Glenco
Senior Member
Not necessarily. The property to east up to 101 street could be developed first.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
IanO
Senior Member
thommyjo
Senior Member
Spineless city run by a bunch of St. Albert wannabe elites.
Like I get there’s gotta be compromises…but sheesh. Add this to the list of vacant lots breaking all our bylaws.
If they were building other housing I’d understand. But literally there’s nothing under construction for them currently. By 2050 their 2015 plan won’t even happen…
Avenuer
Senior Member
Council pushed their decision on it to the April 2nd Public Hearing as there is a more fulsome parking lot report going to Urban Planning Committee on March 19th that would help inform their upcoming decision.
thommyjo
Senior Member
What will the report say that’s new?
97, not 93% are not licensed properly or adhering to bylaws?
David A
Senior Member
If so, at this point then what is another parking lot or two? Good sense would dictate that if you have a law that is not being enforced, you should start enforcing it, get rid of it, or change it.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Based on the amount on land and money these guys have tied up in our city, I think we can play a little more hard ball to get them moving.
Free parking lot that makes money? That changes the evaluation. Empty dirt that we tax more, maybe it’s better to start building.
David A
Senior Member
You either start to play hard ball with everyone, or you create a bad situation by being selective. I don't think anyone respects the rules now, so something bigger probably has to change.
If it made economic sense to build now, it would happen without being heavy handed.
If it made economic sense to build now, it would happen without being heavy handed.
thommyjo
Senior Member
But does policy not also factor into those economics?
Barely taxed, no costs required to upgrade to proper parking design rules, no fines for non compliance, etc.
They might “own” the land, but it’s still our city’s greatest asset.
If the city is too aggressive, it might lead to a bunch of crappy low rises, lost trust, future fears of buying property DT, etc. but I’d say we’re too far on the spineless side and that encourages speculation and land holding for decades until our market hits rates like in Calgary and elsewhere.
IanO
Senior Member
Of course I would rather see development, but if not, pave it, drain it, light it and landscape it to meet the bylaw.
David A
Senior Member
I don't disagree with improving the parking lot, but my concern is that could make it permanent. I feel this location was meant to be temporary so the better solution would be if the extension were shorter than requested.
I do believe they want to develop it and in a few years conditions for that could be much better. So give them a bit of time, but not too much.
I do believe they want to develop it and in a few years conditions for that could be much better. So give them a bit of time, but not too much.
IanO
Senior Member
Always a risk, but it is the bylaw after all and is a negative impact to the lots around them currently.
Plus, when the economics work, the ROI from developing those lots will certainly recoup all of those 'investments' in short order.
It's a bad precedent to not only extend a lot's permit, but to not uphold the bylaw when they have the chance sends a message to other gravel surface lot owners to not do F-all.
Plus, when the economics work, the ROI from developing those lots will certainly recoup all of those 'investments' in short order.
It's a bad precedent to not only extend a lot's permit, but to not uphold the bylaw when they have the chance sends a message to other gravel surface lot owners to not do F-all.
David A
Senior Member
But if I understand correctly, they haven't been upholding the bylaw for a long time, so really the message has been sent a long time ago.
Apparently enforcement is not a priority now for the city administration if I understand correctly, but those who pass laws don't always realize enforcement is another matter.
So council needs to make a decision: enforce the law for everyone, change it or get rid of it.
Apparently enforcement is not a priority now for the city administration if I understand correctly, but those who pass laws don't always realize enforcement is another matter.
So council needs to make a decision: enforce the law for everyone, change it or get rid of it.
Greenspace
Senior Member
"...we try to spend the same on capital spending in Calgary as we do in Edmonton whether it's with the gentrification of the second phase of the Oilers..." - Premier Danielle Smith (31:00)
Avenuer
Senior Member
Let's see if they actually follow through with $330 million for Downtown - it's not like Marlaina or the UCP are the most trustworthy or stick to their word...