News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.9K     0 

The big suburban builders fund his campaign. They don't care about infill.
Seeing as a substantial percent (~40%?) of new units are in redeveloping areas, there must be someone with a financial stake in infill development. The question is whether those parties have any sense of self-preservation.

On Reddit, Troy Pavlek reports:
I reached out to Nicholas [Rheubottom], the former ED of IDEA and asked why he's running for a party with a platform of "all Nicholas's achievements are shit" and he said, essentially, that it's really valuable to be in a room of people that you disagree with about policy, and he doesn't agree with the whole motion as written.

One might wonder why, if it's valuable to have a bunch of independent voices in a room, working out the best policy - the existing system of council - he's working so hard to make sure we don't have that, and only focus on partisanship.
So maybe they don't.
 
My issue is that it is a vague comment and is causing a lot of needless uncertainty for many in the industry now.

Does it refer to specific controversial zones? Is it a blanket statement?
Currently in the design stage of a new home with 4 units (home, 2 suites, backyard house). If Tim’s motion passes, we’re at risk of tens of thousands of dollars in carrying costs and design changes. This is like trump trashing the markets with reckless tariff twitter comments. Pausing ALL infill is mindlessly stupid and disruptive with potentially huge consequences for those currently building and smaller businesses/trades.
 
Currently in the design stage of a new home with 4 units (home, 2 suites, backyard house). If Tim’s motion passes, we’re at risk of tens of thousands of dollars in carrying costs and design changes. This is like trump trashing the markets with reckless tariff twitter comments. Pausing ALL infill is mindlessly stupid and disruptive with potentially huge consequences for those currently building and smaller businesses/trades.
I think the backlash was immediate, because he quickly backpedaled to change "all infill" to "midblock infill".
 
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.
It’s obvious who is funding his campaign….why so such a specific interest? Try looking at the big picture Cartmelly……
 
Rahim is still the owner/operator of The Rooster restaurant on Whyte Ave, yes?
If so then he should keep his day job.
While I don't agree with him politically on some things, I have met him and he seems fairly decent. Also, unlike some of the other candidates he actually does have some experience as an elected representative.

But, I feel its a long shot, so as they say ... don't give up your day job!
 
Now that Andrew Knack has voted against the CRL (thankfully, the majority won), I'm now considering voting for Rahim Jaffer as mayor.
However, his website needs more work.
More concrete ideas, fewer vague platitudes, and no mistakes.
.
 

Rahim Jaffer's idea for downtown parking is a good one. However, I'll wait and see how he feels about infill housing, LRT expansion, public transit, bike paths and MUPs, attracting and retaining businesses in the downtown core, being a leader of the hydrogen economy and AI, homelessness, crime, Blatchford, Northlands redevelopment, regional co-operation and other municipal issues before I decide to vote for him.
 
So he wants to fill downtown's finite parking with private cars that will just take up public space for free indefinitely? No thanks. Downtown parking is full most of the time. There is no downtown vibrancy problem. If we want more people coming into downtown for cheap, take the train or bus.
 

Back
Top