A few recent appointees to the Calgary planning commission have made a practice of being more vocal with written feedback to Council pre-vote, on land use change they deem to be of minor significance and represent sensible infill growth practice. I appreciate the efforts of these two commissioners. Let us dig in a bit regarding what they actually said (some of this could have been written by me, but I can assure you, it was not). For those unfamiliar, this is related to a land use change on two adjacent 50 foot wide Rc1 lots to Rc2, which loosens the constricted type of houses that can be built from one detached mansion, to two semi detached homes, site coverage and height is the same in both zones.
On ‘spot zoning’, Com. T rejects the very notion of this concept. Where have we heard this before? He suggests the opposition letter was written by (my categories), a ‘spot zoning zealot’, who refuses any city authority on evolving land use, exhibiting signs of ‘classist narcissism’, which manifests in a refusal to consider housing diversity of any kind, except the most expensive and exclusive form, the detached mansion.
On ‘lack of accountability’ for what is submitted to the public hearing, Com. H deconstructs the argument that building two homes on a 50 foot lot instead of one home would cause actual damage or harm to the community. He suggest the opposition is just ‘thread pulling’ in attempting to find any possible weakness in the application because the land use change will mainly result in ‘allowing each property to have two front doors and homes.’ Com. H is publicizing what is rarely written about in these infill debates, he’s representing the needs of future families who aspire to live in this nice community, but cannot due to the exclusionary and preferential zoning, a relic of post war Calgary.
The comments from the Commissioners is quite a forthright and direct rebuttal to the community association letter opposing the land use change. What I found interesting is the practical application of my categorization on typical feedback types received from the public on this file. Once you’ve reviewed a few of these public letters, you cannot unsee the pattern of intolerance, classism, and selfishness displayed in our inner city communities regarding growth and change. For further enlightenment, see the full public hearing section on letters from the public, in that dark place we see foul stink bombs being lobbed onto the public record, for eternity.
