Note this is version 2.0. I saw some awful looking grammar. Also wanted to say more good stuff about Council because they do make a lot of good calls and it can’t be easy being in that position.

For this evenings’ philosophical debate, we are going to discuss how new development, particularly related to inner city building in Calgary is regulated. Many communities have dated plans and current land use a relic of a postwar era that bears little relationship to todays societal organization. Other communities have had plenty of revisions including recent plan revisions, but still don’t reflect market conditions and were formed in large part by a ‘ring fence’ the ‘valued’ core sentiment so prevalent in community engagement discussions (and yes I have railed against this in the past as I view it as a planning fiasco, my belief is communities should be planned around a vital heart). A naive person, such as myself, would assert that the physical characteristics of a property (generally its location, size and amenities) would determine the best land use (and built form) when the time comes to redevelop. The locational and infrastructural qualities that are valuable today would ultimately determine which old shacks are demolished and where new investment is guided. But we know this is not the case, or at least I have now seen enough to form my own perspective. My view is that politics is the defining factor in deciding who can build what, where and when. Unfortunately politics concentrates power in the hands of our politicians and away from evidence based decision making that I would prefer. I have made some favourable comments toward our Council and its voting in the past, often this Council does make good decisions. Unfortunately, they are just as likely to make awful decisions, or decisions that make no sense and can really be construed as anti-business. The most ‘pro-business’ platform politicians are by far the most likely to vote in a manner that negatively impacts small business and inner city redevelopment and the jobs and economic stimulation that goes along with every project. This creates a sort of cognitive dissonance in my head that lacks a coherent explanation. I find myself ‘onside’ with the socialist leaning Councillors in this planning game, all the time! (and rarely with the most conservative trio).

Council will vote majority in favour of a drive through franchise next to a train station under the guise that this is somehow a ‘step toward transit oriented development’. This same group will then vote against a townhouse project one block from a train station (with low ridership) and no parking lot. Approving that project would have allowed more people to live within the train station walkable catchment. The lack of consistency in voting is totally maddening and really harmful to risky investment decisions. Council would spend massive sums on public transit and then vote against tiny projects that would allow more homes to be integrated into areas served by the new transit investment. There are many examples of this in Calgary we could highlight. For now, here are some of the worst characteristics of the Council we have today;

• votes against its own policy - Council will establish a bold policy about shifting development from Greenfield sprawl to inner city redevelopment. A redevelopment project is proposed by an entrepreneur and is then destroyed by the same Council that created the redevelopment favourable policy.

• ignores professional advice from planners - for political reasons, the Council will play political games that allow them to vote against the advice from their expert planning staff. You know, the highly paid staffer with the master degree in urban design, that individual is just there to warm a chair because the politicians know best.

• lack of understanding of development - there are certain members on Council that have a very poor understanding of inner city development, yet, because they are on Council, have a binding vote. Even worse are the long time members that havent learned much after multiple terms on the job and have collected large salaries and pension obligations funded by the same people they undermine with anti-development decisions. This is unfortunately now displayed in the voting record of some on Council

• predetermining outcomes based on ideology - some on Council don’t need to attend a hearing to weigh evidence, they could have emailed in their vote from weeks earlier. They simply vote the same way each time regardless of the quality of the application.

• posturing and pandering - too often some on Council will make the wrong decision to appease an audience they want to appeal to. The betterment of the city is less a priority than politics.

• Playing favourites - some on Council have clear favourite applicants that get preferential treatment. Again politics is a greater factor than the merit of a project. There is truly a different bar that can be raised or lowered depending on the applicant.

This is such a demoralizing topic, I must end it now lest I fall into some deep depression. Basically, the process of leaving these decisions in the hands of a Council that so often makes bad decisions is how planning takes place today. Will the next generation planning regulatory system to be delivered by the ‘Guidebook for great communities’ solve some of this, along with the new generation local area plans? I hope so.

* Now is the time to highlight some good behaviour on Council. My own favourite Councillor goes by the name of GC. I think he is great on these planning matters. I don’t follow his other responsibilities on Council very closely, but from what I have seen, he makes exceptional, consistent decisions in line with his vision of building great communities. He is unafraid and unapologetic to call out ridiculous nimby stuff, and he challenges limiting beliefs. He must be exhausted by this constant battle of redeveloping tiny inner city properties. Special mention also goes to Councilor Druh Farrell, she has shown a lot of consistency as a supporter of change compatible with smart inner city redevelopment. Finally, while I have not seen too many votes involving Councillor Jyoti Gondek, I think she’s on board, and, while not an inner city resident, has the planning commission background which is a great training ground for a Councillor. Mayor Nenshi, mixed reviews just due to how dismissive he can be of policy and small business risk takers when it suits his mood at the time of a vote.