policyenthusiast
Senior Member
I've heard it's being pushed by lawyers (they get a hefty commission) and realtors (they say it'll protect property value). Unfortunately, I doubt homeowners are being told what a pain in the ass RCs are.
|
|
|
General Infill Discussion
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
kcantor
Senior Member
It might depend on how it’s originally written and registered but the removal of a restrictive covenant typically requires the consent of all of the benefiting parties, not just a majority.
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
I was chatting with a Councillor who is speaking to a lot of the people registering RCs; apparently, many are being registered with time-based sunset clauses. So at least some of them won't be as obstructive to development as Carruthers is.
kcantor
Senior Member
They’re not always a pain in the ass. I was involved in the restrictive covenants that were placed on Daon’s Norwester light/medium industrial subdivisions in the ’70’s and ‘80’s that are still in place and are still successful in enforcing landscape and architectural controls and standards that were - and remain - substantially greater than those imposed by the city.
kcantor
Senior Member
On the other hand, the Carothers RC is in place in what can be described as Edmonton most - or at least one of Edmonton’s most - desirable neighbourhoods and it could be argued that the existence of that RC is one of the underlying reasons for that.
I “get” the desire and the rationale for greater density but I’m also quite hesitant to consistently see the baby being thrown out with the bathwater as this city goes from chasing one shiny penny to the next.
roe_
Active Member
If that is the case, we should call it what it is: a policy of exclusivity. The true 'value' of such a covenant is its ability to keep people out and require those with fewer means to live elsewhere. That is certainly a position one can take, but we should at least be honest about the intent.
archited
Senior Member
Maybe we could have RCs on Regency and Westrich lands (kidding but not; kidding but not; kidding but not). Architectural standards could be drastically improved.
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
To each their own, I suppose. I think The View is a beautiful building.
kcantor
Senior Member
I’m not sure it really is a policy of exclusivity as much as it is a policy of elitism.
In that vein, I’m also not sure that elitism is necessarily a bad thing. I’m always reminded of the fact that most things can be reduced to their mathematical equivalents and the only common denominator is always the lowest, never the highest.
I am lucky enough to live in a house that is technically mine although practically it is owned by one of Canada’s big 5 financial institutions. Does that make me and my neighbours privileged? Damn right it does. Does that mean our houses shouldn’t exist where they do and that there should be eight suite apartments on each of our lots instead? I don’t think so and doing so would destroy much of the character of the neighborhood that prompted us to build here more that twenty years ago.
Our neighborhood is home to people born in Canada, immigrants from many parts of the world, people who are working and others who are retired, and people living in a variety of family structures. It is in that respect I don’t consider the neighbourhood to be exclusive although I’m prepared to accept it as an elite neighbourhood.
Should I ever need surgery, I want it delivered within an elite medical system by elite professionals. I want my grandchildren to be able to obtain an elite education in their chosen field taught by qualified and respected and well paid teachers in quality classrooms. I want elite safety standards and inspections to govern the food I purchase and the elevators I ride in…
I also want - and am prepared to pay for - an elite taxation system that includes a minimum annual income that provides a universal foundation for all Canadians to build a successful life on without sacrificing dignity while they pursue their goals.
Opportunity is what should be available to all of us on a non-exclusive basis. Does that mean that everything should be available everywhere for everyone? I don’t think so and if that makes me an elitist I’m ok with that.
David A
Senior Member
The discussion about restrictive covenants is part of the push back against the current free for all that is happening. It is not just an Edmonton thing, but has happened in other cities too, some with more development pressures.
It is not always easy to determine what is reasonable or not when people who live in an area want to preserve a neighbourhood. It can be dismissive by those who don't live there to label legitimate concerns as something else.
I also don't know if bureaucrats or politicians who don't know the area well are well equipped to deal with this either, so there can be a lot of frustration about not being understood or heard.
It is not always easy to determine what is reasonable or not when people who live in an area want to preserve a neighbourhood. It can be dismissive by those who don't live there to label legitimate concerns as something else.
I also don't know if bureaucrats or politicians who don't know the area well are well equipped to deal with this either, so there can be a lot of frustration about not being understood or heard.
roe_
Active Member
It is rare to see someone defend exclusivity so plainly; usually, people hide behind 'character' to mask the intent of keeping others out. But calling it what it is only reveals the next issue: this isn’t about what you do with your property — it’s about you telling your neighbours what they can do with theirs. I don't begrudge anyone for wanting a certain lifestyle, but I have little patience for the idea that a neighbour should dictate how I use my land. A restrictive covenant effectively strips away a person’s property rights to satisfy a neighbour’s aesthetic preference. Fortunately, the city’s new zoning changes suggest we are finally moving away from letting neighbours micromanage how others live.
kcantor
Senior Member
^
I think you have it backwards. A restrictive covenant is not a neighbour dictating to other neighbours what they can do with their property. A restrictive covenant is not arbitrarily imposed on others but are entered into by neighbours who concur on what it is they want to achieve with their properties individually and collectively. They are not - and do not - keep out or restrict anyone who does not voluntarily accept those mutually agreeable restrictions. It is in fact those who want to restrict their use that are telling neighbourhoods what they can and cannot do in their neighbourhoods. What they are doing in restricting building form and land use is no different in principle than what our zoning bylaws do .
I think you have it backwards. A restrictive covenant is not a neighbour dictating to other neighbours what they can do with their property. A restrictive covenant is not arbitrarily imposed on others but are entered into by neighbours who concur on what it is they want to achieve with their properties individually and collectively. They are not - and do not - keep out or restrict anyone who does not voluntarily accept those mutually agreeable restrictions. It is in fact those who want to restrict their use that are telling neighbourhoods what they can and cannot do in their neighbourhoods. What they are doing in restricting building form and land use is no different in principle than what our zoning bylaws do .
ADob
Active Member
I've always been against the idea of RCs but frankly, given some of the absolute crap being built by unscrupulous (or maybe plain gormless) developers, I can hardly blame people, especially if they feel the City isn't listening.
trevorhayden
Active Member
So glad we have RC opponents. It's a whole new industry for the legal consulting sector!
roe_
Active Member
While arguing this might be a classic exercise in internet futility, I have to point out the flaw in your logic: a covenant isn't about protecting your own property rights; you already have the right to decide what you build on your lot. It’s about stripping those rights away from the next owner. You aren’t controlling your property, you’re attempting to control someone else’s future. Furthermore, because a covenant can’t be removed without the consent of every beneficiary, it is the definition of neighbours dictating to neighbours. Zoning and covenants may share similar results, but only one of them is a democratic tool that evolves with the city. The other is just a permanent legal shackle on a property you no longer own.