News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.1K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.3K     0 

Municipal Politics

thommyjo said:
Our new suburbs are very dense and a huge improvement to older ones.

AND

I’d argue they’re limiting the densification of more central areas which already have amenities like rec centres, libraries, fire halls, schools, roads, transit, etc.

The dead horse I’ll keep beating is the thousands and thousands of new apartments in these sprawl areas. Glenridding heights, chapelle, secord. Edgemont. With 0 transit, no amenities, and overrun roads/schools.

Build those in century park, blatchford, SPR, Millwoods, WVLRT areas, Strathcona, main streets and our city is much, much better off by most measures (tax revenue, transit use, Main Street vibrancy, emergency response times, etc).
Click to expand...
Sure but we are having a tough time getting infill done in mature neighborhoods, so there’s a whole new step to start putting that type of new development into existing neighborhoods.

You also need to look at employment nodes in Edmonton, people are living in south Edmonton and working in nisku, or north Edmonton and fort Saskatchewan. They don’t want to live central, we need to create reasons for that demand.

I agree with how it would improve things, , struggling with the market mechanisms.
 
kcantor said:
Well, sort of…

54% of Edmontonians do cycle but two thirds of them (35% of all Edmontonians) only cycle once a week and only 1.8-3.8% of them (1-2% of all Edmontonians) commute to work and not all of them do so year round. Overall, less than 17% of people who ride a bike in the summer do so in the winter.

Your own education and preferences seem to be leading you to some rather careless use of statistics. For what it’s worth, I support well integrated bike routes as part of our transportation infrastructure but looking elsewhere in the world that comes from a build it and they will come approach. Trying to build it by misrepresenting current usage will only backfire.
Click to expand...
We invest less than 2% of capital spending on bike lanes, so what’s the issue?
 
Oilguy said:
Sure but we are having a tough time getting infill done in mature neighborhoods, so there’s a whole new step to start putting that type of new development into existing neighborhoods.

You also need to look at employment nodes in Edmonton, people are living in south Edmonton and working in nisku, or north Edmonton and fort Saskatchewan. They don’t want to live central, we need to create reasons for that demand.

I agree with how it would improve things, , struggling with the market mechanisms.
Click to expand...
Let Leduc provide housing for Leduc, same for fort sask. Why are we trying to house people working elsewhere?

And Century park, millwoods, and other TODs are far from central.
 
kcantor said:
Well, sort of…

54% of Edmontonians do cycle but two thirds of them (35% of all Edmontonians) only cycle once a week and only 1.8-3.8% of them (1-2% of all Edmontonians) commute to work and not all of them do so year round. Overall, less than 17% of people who ride a bike in the summer do so in the winter.

Your own education and preferences seem to be leading you to some rather careless use of statistics. For what it’s worth, I support well integrated bike routes as part of our transportation infrastructure but looking elsewhere in the world that comes from a build it and they will come approach. Trying to build it by misrepresenting current usage will only backfire.
Click to expand...

Caterina's post said "less than 1% of Edmontonians cycle". I provided the correct statistic. Nothing has been misrepresented.
 
My only main concern with the new ZBL is it doesn't force enough higher density housing into nodes and corridors. I would recommend lowering capacity to 6 units per lot in RS zone if more than 400 meters from a transit stop, but raising to 10 units per RS zone lot if within 400 meters of a transit stop and allowing 12 units on corner lots.
Also would upzone more land around existing and future LRT stations.
 
trevorhayden said:
My only main concern with the new ZBL is it doesn't force enough higher density housing into nodes and corridors. I would recommend lowering capacity to 6 units per lot in RS zone if more than 400 meters from a transit stop, but raising to 10 units per RS zone lot if within 400 meters of a transit stop and allowing 12 units on corner lots.
Also would upzone more land around existing and future LRT stations.
Click to expand...

The ammendments council is making are going to make more than 6 units midblock unlikely because of reduction in lot coverage allowed - I believe.
 
I'm sharing this video from Mayor Gondek yesterday on Real Talk. What struck me was how she as mayor talked a lot about business/industry development and attraction. It's such a high priority. In Edmonton municipal politics, you do not hear this kind of talk.

It's about a 20min interview.

 
TAS said:
I'm sharing this video from Mayor Gondek yesterday on Real Talk. What struck me was how she as mayor talked a lot about business/industry development and attraction. It's such a high priority. In Edmonton municipal politics, you do not hear this kind of talk.

It's about a 20min interview.

Click to expand...
I feel you have answered your own question. It is not a priority for Edmonton municipal politicians, hasn't been for a long time and it shows.

Other than a few occasional vague platitudes we don't really make an effort and we get the applicable results.
 
Gronk! said:
Simple:
Property taxes stay in Edmonton instead of Leduc or Fort Sask.
Click to expand...
But if the neighborhood costs MORE than it brings in through taxes…. Every new resident in these new suburbs loses us money, right?

So let Leduc take in net lose new development and let Edmonton focus on infill, TOD, and our existing infrastructure footprint.
 
David A said:
I feel you have answered your own question. It is not a priority for Edmonton municipal politicians, hasn't been for a long time and it shows.

Other than a few occasional vague platitudes we don't really make an effort and we get the applicable results.
Click to expand...

I also feel the province plays a significant role in industry and business development and attraction for its major cities and it shows.
 
policyenthusiast said:
Caterina's post said "less than 1% of Edmontonians cycle". I provided the correct statistic. Nothing has been misrepresented.
Click to expand...
Caterina provided a single out of context statistic and you responded by doing the same. More than 1% of Edmontonians may well regularly cycle but far fewer than 54% of Edmontonians regularly cycle, never mind cycle year round, particularly to work which I think is likely the statistic Caterina was cherry-picking. While your single statistic isn't inaccurate, I still think it's cherry-picking to try and make a point just as much as Catarina's which is where the misrepresentation - for both of you - arises. Furthermore, I believe I provided enough additional statistics to demonstrate that.
 
_urbanite said:
I don't like that bylaw as it is right now, but repealing it completely isn't the answer. Yes, it needs to be tweeked, but repealing it completely is a huge step backwards.
Click to expand...
I think a large amount of the "repeal" criticism is rooted in the idea that it's a new bylaw, when its close to an amalgamation and simplification of the previous LUB. I think if more folks understood that repealing 20001 means more than doubling the amount of zones and restrictions, and the macroeconomic impacts of a repeal such as higher property taxes, there would be less of a sentiment.

As long as Cartmell and his party don't start rallying support for a repeal, it will hopefully remain a somewhat fringe issue.
 
Oftentimes, economic development policies and advocacy turn into subsidies for businesses that could help themselves anyway. I have always believed that if you support people, you will inherently support businesses.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top