General Infill Discussion

[CplKlinger]

Any idea if banning RS upzoning applications outside 400m of major corridors was passed? That was another big one that got considerably less airtime.

Was that part of the nodes/corridors package? They voted to send all of admin's district plan recommendations to public hearing, so if that was one of them, then yes.

 

[policyenthusiast]

Was that part of the nodes/corridors package? They voted to send all of admin's district plan recommendations to public hearing, so if that was one of them, then yes.

Not sure what package it was in, unfortunately. But it was in item 7.2 yesterday.

 

[CplKlinger]

It was (and I guess is), how much money must be spent when developing a new house. It was definitely designed for 1900 house costs.

Yeesh, I had no idea a restrictive covenant could regulate that sort of stuff. Here's the full document.

 

[policyenthusiast]

On the note of restrictive covenants, Michael Janz is advocating for the GoA to stop grocery stores from placing restrictive covenants on former grocery lands. The RCs apply to any remotely similar use, including restaurants, cafes, corner stores, and a lot more. It's part of the reason Griesbach has been floundering to get a local grocery store for years.

https://www.michaeljanz.ca/groceries

 

[northlands]

^ Good to see some political support on that, those RCs should have been abolished ages ago, but especially over the past ~25 years where the grocery business has been entirely consolidated into an oligopolistic market of really just 4-5 firms.

 

[kcantor]

^ Good to see some political support on that, those RCs should have been abolished ages ago, but especially over the past ~25 years where the grocery business has been entirely consolidated into an oligopolistic market of really just 4-5 firms.

There is a time and a place for RC’s. They can be instrumental in being able to attract a grocer as well as other attractive users (anything from day care to restaurants to banks to liquor stores) to locations/markets that are close to supporting one but not strong enough to support two. The party taking the initial risk is simply negotiating some security and the opportunity to recoup their investment.

The problems for the community arise when that initial user vacates those initial premises and the community loses that offering and cannot replace it.

The reason the RC’s traditionally remain is that a user - grocers in particular - might vacate a store but they would rarely vacate a market so the move was most often for larger spaces serving that same community.

As stores became larger and populations more mobile, the result has been a reduction in locally available services.

The initial reasons for RC’s are still viable as is some of the rationale for maintaining them. The best solution is likely not to abolish them but to require some toke of sunset clause - say 36 months following the initial use vacating the initial premises. Interestingly enough, that may provide some additional incentive to the initial user not to vacate in the first place.