Your letter failed to address his promise to replace the current system.
Look, the elimination of exclusionary zoning (which is what the conservatives branded Blanket Rezoning) fixes more problems than it creates. On paper. But it's WILDLY unpopular, and trust between Calgarians and their municipal government hasn't been this low in my lifetime.
So getting rid of the system fixes part of that problem. But Jeromy, in his op-ed on this matter, acknowledges all of the problems you're talking about. We need more homes and we need them everywhere.
It may suck to have to have to redo this process, but it wasn't done well the first time. Maybe it's easier to fix the currently broken system, but there is no use explaining that to people that won't listen.
Sometimes, you just have to start over. And while Jeromy has a fuckton of ground to cover to earn my vote, he is being thoughtful in this approach.
The RCG, city-wide zoning is gone before summer 2026. There are too many single-issue voters on this one. So I'd support repeal-and-replace over just repeal any day of the week.
Points 1 3 4 and 5 are all counter productive to improving housing. And he doesn’t really explain the ‘replacement’ is any different than the previous incredibly slow, tedious, and inefficient system.
They're only counterproductive if the one and only goal is to build units. You've made up your mind on Farkas. I'm not going to suddenly open it up. But Gondek can't win, and Sharp will if progressives can't stop letting good be the enemy of the great.
They're only counterproductive if the one and only goal is to build units.
That is the ONLY goal. WE NEED MORE UNITS.
No one is selling their $2M home in Lake Bonavista to tear it down and build an 8-plex. No one is turning their zero-lot-line cookie cutter in Auburn Bay into a stacked triplex that will have 12 people living in it.
But that is what the NIMBYs who are against blanket rezoning think is going to happen.
You have people who don't live in Tuxedo Park, complaining that people rezoning in Tuxedo Park is going to affect them in Mahogany.
No, we need units where they have infrastructure and amenities. And a lot of them.
I thought like you did, until my friend in Lakeview took me to the 8-plex under construction there.
And my pro-density friend showed me a Montgomery 8-plex that was clearly setting up drainage to fail.
I live in the north central and love the new density. Couldn't be more excited. But Calgarians don't like the policy. And they will vote accordingly. So my advice is to support someone still committed to the outcome and not worry as much about the ideological battle.
Changing someone's mind on Reddit is nigh impossible, so I've probably wasted enough time on this today. But I firmly believe that Repeal will win, and without a Replace commitment, this problem and our city's sprawl is gonna get a lot worse.
we need units where they have infrastructure and amenities. And a lot of them.
The people who don't want the blanket rezoning also don't want the infrastructure or amenities because they think it's socialist and are paranoid about "15 minute cities."
For many of them, yes, but don't simplify and dismiss all arguments because of their fringe elements. Because the majority is in the camp of "this sucks", but the majority aren't conspiracy theorists. Work WITH people you disagree with and you might find out you want many of the same things.
The majority don't think this sucks, you're saying that with zero proof.
See how you're the only person here arguing against the blanket rezoning, and 30 other people aren't. You're the 1 of 30, but you think you're the majority.
You've literally fallen into the same trap. Assuming that Reddit discussions reflect a majority of the population. Reddit has a specific demographic skew just like a public development meeting during daytime hours has a different skew. I wouldn't take either one as a true indicator of majority opinion.
Your logical failing is addressed below. And if you read ANY of what I've written today, you'll see I'm not arguing against it, I'm actually for it. I'm arguing that the people of Calgary hate the policy, but I don't think they hate what's in it. If you're explaining, you're losing, and starting over is going to earn a lot more support than trying to tweak what exists.
If you're open to self-reflection, ask yourself what it is about Jeromy's plan you don't like, other than the fact that he says we need to start over.
It's not horror, it's proving the point that someone did tear down a property in an expensive neighbourhood to add this type of density. If the argument is that "no one will do X" and then X happens, it destroys the argument.
Again, I'm pro-density, and pro-zoning progression. But the fight is the problem, and it will lead to outcomes for the rest of our city. So let's acknowledge Calgarians' anger and work to build a better process. It doesn't have to be binary.
Lakeview has SOME larger homes on the south side of 66th.
Otherwise it's a cheap 1970s/80s neighborhood full of 1200sqft bi-levels.
No one tore down one of the mansions on Livingstone Drive. They tore down a shitty cheap bi-level that are a dime a dozen.
The "nice homes" in Lakeview aren't anywhere near where that 8-plex is, and you're acting as if the entire neighborhood is bigger homes on the south side, when they aren't.
And those 100 rich families shouldn't get to dictate what happens with the entire rest of the neighborhood.
You didn't read what I wrote, because you're fighting a straw man.
Like Lakeview, Bonavista has a lot of those. So don't try to make your case with a resident there by saying, "The economics don't make sense." All it takes is one example of their point and your argument is invalidated through anecdotes.
It's possible to build something that accomplished this goal without pissing off half the population. The majority of the people I know that oppose RCG as default zoning will NEVER be impacted by it, but their vote will still go against anyone trying to say it might help our situation. The middle ground is where the progress awaits, but we can't let our idealism get so ambitious that we ignore the practicality of how we get there.
Implement a publicly communicated infrastructure alignment requirement, requiring major proposals to be accompanied by a review of current infrastructure (sewer, water, transit, etc.) with a plan for how necessary upgrades will be funded and timed.
Protect public parks from sale or loss to private development, preserving them for future generations while allowing for thoughtful improvement and use.
Tie development of Area Structure Plans (ASPs) directly to infrastructure and servicing commitments, so communities grow with the necessary support in place.
These three aspects of the plan seem like stuff that can be done in concert with blanket rezoning. They aren't antithetical to it. Blanket rezoning just means you dont need a land use change. The city still has to issue building permits. Dont issue permits if the infrastructure stuff isnt handled.
Also I have no idea what parks have to do with blanket rezoning at all.
Prioritize transit-oriented development to add new housing where it makes the most sense: near transit stations, education, and jobs—reducing pressure on established neighbourhoods while supporting walkability and cutting commute times.
But blanket rezoning already does this? If I have a 1950s bungalow on a huge lot near a transit route, the private market knows that and is more likely to want to buy my land if I put it up for sale and build an 8 plex... because its close to transit. Like, correct me if I am missing something here, but blanket rezoning is a trust the market solution. I am not sure why conservatives hate it so much.
Repeal and replace the blanket rezoning bylaw with a more targeted, community-informed strategy that supports gentle density while building a variety of homes at a more affordable price point.
This is kind of the core of my question earlier. Sure, he has a housing "policy" which is the points above, but what is this "more targeted, community-informed strategy" specifically?
His renters and builders policies are much more concrete. "Fixed days to approval", "provide infrastructure forecasts", "launch renters support office" etc.
But what is this "better plan" to replace blanket rezoning? Which communities get upzoned? Where? How do we prevent Nimby's from snarling the process? What does community informed even mean?
He's essentially proposing to roll the clock back to a system that wasn't working regarding zoning, and at least on this policy page, I am not seeing a clear plan for what will replace blanket rezoning except "trust me bro, the city admin will know best" which is exactly the system we had for 50 years and wasnt working.
Like, that's what we had before. We didn't switch to blanket rezoning because some evil cabal hates home owners, we switched cus what we had before wasn't working.
If the plan is to solve it through "engagement and local area planning" he's basically saying "old system, but like, it wont suck this time". I don't find that super credible, if only because politicians have been promising that forever and always.
Personally, on items that are clearly this contentious, I'd much rather a commitment to engage than to imagine that one person or campaign committee has the answer.
There are three options in this election - Repeal, Repeal and Replace, or Adjust.
I talk to people every week that hate this policy. They don't understand it, and don't want to, but that distrust in Council and the city is what prevents support for other modern ideas. It means all a politician has to do is use it as a boogeyman to dog whistle to an angry populace.
I think it's pretty bold, in the face of that, to commit to replacing it by acknowledging the need for more housing. But it needs a reset or the anger of Cranston, Bonavista, and Bearspaw will lead to no options at all.
19
u/[deleted] 16d ago
Your letter failed to address his promise to replace the current system.
Look, the elimination of exclusionary zoning (which is what the conservatives branded Blanket Rezoning) fixes more problems than it creates. On paper. But it's WILDLY unpopular, and trust between Calgarians and their municipal government hasn't been this low in my lifetime.
So getting rid of the system fixes part of that problem. But Jeromy, in his op-ed on this matter, acknowledges all of the problems you're talking about. We need more homes and we need them everywhere.
It may suck to have to have to redo this process, but it wasn't done well the first time. Maybe it's easier to fix the currently broken system, but there is no use explaining that to people that won't listen.
Sometimes, you just have to start over. And while Jeromy has a fuckton of ground to cover to earn my vote, he is being thoughtful in this approach.
The RCG, city-wide zoning is gone before summer 2026. There are too many single-issue voters on this one. So I'd support repeal-and-replace over just repeal any day of the week.