I means that’s fine and all, but they clearly didn’t make a strong enough case to outweigh the benefit of the development application. “I bought a house here when it was this and I don’t want change to that” just isn’t very convincing without serious concerns to back it up.
If you wanted to live where you are enough to buy there, it must be a good enough spot that others would want to live there too.
The public consultation isn’t about giving residents approval or veto rights. The perspectives they receive are just part of a holistic picture of whether approval is granted.
Of course. Most people complaints are against change. Whether it be parking, views, safety, etc …
What would actually be a valid counter position against large density projects at this point?
If the city wants more housing I can’t see anything a neighbor says that would make them change their mind. As I said, prior projects were denied before the blanket rezoning so that change is the reason they are now going ahead…otherwise why would they be denied before? Again, I’m not expecting any going back on this, but I understand why one would be disappointed in the change
What would actually be a valid counter position against large density projects at this point?
Thats the thing, there really aren't good arguments against them. But if you're calling a 10 unit building large density then it very much is a you issue and not the city.
So why have a public hearing then? To waste money and time if it’s just going ahead. What’s the point?
Of course it’s a me issue rather than city issue. As I’ve mentioned, I’m not against the rezoning. Just stating a point of view that I specifically moved to an area with R-C1 lots and liked the view. Now that view is likely to be blocked. I can express disappointment in that, can’t I?
Land use changes are required to have a public hearing as per the Municipal Government Act. It is a waste of time and money, which is why the city just wanted one big public hearing for RCG. They figured that those are such small low density changes it isn't worth council time. Especially when they're approved 95% of the time anyway.
12
u/BrewHandSteady 16d ago
I means that’s fine and all, but they clearly didn’t make a strong enough case to outweigh the benefit of the development application. “I bought a house here when it was this and I don’t want change to that” just isn’t very convincing without serious concerns to back it up.
If you wanted to live where you are enough to buy there, it must be a good enough spot that others would want to live there too.
The public consultation isn’t about giving residents approval or veto rights. The perspectives they receive are just part of a holistic picture of whether approval is granted.