BC Election 2024

[fluffy]

75 units of row housing ? It must be a sizable chunk of land. This is a good example of nimbyism that would allow enough land to support 75 housing units kept to low density during a housing shortage.

[George Orwell 1984]

75 units of row housing ? It must be a sizable chunk of land. This is a good example of nimbyism that would allow enough land to support 75 housing units kept to low density during a housing shortage.

It’s classed as low density residential, nothing difficult to understand . 1 neighbour yesterday ,75 today along with the associated rental unit problems (as in short term rentals ) so much for raising a family which was the major complaint . Welcome to party zone central. NIMBY EXACTLY . People who bought into residential zoning have no say because of government policy . Too bad so sad

[fluffy]

It's still low density ? What's the problem then ? What is the current state of the land ?

[George Orwell 1984]

It's still low density ? What's the problem then ? What is the current state of the land ?

75 new neighbours may be low density in your mind , that is not the case in this area as plainly evident by the number of letters to council opposing this development. As has been the case ALWAYS, short term rentals are a problem for the neighbours with deck party’s , hot tubs and loud obnoxious short term renters on vacation that don’t give a *bleep* that the people next door have to get up for work , get children off to school or just live their lives without 3 story building overlooking their homes and backyards. Just think , new neighbours every day .
Shut up , pay your taxes, we have developers that need to develop .

[fluffy]

Where is this proposed development that short term rentals are still legal ? How big is the piece of land involved ? There's a lot of important information missing from this story. The one thing we agree on is that nimby-ism is involved, resistance to change in a changing environment. Can you link to media coverage of the issue ?

[George Orwell 1984]

Welcome to resort living ! Taxpayers and neighbours don’t matter . We have developers that want to develop . Not to worry the taxpayers will subsidize the infrastructure so developers can profit by the lacking cost development charges update that have been in the works for decades.

https://revelstokemountaineer.com/zonin ... -march-26/

[George Orwell 1984]

City council report
https://revelstoke.civicweb.net/FileSto ... -03-26.pdf

[Babba_not_Gump]

Times are changing, and this is apparent in the housing market more than anywhere else. Suburban sprawl is proving wasteful and impractical with a shrinking land supply. Higher density near transit hubs and commerce centers reduces automobile traffic and the ills that come with it. Being able to get multiple dwelling units on a site that would have formerly only had one opens doors to more affordable units. Adapt or perish.

Are you aware of the consequences of this, should it go on as Canada's populations grows at the extent it has been growing?
Neighbourhoods will be unrecognizable, single family homes gone. There's no reason for that as we have plenty of land in Canada.
Also the financial impact of neighbourhoods growing to the point that infrastructure can't handle it, nor can the taxpayers.

[GordonH]

Times are changing, and this is apparent in the housing market more than anywhere else. Suburban sprawl is proving wasteful and impractical with a shrinking land supply. Higher density near transit hubs and commerce centers reduces automobile traffic and the ills that come with it. Being able to get multiple dwelling units on a site that would have formerly only had one opens doors to more affordable units. Adapt or perish.

Are you aware of the consequences of this, should it go on as Canada's populations grows at the extent it has been growing?
Neighbourhoods will be unrecognizable, single family homes gone. There's no reason for that as we have plenty of land in Canada.
Also the financial impact of neighbourhoods growing to the point that infrastructure can't handle it, nor can the taxpayers.

Currently the CoK is running around like a bunch a chickens with their heads cut off, trying to boost what infrastructure they can for current increase of population.

[George Orwell 1984]

Short term rentals both legal and illegal are everywhere in Revelstoke. To afford a home here ( as in most cities) you have to have a subsidy in the form of a suite , even more money can be made with a short term rental. The bylaw department is ignored and we have yet to see any enforcement other than lip service by council . The new regulations by the NDP now allow up to four residences per piece of property. Single family, pffffft more like commune living but we are talking NDP here and that fits perfectly. This will create far more problems than it solves.
https://revelstokemountaineer.com/str-r ... town-hall/

[Babba_not_Gump]

Short term rentals both legal and illegal are everywhere in Revelstoke. To afford a home here ( as in most cities) you have to have a subsidy in the form of a suite , even more money can be made with a short term rental. The bylaw department is ignored and we have yet to see any enforcement other than lip service by council . The new regulations by the NDP now allow up to four residences per piece of property. Single family, pffffft more like commune living but we are talking NDP here and that fits perfectly. This will create far more problems than it solves.
https://revelstokemountaineer.com/str-r ... town-hall/

The new regulations by the NDP now allow up to four residences per piece of property.
Single family neighbourhoods will be destroyed.

[fluffy]

Are you aware of the consequences of this, should it go on as Canada's populations grows at the extent it has been growing?
Neighbourhoods will be unrecognizable, single family homes gone. There's no reason for that as we have plenty of land in Canada.
Also the financial impact of neighbourhoods growing to the point that infrastructure can't handle it, nor can the taxpayers.

There's nothing new about inner city densification, it makes for a more efficient city. As a city's population grows, suburbia gets pushed further out. It's the natural order of things. Laws like this keeps individual hold-outs from blocking properly organized growth.

[d0nb]

^^^^^
Could not agree with you more. I still have difficulty believing that only 33% of citizens yet 100% of the voters believe they have the right to complain. Democracy requires responsibility an that means voting. Perhaps we need to consider the Australian model, required voting; do not vote receive a fine.

The wonderful Charles Krauthammer said that his favorite joke was that liberals don’t care what you do, as long as it’s mandatory. Of course, that mostly applies to the extraordinarily illiberal capital “L” liberals and to Democrats, “New” or otherwise.

If the Australian experience with using the threat of being fined to encourage the uninterested and uninformed to show up at the polls has led to better election outcomes, it doesn’t show. For what it’s worth, Trudeau’s Special Committee on Electoral Reform concluded that making voting mandatory would be politically unpopular.

[d0nb]

Vote splitting is a myth. There's no such thing. People who hate the NDP will vote strategically. The only people who will vote BC United United are those who view the conservatives and the NDP as approximately equally bad.

Voting ‘strategically’ is analogous to vote ‘splitting’ …. Both terms are marketing gimmicks created by zee political pahtees to allow them to make decisions for you, decide which issues are more important for you and select the candidates for you …. It is a way of manipulating and controlling you … the childish debate and acrimony that now dominates partisan politics has stifled open and genuine debate on legislature floors and among the public … party members are not free to vote on issues according to their own values or those of their constituents and must toe the party line … we need a return to more direct democracy rather than the failed party representative model that currently stands … it all starts at the ballot box and every vote counts …

Those who pay the piper call the tune, and in any democracy, groups of supporters will always join together in parties to support like-minded candidates. Even if a winning candidate paid their own election costs, in order to have any influence at all, they would have to align with a legislative bloc that they probably wouldn’t always agree with. That’s just a less transparent form of party politics that would be at least as acrimonious and chaotic as what we already have.

In essence, some parties want more government control over our lives and some want less of it. The best way to effect change is to join, financially support and contribute ideas to the political collective that best suits your values.

Of course, in the end, all political parties have to be judged by their actions, not by their names, platforms or rhetoric. The BC liberals (BCUP) talked center-right, but they governed center-left, with terrible ideas like the BC carbon tax. Whether the BC Conservatives will live up to their promise of governing from the center-right remains to be seen.

[fluffy]

City council report
https://revelstoke.civicweb.net/FileSto ... -03-26.pdf

Umm, the drawing shows 18 units, not 75.