09-22-2022, 02:22 PM
(09-22-2022, 01:58 PM)ac3r Wrote: It's almost like they had a neighbourhood meeting and just blindly pulled strips of paper out of a hat marked "Generic NIMBY Complaints".
Quote:Chief among the concerns is increased traffic and insufficient parking
Well, given the size of the proposal, it's more likely that any residents would just not own cars!
Quote:Residents worry that a new, denser cluster of homes would change the neighbourhood’s character
What character? It's already the same thing...low rise houses.
Quote:residents have also said “low-income housing” will create safety issues and crime, Pinnell reported.
Annnnnd there we go, everybody's favourite flawed, classist NIMBY logic: some people with little money commit crime, therefore, all people with little money must be criminals. Assholes.
Quote:Addressing a resident’s concern that existing property values will drop
Improvements in neighbourhoods generally don't lower property values. Especially when proposals include connecting city roads to each other, building multi-use trails, building soundwalls so you don't hear the industrial businesses as much. None of these people even bother to think critically here, they just go NIMBY mode.
Quote:“That’s obviously got to be compatible, so we are looking at that through the review of this application.”
Grow a spine and tell these people they're wrong, Andrew Pinnell.
Overall, these are the most generic complaints they could have come up with. What a load of nonsense.
Traffic (car issues in general), crime, safety, and character are all valid things for residents of a neighbourhood to worry about - even if the concerns are almost completely baseless in this situation.
But we really need to flip the script on concerns about property values; it should not and can not be a valid argument. It's just not a sustainable situation, and this expectation has helped create the situation the West is in today. Unfortunately, it's probably the one concern here that the residents actually care about the most.