[Calgcouver]

From what I've seen, opposition to blanket zoning seems to be from people of all colors and sexes, but almost exclusively from people who are owners of single or semi detached homes, even if those homes aren't in an affluent neighborhood.

Sure, easy to say that it’s all genders. Less so for colour, opposition is pretty overwhelmingly white. But the common thread is the opposition is much older and largely boomers or older gen xers, and I’d be surprised if that’s a contentious point. Not exactly the folks we need to be focussing our future housing policies on, nor the group that’s adversely affected by the affordability crisis.

 

[badc0ffee]

It's an age and economic class thing. What, you think old wealthy Asian people are in lockstep support of this?

 

[Calgcouver]

It's an age and economic class thing. What, you think old wealthy Asian people are in lockstep support of this?

True, mostly just that the older demographic trends whiter than younger gens. Coming from Vancouver development/planning you’re not wrong at all

 

[trtcttc]

Honestly don’t understand all this discussion about race, gender, age, etc. the people opposed are obviously homeowners because the majority of them are not looking to sell to a developer and like living in their neighborhood. It’s natural that there is fear of change when the benefit communicated to them is more affordability for other people.

I see the mention of how much this will save in planning costs, yet those savings will just vanish into some other vanity project. If council calculates said costs and passes budget reductions to account for these savings along with blanket rezoning, I would see more people support it seeing how this benefits them via lower taxes.

 

[darwink]

The cost savings are long term with lower service growth, not reducing costs today, as the city is still growing. The planning cost savings are costs not paid by taxes, but are instead costs paid by people who buy new units.

Any attempt to quantify that dollar savings on services (possible) would only be relative, not absolute. It would be possible to project that out over time. Turning that into levy differences per typical residential is damn near impossible beyond the immediate year, to the point where I would call any long term projections like that fantasy.

People also have a nasty habit of calling projections promises, and interpreting a projection of a reduction in levy from where it would otherwise be as an absolute cut, and then would feel even more mad when the 'promise' of an absolute cut was 'broken'.

Frankly, I think people who would be converted by the economic efficiency angle are already converted from the 'supply and demand works' and 'less government rules' angle.

It is best to recognize opponents of most density as a vocal minority, and those who are further down the engagement spectrum (those who show up) as the extreme representation of that minority (not that they're extreme, but that they're further down the engagement spectrum). It is best to be cognizant that attendees at planning meetings are not representative of communities for the most part, in age, in background, in income, and in home tenure status, and for Council to internalize that so they can project perhaps what the overall opinion might be, given who shows up, before they decide their vote.

 

[badc0ffee]

It is best to recognize opponents of most density as a vocal minority, and those who are further down the engagement spectrum (those who show up) as the extreme representation of that minority (not that they're extreme, but that they're further down the engagement spectrum). It is best to be cognizant that attendees at planning meetings are not representative of communities for the most part, in age, in background, in income, and in home tenure status, and for Council to internalize that so they can project perhaps what the overall opinion might be, given who shows up, before they decide their vote.

But again, if this was opposed by a minority, there would be no hesitation to put it to a plebiscite. There are good arguments for it, but "opposed by a vocal minority" is not one of them.

 

[darwink]

But again, if this was opposed by a minority, there would be no hesitation to put it to a plebiscite.

Plebiscites aren't great. This argument is bogus.

People would vote for no carbon taxes, yet would vote for strict environmental targets, and against environmental regulations.

People would vote for lower taxes without the context of service cuts, would vote for service increases without the context of tax increases. People would vote for freezing taxes and then complain as services degrade, or vote for service increases and then complain as taxes increased.

The Olympics is a prime example. People voted against the cost and yet we spent most (if not more) of that projected budget on the things anyways! Without the Olympics. With a few years delay. With far less matching funds.

I doubt the question would contextualize things:
'Do you approve of the creation and application of ground oriented four-plex zoning as the base level of zoning in Calgary, which will create 120,000 additional units of housing in Calgary over the next 50 years, while reducing municipal taxes by 30% from where they would otherwise be, while constraining housing costs, both rental and ownership, while ensuring neighbourhoods can retain existing schools'

'Do you approve of retaining single residential zoning over 61% of Calgary's zoned land base, which will increase Calgary's taxes by 30% over time, and lead to housing costs continuing to increase far above economic, inflation, and wage growth, while ensuring population declines in Calgary's existing neighbourhoods imperil service delivery including causing the closure of local schools'?

 

[Mull]

Plebiscites aren't great. This argument is bogus.

People would vote for no carbon taxes, yet would vote for strict environmental targets, and against environmental regulations.

People would vote for lower taxes without the context of service cuts, would vote for service increases without the context of tax increases. People would vote for freezing taxes and then complain as services degrade, or vote for service increases and then complain as taxes increased.

The Olympics is a prime example. People voted against the cost and yet we spent most (if not more) of that projected budget on the things anyways! Without the Olympics. With a few years delay. With far less matching funds.

I doubt the question would contextualize things:
'Do you approve of the creation and application of ground oriented four-plex zoning as the base level of zoning in Calgary, which will create 120,000 additional units of housing in Calgary over the next 50 years, while reducing municipal taxes by 30% from where they would otherwise be, while constraining housing costs, both rental and ownership, while ensuring neighbourhoods can retain existing schools'

'Do you approve of retaining single residential zoning over 61% of Calgary's zoned land base, which will increase Calgary's taxes by 30% over time, and lead to housing costs continuing to increase far above economic, inflation, and wage growth, while ensuring population declines in Calgary's existing neighbourhoods imperil service delivery including causing the closure of local schools'?

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 carefully and rarely in a democracy, where we have elected representatives. That doesn't mean the majority don't oppose this change.

To me, all evidence (as little evidence I have) points that a large majority oppose this rezoning change.

 

[darwink]

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 carefully and rarely in a democracy, where we have elected representatives. That doesn't mean the majority don't oppose this change.

To me, all evidence (as little evidence I have) points that a large majority oppose this rezoning change.

I would say that a lot of people when asked to make a binary choice will make the status quo choice, as contextualizing the entire development system and the economics of housing is not something we should expect, nor ask, individuals to optimize for the best outcome.

This does not equate to thinking that a majority of people are aligned with the vocal minority.

How quick are we to forget the secondary suite fight, which had the exact same dynamics.

I think voters in general are smart about government performance in general, but asking questions on individual elements is a very bad thing.

Anyways, if a street wants to lock themselves in time, there is nothing stopping the property owners from adopting a restrictive covenant.

As we've seen in Chinook Park, Kingsland, there doesn't seem to be appetite in actually bringing in restrictions when it comes down to brass tacks despite self appointed leaders in the neighbourhood acting as if there is near universal levels of support.

 

[Mull]

I would say that a lot of people when asked to make a binary choice will make the status quo choice, as contextualizing the entire development system and the economics of housing is not something we should expect, nor ask, individuals to optimize for the best outcome.

This does not equate to thinking that a majority of people are aligned with the vocal minority.

How quick are we to forget the secondary suite fight, which had the exact same dynamics.

I think voters in general are smart about government performance in general, but asking questions on individual elements is a very bad thing.

Anyways, if a street wants to lock themselves in time, there is nothing stopping the property owners from adopting a restrictive covenant.

As we've seen in Chinook Park, Kingsland, there doesn't seem to be appetite in actually bringing in restrictions when it comes down to brass tacks despite self appointed leaders in the neighbourhood acting as if there is near universal levels of support.

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 they would prevent this re-zoining from taking place there, or are people under the assumption they would loose their power?

 

[trtcttc]

The cost savings are long term with lower service growth, not reducing costs today, as the city is still growing. The planning cost savings are costs not paid by taxes, but are instead costs paid by people who buy new units.

Any attempt to quantify that dollar savings on services (possible) would only be relative, not absolute. It would be possible to project that out over time. Turning that into levy differences per typical residential is damn near impossible beyond the immediate year, to the point where I would call any long term projections like that fantasy.

People also have a nasty habit of calling projections promises, and interpreting a projection of a reduction in levy from where it would otherwise be as an absolute cut, and then would feel even more mad when the 'promise' of an absolute cut was 'broken'.

Frankly, I think people who would be converted by the economic efficiency angle are already converted from the 'supply and demand works' and 'less government rules' angle.

It is best to recognize opponents of most density as a vocal minority, and those who are further down the engagement spectrum (those who show up) as the extreme representation of that minority (not that they're extreme, but that they're further down the engagement spectrum). It is best to be cognizant that attendees at planning meetings are not representative of communities for the most part, in age, in background, in income, and in home tenure status, and for Council to internalize that so they can project perhaps what the overall opinion might be, given who shows up, before they decide their vote.

We simply don't know if a majority approve or disapprove, and the reasons you gave are simply conjecture. What we do know is that the majority of people paying attention to the issue and choosing to participate in our democratic process are opposed to the idea.

The economic efficiency angle is unconvincing because the proponents are unwilling to guarantee it. I agree logically that service cost growth should be slower with more density, but is that really the case? Do we see Toronto have lower property taxes (not just rate since their prices are higher but actual taxes paid)? There's a lot of knock on effects of increased density that are not accounted for in the simple argument of less roads to maintain. I fail to see how economic efficiency to a homeowner, is at all impacted by supply and demand. Increase supply and affordability literally is not in the interest for the homeowner. I support the rezoning initiative, because I'm used to living in denser areas and I think our environment can improve with density. However, I think proponents need to go beyond "the greater good" and come up with arguments and actual policies that provide benefits to existing homeowners instead of empty promises of lower fees/taxes/etc. that can never be accurately forecasted or realized.

 

[Urb]

I would say that a lot of people when asked to make a binary choice will make the status quo choice, as contextualizing the entire development system and the economics of housing is not something we should expect, nor ask, individuals to optimize for the best outcome.

This does not equate to thinking that a majority of people are aligned with the vocal minority.

How quick are we to forget the secondary suite fight, which had the exact same dynamics.

I think voters in general are smart about government performance in general, but asking questions on individual elements is a very bad thing.

Anyways, if a street wants to lock themselves in time, there is nothing stopping the property owners from adopting a restrictive covenant.

As we've seen in Chinook Park, Kingsland, there doesn't seem to be appetite in actually bringing in restrictions when it comes down to brass tacks despite self appointed leaders in the neighbourhood acting as if there is near universal levels of support.

A RC can be overridden by DC land use. See Banff Trail case law. Unless an entire street goes the heritage preservation route, homeowners are SOL.

 

[Red Star]

Plebiscites aren't great. This argument is bogus.

People would vote for no carbon taxes, yet would vote for strict environmental targets, and against environmental regulations.

People would vote for lower taxes without the context of service cuts, would vote for service increases without the context of tax increases. People would vote for freezing taxes and then complain as services degrade, or vote for service increases and then complain as taxes increased.

The Olympics is a prime example. People voted against the cost and yet we spent most (if not more) of that projected budget on the things anyways! Without the Olympics. With a few years delay. With far less matching funds.

I doubt the question would contextualize things:
'Do you approve of the creation and application of ground oriented four-plex zoning as the base level of zoning in Calgary, which will create 120,000 additional units of housing in Calgary over the next 50 years, while reducing municipal taxes by 30% from where they would otherwise be, while constraining housing costs, both rental and ownership, while ensuring neighbourhoods can retain existing schools'

'Do you approve of retaining single residential zoning over 61% of Calgary's zoned land base, which will increase Calgary's taxes by 30% over time, and lead to housing costs continuing to increase far above economic, inflation, and wage growth, while ensuring population declines in Calgary's existing neighborhoods imperil service delivery including causing the closure of local schools'?

Why aren't Plebiscites that great? Isn't that the most direct form of Democracy? Call me an optimist, but I think given the information presented, the general public will act in the best interest.

 

[darwink]

The existing restrictive covenants in Britannia for example, is it assumed that they would prevent this re-zoining from taking place there, or are people under the assumption they would loose their power?

I would say people aren't entirely knowledgeable about the power of restrictive covenants. Even owner groups I've engaged with (Mount Royal mostly) which were covered by a covenant did not understand the full extent of their power, and that it was up to them to enforce the private legal contract. Elbow Park people I engaged with certainly didn't know they could but in place new covenants if they wanted to.

 

[darwink]

A RC can be overridden by DC land use. See Banff Trail case law. Unless an entire street goes the heritage preservation route, homeowners are SOL.

Not exactly. Requires a court process with low odds of success on the developer's part. Depends on how it was written of course. Not all are created equal.