News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.8K     0 
trtcttc said:
My point was they should've started tying federal funds to zoning and housing long ago. Is that really outside their jurisdiction? I'd argue if there is federal funds involved in building a transit line, a sports centre, etc. it is perfectly reasonable to ask for changes that help their priorities. If this had happened earlier, Calgary would've been a beneficiary of additional federal funding.
Click to expand...
It is smart for them to say sure, we'll fund this but only if you do X, Y, and Z for housing. Imagine a debate about Glenmore Landing, 2501 Richmond, and Trellis that included the element that if we don't do this as a council, the feds will not fund more buses for Calgary Transit.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
It is smart for them to say sure, we'll fund this but only if you do X, Y, and Z for housing. Imagine a debate about Glenmore Landing, 2501 Richmond, and Trellis that included the element that if we don't do this as a council, the feds will not fund more buses for Calgary Transit.
Click to expand...
The feds won't fund many buses for Calgary Transit regardless of City policy, yet they will fund buses for the TTC even if Toronto does not take on NIMBYs.
 
DougB said:
Reduce demand
Click to expand...
How do you expect any government (LPC, CPC) to do this?

Personally, I don't expect either to have reduced immigration to any amount that would reduce demand.

I'll make a partisan statement rather than skirt around it and say I would expect conservative governments in Ottawa and Edmonton to not increase people's wages (real and minimum wages); reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund universities, where people go to increase their earning potential; reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund healthcare so people either get sick or cannot be as healthy as they can be and miss out on wages, to go back to my first point; reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund childcare that means someone has to stay home with kids, or people make the choice not to have kids (eventually leading to underfunded government because there is no tax base); reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. And the bolder keeps rolling down hill, you get what I'm saying. So I think there are definitely ways to reduce demand for housing but those don't seem to work well with other modern priorities.

DougB said:
The feds won't fund many buses for Calgary Transit regardless of City policy, yet they will fund buses for the TTC even if Toronto does not take on NIMBYs.
Click to expand...
Yeah, your comments never have anything to do with the governing party... We were talking in hypothetical terms about how the federal government could adjust their funding for city priorities based on housing policy. As far as I know they don't do this. But yeah Calgary Good Toronto Bad.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
How do you expect any government (LPC, CPC) to do this?

Personally, I don't expect either to have reduced immigration to any amount that would reduce demand.

I'll make a partisan statement rather than skirt around it and say I would expect conservative governments in Ottawa and Edmonton to not increase people's wages (real and minimum wages); reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund universities, where people go to increase their earning potential; reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund healthcare so people either get sick or cannot be as healthy as they can be and miss out on wages, to go back to my first point; reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund childcare that means someone has to stay home with kids, or people make the choice not to have kids (eventually leading to underfunded government because there is no tax base); reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. And the bolder keeps rolling down hill, you get what I'm saying. So I think there are definitely ways to reduce demand for housing but those don't seem to work well with other modern priorities.


Yeah, your comments never have anything to do with the governing party... We were talking in hypothetical terms about how the federal government could adjust their funding for city priorities based on housing policy. As far as I know they don't do this. But yeah Calgary Good Toronto Bad.
Click to expand...
Federal spending or hiring in Calgary does not change electoral outcomes. Federal spending or hiring in Toronto, and most of Canada, does. Regardless of party in charge.

The Feds could reduce demand for housing by reducing the capital entering the housing market. If, for example, CHMC would only insure the first $250K of a mortgage or if down payments couldn't be sourced from HELOC's or reverse mortgages, more buyers would balk at high prices and prices would come down.

Part of Canada's productivity challenge is that it allocates too much capital to unproductive assets like housing.
 
DougB said:
CHMC would only insure the first $250K of a mortgage or if down payments couldn't be sourced from HELOC's or reverse mortgages
Click to expand...
Appreciate the reply, I would maybe raise this a little higher than $250k as the average home is much more than that. Otherwise, I agree the ability to get large sums of cash for little risk should eliminated. I don't even think a reduction in prices would be necessary a plateau of home prices would do unbelievable things.
 
DougB said:
The feds won't fund many buses for Calgary Transit regardless of City policy, yet they will fund buses for the TTC even if Toronto does not take on NIMBYs.
Click to expand...
I'm no fan of the feds but this is just false... there's federal funding all throughout the province.

discoverairdrie.com

New transit projects set for 50 Alberta communities, including Airdrie

The federal government announced that local infrastructure upgrades are coming to over 50 communities across Alberta, including Airdrie, through 48 active and rural public transportation projects after a combined investment of more than $60 million from the federal government and recipients...
discoverairdrie.com discoverairdrie.com

Canada and Calgary invest in greener future for public transit in the city - Canada.ca

Today, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Natural Resources, George Chahal, Member of Parliament for Calgary Skyview, City of Calgary Mayor, Jyoti Gondek, and Jodie Parmar, Head of...
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca

CalgaryTiger said:
It is smart for them to say sure, we'll fund this but only if you do X, Y, and Z for housing. Imagine a debate about Glenmore Landing, 2501 Richmond, and Trellis that included the element that if we don't do this as a council, the feds will not fund more buses for Calgary Transit.
Click to expand...
I'm fully supportive of this all throughout the funding scheme. Same with the city council. Communities that are YIMBY should be given more funds for public infrastructure improvements. There's a system design required here but if residents can see tangible benefits from new housing, the NIMBY attitude would decrease dramatically.
 
trtcttc said:
if residents can see tangible benefits from new housing, the NIMBY attitude would decrease dramatically.
Click to expand...
This would take coordination between councillors and sometimes a long memory to institute. However, leaving services as they are in areas that constantly use the argument that they don't want things to change is exactly what they want. So if you're on council, you'd have a good argument for not improving services in the NIMBY neighbourhoods or streets.

For example, a street in Altadore is getting a couple infills, they have been fighting them tooth and nail, yet this street just got curb extensions. No infills, no curb extensions. No infills, no more frequent bus service., etc.
 
Looking around the neighbourhood...

Looks like a mixed-use 5 over 1 going in across the street from Central Memorial High School.

1741979292373.png

  • a mixed-use development comprising of commercial and residential dwelling units in street-oriented buildings with either commercial or residential uses at street level;
  • a maximum building height of 24 metres, about six storeys
If this gets approved that is very interesting. There is nothing like this around here. Precedent setting. It is actually a great location as there is the 13 that goes right by here which gets you downtown and to MRU. The Max Yellow is also close by as well as the 7. This is what I am talking about above, if this gets approved 50th Ave should get the bike lane extended to MRU.
 
trtcttc said:
I'm no fan of the feds but this is just false... there's federal funding all throughout the province.

discoverairdrie.com

New transit projects set for 50 Alberta communities, including Airdrie

The federal government announced that local infrastructure upgrades are coming to over 50 communities across Alberta, including Airdrie, through 48 active and rural public transportation projects after a combined investment of more than $60 million from the federal government and recipients...
discoverairdrie.com discoverairdrie.com

Canada and Calgary invest in greener future for public transit in the city - Canada.ca

Today, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Natural Resources, George Chahal, Member of Parliament for Calgary Skyview, City of Calgary Mayor, Jyoti Gondek, and Jodie Parmar, Head of...
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca


I'm fully supportive of this all throughout the funding scheme. Same with the city council. Communities that are YIMBY should be given more funds for public infrastructure improvements. There's a system design required here but if residents can see tangible benefits from new housing, the NIMBY attitude would decrease dramatically.
Click to expand...
That's really the core of our nimby problem I think. People think there are zero consequences to blocking development and they have everything to lose by letting it happen. There needs to be a more direct link (practically and psychologically) between development and service improvements.
 
CallmeCatbread said:
That's really the core of our nimby problem I think. People think there are zero consequences to blocking development and they have everything to lose by letting it happen. There needs to be a more direct link (practically and psychologically) between development and service improvements.
Click to expand...
A basic start would be to use population estimates based on last census + approved developments. On the backgrounder to all the development proposals, they still reference each communities population by the 2021 census. I'm not sure if they use more updated figures internally, but when they compare and score projects, they should be taking into account all the approved developments.
 
trtcttc said:
A basic start would be to use population estimates based on last census + approved developments. On the backgrounder to all the development proposals, they still reference each communities population by the 2021 census. I'm not sure if they use more updated figures internally, but when they compare and score projects, they should be taking into account all the approved developments.
Click to expand...
I don't think they have updated figures internally, because they killed the municipal census in 2020, so federal 2021 is the best they have.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top