[policyenthusiast]

I don't like that bylaw as it is right now, but repealing it completely isn't the answer. Yes, it needs to be tweeked, but repealing it completely is a huge step backwards.

I think a large amount of the "repeal" criticism is rooted in the idea that it's a new bylaw, when its close to an amalgamation and simplification of the previous LUB. I think if more folks understood that repealing 20001 means more than doubling the amount of zones and restrictions, and the macroeconomic impacts of a repeal such as higher property taxes, there would be less of a sentiment.

As long as Cartmell and his party don't start rallying support for a repeal, it will hopefully remain a somewhat fringe issue.

 

[trevorhayden]

Oftentimes, economic development policies and advocacy turn into subsidies for businesses that could help themselves anyway. I have always believed that if you support people, you will inherently support businesses.

 

[BrettB]

I think a large amount of the "repeal" criticism is rooted in the idea that it's a new bylaw, when its close to an amalgamation and simplification of the previous LUB. I think if more folks understood that repealing 20001 means more than doubling the amount of zones and restrictions, and the macroeconomic impacts of a repeal such as higher property taxes, there would be less of a sentiment.

As long as Cartmell and his party don't start rallying support for a repeal, it will hopefully remain a somewhat fringe issue.

I think you're right, but most people will never look beyond what's happening on their block, and many will be lured by calls to preserve it

 

[thommyjo]

Caterina provided a single out of context statistic and you responded by doing the same. More than 1% of Edmontonians may well regularly cycle but far fewer than 54% of Edmontonians regularly cycle, never mind cycle year round, particularly to work which I think is likely the statistic Caterina was cherry-picking. While your single statistic isn't inaccurate, I still think it's cherry-picking to try and make a point just as much as Catarina's which is where the misrepresentation - for both of you - arises. Furthermore, I believe I provided enough additional statistics to demonstrate that.

I don’t think 54% is cherry picking. It’s emphasizing that well over half of our residents do bike. Many might only bike a handful of times in the summer. But those are still people who benefit from investing in bike infrastructure.

And that stat helps to counter the silly 1% stat that emphasizes people who primarily bike, year round, for commuting. Which massively excludes all youth, non work trips, winter vs summer seasonality. It’s a dumb stat.

It’s like saying 0% of people use outdoor pools year round and therefore we shouldn’t have them. Or 2% of kids using playgrounds weekly, year round. So let’s remove the hundreds of millions invested in playgrounds citywide.

I’d argue the 54% is a more helpful stat than the 1% one.

 

[policyenthusiast]

From Taproot:

Edmonton has 230 hectares of shovel-ready industrial land, 1,150 hectares of partially serviced industrial land, and 7,000 hectares of land that are vacant and can be developed or is planned for development, according to an update on the Industrial Investment Action Plan that will be presented to council’s executive committee on June 18. The update said there are 747 vacant industrial sites in the city. To streamline approval processes for non-residential investment, administration has created a program that will provide new proposals for industrial buildings that meet certain criteria a guaranteed timeline of 40 days for development and partial building permits. Administration has also worked with 12 regional partners to create a collaborative economic development program where Edmonton could invest in non-residential sites outside of its boundaries. Municipalities would share in the costs of making a site shovel-ready and also share in the resulting revenue. The action plan was developed to address Edmonton’s decreasing share of non-residential land in the region. Such land is critical to the city’s finances because industrial land is taxed at a higher rate than residential properties and can therefore lessen the tax burden on residents.

 

[thommyjo]

From Taproot:

Edmonton has 230 hectares of shovel-ready industrial land, 1,150 hectares of partially serviced industrial land, and 7,000 hectares of land that are vacant and can be developed or is planned for development, according to an update on the Industrial Investment Action Plan that will be presented to council’s executive committee on June 18. The update said there are 747 vacant industrial sites in the city. To streamline approval processes for non-residential investment, administration has created a program that will provide new proposals for industrial buildings that meet certain criteria a guaranteed timeline of 40 days for development and partial building permits. Administration has also worked with 12 regional partners to create a collaborative economic development program where Edmonton could invest in non-residential sites outside of its boundaries. Municipalities would share in the costs of making a site shovel-ready and also share in the resulting revenue. The action plan was developed to address Edmonton’s decreasing share of non-residential land in the region. Such land is critical to the city’s finances because industrial land is taxed at a higher rate than residential properties and can therefore lessen the tax burden on residents.

We’re in a very tough spot to compete with all our surrounding municipalities. Not sure the solution tbh. Seems like a huge uphill battle, especially when we build housing on the doorsteps to these other city’s industrial areas. (Secord, chapelle).

I’d rather us get serious about commercial and downtown as that’s something Leduc, stony plain, and fort sask can’t compete on.

 

[policyenthusiast]

We’re in a very tough spot to compete with all our surrounding municipalities. Not sure the solution tbh. Seems like a huge uphill battle, especially when we build housing on the doorsteps to these other city’s industrial areas. (Secord, chapelle).

I’d rather us get serious about commercial and downtown as that’s something Leduc, stony plain, and fort sask can’t compete on.

Assuming no soil contamination, agricultural applications would be nice as an interim use. Farmers pay property taxes, vacant land costs taxpayer dollars.

Plus you can always convert a farm into a refinery, but you can't convert a refinery into a farm.

 

[David A]

From Taproot:

Edmonton has 230 hectares of shovel-ready industrial land, 1,150 hectares of partially serviced industrial land, and 7,000 hectares of land that are vacant and can be developed or is planned for development, according to an update on the Industrial Investment Action Plan that will be presented to council’s executive committee on June 18. The update said there are 747 vacant industrial sites in the city. To streamline approval processes for non-residential investment, administration has created a program that will provide new proposals for industrial buildings that meet certain criteria a guaranteed timeline of 40 days for development and partial building permits. Administration has also worked with 12 regional partners to create a collaborative economic development program where Edmonton could invest in non-residential sites outside of its boundaries. Municipalities would share in the costs of making a site shovel-ready and also share in the resulting revenue. The action plan was developed to address Edmonton’s decreasing share of non-residential land in the region. Such land is critical to the city’s finances because industrial land is taxed at a higher rate than residential properties and can therefore lessen the tax burden on residents.

and a heck of a lot of vacant store fronts downtown and a fairly high downtown office vacancy rate, but this never seems to be the city's priority.

 

[buildings]

Today Trump declares that he has ordered a massive clamp down on immigrants in democrat cities.. This is why I will never vote for anyone who is part of a political party in municipal governance.

 

[policyenthusiast]

Today Trump declares that he has ordered a massive clamp down on immigrants in democrat cities.. This is why I will never vote for anyone who is part of a political party in municipal governance.

...because of immigration? Not seeing the link.

 

[fromyeg]

Tim “Build it Better” Cartmell again wants to stop all building.

 

[BrettB]

So... plan for 2million while gutting the housing plan to handle 1.25 or 1.5 mil? Not sure I get it.

He does have a point about maintaining the public trust (although personally, I think the loudest/only voices are people with NIMBY tendencies, whether or not they're overt), but I don't understand the point he's making about infrastructure and planning... those factors (water, sewer, mobility) are examined in every single rezoning proposal that goes to council.

 

[fjordgard]

View attachment 661396


Tim “Build it Better” Cartmell again wants to stop all building.

This is just performative nonsense that he knows is going nowhere. I hope the rest of council asks him zero questions about this motion, immediately asks to call the question and votes it down. Don't give him the soapbox he is begging for.

 

[Kosy123]

So business friendly Cartmell wants to put a moratorium and pause on hundreds of millions of dollars of residential investment?

Cartmell once again showing why he doesn't deserve to be in the Mayor's seat.

 

[policyenthusiast]

This is just performative nonsense that he knows is going nowhere. I hope the rest of council asks him zero questions about this motion, immediately asks to call the question and votes it down. Don't give him the soapbox he is begging for.

Yep, it's a crowdpleaser announcement with no substance. He doesn't even know how a moratorium COULD be implemented, and it's going to be shot down by Council.