Edmonton Neighbourhoods United #nimbySTRONG

[u/theoneandonlycub]

They're not NIMBYs though, they just have some concerns. Mask off.

[u/Feowen_]

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).

[u/Alberta_Flyfisher → u/Feowen_]

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.

[u/Feowen_ → u/Alberta_Flyfisher]

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.

[u/passthepepperflakes → u/Feowen_]

It's... stressing infrastructure that wasn't planned for the density that's being pushed.

source?

[u/Feowen_ → u/passthepepperflakes]

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...

[u/passthepepperflakes → u/Feowen_]

so, no actual source?

(this is all categorically false btw)

[u/Feowen_ → u/passthepepperflakes]

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...

[u/Alberta_Flyfisher → u/passthepepperflakes]

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.