn't dependent on rezoning the entire city to RCG but 4 units as-of-right is definitely way more than the R1 zoning Calgary used to have.
If Council is smart, they'd repeal the RCG and replace with a new city wide rezoning that is better than R1 all at the same time. It would lock in the federal funding and also provide certainty to developers amd residents. The current strategy of repeal but promising something new will come within this term is just a ridiculous amount of uncertainty and is no way to run a city.
If Council is smart, they'd repeal the RCG and replace with a new city wide rezoning that is better than R1 all at the same time. It would lock in the federal funding and also provide certainty to developers amd residents. The current strategy of repeal but promising something new will come within this term is just a ridiculous amount of uncertainty and is no way to run a city.
DougB
Senior Member
Did Toronto with its Liberal MPs lose funding?
Ottawa doubles down on threat to reduce Toronto’s housing funding following sixplex vote
Toronto City Council’s recent decision to permit low-rise sixplexes in nine wards, instead of across the city as initially proposed, could cost it nearly $30 million in federal housing funding.
www.ctvnews.ca
lemongrab
Active Member
So what's a reasonable compromise that lets the repealers save face? Revise RCG to 4 dwellings max and include parking minimums (I abhor parking minimums, but it's not hard to include 4 spots on a lot so whatever, let's mandate Xmas tree storage stalls for now)? Doesn't seem like that would be enough or them...
outoftheice
Active Member
That's the thing. If the repealers were acting in good faith, I would argue that there are tweaks that can be made to the RCG zoning that can easily make this a win-win.
This is the list of gripes that was included in the repeal Notice of Motion. You're telling me that the 15 people on council, with the assistance of all the experts in Admin, can't brainstorm some solutions to all these issues? Of course they can...
The thing is, the repealers don't actually want to. They're not acting in good faith. In their hearts, they are NIMBYs who want neighbourhoods frozen in time. They just can't come out and say they aren't supportive of new infill housing because Pierre Poilevre says he supports infill housing because it actually is the most fiscally conservative approach to city building and the fact we are in a housing crisis because of the status quo necessitates policy changes and they have to pretend to be good little conservatives.
I think the Mayor is missing a huge opportunity to show maturity and good governance by allowing the repeal conversation to occur independent of the replacement conversation. Both should occur ar the same time. Instead we are going to create a period of massive uncertainty for Calgarians and developers, double up the public hearings, which means double the cost and double the time and risk the Federal funding now to boot. It really makes me doubt his sincerity when Farkas says he has a plan for replacement because if he did, he should have brought it forward simulatenously with this repeal motion.
This is the list of gripes that was included in the repeal Notice of Motion. You're telling me that the 15 people on council, with the assistance of all the experts in Admin, can't brainstorm some solutions to all these issues? Of course they can...
The thing is, the repealers don't actually want to. They're not acting in good faith. In their hearts, they are NIMBYs who want neighbourhoods frozen in time. They just can't come out and say they aren't supportive of new infill housing because Pierre Poilevre says he supports infill housing because it actually is the most fiscally conservative approach to city building and the fact we are in a housing crisis because of the status quo necessitates policy changes and they have to pretend to be good little conservatives.
I think the Mayor is missing a huge opportunity to show maturity and good governance by allowing the repeal conversation to occur independent of the replacement conversation. Both should occur ar the same time. Instead we are going to create a period of massive uncertainty for Calgarians and developers, double up the public hearings, which means double the cost and double the time and risk the Federal funding now to boot. It really makes me doubt his sincerity when Farkas says he has a plan for replacement because if he did, he should have brought it forward simulatenously with this repeal motion.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
I appreciate your strong advocacy and support for electing more Liberal MPs in Calgary, but the article you linked sure sounds like Toronto's 2026 funding is also at risk. Neither city has lost a penny... yet.Did Toronto with its Liberal MPs lose funding?
Ottawa doubles down on threat to reduce Toronto’s housing funding following sixplex vote
Toronto City Council’s recent decision to permit low-rise sixplexes in nine wards, instead of across the city as initially proposed, could cost it nearly $30 million in federal housing funding.
DougB
Senior Member
My point is that the Feds can't pull funding from Calgary without pulling it from Toronto. They won't pull it from Toronto as that is its electoral base
trtcttc
Senior Member
The program is designed poorly, and funds things for specific process instead of results. Again, playing whack-a-mole with policy changes. Cities change zoning then jack up development costs. Calgary has less heritage protection which has helped re-develop downtown parcels much faster, but that's not a HAF criteria, so those units don't count as much as the R-CG rowhouse at the end of the block. Housing is complicated. Even small things like DP and BP approvals, timeliness of utility work all affect housing construction. We should have a fund that directly correlates with units built, because when you build new units and welcome new residents, that's precisely when you need to funds to improve infrastructure, utilities, etc. Paying for performative changes that don't result in actual units in the ground just provides poor incentives.
darwink
Senior Member
I think we mostly agree, but the program has to be designed to fix Toronto and Vancouver, despite the refusal of local governments in BC and the local governments and province in Ontario to fix their major problems.
Alberta is along for the ride and the only result is more freedom and even faster processes from our already good base.
Calgary can just refuse the money! It is an option.
The whole point was past results based programs didn't work, and municipalities complained that units built programs would leave funding subject to market conditions. Municipalities were even rejecting fully funded social housing proposals that the municipalities themselves had applied for funding from the feds and received!
Most municipalities don't recognize that they are major determinants in how much housing gets built via regulations and fees. They can approve all the zoning they want that doesn't pencil. Municipalities can succeed despite bad policies or fail with good policies.
Hence, a program that incentivizes good policies, and forthcoming programs to incentivize much lower fees.
trtcttc
Senior Member
From a purely Calgary point of view, the program seems to not recognize the already good base we are starting from and putting all municipalities on the same starting point. But I agree if they held every municipality to the same standard, Vancouver and Toronto would get no funding.
lemongrab
Active Member
I think one could argue that the program design does serve to help improve Calgary's weaknesses. While we have no problem building lots, we have been too reliant on sprawl to do it. Although we've started to turn the tide on that a bit by ourselves, the HAF has certainly boosted those efforts.
Also, we still need every single unit we can get. It would be lovely to get rewarded for already being successful and doing nothing new, but that would be an even worse program design IMO
Also, we still need every single unit we can get. It would be lovely to get rewarded for already being successful and doing nothing new, but that would be an even worse program design IMO