TAS
Senior Member
No one? Not one councillor met your expectations on the infill debate? What what you have done differently that no other councillor did on this infill issue?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Airboy
- Start date
No one? Not one councillor met your expectations on the infill debate? What what you have done differently that no other councillor did on this infill issue?
David A
Senior Member
They are not all rotten, but no one really comes out of this looking good because of all the rotten apples. A reasonable proposal is made, it is defeated by those that bother to show up and complained about by a couple fo those that don't including one that swears at another councilor.
Hey dysfunctional and ineffective Edmonton city council, just keep what you are doing and the voters will throw all bums out even more.
itom987
Active Member
Would anyone support me if I ran for council?
TAS
Senior Member
So what exactly do you want those councillors who are not "bad apples" to do to avoid getting labelled as "dysfunctional and ineffective"?
kcantor
Senior Member
None of them met my expectations either.
All of them succumbed to the planner’s fascination with numbers and prescriptive formulas that allow them to play architect with no responsibility for the final built form.
Not a single one of them made any real attempt to address the elephant in the room which was and remains quality of design and respect for things like streetscapes and urban form and fabric.
The problem is that zoning doesn’t address the elephant in the room because zoning is only concerned with what takes place within the property lines while the impact and concerns are what’s taking place outside of the property lines.
Last edited:
policyenthusiast
Active Member
I have no idea who you are, so you have my vote.
trevorhayden
Active Member
I have no problem with current Council direction.
TAS
Senior Member
In watching some of the council comments at the end, I actually did hear a desire and interest to perhaps not use number of units as a priority criteria but other elements, too.
I agree some things have been built that shouldn't have (I feel that way about a lot of SFH as well), and this city is going first in Canada in many regards and there are going to be learnings and changes required. Some were just made.
I read an example in Calgary of one of their infill builders has actually put in place a service to pick up garbage/recyables rather than the city to avoid all the black and green bins out in the alley. I don't recall how it is set up but it sounded smart. Blatchford should look at that.
trevorhayden
Active Member
Blatchford was going to have vac tube waste disposal but we can't have nice things in Edmonton.
kcantor
Senior Member
^^
In Edmonton, the purpose of Bylaw 20363 is: "(a) To establish a public utility to be the exclusive provider of routine scheduled residential waste collection and disposal as a Waste Utility Service from homes in the City of Edmonton".
Emphasis added.
I'm not sure how strictly this is monitored or policed as there seems to be a couple of firms that say they offer regularly scheduled residential garbage pickup within the city (albeit it at pricing that seems at first glance higher than the City charges) but should they choose to it would seem to be pretty simply to enforce if they chose to in that all they have to do is fine the operators for not having a business license.
Interestingly enough, I am aware of several large mixed use sites that are effectively having to deal with two providers - one for the commercial components and a second one (the City) for the residential components which means two completely separate waste handling streams and sets of equipment on the same site.
In Edmonton, the purpose of Bylaw 20363 is: "(a) To establish a public utility to be the exclusive provider of routine scheduled residential waste collection and disposal as a Waste Utility Service from homes in the City of Edmonton".
Emphasis added.
I'm not sure how strictly this is monitored or policed as there seems to be a couple of firms that say they offer regularly scheduled residential garbage pickup within the city (albeit it at pricing that seems at first glance higher than the City charges) but should they choose to it would seem to be pretty simply to enforce if they chose to in that all they have to do is fine the operators for not having a business license.
Interestingly enough, I am aware of several large mixed use sites that are effectively having to deal with two providers - one for the commercial components and a second one (the City) for the residential components which means two completely separate waste handling streams and sets of equipment on the same site.
johnnyboy
Active Member
Michael Walters is planning to run for mayor: https://troypavlek.ca/posts/michael-walters-intends-to-run-for-mayor
trevorhayden
Active Member
Oh fock. Too many well meaning white guys.
kcantor
Senior Member
^
While I think we can agree that no one should get a job just because they’re a white guy, no one should be precluded from a job just because they’re a white guy either.
And, for what it’s worth, on our current Council only 3 of the 13 are white guys.
While I think we can agree that no one should get a job just because they’re a white guy, no one should be precluded from a job just because they’re a white guy either.
And, for what it’s worth, on our current Council only 3 of the 13 are white guys.
Glenco
Senior Member
What an ignorant statement
TAS
Senior Member
Wow. That makes things very interesting.
A lot of the downtown business community was behind Tim - it will be interesting to see if people start jumping ship.