[CalgaryTiger]

FYI on where the Western Standard thinks council is ideologically. I decided not to provide a link to avoid such a rag getting clicks. (My comments are in non-italics)

Ward 1, Kim Tyers. Her first term on council, replacing Sonya Sharp. Definitely to the right.

Ward 2, Jennifer Wyness. Reelected. Wyness stays in the centre on most issues, but can lean left at times

Ward 3, Andrew Yule. A newbie on council, with leftist politics.

Ward 4, DJ Kelly. Another first-timer; also left.

Ward 5, Raj Dhaliwal. Reelected. Occasional centrist. but mostly left.

Ward 6, John Pantazopoulos. First timer, more a centrist.

Ward 7, Myke Atkinson. Interesting spelling of his first name, Atkinson is new and left.. (My comment, nice comment to make about someone's name they were very likely given)

Ward 8, Nathaniel Schmidt. Another of the 10 new faces who is left.

Ward 9, Harrison Clark. Also new and left.

Ward 10, Andre Chabot. Longest serving member of council, on the right.

Ward 11, Rob Ward. Former Western Standard bearer; everything’s all right. (My comment, lol this writer is a loser)

Ward 12, Mike Jamieson. Interesting spelling of his first name. Plays right wing. (My comment, he has a sense of humour)

Ward 13, Dan Mclean. Reelected. Right wing, through and through. (My comment, hopefully takes him out for dinner before... nevermind)

Ward 14, Landon Johnston. First-timer and the man who started the Jyoti Gondek recall campaign. definitely on the right.

For those not counting...

It adds up to six on the right side, two in the middle and six on the left, with Farkas, by our measure, in the centre, for a total of 15 councillors.

It gives Farkas, and the councillors identified as being in the centre, a lot of power that needs to be used with common sense, not ideology. The first big test will be a motion to repeal the banket upzoning bylaw, which Farkas has promised to put to council.

Maybe this isn't as a conservative council as I thought. This writer definitely has a red hat that says, "If you ain't right, you ain't right". Might be more of a Progressive Conservative council, isn't that brand coming back Provincially?

 

[lemongrab]

I think it is probably true that Dhaliwal, Wyness, Pantazopolous, and Farkas are the ones most likely to vote either way. I'll be pleasantly surprised if JP turns out to be a centrist, but I suspect he is more of a traditional conservative. FWIW he did use Wildrose/Reform colours, which raises a bit of a navy/green flag for me, but who knows.

Wyness seems to have a better voting record than I'd expect from hearing her talk, but maybe she's just bad at talking? I really respect her for writing her rationale on that page, though.

- Pro re-zoning but wants to keep parking minimums (pretty moderate I guess)
- She voted against the 'safe and inclusive access bylaw' (library protest stuff). She had a few valid concerns but I'm not sure I buy her arguments overall
- No to a bunch of housing task force recommendations. Again some valid concerns, others I don't buy. I'm not sure why this council seemed to struggle to break items out for separate votes in a few of the meetings I've seen to at least ensure the easy stuff gets passed.

So definitely a mixed bag. Still seems right side of centre to me, but I think she might also just be a bit of a contrarian.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Blanket re-zoning may be gone, unless the fiscally conservative amongst the council members votes with the progressives, assuming there is some sort of forfeiture of funding from the Feds.

I could see Main Streets being on the chopping block, or at least I could see a reduction in funding for the next budget cycle, meaning a slower roll-out.

I don't know if a field house will remain a priority either.

I expect one of the first orders of business will be blanket zoning, as it seemed to be the hottest issue of the election. Apparently 8 of the 15 have stated they'll repeal it, so it's possible it might be gone. The positive side I'm hearing from some of the opponents of blanket zoning is that they want more discussion about it, maybe council can come together as a group to make changes to it rather than repeal it altogether.

 

[trtcttc]

I think they will appeal and amend, while discussing with the feds on how far they can go while keeping the housing accelerator funds. I support the housing accelerator fund, but it really should be about units, rather than policy. Should be about the end results, rather than doing things that the government thinks will get more units.

 

[darwink]

Should be about the end results, rather than doing things that the government thinks will get more units.

It is really hard though, as it could remove the incentive for good policy moves if there is a downturn, or a housing oligopoly that thinks there is a downturn. Planner organizations protested the HAF hard by saying there were millions of properties zoned for that weren't being built, thinking that meant adequate supply existedand that that was the only market equilibrium available to us.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Isn't the fund about changing the means so that you can get to the end? If the means prevents the end, then you need to change the means, see the Statscan numbers thread.

I'll be very curious if those conservatives on council can talk out of both sides of their mouth: Reducing red tape while also creating a fresh role of red tape.

I fully understand they're more populist than traditional conservative, it is how they got to their position on blanket rezoning. Which if it was called Red Tape Reduction zoning would be fine. I also believe most things are communication and design problems though.

 

[lemongrab]

I'll be very curious if those conservatives on council can talk out of both sides of their mouth: Reducing red tape while also creating a fresh role of red tape.

If the UCP are any indication, that is exactly what they'll do

 

[trtcttc]

Isn't the fund about changing the means so that you can get to the end? If the means prevents the end, then you need to change the means, see the Statscan numbers thread.

I'll be very curious if those conservatives on council can talk out of both sides of their mouth: Reducing red tape while also creating a fresh role of red tape.

I fully understand they're more populist than traditional conservative, it is how they got to their position on blanket rezoning. Which if it was called Red Tape Reduction zoning would be fine. I also believe most things are communication and design problems though.

But housing construction is complicated. There's economic forces, migration, household formation, etc. and isn't like zoning is a singular fix. Instead of prescribing a solutions, the funds should be for how well all the factors come together to get to a unit built. Some municipalities in Ontario have gotten money for zoning changes, then raise the development charges such that units are no longer profitable. This wouldn't be an issue if we measured output instead of prescribing the best way to get there.

 

[lemongrab]

But housing construction is complicated. There's economic forces, migration, household formation, etc. and isn't like zoning is a singular fix. Instead of prescribing a solutions, the funds should be for how well all the factors come together to get to a unit built. Some municipalities in Ontario have gotten money for zoning changes, then raise the development charges such that units are no longer profitable. This wouldn't be an issue if we measured output instead of prescribing the best way to get there.

Output isn't the only metric to consider - we could build like crazy on the outskirts to achieve a really strong output number and reduce the sticker price of housing, but then living costs would still increase a bunch (personal transportation costs, higher taxes for less efficient delivery of infrastructure and services, etc). From an even broader governance standpoint, we also know car dependency leads to: less active mobility, more stress, more car crashes, and more pollution (healthcare costs, loss of productivity), environmental problems (both the operation and overall lifecycle of vehicles), and even more subtle things like increased isolation/reduced sense of community.

One might even argue car dependent development leads to a higher ratio of spending at multi-national corporations (big box stores, fast food, etc) compared to more local vendors. Some of these might be a bit of a stretch, but IMO they are reasonable policy considerations.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

loss of productivity

It is almost as if Canada's poor productivity can be loosely linked to our major centres having a lot of sprawl and high cost of living. So, you have a choice either you pay a lot to be close to your job or you pay less and require a longer commute.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

I think they will appeal and amend, while discussing with the feds on how far they can go while keeping the housing accelerator funds. I support the housing accelerator fund, but it really should be about units, rather than policy. Should be about the end results, rather than doing things that the government thinks will get more units.

But housing construction is complicated. There's economic forces, migration, household formation, etc. and isn't like zoning is a singular fix.

As you yourself point out, there are a lot of steps in the process between government policy and new housing units, many of which are entirely outside of the control of municipal governments. As it happens, Calgary's had record growth in the past few years. There's another world where oil prices drop and Calgary has years of negative growth, as we have before. In the record growth case, even a hostile city government that made the process worse could easily meet unit targets; in the negative growth case, even the most developer friendly government in the world can't get much housing built. So why would a (correctly) risk-averse city government sign up for funding contingent largely on things outside its' control?

 

[trtcttc]

As you yourself point out, there are a lot of steps in the process between government policy and new housing units, many of which are entirely outside of the control of municipal governments. As it happens, Calgary's had record growth in the past few years. There's another world where oil prices drop and Calgary has years of negative growth, as we have before. In the record growth case, even a hostile city government that made the process worse could easily meet unit targets; in the negative growth case, even the most developer friendly government in the world can't get much housing built. So why would a (correctly) risk-averse city government sign up for funding contingent largely on things outside its' control?

There's no need to incentivize housing if the population declines. It's not just about pure housing growth, the government should not be paying for just unit count, but how well it is pacing with population growth. We don't need to "accelerate" housing where there is no demand, but municipalities should be awarded for building units to keep pace with demand rather than policy changes that may not always lead to the expected outcome.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

There's no need to incentivize housing if the population declines. It's not just about pure housing growth, the government should not be paying for just unit count, but how well it is pacing with population growth. We don't need to "accelerate" housing where there is no demand, but municipalities should be awarded for building units to keep pace with demand rather than policy changes that may not always lead to the expected outcome.

That sounds nice in theory but this isn't a reality show or Cities Skylines. HAF is a multi-year program; why would any city sign an agreement that has them spend money in year 1 that they might not get reimbursed for because factors completely out of their control happen in year 2, 3, or 4?

And why shouldn't the feds to use funding to encourage policy changes which are very high bang for the buck (but hard for local governments to do)? Something like upzoning will help moderate housing prices over more than the life of the program. It should make cities denser and more sustainable over decades. That's a lot more valuable than building 20 extra units in 2024.

Would you do your job for four years and then get paid depending only on the Flames' record or something else entirely out of your control? That sounds like something a gambling addict might like, not a municipal government.

 

[Nimbus]

Adam MacVicar (@adammacvicar.bsky.social)

NEW: Elections Calgary confirms Jeromy Farkas is Calgary's next mayor after a recount requested by runner-up Sonya Sharp. The margin between Farkas and Sharp grew from 581 to 616 votes following the recount.

bsky.app

Bye Sonya! Go run for the UCP now...

 

[trtcttc]

That sounds nice in theory but this isn't a reality show or Cities Skylines. HAF is a multi-year program; why would any city sign an agreement that has them spend money in year 1 that they might not get reimbursed for because factors completely out of their control happen in year 2, 3, or 4?

And why shouldn't the feds to use funding to encourage policy changes which are very high bang for the buck (but hard for local governments to do)? Something like upzoning will help moderate housing prices over more than the life of the program. It should make cities denser and more sustainable over decades. That's a lot more valuable than building 20 extra units in 2024.

Would you do your job for four years and then get paid depending only on the Flames' record or something else entirely out of your control? That sounds like something a gambling addict might like, not a municipal government.

Even without blanket rezoning, Calgary was building at a much faster pace and more in line with population growth than almost any municipality in Ontario or BC. Why shouldn't that be rewarded? And now, two municipality can both have blanket rezoning, but one is building faster, and one slower, yet they both receive the same funds? We shouldn't pay for policy because the world is complex and municipalities can hit goals in a variety of ways rather than the government dictated way.
The spending should be phased. You meet your target in year 1, you get the year 1 funds, you meet it in year 2, you get the year 2 funds. I'm not sure why municipalities should require all the payment up front, when the spending should be phased by year anyways. It doesn't make sense to spend all the HAF funds in year 1, then have that funding source be 0 in years 2/3/4.

That example works, but doesn't make sense the way you've phrased it. Municipalities get their base funding, their salary, in your example. And the HAF funds is a bonus, for meeting certain performance benchmarks. Many jobs have stock options or other performance based compensation, which may not relate to your job directly (in a big company), but you get compensated for well or poorly the company is doing. No company pays a bonus up front for expected output, and neither should taxpayers.