Municipal Politics

[Policy Wonk]

I don't have a problem with dogs, I have three of them. I just don't let them do their thing in my front yard and leave it there till nature takes it's course.

What is fair is asking whether allowing an influx of renters into a neighbourhood will have a negative impact on the existing residents quality of life. This isn't Manhattan or Montreal, when you say "renter" everyone knows exactly what you're talking about and it is mostly a stage of life thing. The people who rent around here aren't a couple with two kids and two cars. It is as many young men as can physically stuff themselves in the space, their girlfriends, their large dogs and a ton of vehicles.

[suburbia]

I don't know where to ask this, but since you guys are talking about dogs, and I think if there is a rule around this it would be a bylaw, I'll ask here ...

I know there is a rule against not keeping one's yard up to a minimum standard, but I'm wondering if that extends to the amount of dog poop on one's property?

My neighbor has this rather large dog that poops bigger than I, and instead of walking the poor thing around, they just bring it out to the front yard where he does his thing. They clean it up every 15-20 days, which is a lot of poop. This is the weirdest thing.

They are a little odd, and frankly, I'm somewhat intimidated by the fellow.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

What is fair is asking whether allowing an influx of renters into a neighbourhood will have a negative impact on the existing residents quality of life.

I respect this sentiment, and certainly it is a legitimate position, however is this not the central tenet (no pun intenant.. intended) of NIMBYism? I know NIMBY can be a dirty word around here, but it's fair to feel that way.

If someone picks up after their dog (as is the law), obeys parking bylaws, is reasonably quiet, and is other wise a good citizen, should they not have the right to rent from whomever will give them a room? Should it be my right to object as a neighbour? I think this is where we disagree. I don't see this slight increase to freedom as intolerably unjust.

In the early 80's in Calgary the average university graduate could buy a house with 3-5 years' income. Today, it could be 10 years' or more for an equivalent house. My numbers are probably off, but surely you see what I'm trying to say. For most people who aren't in a high-paying job and have no start-up cash from mom and dad, ownership is a pipe-dream. For a growing number of people, renting is not just a phase. Allowing secondary suites is a policy we can easily enact that may actually slow our crazy inflation. Landlords can pay off their mortgages easier, and renters who aspire to one day own can save more money.

[Policy Wonk]

There is a difference between people complaining about noise from an airport that was established decades before they were born and is probably quieter today than it has ever been or people who move into the entertainment district and complain about bars and people complaining about a policy that legitimizes something that their first hand experience with has been negative.

The housing situation in Calgary and across Canada today is generally lousy, but it also isn't sustainable. It will crash and crash spectacularly, but the thing about real estate crashes is outside of extreme examples of shoddy boomtime construction the housing doesn't go away even after the unsophisticated speculators and panic buyers get foreclosed and the "international investors" have laundered their money.

123456 B.C. Ltd. didn't buy a condo as a retirement property.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

There is a difference between people complaining about noise from an airport that was established decades before they were born and is probably quieter today than it has ever been or people who move into the entertainment district and complain about bars and people complaining about a policy that legitimizes something that their first hand experience with has been negative.

The housing situation in Calgary and across Canada today is generally lousy, but it also isn't sustainable. It will crash and crash spectacularly, but the thing about real estate crashes is outside of extreme examples of shoddy boomtime construction the housing doesn't go away even after the unsophisticated speculators and panic buyers get foreclosed and the "international investors" have laundered their money.

123456 B.C. Ltd. didn't buy a condo as a retirement property.

Real estate, especially residential real estate, is funny in that it does the exact opposite of what any other sector does when prices increase. If the price of steel increases, people don't start rushing to buy steel. Or corn, or refrigerators, or electronics. Prices in almost any regular economic sector act as a damper on demand. In real estate, for what psychological reason I do not know, price acts as an incentive for many people to increase demand. Working professionals with an existing home will buy a second property for rental income, because "prices are going up". Idiot investors will be tricked into buying property because "real estate always goes up". The faster it goes up, somehow convinces these idiots that there is even more incentive to invest. Which further increases prices and more idiots want to get in on the action. Then there is an epic crash and everyone loses their shirts.


I bought my condo because the mortgage rate I was offered was ridiculously low, so with condo fees and taxes, I can very comfortably afford to live there. If for whatever reason I have to move in the future, rent can easily cover the mortgage plus condo fees and taxes. Plan A is to live in the unit. Renting the place is plan B. Plan C would be to sell it. It is the idiots who reverse the order of these plans that get screwed.

[Deepstar]

You have to keep in mind that Nenshi is one guy with one vote on council and also that some of those topics are things that can't easily be changed in a three year term. Overall I think he's done pretty well.

Don't forget the food trucks! Wasn't that something Nenshi helped push through. It may not be infrastructure related, but it has been good for the city IMO.

Originally Posted by Cage

Nenshi better ideas from 2010 campaign.

1. Secondary Suites
2. Fix Audit System
3. Better Gov't for Biz - Cut Red Tape
4. Quick Convenient Airport Access
5. C Transit as Preferred Choice
6. Campaign Finance Reform
7. Sustainable, Walkable, Complete Nieghbourhoods
8. Transparent Council
9. Road Network Efficiency
10. Reduce Poverty
11. Safe Neighbourhoods
12. Public facilties for Libraries Rec Centres, Community Investment Fund.

Report Card on sucess from the cheap seats:
1. Not done. Total failure to achieve objectives.
2. Chief Auditor hired, things started to improve, Internal Audit dept still had staffing issues, Chief left and replacement does not keep up with ideas expressed in Better Idea #2. Moderate accomplishment to achieve objective.
3. Cut red tape moderate sucess, pace of change very slow.
4. Airport "tunderpass" is nearing completion. All better ideas have been accomplished. Complete sucess.
5. Fare cards not implemented. Improved signage and GPS location system is not functioning as intended. Major failure to achieve objectives.
6. Unknown how campaign finance reform is to be judged as it requires provincial action items.
7. Sucess at covering the cost of suburban infrastructure through larger lot levies. Total failure with corridor redevelopment studies - forced administration back to square one. Has created a framework to stop/halt donut development affect where 103% of pop growth occurs at the fringe. Overall moderate sucess.
8. Transparent council objective have been met (agendas online, council meeting searchable and on the web, etc.). Council meeting objectives have not been met (create city ombudsman, move public session to evenings, less tactical stuff on agenda, still must take one day off work to attend council meeting). Overall moderate sucess.
9. Snow Removal issues from 2010 have been address and are sucessful. Congestion choke points have not been addressed by this council - total failure in this area. No movement on the 14th street congestion point of SW ring road alternatives. Overall failure at achieving objectives.
10. I believe general concensus is that there has been improvement and progress in the end homelessness in 10 years and attainable homes initiatives. Overall sucess at achieving objectives.
11. Crime rate down significantly. Overall sucess at achieving objectives.
12. Central library indevelopment. Rec centre funding has not turned out the way envisioned within better idea #12, progress on the rec centre funding puts overall achievement of these objectives at moderate.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

So assholes will just give tenants their guest permits,

Absolutely, this is where some sort of enforcement would be required, so that someone can't park the same car under the same guest permit all year.

Or, would it be an option to get rid of guest permits, and simply have a certain number of permits per property, period, which can be used by owners or visitors.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I respect this sentiment, and certainly it is a legitimate position, however is this not the central tenet (no pun intenant.. intended) of NIMBYism? I know NIMBY can be a dirty word around here, but it's fair to feel that way.

If someone picks up after their dog (as is the law), obeys parking bylaws, is reasonably quiet, and is other wise a good citizen, should they not have the right to rent from whomever will give them a room? Should it be my right to object as a neighbour? I think this is where we disagree. I don't see this slight increase to freedom as intolerably unjust.

In the early 80's in Calgary the average university graduate could buy a house with 3-5 years' income. Today, it could be 10 years' or more for an equivalent house. My numbers are probably off, but surely you see what I'm trying to say. For most people who aren't in a high-paying job and have no start-up cash from mom and dad, ownership is a pipe-dream. For a growing number of people, renting is not just a phase. Allowing secondary suites is a policy we can easily enact that may actually slow our crazy inflation. Landlords can pay off their mortgages easier, and renters who aspire to one day own can save more money.

Agree. Inflation of house-price to average income is the source of alot of issues. Not every generation will be lucky to experience a 200 - 400% appreciation in 20 years of a house. Housing choice needs to respond to that fact that it will take longer to get first time home-buyers into their house than ever before. Secondary suites, lane suites and small unit sizes are all ways to counter act that.

[Wooster]

On the questions of "has the Mayor kept his promises?" or "what has the Mayor accomplished?"

A detailed accounting of all 12 of his "Better Ideas" from 2010. Lots done and lots of progress on all fronts. Have a read through.

http://www.nenshi.ca/3yearsofprogress

[Fuzz]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ca...e-match-between-farrell-taylor-1.1873184

Looks like Ward 7 may turn to a bit of a battle for Druh. Something about Kevin Taylor rubs me the wrong way. He sure has a lot of signs out....

Brent Alexander doesn't sound to bad either. Any skeletons in his closet? He's probably going to be a longshot anyway.

[Bigtime]

Brent Alexander is going to split votes away from Druh and we'll get stuck with Taylor.

So stupid.

[bigcanuck]

Ward 6 has the incumbent Richard Pootmans running against the outspoken diamond Joe Connelly (plus others). If people can remember back to when Joe was the Alderman (and whether they liked him at the time), this could be a good race.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

If someone picks up after their dog (as is the law), obeys parking bylaws, is reasonably quiet, and is other wise a good citizen, should they not have the right to rent from whomever will give them a room? Should it be my right to object as a neighbour? I think this is where we disagree. I don't see this slight increase to freedom as intolerably unjust.

Your ifs have already been addressed by a couple of people here.

While I have not experienced quite the same degree of annoyance as has been described above ... I can state without hesitation that renters, on average, are louder, park worse, and are NOT generally "good citizens". And I include my years as a renter in this. I didn't take anywhere near as good care of the house as I do ones that I've owned. I didn't worry about pissing off the neighbours with loud music at night, because "I won't be staying long anyway".

So yeah. For the 5 renters out of a 100 that are just as polite and quiet and law-abiding as homeowners - sure, let 'em all live in secondary suites and such right next door to me. Now, it's up to you to figure out just who those 5 are.

It's a real vexing problem, because we do need to figure out how to make entry-level accommodation affordable in this city. We just have to figure out how to solve the "22 year old guys with 6 figure incomes are universally assholes" phenomenon.

[5seconds]

Are the discussions regarding secondary suites currently revolving around the idea that basements can only be rented on condition that the upstairs continues to be occupied by the owner?

It seems that many of the problems mentioned would be mitigated by having the landlord live directly above the tenants, and being subjected to the behaviour of the renters?

Just a thought.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Are the discussions regarding secondary suites currently revolving around the idea that basements can only be rented on condition that the upstairs continues to be occupied by the owner?

It seems that many of the problems mentioned would be mitigated by having the landlord live directly above the tenants, and being subjected to the behaviour of the renters?

Just a thought.

It's certainly been talked about, but the problem is that it's pretty much unenforceable.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

It's certainly been talked about, but the problem is that it's pretty much unenforceable.

Just like a residential 30km/h speed limit!

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Your ifs have already been addressed by a couple of people here.

While I have not experienced quite the same degree of annoyance as has been described above ... I can state without hesitation that renters, on average, are louder, park worse, and are NOT generally "good citizens". And I include my years as a renter in this. I didn't take anywhere near as good care of the house as I do ones that I've owned. I didn't worry about pissing off the neighbours with loud music at night, because "I won't be staying long anyway".

So yeah. For the 5 renters out of a 100 that are just as polite and quiet and law-abiding as homeowners - sure, let 'em all live in secondary suites and such right next door to me. Now, it's up to you to figure out just who those 5 are.

It's a real vexing problem, because we do need to figure out how to make entry-level accommodation affordable in this city. We just have to figure out how to solve the "22 year old guys with 6 figure incomes are universally assholes" phenomenon.

If your "years as a renter" were your college or university years I understand, but that has more to do with your age and lifestyle than the fact you were a renter. The young people who party, own cars, and engage in illegal activities may be more visible than their quieter peers, but 50% of university students don't even drink, a number that is increasing as our society becomes more multicultural. It's not fair to persecute all young people, all poor people, or all renters because of a few bad ones. Responsible young people, middle class families and seniors who rent might take issue with your comment.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Brent Alexander is going to split votes away from Druh and we'll get stuck with Taylor.

So stupid.

Last election Farrell won based upon the results from Sunnyside, Hillhurst, Mount Pleasant, and Crecent Heights. These communities delivered 105% of the votes required for her to win the election. Edit to add: Sunnyside delivery 50% of the swing votes; Farell up 561 votes over Taylor.

In the last election the following communities were dead heats: Triwood, Rosemount, Cambrian Heights, Highwood, and Dalhousie. Farrell loses her seat if there is more than moderate drop in support in these areas AND Taylor picks up support in these areas. THe drop in support only has to be 200 votes per community. Pickups in the suburban areas of the riding would negate stong support from Sunnyside-Hillhurst-Crescent Heights.

Last election the ballot question for W7 was the Peace Bridge. Farrell could lose the election if the only reason Sunnyside residents supported Druh was her position on Peace Bridge. If her support in Sunnyside collapses(e.g. Farrell voters in Sunnyside stay home), it is highly likely that Farrell will lose her seat.

I don't see vote splitting with Alexander and Farrell being an issue.

[Bigtime]

See I do see Alexander as a vote splitting threat to Druh, they are very similar candidates and he will siphon off some votes that would have gone to her, quite possibly just enough in her core communities (where he is relatively well known too).

Edit: I hope you are right though.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Are the discussions regarding secondary suites currently revolving around the idea that basements can only be rented on condition that the upstairs continues to be occupied by the owner?

It seems that many of the problems mentioned would be mitigated by having the landlord live directly above the tenants, and being subjected to the behaviour of the renters?

Just a thought.

Noise and upkeep of the property are 50% mitigated by landlord being located in the primary suite. I say 50% because the landlord might be will to put up with the noise if they are receiving a premium on rent (by premium I mean an $800 second suite rental pays a lot of the $1200 mortage).

Thats said landlord occupied primary suites is the main cause of parking issues. More precisely; the landlord wants to take up all four spots (2 garage, 2 driveway) by their instance on parking at the centre of the garage. Also in landlord primary residence the garage needs to be used for storage because the basement is rented out. Therefore a two car household does not leave any parking space for the renters or the guests of the renters.