Recent content by Mull

Any restrictive covenant here? If my understanding of them is correct, at least some won't be impacted by RCG given the non minimum density, whereas the direct control, specifically mentioning minimum density, will overrule them (depending on their specific wording). My shot in the dark - there...

As far as I understand the LAP process, its not quite that certain. It's not rezoning (although it essentially is). It's replacing existing community development plans with a joint community higher density agreement, and leaving the future developers to deal with the land use re-designation...

Regarding Restrictive covenants vs RCG zoning, is the following the correct answer based on the one ruling on Banff trail? The City has the power to allow developers to build an increased density despite existing restrictive covenants by requiring a minimum density allocation for a given land...

Smith directly stated she won't cancel it a couple weeks ago. Her word... isn't much to me, but I strongly believe it helps her a lot politically to leave it.

So blanket re-zoning vote passed, and this thread is .... quiet?

Smith said on this particular vote they will not intervene. I believe her as if council passes this, I think she gains politically from by doing nothing, particularity with Nenshi likely facing off against her and the possibly of political parties in municipal elections.

Isn't hundreds of millions of federal dollars tied to this change going through, if so, it doesn't seem like a publicity stunt by Council at least? Or would your proposed changes listed in what I quoted also allow the City to obtain that money?

I don't agree its a vocal minority that oppose this rezoining, no matter how much context you gave the voter - I think a majority oppose this. However, I think we discussed it to the bone... so different question.. The existing restrictive covenants in Britannia for example, is it assumed that...

This doesn't really address the point made that you appear to be wrong in your view that only a vocal minority oppose this. Most of what you wrote is sidestepping the comment. You are addressing that people don't vote logically and rationally and plebiscites are a tool that should be used...

Ha ha my bad, I guess I got a little cynical and assumed sarcasm where the was none! Sorry!

I don't understand, you're being sarcastic and saying those opposed to this change really is indeed old white men and decided to post a picture..... that is made up of a majority of females?

I always get annoyed in the conservative argument of "Better use of taxes will lower taxes" and "limited government" while supporting strict anti-density residential zoning laws. Limited government allow you to get as much flexibility as reasonable to build what you want on your lot. Now, that...

Oh simple! A user responded with a picture of older men, to me posting a news story that a diverse set of over 50 Community Associations signed a letter protesting the proposed rezoning. That user is implying only old men are against the proposed rezoning change, despite overwhelming evidence...

And most of that is fine. Its the only old males narrative you are pushing which is gross. It is odd to me you push that when you are 'sure' a plebiscite would lose, implying its more than a raze margin that would vote this down, and not just the "old male" demographic. Speaking about...

I don't understand this reply to me to be honest. I don't necessary disagree with what you wrote and even if I do, not intended to argue it as it wasn't the point of my post and doesn't make sense in the context of my post. I was providing examples of why its not just old men who are against...