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

I would rather hear about municipal debates from a reliable news source (looking at CTV, Global, CBC, Postmedia, Taproot) than from some website that few people have heard of.
 
Gronk! said:
I would rather hear about municipal debates from a reliable news source (looking at CTV, Global, CBC, Postmedia, Taproot) than from some website that few people have heard of.
Click to expand...

Well if the big 4 all show up it will be pretty interesting I think not only in how they answer questions but how they interact with each other.

It will be broadcast live on youtube so I assume it will be available afterwards for viewing as well.

But if all the candidates are there then there may not be too much opportunity for counterpoints with each other.
 
Last edited:
TAS said:
Well if the big 4 all show up it will be pretty interesting I think not only in how they answer questions but how they interact with each other.

It will be broadcast live on youtube so I assume it will be available afterwards for viewing as well.

But if all the candidates are there then there may not be too much opportunity for counterpoints with each other.
Click to expand...
Given that all the candidates are new to running for the position of mayor, it is probably a good idea to start debates earlier and have several.

The individual candidate town halls and forums are good too, but a debate gives us a better opportunity to compare them together.
 
Listened to Knack's townhall on infill.

Regarding the Crestwood picture with two 8-plexes sandwiching the single family home: he said that's a failure, and regretful for that resident that it happened. He then noted with the changes made July 8, that would not happen given new restrictions on lot coverage. He believes it needs to continue to be refined.

He said it's not accurate to think of infill as two camps - for and against. He rarely comes across people opposed to infill, but policy needs refinement to bring people along and address some of the problems that have surfaced.

He plans to introduce a bylaw about protecting some mature trees so lots aren't fully clearcut - something some other municipalities have done.

He said city admin is still working on curbside parking strategy

He believes a better approach to engagement is needed by bringing different views in the room together. He said there is a lot of commonality.

This is a high level capture and more was said on these points and others regarding infill that I can't fully articulate here
 
TAS said:
Listened to Knack's townhall on infill.

Regarding the Crestwood picture with two 8-plexes sandwiching the single family home: he said that's a failure, and regretful for that resident that it happened. He then noted with the changes made July 8, that would not happen given new restrictions on lot coverage. He believes it needs to continue to be refined.

He said it's not accurate to think of infill as two camps - for and against. He rarely comes across people opposed to infill, but policy needs refinement to bring people along and address some of the problems that have surfaced.

He plans to introduce a bylaw about protecting some mature trees so lots aren't fully clearcut - something some other municipalities have done.

He said city admin is still working on curbside parking strategy

He believes a better approach to engagement is needed by bringing different views in the room together. He said there is a lot of commonality.

This is a high level capture and more was said on these points and others regarding infill that I can't fully articulate here
Click to expand...
I feel there also needs to be some general restriction on tearing down historic homes without a more comprehensive process. We do not have many remaining and these places are irreplaceable.

It is sad to see some of that happening now because of the changes.
 
David A said:
I feel there also needs to be some general restriction on tearing down historic homes without a more comprehensive process. We do not have many remaining and these places are irreplaceable.

It is sad to see some of that happening now because of the changes.
Click to expand...

Some of these historic homes have been neglected by the owner for so long or they have been unable to financially keep up with maintenace.

The two-storey brick duplex on 112st/99ave that is being discussed on another thread is an unfortunate example of a place that has been neglected so badly whether on purpose or not for a loooong time.
 
Yes, when it comes to historic buildings in Edmonton it seems to be mainly a series of "unfortunate" circumstances.

That is a just description or explanation of the problem(s), but not a solution
 
TAS said:
Listened to Knack's townhall on infill.

Regarding the Crestwood picture with two 8-plexes sandwiching the single family home: he said that's a failure, and regretful for that resident that it happened. He then noted with the changes made July 8, that would not happen given new restrictions on lot coverage. He believes it needs to continue to be refined.

He said it's not accurate to think of infill as two camps - for and against. He rarely comes across people opposed to infill, but policy needs refinement to bring people along and address some of the problems that have surfaced.

He plans to introduce a bylaw about protecting some mature trees so lots aren't fully clearcut - something some other municipalities have done.

He said city admin is still working on curbside parking strategy

He believes a better approach to engagement is needed by bringing different views in the room together. He said there is a lot of commonality.

This is a high level capture and more was said on these points and others regarding infill that I can't fully articulate here
Click to expand...
Thanks for this summary, I got too busy to make it. Was the audience tone hostile or did it stay pretty civil?
 
policyenthusiast said:
Thanks for this summary, I got too busy to make it. Was the audience tone hostile or did it stay pretty civil?
Click to expand...

Civil - a couple of Crestwood people, too, but very civil.

Honestly, I credit Knack for that - I feel like because he always shows respect, that's the tone he usually gets in return (at least for most part).
 
As we know, the province provided $330 million to Calgary for their arena deal and Edmonton was looking for (promised?) parody with that.

The funding the province has offered (phase 1) for the OEG event centre and other Ice District money plus demo of Coliseum was $187 Million.

Knack made a motion approved today to have council's weight/support behind mayor to push for a second phase of provincial money for the equivalent of what YYC got (so another $143 Million).

The deal for phase 1 projects hasnt been approved yet but apparently that is coming forward soon for a council decision. Here's the motion that was made and approved.

Screenshot_20250819_164141_YouTube.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top