LYTLE: Developers should pay homeowners for destroying neighbourhoods

As Bill 28, the Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, makes its way through the legislative process, it will be open to amendments, and I have a few ideas.In a majority vote on April 28, Calgary’s mayor and council voted on new water restriction guidelines designed to reduce the amount of water used by citizens. Homeowners will be restricted in the amount of lawn they may cultivate and in the days on which they can water. The cost of water will be based on the period during the day that it is consumed. Miscreants who refuse to comply can be removed from the water system without prior notice. This, even though it is likely discriminatory against families. This, even though Calgary homeowners have already dramatically reduced their unit water consumption. This, even though the city has been wasting 42 billion litres of water per year for at least the last twenty-five years due to leaky pipes. This, even though we have had three recent periods of water restrictions resulting from the predictable breaks in the mainline pipe, which previous city councils, in their lassitude, refused to fix.One is tempted to believe that this latest eruption of authoritarianism from our city council is designed to hide the ineptitude of the council and staff. If history is predictive of the future, we can count on the imposition of a “snitch” line to allow citizens to report water use abuses, real or imagined, by the neighbour they are not currently getting along with. The City of Calgary is the absolute champion of the “snitch” line..Hence, my proposed amendment to Bill 28.“No civic government can entice, coerce, or otherwise allow the installation of telephone numbers, websites, or other means of soliciting and facilitating citizens to snitch on their neighbours for perceived breaches of bylaws. This provision will apply specifically but not exclusively to activities related to the use of water and activities proscribed by medical authorities.”We have had experience with two recent snitch-loving mayors, and it is time for such antisocial and authoritarian behaviour to end.Additionally, Bill 28 must include a provision based on Mosaic Law requiring restitution for losses caused to another party. Clause 4 of the 1215 Magna Carta, the basis for much of our legal system, similarly states that if a guardian "commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him.”.What is this all about?I recently attended a community meeting to discuss a development proposal for the construction of five four-storey “panopticon” townhouses on a single-family home lot. The increased density of the lot and the significant height difference from the surrounding homes were challenged by everyone in the audience. They were united in demanding that the developer remove his application for increased building density and revert to construction in keeping with the family-friendly nature of the community. The developer correctly responded that minor changes could be considered, but the proposed development met the guidelines established by the City of Calgary Development and Planning group, and the application would not be removed.A standoff had been reached. Both sides were right, but their understandings of “right” had no overlap.The coup de grace was delivered when the homeowner immediately adjacent to the proposed construction told the developers and assembled citizens that her most recent tax notice was based on a home value that was $200,000 less than the previous year. When I checked the tax assessment of my home, it had gone up. The obvious implication is that the mere threat of the construction was causing a loss of equity for the adjacent homeowners. More importantly, the change in tax assessment suggests that the impact of the proposed construction was predictable prior to the construction..Hence, I propose the following amendment to Bill 28.“Every civic government must include a provision by which developments in an existing community that change the architectural and social dynamics of that community must complete a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of the proposed development. The benefit accruing to the developer by changing the nature of the existing development (e.g., change from single-family to multifamily) must be calculated. Likewise, the cost to the adjacent landowners caused by the proposed development must be calculated. Once the benefits and costs have been enumerated, the developer will pay the adjacent landowners for the cost impacts of the development (e.g., loss in land value). Such costs will be paid prior to the start of construction, ensuring that the developer bears the full financial risk associated with the development.”.Using estimates of costs and benefits (that may not represent the situation cited above), the developer is converting a $1.2 million home into five $1.2 million townhomes by increasing lot density and arguably destroying neighbourhood ambience and the equity of adjacent homeowners. Assuming a construction cost of $450,000 per unit, the developer will experience a net benefit of $2,500,000. The five adjacent homeowners will each suffer a loss of $200,000. Thus, if the proposed amendment to Bill 28 is accepted, the developer will pay, prior to the start of construction, $200,000 in compensation to each of the affected homeowners, leaving the developer with a gain of $1,500,000.Is this the right solution? No. The developer should move his development to a more appropriate site and not anger everyone by changing the nature and amenities of this neighbourhood. But it is a fairer solution than the current status quo, and those homeowners who are penalized by the development will receive some compensation. It also might stop developers from making their profits with no regard for how they abuse the lives of others. And maybe it will disabuse future City Councils of the notion that they can change development density provisions with impunity and against the wishes of the citizens.

LYTLE: Developers should pay homeowners for destroying neighbourhoods

Related Stories

WATER vs. REFERENDUM: Smith and Nenshi begin 12-month street fight ahead of 2027 election

Corb Lund disputes Smith’s account of Water Not Coal petition meeting

MORGAN: Calgarians are paying a high price for Nenshi's vanity

Calgary city council to debate $90 a month water bill increase in November