Out of Towner
Active Member
It's not the responsibility of inner city home owners to accommodate your desire to live in an inner city community. We spent money on commuter bike paths for a reason. That's good enough.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Barnaby
Senior Member
Since when is zoning deregulation (land use deregulation) "progressive"? What insane world are you living in?
It's libertarian.
It's libertarian.
constance_chlore
Active Member
Sure, yeah, no individual strictly has the right to live in a specific place in a specific type of housing. It's the job of the city government to represent what is best for the city and its residents as a whole, which is assuredly not "SFHs only in inner-city neighborhoods forever."
Besides, aren't you invested in trying to gut bike lane funding? Make up your mind.
Out of Towner
Active Member
Since when does an 8 suite infill in the middle of a SFH street respect existing housing and community standards? Constance said that the councilors that didn't vote on the 8 suite bylaw were derelict in their duty. What do you think?
Out of Towner
Active Member
You want to pressure single family homeowners out of their communities. At the same time you want millions spent on miles of commuter bike paths. Those are two conflicting policy objectives.
constance_chlore
Active Member
If single family homeowners want to stay in their communities, they can resort to such strategies as "not selling their house." The rest of the post is a non sequitur so eh.
roe_
Active Member
That's what I don't understand about this. People talk about infill like there aren't people wanting to move into them. But we know that infill wouldn't happen if the units couldn't be sold, so there is clearly market demand. What NIMBYS are effectively saying is that "if you can't afford a SFH, go somewhere else".
kcantor
Senior Member
Except it doesn't quite work like that does it?
There isn't an issue with people not selling their homes, there's an issue with what purchasers of adjacent lots to those homes and allowed replace the previous homes with and we're not talking about incremental changes to front, rear and side yards, we're talking about not having to provide off-street parking and not having adequate garbage and recycling options etc.
What's taking place is insensitive - if not inappropriate - building form and use. It's no different than allowing someone to put a warehouse in the middle of an existing residential neighbourhood and justifying on the basis of the city not having enough light industrial/distribution space.
Out of Towner
Active Member
You're right. You don't understand. It's not the responsibility of single family homeowners in Edmonton's established communities to solve what some people perceive as unaffordable housing. If housing is unaffordable, then it's better to remedy that situation by building on under utilized land like the Stationlands project has done. No need to enact zoning bylaws that drive up the price of property in thriving established communities when there are other better options available.
kcantor
Senior Member
If housing is unaffordable, it's better to remedy that situation on the demand side, not the supply side. What's needed is an increase in the incomes of those who can't afford housing noting that this also means they can't afford food or clothing or transportation or education or medical or dental care and they still won't be able to afford those things if they're provided with "affordable housing". If that needs a universal basic income or something similar, so be it. It's also worth noting that a UBI is transportable so that people can take advantage of jobs or training or educational opportunities that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do because they' can't afford to relocate and give up their subsidized housing and they can't afford to commute from their subsidized housing to those opportunities.
Out of Towner
Active Member
A municipal election that turfs all of the half wit councilors who are trying to turn the whole city into a dogs breakfast can't come soon enough. In the mean time it might not be prudent to give them any ideas about zoning industrial parks in Crestwood or Highlands or Strathcona or Windsor Park because there's no guarantee that they wouldn't do it.
constance_chlore
Active Member
Sure, but that's not a question of being forced out of your home; it's a question of finding that your home no longer has all the attributes you once found desirable, be that sunlight for gardening, ample street parking, the perception of privacy, etc. It's best if we can satisfy the preferences of as many people as possible, but in some cases you can't. There's a balance to be found, and we can quibble about what it is, but I don't think there's any reason to see the preferences of existing homeowners in an area as a trump card over those who would like to live in inner-city neighborhoods, but can't due to their current lack of stock and consequent unaffordability. To go down that route would mean a continuation of the trends we've already seen: the aging and hollowing-out of inner city neighborhoods, the closure of schools, etc. etc.
Personally, when I walk around a neighborhood like McKernan-Belgravia and I look at all the anti-infill signs, I really can't see what people are objecting to. No doubt there are some really bad, insensitive infills, but I also think there's a lot of catastrophizing about this topic.
Subsidizing the demand side has been tried a million times all over the world and is a consistent failure as a long-term solution (conceding that there may be a limited place for policies like rent control). If there's too little housing for the number of people, no amount of giving would-be buyers money or tax breaks will allow them to fit; it just drives up prices. UBI might be a fine approach to other problems, but it doesn't fix this one.
buildings
Active Member
I believe there is an existing thread for infill housing discussions. please use it.
roe_
Active Member
So supply shouldn't be increased, but incomes should be subsidized to make properties more affordable? Really?
And people should have a veto over the property rights of a neighbour because they might plan something that doesn't fit in?
At the end of the day, I doubt people will change their minds much on infill. But for all the people who are sure it will ruin our city, I see infill as: a chance to reinvigorate older neighbourhoods, a way to manage the cost of housing, an opportunity for more local and small businesses to thrive, a more environmental approach to housing and a way to accommodate everyone at every stage of life in their own neighbourhood.
And people should have a veto over the property rights of a neighbour because they might plan something that doesn't fit in?
At the end of the day, I doubt people will change their minds much on infill. But for all the people who are sure it will ruin our city, I see infill as: a chance to reinvigorate older neighbourhoods, a way to manage the cost of housing, an opportunity for more local and small businesses to thrive, a more environmental approach to housing and a way to accommodate everyone at every stage of life in their own neighbourhood.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Yes and no. Blanket rezonings help to reduce the impact vs only a small area allowing higher density.
But it’s true, upzoning increases the value of what can be built. However, home prices will still go up even more from limited supply of units. 3-8 units going on 1 property will help affordability more than the 100k increase in vacant land value.