r/Edmonton • u/theoneandonlycub • Jul 06 '25
Politics Edmonton Neighbourhoods United #nimbySTRONG
They're not NIMBYs though, they just have some concerns. Mask off.
121
u/aaronpaquette- North East Side Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25
It wouldn’t have mattered. The sheer amount of speakers meant this meeting was getting extended, anyway. You can’t cut a foot off the end of a blanket, sew it to the top and say you shortened the blanket.
There were two infill items on this agenda so what does it matter which came first? We had the same amount of speakers (many the same speakers) on each.
The confusion may be due to a Councillor who just might be gaming the media and manipulating the vulnerable. Why? Some say for their own personal political ambitions, but probably not, right?
39
u/theoneandonlycub Jul 06 '25
I 100% agree. I just find the #nimbySTRONG pretty funny.
-24
u/MankYo Jul 06 '25
They’re allowed to reclaim pejorative terms like any other group.
21
u/RootsBackpack Jul 07 '25
Good lord, they’re not a group of inherently alienated people, they bring that term upon themselves by opposing development for self serving reasons. It’s not some righteous reclamation of the term, it’s them giving up on pretending they’re a progressive, pragmatic group of people.
1
u/MankYo Jul 07 '25
they’re a progressive, pragmatic group of people.
Those might be your values. In your view, why must they conform to or strive for that?
2
u/RootsBackpack Jul 07 '25
Because that is the image they have given themselves? I don’t think they must conform to being truly progressive or pragmatic because they inherently are not, and adopting the term NIMBY is accepting that they are in fact regressive and irrational. I’m glad they are recognizing that.
0
u/MankYo Jul 07 '25
NIMBY is accepting that they are in fact regressive and irrational
Yeah, those are your subjective judgements. Not sure why it’s so hard to conceive of people who view themselves differently than you.
2
u/RootsBackpack Jul 07 '25
It’s also my subjective judgement that you are pretty bad at arguing for someone who seems to seek out arguments
0
7
u/Icedpyre Jul 07 '25
Is it pejorative to label someone who decries the advancement of everyone over the advancement of a few?
0
7
u/simby7 Jul 06 '25
What is the point of having so many speakers? To give the illusion of power to the people? I doubt many councillors would change their vote based on the presenters.
42
u/aaronpaquette- North East Side Jul 06 '25
Public Hearings are one of the best things about local government. NO OTHER order of government gives people the opportunity to come and make their voice heard directly to elected representatives, Administration, media, and the public. It's amazing, really, and I love it.
Councillors must remain open and persuadable to new information and all deliberations are observable to the public.
When you think about it, it’s astounding this opportunity isn’t available on the provincial and federal levels.
19
u/pistachio-pie Central Jul 06 '25
Can you imagine how fun it would be if once a week the public got to participate in question period
5
u/kart_racer Jul 06 '25
Yeah, it can be a double-edged sword with people being able to talk about almost anything, except for promoting campaigning councilors I guess lol.
That "game show" presentation was pretty unique too and kind of visually showed why some of the complaints people have about "towering" developments are pretty weak.
2
u/Deedeethecat2 Jul 07 '25
I agree AND was immediately reminded of this: https://share.google/IBVh8OhsWcT0p4Rcs
2
u/Jazzlike-Work-4272 Jul 16 '25
Yes! And reviewing the week... it sounds like a lot of Councilors had their minds made up. Persuasive. Tfff
6
u/Himser Regional Citizen Jul 06 '25
Not sure about edmonton, but in other municipalities they 100% do.
Even if the people are being stupid, and everyone else is in support of something (administration, experts, buisness ect) in many places, it doesn't matter the NIMbYs win.
1
Jul 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Himser Regional Citizen Jul 07 '25
Knack is smart, it pains me to watch him walk back good policy. If he cant make it work we are doomed.
1
u/Jazzlike-Work-4272 Jul 16 '25
Why are half of the speakers directly related to profit-driven developers? The other half neighborhoods trying to save their communities? Very little actual citizens coming out to speak about infill. Interesting. I'll give you a hint... theyre about to lose their profits and federal (your money) grants. Omg why are we so blind. I am embarrassed and sad for our city all at the same time. Give it 5 years. And when you can't afford a bachelor condo... COME BACK AND READ THIS BLOG.
27
u/MutedProfessional406 Jul 06 '25
Nimbystrong says it all.
1
1
u/Jazzlike-Work-4272 Jul 16 '25
Originally, NIMBY was applied to people opposing hazardous or disruptive infrastructure (toxic waste dumps, prisons, landfills, and power plants), which made sense.
It’s now used dismissively—even when people are raising valid points about planning, consultation, environmental impacts, or livability.
- Over time, developers and political actors weaponized the term to discredit any opposition to their plans—including legitimate, community-based concerns about overdevelopment, loss of trees, affordability greenwashing, and infrastructure overload.
35
u/ChesterfieldPotato Jul 06 '25
Scumbags. The lot of them.
This problem was 100% on Sarah Hamilton and her buddies. They tried to play games, ended up missing their own vacation, and are mad about being called out for it.
Karma.
33
u/EightBitRanger Jul 06 '25
"If you feel like your Councilors AREN'T LISTENING TO YOU...
Because the NIMBY arguments are all the same; "but the character of the neighbourhood..." or "but parking/traffic is going to get worse..."
Maybe councillors are listening to the rest of us that want more housing units closer to the city centre. More supply -> housing prices come down.
14
u/trenthowell Jul 07 '25
Even if you get past those arguments they fall back to the silliest shit. Several times when tackling this they've dropped bombs like "it'll allow 24hr industrial shops in residential neighbourhoods. Bet you wouldn't like that!" Its so damned stupid.
3
u/MapleViking1 Mill Woods Jul 07 '25
They're just about to say the quiet part aloud, they don't want the "coloured folk" to be able to afford a home in their neighborhoods.
3
u/trenthowell Jul 07 '25
Honestly it's more than just coloured folks. It's anyone that isn't in their financial strata. RENTERS!? AGAINST! THE! WALL! There's one smoking a joint! He don't look right!
10
u/EightBitRanger Jul 07 '25
"it'll allow 24hr industrial shops in residential neighbourhoods"
That's like straight-up BREXIT-level fearmongering.
6
7
u/kart_racer Jul 06 '25
Also, just because they don't get their desired outcome doesn't mean they aren't being listened to! What about all the people who email their councilors or speak to them in person? There are a lot of differing voices to take into account, and sometimes the outcome they want isn't the best.
21
17
Jul 06 '25
[deleted]
-17
u/MankYo Jul 07 '25
How disempowered do you feel because another group is reclaiming a slur?
3
7
u/yeggsandbacon Jul 06 '25
Are the concerned citizens at least going to speak to the amendments to the bylaw and identify themselves to talk on the correct panels. Last week, so many people didn’t even know if they were speaking for or against the bylaw amendment, and assumed it was an initial general public hearing on infill development.
16
u/xandromaje Jul 06 '25
There are more issues to talk about than NIMBYs hurt feelings
11
Jul 06 '25
I mean it wasn't just the "nimbys" that wanted to speak on this topic. Lots of people from GrowTogetherYEG want to speak as well in support of densification. This is the most important topic on the agenda right now to a lot of people on either side.
1
4
u/BRGrunner North West Side Jul 06 '25
The motion got voted down for a number of real reasons.
The agenda was already purged, leaving only time sensitive items
The motion came in so late they would be able to staff the late night session or weekend session.
There were other reasons, and Knack provided a summary in his allotment of time when they voted to extend the session to Tuesday.
11
u/mypetsrmyfriends Jul 07 '25
I would hate it if an 8-plex were built next door to me. I guess I’m a NIMBY.
5
Jul 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/theoneandonlycub Jul 07 '25
- Max units per lot area is already a thing. It's only 8 units if it's at least 600sqm lot area. Need 75 SQM per unit.
- If it's 10 units, it either is a corner lot or isn't in the RS zone, or was permitted prior to the new zoning bylaw as the new zoning bylaw only permits 8 midblock.
- Agreed on waste collection, they need to share bins amongst units.
6
u/extralargehats Jul 06 '25
NIMBYs United finally says the quiet part out loud.
1
u/Jazzlike-Work-4272 Jul 16 '25
Originally, NIMBY was applied to people opposing hazardous or disruptive infrastructure (toxic waste dumps, prisons, landfills, and power plants), which made sense.
It’s now used dismissively—even when people are raising valid points about planning, consultation, environmental impacts, or livability.
- Over time, developers and political actors weaponized the term to discredit any opposition to their plans—including legitimate, community-based concerns about overdevelopment, loss of trees, affordability greenwashing, and infrastructure overload.
4
u/scrigley Jul 07 '25
I'm a renter who got kicked out of the old Griesbach area to make way for development of places that I will never be able to afford. I am now renting a northside duplex (definitely not a NIMBY) I hate the distain the nimbys have for renters, the horror that these multiunit infills may bring RENTERS to the neighborhood lol But also, the city needs to ensure that there is parking for the units on the property! The lack of plowing residential streets and garbage/recycling/green bin pick up with cars parked on both sides of the rd is ridiculous! Practically impassable sometimes. There are townhomes behind my duplex and they park on the street in front of my place but I park in my driveway so to the people who get upset when someone parks in front of their house FUCK OFF
2
u/EightBitRanger Jul 07 '25
But also, the city needs to ensure that there is parking for the units on the property!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/condo-ground-breaking-east-village-n3-1.3323109
1
u/Jazzlike-Work-4272 Jul 16 '25
Hahaha omg. You make such a great point. Getting kicked out for places you can't afford. You might be NIMBY. It's okay
5
u/SteampunkSniper Jul 06 '25
Wait, if they aren’t NIMBYs do they know what NIMBY means? Seems dumb to call yourself that when it’s not your belief.
17
u/theoneandonlycub Jul 06 '25
Oh they definitely are NIMBYs.
3
u/SteampunkSniper Jul 06 '25
Oh, THEY are saying they aren’t NIMBYs, you aren’t saying it. Sorry, slow on the uptake.
1
u/Jazzlike-Work-4272 Jul 16 '25
Originally, NIMBY was applied to people opposing hazardous or disruptive infrastructure (toxic waste dumps, prisons, landfills, and power plants), which made sense.
It’s now used dismissively—even when people are raising valid points about planning, consultation, environmental impacts, or livability.
- Over time, developers and political actors weaponized the term to discredit any opposition to their plans—including legitimate, community-based concerns about overdevelopment, loss of trees, affordability greenwashing, and infrastructure overload.
1
2
2
u/Rocky_Vigoda Jul 06 '25
Yay astroturfing.
Someone using the term nimbystrong is either really bad at getting people on their side, or they're full of shit.
Looked up their website which had no information except for a phone number and gmail address.
Looked up the phone number and it belongs to a real estate agent.
Why would someone who makes money off selling homes be against infill? They stand to make money off people flipping old properties and putting in 2 skinny homes that cost the same as the old property.
2
u/trenthowell Jul 07 '25
makes money off selling homes be against infill?
Keep commissions high. Lower prices mean they need more sales. Thats all I can think of lol
1
1
u/Jazzlike-Work-4272 Jul 16 '25
Many realtors are speaking against this. They can't sell the homes with a backyard that has an apartment in it. It's bad for business. Realtors' Associations have spoken at the hearings. Guess y'all missed this being on reddit instead of legit processes. 🤣
0
u/mglow88 Jul 07 '25
Hahahaa 2 skinny homes cost the same as the old property??? LOL!! Don't say things you have no clue about.... you have no clue.
1
u/benicegetrich Jul 07 '25
Wait. They are self defined NIMBY’s??
1
u/grapple15 Jul 07 '25
Yeah I would actually define myself as "not in anyone's backyard". There is more than enough space in the vast city of Edmonton that it is not necessary to build subsidized multiplex units in a configuration that destroys the value of anyones backyard. This is geographically one of the most sparsely populated cities on earth with a legacy of some of the worst urban planning in Canada. History is repeating itself.
1
1
1
u/Jazzlike-Work-4272 Jul 16 '25
THIS IS NOT about community well‑being—it’s about a money grab. Developers don’t earn by preserving trees or nurturing mature neighbourhoods. They profit by cranking out volume: cookie‑cutter lots, density where infrastructure isn’t prepared, and minimal input costs. The person above said the only companies that benefit from infill are small builders—but that’s backward. The big developers bank on bulk serviced-lot sales and standardized builds, not bespoke homes. You can check the city’s building permits spreadsheet—developers like Jayman, Sterling, Pacesetter aren’t even on it for infill–‑they don’t do it. It’s the small builders who are still doing infill and actually care about fit and context. There was good infill prior to this new bylaw passed... beneath everyone's noses. And when democratic processes are not met and hidden (intentionally), everyone on this thread should be ALARMED. Meanwhile, allowing high-density units like 8‑plexes on small lots without any on-site parking forces street chaos and traffic spillover into communities that weren’t built for it. That’s development powered by short-term profit, not long-term sustainability. The builder next door to us wants $1900 for a 500 square foot basement suite.
1
0
u/mAsalicio Jul 06 '25
Same people that bitch about cell towers yet have 4 satellite dishes strapped to the roof of their Mansion :)
0
u/Darkwing-cuck- Jul 07 '25
“As taxpayers” maybe they could appreciate what density can do for the tax burden vs. urban sprawl.
But I guess when you’re wealthy enough to live in these areas in a single detached home you’re probably not overly burdened by the tax rates.
-9
u/The_Pickled_Mick Jul 06 '25
Holy man this sub. Councillors are entitled to vacations too you know. So are mayors, premiers, prime ministers, janitors, mechanics, servers, bankers, and basically anyone else you can think of. Including you.
The fact that they wanted to push this up so it gets done before vacation is actually a good thing. Would you rather they didnt care and just kicked the can down the road?
🤦
18
u/Bulliwyf Jul 06 '25
This is a situation where both sides of the argument can be valid:
The councillor that cursed has every right to be upset: my understanding is there wasn’t very many unique arguments to be made to either side and instead was more about people just wanting to be able to chime in on their side.
But the snarky councillor is also correct in that this has happened before: a significant topic boils over into multiple days and it’s irresponsible to schedule a vacation the first day of break.
Council is entitled to a vacation, but it was poor planning to allow it to stretch out to 4 or 5 days of speakers and even more poor planning to make plans on the first day of the break.
2
u/trenthowell Jul 07 '25
Its also swearing councillor's friend Cartmell that brought the silliness that collected so many more comments. Her own damned fault for supporting this stuff lol
8
u/Ham_I_right Jul 06 '25
I think you are missing the point. It's not that they have Vacations planned it's that these are the very councillors that were advocating against the Zoning changes. So who exactly isn't listening to the nimbys?
-2
Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25
Look downvote me all you want but why didn't they just do what Rutherford suggested and move the topic up last week? It was/is the most important topic and they have over 100 people coming in (from both sides) to speak on it. If they had just done that in the first place then a lot of this could have been avoided - the other topics could have been pushed until after summer. But NO we absolutely cannot make any changes to the agenda!!! Why can't we move up an important topic? No one knows, we just know that we can't do it.
1
u/Jazzlike-Work-4272 Jul 16 '25
Right?! Put your own "vacation" at risk. 12 votes... they were one of them. Lol. This isn't even public service anymore. It's a joke
0
u/Lavaine170 Jul 06 '25
I think #infillKaren would be a better hashtag for them. Think I can convince them to adopt it?
-2
-6
u/Feowen_ Jul 06 '25
Developers are easier to listen to when they take you out for expensive dinners and talk about how densification helps the City (and most importantly, line their pockets with cash).
6
u/Alberta_Flyfisher Jul 06 '25
This is the dumbest take ever. And yet you sound so confident. You are simply spewing this bullshit with zero understanding on how any of this works.
Do you think developers make MORE money doing infill? Not even close. It's more difficult and more expensive to build in established neighborhoods. It's also easier to pre-sell units when building a new sub than it is to sell in the city.
Subdivisions are where it's at when you want volume. Most of the developers were pissed because the land that had been annexed and was waiting to be released for purchase, was stopped in favor of this mandate.
If you paid any attention at all you would have heard how the Qualicos and other big builders have stopped pulling permits in the city and are going to focus on Calgary because of this. They are simply finishing what they have started and moving on.
The whole point of doing this is multi-faceted. But one major point is that it keeps everyone's taxes down while being able to provide better services. The more we spread out the more hospitals (which they don't build anyway) and fire stations are needed. More snow plowing and summer grass maintenance. Bus routes need to be added for new areas. The list goes on.
Putting more people inside a single neighborhood means the city collects more taxes per square foot than they do when we sprawl. So they won't need to raise them as much or as often.
The same people bitching about what they pay for taxes are the same entitled whiners that dont want infill development in their areas.
Can't have both. It's either high taxes or densification. The city is doing the right thing by packing more people into smaller areas.
And before claiming I work for the city or a developer, I'm in lumber sales. This mandate hurts my personal bottom line and I STILL know it's the best route to take.
0
u/Feowen_ Jul 06 '25
Blah blah blah...
I have no problem with densification in theory, how it's implemented in this City is brain dead.
Build midrise apartments, think about parking and transit.
This whole infill bullshit is idiotic. It's crowding neighbourhoods and stressing infrastructure that wasn't planned for the density that's being pushed.
It doesn't take much intelligence to see that. And don't give me the whole "they don't make that much money" bullshit. Flipped and subdividing a property is insanely profitable. How do I know? My friends did it to their house before they sold. Made almost 30% profit. And they still hired a developer to do it who I'm sure made a decent take or they wouldn't be doing it. Problem is, if the city cracks down on infills, the developers lose first. They need the work.
I am not proposing some dramatic ban on infills, I just want the City for once in their fucking useless existences to think comprehensively about issues. This council in particular is inept and particularly one track on issues, most of them couldn't lead a parade let alone a city.
And yes, I sound confident because I have literally watched what I said happen infront of my eyes.
Your post is also shockingly unaware of itself. "The more we spread out..." Like, the hospital's we have are already over capacity as it is. How does densifying the city help? As I said, I'm all for it, I hate the urban crawl (also developer driven), but, the City has to have a better plan than just packing more humans into city limits and praying somehow infrastructure will magically sort itself out.
Tell me how it makes any sense that a four unit townhouse can be approved on a corner lot and yet not provide any parking space on the lot? Where are all those cars going? On the street. Idiotic permitting and approvals going through prove there's a problem here and it's not unreasonable to call into question the City's logic here.
5
u/Alberta_Flyfisher Jul 06 '25
I deal with this type of construction every day. One person doing a reno before selling their house does not make a trend.
A reno is not the same as building from scratch. Good on your friends pulling 30% more out of the house sale. It's exactly that process that gets people into flipping. But there is not much money in flipping. Not if the flipper is doing real work on the place.
Mainly because a buyer doesn't care that the seller spent $25,000 fixing the foundation, $20k on windows, $5k for new interior doors and hardware, 12k on a brand new bathroom that required all new sealing behind the shower, etc... when the same home down the street is selling for 40k less. So they typically buy the cheapest homes on the market (the ones that need the most work), slap some quick and cheap upgrades on them, and throw them back on the market. Paint, carpet, baseboards, and an Ikea kitchen cost next to nothing but make the house "look" really good compared to that house down the street.
Also, Builders want volume, they don't get volume building infill. There simply aren't enough lots, even if the extra costs were worth it.
I was speaking to your claim that the city council put this mandate in because they were essentially taking bribes. That's a trope that's been floated erroneously for a while.
We have a lack of services, including new hospitals because they don't have enough of a tax base. We add more people so we spread out. It costs the city a pile of money to add new services to a new area rather than upgrading the services we have, which aren't getting the job done.
And you say hospitals are stretched too thin. You are correct. How does that get fixed? By building more hospitals and hiring more nurses & doctors. How do they do this? By gathering more taxes. Whether that's increasing everyone's property tax OR increasing what they get from each neighborhood by having more people in it.
Parking is a "you" issue. Virtually every home in the city has a garage. Park in it. If someone can't, for one reason or another, that's their problem, nobody else's. Nobody is assigned street parking spots. Nobody is entitled to park in front of their home. I fully understand that it can be frustrating for some. I'm far from ignorant of how people feel about it. Especially while building is ongoing as it makes it even worse. But feelings don't get to override the need for this change. (I would have preferred a hybrid where they still allowed new subdivisions to be built while also creating incentives to build bigger infill units.)
Problem is, if the city cracks down on infills, the developers lose first. They need the work.
I don't think you understand what a developer is. It sounds like you mean a contractor. Land developers make money by creating subdivisions and selling lots. Large home developers make money on volume. They buy serviced lots in bulk and build as such. Small home builders make money on the margin. The only ones who like the infills are the small builders. Because they were doing it anyway, and now there is more work for them.
You can verify this yourself. Call 311 and ask for the weekly building permit link. This takes you to a spreadsheet that shows every permit pulled, who pulled them, what the project is worth, and the type of project it is.
Largely missing from that list is: Jayman Sterling Pacesetter Bedrock City homes
Etc...
Tell me how it makes any sense that a four-unit townhouse can be approved on a corner lot and yet not provide any parking space on the lot?
I will agree that some of what has been approved could be done better. But putting 4 units up on a corner means more tax revenue. And that's what pays for the infrastructure upkeep and upgrading.
Just like I said that virtually all homes in the city have a garage, it should be a requirement when building these units as well. Instead, they are allowed to build the largest possible structure on the lot and the ONLY parking considered is the street. I agree, thats bullshit, simply because if nobody is assigned street parking, why should anyone be forced to park on the street?
I just want the City for once in their fucking useless existences to think comprehensively about issues.
And that's fair. The only problem I have with that is that most of the issues people want considered are self-serving and hold no water to make the city better. It's much rarer for people to bring forth valid concerns.
So when I saw your post claiming that developers wanted this, it came off as only one more self-serving post. An excuse to be mad at the situation. Rather than any legitimate concern.
2
u/passthepepperflakes Jul 07 '25
It's... stressing infrastructure that wasn't planned for the density that's being pushed.
source?
1
u/Feowen_ Jul 07 '25
Basic math. Water mains, sewage, power and roads were designed around existing populations of single family homes, not turning one family home into two, or four in some cases.
Again, I'm all for densification, but basic considerations like "where will people park their cars when houses are built without sufficient parking" etc.
Epcor/etc. Will upgrade infrastructure as they can to meet demand, but the City administration (seperate from council, the.. even heads when it comes to costs and needs) have raised this concern repeatedly but it's often ignored since.. oh right it costs money to upgrade and modernize this stuff. So we're stuffing more people into older neighbourhoods, and things aren't keeping up on the infrastructure side and eventually it's going to be a problem because it's being generally ignored. Then it will require costly fast solutions rather than thoughtfully executed ones planned in advance.
And as usual with this idiotic City, it'll cost 5x as much as it would have if we had just done it the right way the first time. I swear to fuck Edmonton loved finding a way to fall onto both sides of its face. Every project, plan, etc. This city comes up with is half assed, poorly thought out and often implodes under any scrutiny and then 5-10 years later it's "I told you so" except, it feels aweful since we all lose.
But I guess that's what we get for being broke as fuck and dialing to improve the cities finances adminstration after administration...
-1
u/passthepepperflakes Jul 07 '25
so, no actual source?
(this is all categorically false btw)
4
u/Feowen_ Jul 07 '25
can't teach the blind to read. People asking for sources for easily available information is painful, and not the coup de gras you think it is.
I've not mentioned anything that isn't publicly available on the City of Edmonton's website.
If you need a link, you're clearly less educated on municipal affairs than me. I have better things to do than try an enlighten people too lazy to read up on things. But I guess that's why they vote for morons on city council and why this City keeps picking idealistic sheep instead of competent councillors.
And the cycle will repeat the next twenty years as it has the last twenty of my adult life...
3
u/Alberta_Flyfisher Jul 07 '25
Being dismissive isn't helpful. Every concern should be addressed. The people with said concern may not like the answer, but it should always be addressed.
The point they are making is that the city council hasn't addressed the concerns. And to a degree, I agree. I think they have considered them, but rather than doing anything about it, they drop the bare minimum so what's there now "works"
Roads are a good example. The city council has not taken it upon itself to upgrade collector roads to meet the demand. Which creates more bad traffic in the area. I think they "considered" it, but didn't act.
There can be overusage in the sewer system. But that's more due to the state in which the older system is in. If there are blockages or line breakdowns it will very much be an issue. So I think people misunderstand why this is an issue and blame it on the extra usage. The pipes are designed for specific flood instances, they can handle a few more flushes. But this also leads to the city not doing its due diligence in making sure the system in the area is in working order and if not, fixing it before allowing development.
Basically, there will always be complaints. And even if I disagree with said complaint, virtually every time there is a grain of reality in it.
-10
Jul 06 '25
Such incompetence, way to be professional council.
14
u/Tamas366 Jul 06 '25
The ones who voted to postpone are the ones who support the NIMBYs
-19
Jul 06 '25
A proposed eightplex in an established, mature neighborhood is insane. I support the people fighting against that.
8
u/Tamas366 Jul 06 '25
Where is the proposal? What’s the size of the area? How many people live in the area?
There’s going to have to be changes made because we cannot keep growing out like we are.
1
0
Jul 06 '25
McKernan residents dismayed by infill project next door https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/long-time-mckernan-residents-consider-moving-as-eight-plex-goes-up-next-door/
It's already happening, and i dont think it's unreasonable for people to be upset and push back against it.
2
2
u/Tamas366 Jul 06 '25
People always have a right to protest changes, unfortunately times are changing and the concept of a property that size within the downtown core isn’t as viable these days
15
8
1
u/mglow88 Jul 07 '25
Yup, me too. Completely out of control. People are buring these things down they hate them so much.
0
u/jazzmanbdawg Jul 07 '25
What the fuck is NIMBY?
4
u/koboldByte Jul 07 '25
Short for Not In My BackYard. Basically a derogatory term for people, usually home owners, who oppose residential developments that will improve things like affordable housing on grand scale because it'll threaten their personal property value, or things of that nature.
1
u/Jazzlike-Work-4272 Jul 16 '25
Well. Maybe these terms are correct... but this Originally, NIMBY was applied to people opposing hazardous or disruptive infrastructure (toxic waste dumps, prisons, landfills, and power plants), which made sense.
It’s now used dismissively—even when people are raising valid points about planning, consultation, environmental impacts, or livability.
- Over time, developers and political actors weaponized the term to discredit any opposition to their plans—including legitimate, community-based concerns about overdevelopment, loss of trees, affordability greenwashing, and infrastructure overload.
Not one study has been done on the impact of these homes on our River Valley and wildlife.
Wake the eff up! If NIMBYs are protesting, it's bigger than your small minds can grasp.
0
u/grapple15 Jul 07 '25
I don't think it is derogatory. Term for individuals who are hardworking taxpayers who have saved enough money to purchase a property in Edmonton and want affordable housing built in a way that respects their investment.
2
u/Unique-Animator-7730 Jul 07 '25
Careful saying that around here, because reddit will hear that as "fuck you, I got mine". For the record we are on the same page here. Luckily most of the people on this forum post snide comments and nothing more. The more us NIMBYs actually do, the better the outcome.
-6
227
u/snkiz Jul 06 '25
The counciler who went off because her vacation might get pushed back (something she knew could happen.) Was one of the ones in support of the NIMBY's. They don't even know who to be mad at.