The old adage is wrong: you actually can fight city hall and win. Calgary city council’s repeal of the single-use bylaw last week was a great victory for the many Calgarians who pointed out the absurdity of the bylaw that required consumers to ask for a bag, utensils, napkins and condiments with their takeout orders. If they wanted a bag, they were required to pay extra, a slight extra cost perhaps, but one that most likely was already factored into the cost of the takeout. A larger, more impactful fight looms in council chambers this coming week: the approval or the defeat of the proposed bylaw that would eliminate all areas in the city zoned only for single-family homes. Hundreds of citizen warriors appeared before councillors or spoke to them on the phone, the vast majority making it very clear they were in opposition to the bylaw. Additionally, according to information supplied by the City of Calgary, there were 6,101 written submissions and 50,000 people watched the council sessions on the city’s webcasts. As one who has watched hundreds of hours of council performances, on webcasts and in person, I can affirm it is indeed painful (watching paint dry is more entertaining) and I salute everyone who participated. Council will this week receive more information from city administration and then debate amongst themselves the blanket zoning. Calgarians with the fortitude to watch the proceedings will see and hear virtue-signalling arguments from certain councillors that will brush off the very serious and legitimate concerns expressed by Calgarians about the potential ramifications of implementing the bylaw. There were many, the top one being how property values would be affected, most believing the values will go down. Other issues included a lack of parking space, potential new infrastructure costs and trash pick-up among them. There were of course Calgarians who supported the proposed bylaw, speaking of how it would increase the housing supply and make homes more affordable in the city. The blanket zoning will accomplish neither of these. The only way it could possibly increase the supply in the short term is if a huge number of Calgary’s homeowners, let’s say 1,000 of them, all decided at the same time to demolish their homes in order to build the multi-family homes proposed in the blanket zoning bylaw. The proposal calls for new houses that could accommodate in the area of 12 people on a lot where two, three, four, maybe five people lived. If there was enough labour in the city to build an additional 1,000 multi-family homes (there isn’t) it could take upwards of five years, perhaps longer, to demolish the homes, inspect and, if needed, replace infrastructure and everything else involved in completing the new builds. It's unlikely enough Calgary homeowners would sell their homes to accommodate the increased densities proposed by blanket zoning, unless the price was right, which is another way of saying ‘lots of money’. The cost of buying the older homes and all costs associated with the new builds plus the selling profit margins are not going to make housing more affordable. Even if a significant number of owners did sell, they would all need to find another home, so it would just be Peter robbing Paul. But, is it all nothing but smoke-and-mirrors virtue signalling by some members of city council to give the impression it is doing something to solve the housing crisis, much like the federal Liberal government is doing with its housing accelerator fund? By the way, the Trudeau government dangled $228.5 million in front of city council if it eliminates exclusionary zoning and implements blanket zoning. At some point in the coming week the blanket zoning proposal will go to a vote of council. The vote should be a resounding ‘no’, in accordance with the majority of presenters at the public hearing who resoundingly said ‘no’ to the proposal. But don’t bet on it. Council has too many members who subscribe to the Notley/Trudeau school of governance, pontificating activists who want to change your behavior and the way you live. The same group who brought you the single use bylaw. Regardless of how the vote goes, it proves you can fight city hall and, as a reminder, the next civic election is in October 2025. Hopefully the impressive turnout over the last few weeks will result in a higher turnout at election time, to turn out the virtue signallers now occupying seats in chambers.
The old adage is wrong: you actually can fight city hall and win. Calgary city council’s repeal of the single-use bylaw last week was a great victory for the many Calgarians who pointed out the absurdity of the bylaw that required consumers to ask for a bag, utensils, napkins and condiments with their takeout orders. If they wanted a bag, they were required to pay extra, a slight extra cost perhaps, but one that most likely was already factored into the cost of the takeout. A larger, more impactful fight looms in council chambers this coming week: the approval or the defeat of the proposed bylaw that would eliminate all areas in the city zoned only for single-family homes. Hundreds of citizen warriors appeared before councillors or spoke to them on the phone, the vast majority making it very clear they were in opposition to the bylaw. Additionally, according to information supplied by the City of Calgary, there were 6,101 written submissions and 50,000 people watched the council sessions on the city’s webcasts. As one who has watched hundreds of hours of council performances, on webcasts and in person, I can affirm it is indeed painful (watching paint dry is more entertaining) and I salute everyone who participated. Council will this week receive more information from city administration and then debate amongst themselves the blanket zoning. Calgarians with the fortitude to watch the proceedings will see and hear virtue-signalling arguments from certain councillors that will brush off the very serious and legitimate concerns expressed by Calgarians about the potential ramifications of implementing the bylaw. There were many, the top one being how property values would be affected, most believing the values will go down. Other issues included a lack of parking space, potential new infrastructure costs and trash pick-up among them. There were of course Calgarians who supported the proposed bylaw, speaking of how it would increase the housing supply and make homes more affordable in the city. The blanket zoning will accomplish neither of these. The only way it could possibly increase the supply in the short term is if a huge number of Calgary’s homeowners, let’s say 1,000 of them, all decided at the same time to demolish their homes in order to build the multi-family homes proposed in the blanket zoning bylaw. The proposal calls for new houses that could accommodate in the area of 12 people on a lot where two, three, four, maybe five people lived. If there was enough labour in the city to build an additional 1,000 multi-family homes (there isn’t) it could take upwards of five years, perhaps longer, to demolish the homes, inspect and, if needed, replace infrastructure and everything else involved in completing the new builds. It's unlikely enough Calgary homeowners would sell their homes to accommodate the increased densities proposed by blanket zoning, unless the price was right, which is another way of saying ‘lots of money’. The cost of buying the older homes and all costs associated with the new builds plus the selling profit margins are not going to make housing more affordable. Even if a significant number of owners did sell, they would all need to find another home, so it would just be Peter robbing Paul. But, is it all nothing but smoke-and-mirrors virtue signalling by some members of city council to give the impression it is doing something to solve the housing crisis, much like the federal Liberal government is doing with its housing accelerator fund? By the way, the Trudeau government dangled $228.5 million in front of city council if it eliminates exclusionary zoning and implements blanket zoning. At some point in the coming week the blanket zoning proposal will go to a vote of council. The vote should be a resounding ‘no’, in accordance with the majority of presenters at the public hearing who resoundingly said ‘no’ to the proposal. But don’t bet on it. Council has too many members who subscribe to the Notley/Trudeau school of governance, pontificating activists who want to change your behavior and the way you live. The same group who brought you the single use bylaw. Regardless of how the vote goes, it proves you can fight city hall and, as a reminder, the next civic election is in October 2025. Hopefully the impressive turnout over the last few weeks will result in a higher turnout at election time, to turn out the virtue signallers now occupying seats in chambers.
