03-12-2021, 11:35 AM
(03-12-2021, 08:22 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:To me, the highlighted comment says the most about the process and is bang on. Too often the resistance doesn't offer solutions, just an all out no. I agree with Dan that we need to enable developers to get through the approval process quicker and more efficiently, we still need some checks and balances. There must be a better way. I don't think this solution is a win for any of the parties, or addressing the best interest of the City as a whole. We are after all a City, not a plot of land with individuals.(03-11-2021, 10:18 PM)nms Wrote: I don't doubt that he'll make a profit, just not as much profit as would have been expected when there was a larger project with more units to sell.
As for the 'baking in' of variances to the process overall, to the general citizen in the neighbourhood, the perception is that developers are forever pushing the limits in order to maximize their investment. The tradeoff for the neighbours is the potential for adverse affects to their immediate future. This could include things like reducing setbacks to zero so a neighbour will now see a blank wall at the edge of their property, or having their sidewalks reduced to narrow wind tunnels when a building is pushed right to the sidewalk rather than leaving a setback that leaves the option for wider sidewalks or multiuse trails.
Yes, there is a housing crisis. But removing all barriers and suggesting that cities must accept whatever is proposed simply for the sake of making more space is a huge loss to the community. If every developer were to come forward and commit to 20% of all their future buildings to be targeted to geared-to-income or other forms of affordable housing, then that might make their excuses for variances more palatable. If every existing landlord committed to converting 20% of their existing stock as affordable housing sprinkled among the existing buildings would be another great start. Even, at the very least, committing to maintaining the same number of affordable housing units that their new construction is displacing would be a great start. Accepting a variance that commits to moving affordable housing (or any other kind of municipal goals) elsewhere than the proposed development site does nothing more than leave the existing neighbourhood poorer for the loss.
That is the perception, because that is the narrative being pushed, rather than what is actually happened, which is developers are working through the process we have setup.
Perhaps I should not have implied all barriers should be removed. We shouldn't compromise on fire safety and such. But we are quickly losing the ability to care about setbacks and that type of thing. I'm not saying that there aren't reasons for some *SOME* of these restrictions, but those benefits are a luxury which we are quickly squandering on other bullshit like "I don't want a tower".
You'll note that none of those objections existed here, the developer wasn't asking for unreasonable setbacks. There were a few who objected to losing the affordable housing, but that was nothing more than an excuse, those who made that objection didn't ask for more affordable housing, they asked for less total housing (which they have now achieved, in addition to removing any affordable housing concession, and they are happy with that result).