[JuliallThat]

City legal council advised that Cartmell's motion for a moratorium on midblock infill contravenes the Municipal Government Act so it was dropped.

Afterwards, Cartmell said "The City's Legal Department shut me down".

Either Cartmell didn't know his motion for a moratorium was going to fail due to legal grounds, which means he didn't do his homework by just checking with admin if this was feasible and as a result caused unnecessary worry among builders and false hope for some residents, or he did know it was going to fail but it was a way to score some political points on a contentious issue - I tried to go to battle for you folks worried about your neighbourhoods but legal shut me down.

Either way, not good Cartmell.

Although I'm very glad the moratorium didn't go through, I don't actually understand why that would've contravened the MGA. What's the basis?

 

[TAS]

Although I'm very glad the moratorium didn't go through, I don't actually understand why that would've contravened the MGA. What's the basis?

Something to the effect that the city has its current zoning bylaw with permitted and discretionary uses (which it is required to have) and so when a builder is seeking approval for a project that is a permitted use under its bylaw the MGA stipulates that the city can not deny that application - it must issue that permit. If the city wants to change what is permitted, it must change its zoning bylaw according to MGA, rather than a moratorium.

Apparently that confidential memo was sent to all councillors prior to June 30.

 

[David A]

Something to the effect that the city has its current zoning bylaw with permitted and discretionary uses (which it is required to have) and so when a builder is seeking approval for a project that is a permitted use under its bylaw the MGA stipulates that the city can not deny that application - it must issue that permit. If the city wants to change what is permitted, it must change its zoning bylaw according to MGA, rather than a moratorium.

Apparently that confidential memo was sent to all councillors prior to June 30.

Makes some sense, so basically the current bylaw remains unless/until it is changed, you can't have a "moratorium" on it.

 

[BrettB]

Very thoughtful piece by an infill builder:

Opinion: What Edmonton is getting wrong with infill housing

There are three major problems with the city's approach to infill housing.

edmontonjournal.com

 

[policyenthusiast]

Very thoughtful piece by an infill builder:

Opinion: What Edmonton is getting wrong with infill housing

There are three major problems with the city's approach to infill housing.

edmontonjournal.com

Thoughtful is right, what a great piece. My only critique would be that the "hyperfixation on unit counts" is not something Edmonton is getting wrong. It's CMHC that are incentivizing that.

CMHC's MLI Select program is issuing half-century financing at nominal rates to help new rental housing get built fast. In order to qualify for the best rate and amortization period, the developer needs the home to fit the scoring rubric set by CMHC. This is overwhelming weighted for affordability, but eco-friendliness and accessibility also net points.

When a developer is making a property appeal to these criteria (i.e 20% of units must be accessible), you can have a much more market-friendly balance by maximizing the dwelling units per project. If you make a triplex with secondary suites, hitting the 20% mark means making 2/6 suites accessible, which is very expensive and are generally not easy to rent out. Compare that to a high dwelling unit structure with 20 units, hitting that 20% means only making 4 suites accessible.

None of this is to say that the "hyperfixation" is good or bad, just that it isn't in the City's control. It's between the developers and the feds.

 

[CplKlinger]

Something to the effect that the city has its current zoning bylaw with permitted and discretionary uses (which it is required to have) and so when a builder is seeking approval for a project that is a permitted use under its bylaw the MGA stipulates that the city can not deny that application - it must issue that permit. If the city wants to change what is permitted, it must change its zoning bylaw according to MGA, rather than a moratorium.

Apparently that confidential memo was sent to all councillors prior to June 30.

They just released a (slightly) redacted version; it was sent to Council on June 26.

 

[Gus Haynes]

Something to the effect that the city has its current zoning bylaw with permitted and discretionary uses (which it is required to have) and so when a builder is seeking approval for a project that is a permitted use under its bylaw the MGA stipulates that the city can not deny that application - it must issue that permit. If the city wants to change what is permitted, it must change its zoning bylaw according to MGA, rather than a moratorium.

Apparently that confidential memo was sent to all councillors prior to June 30.

Or in other words:

Coun. Aaron Paquette said the document shows that Cartmell went ahead with the motion, and rallied support from the public, knowing full well that infill moratoriums are outside of the municipal government’s purview.

Edmonton councillors blast Cartmell for failed infill motion

Mayor Amarjeet Sohi made public a document that show councillors were informed last week that an infill moratorium would likely be illegal.

edmontonjournal.com

 

[policyenthusiast]

Or in other words:

Coun. Aaron Paquette said the document shows that Cartmell went ahead with the motion, and rallied support from the public, knowing full well that infill moratoriums are outside of the municipal government’s purview.

Edmonton councillors blast Cartmell for failed infill motion

Mayor Amarjeet Sohi made public a document that show councillors were informed last week that an infill moratorium would likely be illegal.

edmontonjournal.com

If this wasn't a stupid idea to begin with, couldn't Council just change change certain housing forms (i.e townhomes) to discretionary use then start shooting them down? It seems like there are ways to enact a moratorium not covered in the legal document.

 

[CplKlinger]

If this wasn't a stupid idea to begin with, couldn't Council just change change certain housing forms (i.e townhomes) to discretionary use then start shooting them down? It seems like there are ways to enact a moratorium not covered in the legal document.

The memo sort of covers that.

 

[The_Cat]

'F--k you, Jo-Anne': Tempers flare in city council chambers

Scheduling crush before summer break frays nerves at Edmonton City Hall, leading to a blow up

edmontonjournal.com

 

[trevorhayden]

Love it

 

[trevorhayden]

Sohi should have used it as a reason to end the session then and there, just to give infill developers more time for 8 unit approvals.

The 6 unit limit will pass. But I suspect this time next year that City Council will be back debating another amendment to allow 8 to 10 units near schools, parks, retail, and bus stops.

 

[TAS]

Here's one thing that I found interesting to learn during public hearings on this issue. Most of the 8 unit homes being built in the city are in Prince Charles. And two more 8 unit midblocks pictured below are in Central McDougall. The councillors were told not one complaint had been issued in Prince Charles.

Significantly less have been built on the southside or in the neighbourhoods where the most complaints are coming from.

So eliminating midblock 8-plexes like these where there hasn't been issues and it is helping with building more housing is unfortunate.

 

[thommyjo]

Here's one thing that I found interesting to learn during public hearings on this issue. Most of the 8 unit homes being built in the city are in Prince Charles - by quite a bit. And two more 8 unit midblocks pictured below are in Central McDougall. The councillors were told not one complaint had been issued in Prince Charles.

Significantly less have been built on the southside or in the neighbourhoods where the most complaints are coming from.

So eliminating midblock 8-plexes like these where there hasn't been issues and it is helping with building more housing is unfortunate.

View attachment 664183View attachment 664184

Do you know how many are in Prince Charles?

I’d imagine west jasper place, Sherwood, and glenwood would be up there.

 

[kcantor]

Here's one thing that I found interesting to learn during public hearings on this issue. Most of the 8 unit homes being built in the city are in Prince Charles. And two more 8 unit midblocks pictured below are in Central McDougall. The councillors were told not one complaint had been issued in Prince Charles.

Significantly less have been built on the southside or in the neighbourhoods where the most complaints are coming from.

So eliminating midblock 8-plexes like these where there hasn't been issues and it is helping with building more housing is unfortunate.

Crap is crap and no neighborhood deserves to have to live with it for the next 30 plus years (assuming this crap lasts that long before self destructing).