News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 4.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 3.8K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

There is research in where opposition comes from.

Our research suggests NIMBYs are concentrated among some (but not all) segments of the political right. Nativists are more hostile to local housing development, likely out of a fear that such new housing will be populated by immigrants and racial minorities. Traditionalists and social conservatives are also more opposed to new housing and supportive policies, likely because they perceive densification to be a threat to their ideal community.

By contrast, housing makes bedfellows of egalitarians and free marketers. Both favour greater support for local housing development. Housing issues also blur typical left-right political coalitions: the political left is united in favour of more housing, while the right is divided between cultural and economic conservatives.
Click to expand...

policyoptions.irpp.org

Combat NIMBYism with transparency to help resolve Canada’s housing crisis

Combatting NIMBYism can help with Canada’s housing crisis, but political will is required to make progress.
policyoptions.irpp.org policyoptions.irpp.org
 
Silence&Motion said:
I think we're in the middle of a housing affordability crisis that is mostly affecting younger and poorer people. Older, wealthier people who already own homes are the main demographic cohort standing in the way of solutions.

I'm sure if we had a plebiscite, rezoning would lose. However, I also think any attempt raise taxes or cut services would also fail a plebiscite. Sometimes political leaders have to make unpopular decisions because it's the only way to deal with a problem.
Click to expand...

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 politicians leaders doing the right things vs popular thing is irrelevant to my comment.

You're trying to demonize and blame one demographic, while admitting there is enough opposition you are "sure" it would fail a plebiscite. I don't know why you're doing this but its gross.

Once again, I support the rezoning proposal.
 
Despite a record 700+ speakers and what is for sure the longest Council meeting ever, I wonder how much council and administration time/money was saved by doing like 200,000+ properties at once rather than all these coming in one at a time over the next 100 years?

Usually when red-tape is cut, it's just some amorphous process where it's not entirely clear how much time or money was saved, or costs just shift elsewhere in worse service delivery (on to consumers) or worse long-term outcomes in some what.

In this case, we can probably estimate at least the Council time savings doing this instead of one-by-one.
 
Mull said:
Speaking about politicians leaders doing the right things vs popular thing is irrelevant to my comment.

Once again, I support the rezoning proposal.
Click to expand...

What are you even trying to get across here? Remind me who voted in the plebiscite that set the current zoning, and what the margin was in that one.
 
trtcttc said:
The argument should be how increased density results in less taxes and better services for existing homeowners.
Click to expand...
This right here. Simple communications are always best. Putting yourself in a pretzel trying to convince people of the "greater good" never works. There's also the reduction in new development cost by avoiding the land use process.
 
ByeByeBaby said:
What are you even trying to get across here? Remind me who voted in the plebiscite that set the current zoning, and what the margin was in that one.
Click to expand...

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 against that theory!

I think that is demonizing ones opponents, and a demographic, in an attempt to minimize others viewpoints, and I think that is gross! No matter if I disagree with the CA joint letter and I support the City's proposed rezoning.

You don't?

I have no idea the answer to your question.
 
Last edited:
CalgaryTiger said:
This right here. Simple communications are always best. Putting yourself in a pretzel trying to convince people of the "greater good" never works. There's also the reduction in new development cost by avoiding the land use process.
Click to expand...

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 is a slippery slope argument, as I wouldn't want a 20 story building on the lots next to mine, but I am ok with ROW housing, so I get its a grey area where every individual has a different tolerance. I just find the tolerance of the anti-density group to be a little hypocritical compared to their ranting about taxes come election time.
 
In many peoples mind, police and fire are relatively cheap and the public art program is a massive drain on the budget.

We also hear complaints about union wages without the context the the largest growth of union wages has been police and fire.
 
Mull said:
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 against that theory!


You don't?

I have no idea the answer to your question.
Click to expand...
You raise a good point, there's absolutely overwhelming evidence that the opposition is not made up entirely of old, white men,and it's sexist to say so.

IMG_7296.jpg
 
ByeByeBaby said:
You raise a good point, there's absolutely overwhelming evidence that the opposition is not made up entirely of old, white men,and it's sexist to say so.

IMG_7296.jpg
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mull said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm agreeing with you, that the opposition is not mostly old, white men.
 
Understanding this is a development forum where we get in the weeds, we are way to in the weeds about who is and isn't making noise about this. The common ground there seems to be is that there is opposition which make some fine arguments that I assume most in this forum do not agree with.

The issue with this is it is causing a lot of noise but what I think will have quite minimal affect on those making the noise. It has taken what use to be a conversation between a developer and a neighbor that doesn't want a rowhouse going in beside them (for reasons) and turned the city into the developer and a lot of people into the neighbor.
 
ByeByeBaby said:
You raise a good point, there's absolutely overwhelming evidence that the opposition is not made up entirely of old, white men,and it's sexist to say so.

IMG_7296.jpg
Click to expand...
What is the point of those two posters about Brentwood with the bridge that goes over John Laurie? There's not even houses in the picture. No houses period is their desired outcome?

Brentwood is more strip malls and the LRT Station, than park space.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top