[Gronk!]

Why was there a 13-0 vote for the last item (Parks and Services) while the rest of it was a 12-0 vote?

 

[policyenthusiast]

Why was there a 13-0 vote for the last item (Parks and Services) while the rest of it was a 12-0 vote?

The secret councillor, Cim Tartmell emerged from the depths to place one additional vote.

(I have no idea)

 

[David A]

Knack on another podcast, talking about development policy & city building. Ends on a note that the mayor wants stronger development of commercial & retail hubs in suburban neighbourhoods, and that we could have these hubs available today if it wasn't for the gradual exclusionary tightening of the previous zoning bylaw.

Yes commercial and retail hubs in suburban neighbourhoods make sense, but a hub is not a monster rooming house type building in the middle of a residential block full of single family homes.

 

[Tropical]

Yes commercial and retail hubs in suburban neighbourhoods make sense, but a hub is not a monster rooming house type building in the middle of a residential block full of single family homes.

...you're not serious are you?

 

[ChazYEG]

...you're not serious are you?

He's not wrong in retail hubs being a good think for suburban neighbourhoods. While the majority of us here love condos or townhomes, a lot of people also want to have single family homes. If we can improve walkability and amenities in suburban neighbourhoods, we should do so, as it has a chain effect of reducing car dependence throughout the city.
I do think having a few corner lots in these neighbourhoods become small retail buildings (maybe with housing on the second story) would be a great thing, and wouldn't give NIMBYs much reason to take up their torches and pitchforks against it.