2022 was a year of significant public engagement in matters of infill development here in Calgary, regarding big picture policy, at a community level, new bylaw review and public hearing, and individual project. What has come evident is pattern among the discourse you often see from the public. At a theoretical level, we want to see meaningful public engagement improve the quality of a policy, or the design of a building. I think we tend to not see that outcome, as many issues are all or nothing, yes/no votes or passage/failure of new bylaws. It is really hard for a bylaw to both approve a new category of project (like row housing in an R1 area) yet satisfy public feedback that opposes the existence of row housing. Equally, an emotionally fraught debate doesn’t lend itself to thoughtful positions when somebody’s ‘property value’ or ‘children’ are at stake (edit - this is not hyperbole, property value and children are now used in most land use debates, as in both are at risk of serious adverse impact).

Here are some of the key points of observation regarding poor public discourse noted over the past period.

• The unaccountable commenter - blinded by self interest and emotional, an individual makes shockingly intolerant or selfish statements (on the public record), yet somehow evade feedback on the merit of what was said at the podium. The observed level of discourse is lower than what would be expected from an educated populace. The commenter often has failed to read and comprehend what is at stake. The fallback ‘I’m not a professional planner’ so here is my knee-jerk nonsense that I can utter without accountability is heard. After a few of these types hit the podium, the cringe level is palpable, hard to watch without muttering a cynical play by play.

• Future family denier- the needs of those who do not yet live among a given community are ignored. the developer is the only voice for the future household who desire to live in the community but cannot, likely because of a rigid and exclusionary regulatory system. anything the developer says is immediately discounted due to it being ‘self serving’, but any commenter decrying ‘property values’ is unaware their position is demonstrably ‘self serving’ . The planning staff perhaps tackle this by supporting ‘housing choice’, through local area planning processes and drafting bylaws (they hope dont get neutered by council). Staff inevitably report to an unknown executive back at city hall, and the Overton window is fairly small (but growing, yes). One item staff refrain to utter in public would be repopulation of diminished communities with specific growth targets. This is a peeve of mine with the staff. Perhaps there is a way to tackle this using the inner city builders’ society that has more political muscle?

• Hard liner - virulently anti development community types make negotiation impossible, the self appointed woke type that opposes sprawl, cries about climate change, yet also opposes any non sprawl project, for all the familiar tropes, like ‘character’. This hard liner crew is sprinkled among every community. Once they gather petition signatures, it is hard to make a deal about how to proceed. ‘Consultation’ to this group means wielding a veto, the councillor is there to take orders on how to vote, not to evaluate a project merit.

• low cost crutch crew - this group opposes new housing unless it meets a low cost barrier. However, they secretly know that no low cost housing is possible because the land, labour and commodity inputs are so costly now, nobody could build low cost housing, even if they do it for free. In any debate they demand to know what the future rents would be for the unit in the project, and if too high (as in higher than their personal payment on their paid off 50’s bungalow), they get on their horse and rodeo about how it should be denied. The concept of ‘filtering’, where the new supply attracts tenants, and frees up older, more depreciated and lower cost base units is not acknowledged by this crew. Perhaps the only market technique to ‘add’ affordable units is to…make the existing stock vacant by offering better/more options to the market? Calgary wins on the livability and cost of living/housing stage against the bigger and more locked up tier 1 cities, why? Because we allow supply so much easier.

• the mutiny community - this group launches a parallel planning process with zero legitimacy. During the Westbrook local area plan process, one of the communities decided it ‘didn’t like’ the ‘direction’. These mutineers launched an insular plan, free of the shackles of city staff, or any stakeholder involvement that would offer expertise. Predictably, the outcome of the mutiny was to ring-fence the community with economically unviable and wanted towers to shelter its valued core area from any change. This straw man plan was circulated, eventually to me. The plan was awful, and it went nowhere, other than to delineate on paper the community position. It made them look unschooled, unrealistic, and harmed the legitimacy of the broad, multi year, multi stakeholder staff led process. Shame on them.

• hands off my sewage team - this scattershot approach to legitimize a veneer of technocratic opposition is heard often. ‘Sewage’ and ‘ground water’ is the rallying cry, used interchangeably, yuck. This team utters definitive statements on sewer capacity, or someone, somewhere had an issue with ground water. The city must take this as gospel, and of course, project should be denied. Nowhere is a civil engineer found on the sewage team, nor would they invest in any analysis to back a claim. The flowing sewer capacity is theirs, not to be shared with new residents. This team that takes pride of ownership in its sewage flows, also would be the first to oppose contributing to cap ex when the time comes to replace the aged mains in street. The builders should pay for the upgrades entirely.

• Thread pullers - this approach is deeply cynical because it involves exploiting any weak spot in a project, all have some deficiency. Then attempt to exaggerate whatever the issue is into something so insurmountable the project should be canceled. My response to this is we need not cancel a two million dollar injection into our economy because the thread puller is pulling so hard at one loose thread in attempt to unravel the scarf. The builders identify a hole in the dike or a leak in the boat, and plug it. The thread puller is a critic without a portfolio of his own work, craven, expert enough only to tear down what he could never achieve.

• classist narcissists - classism is all too common in the inner city, this type thrives on social media and the nextdoor app is its heartland. Thinly veiled classicism is the last bastion of prejudice that people would pridefully post for eternal scorn. It manifests in the, ‘how dare you build something in my community that isnt a single detached home’ thread. Ideally this is read out in a mock Greta Thunberg voice. It is evidence based, as in, my evidence based objection to this project is ‘I dont like it, thus you must reject it’ sentiment. Haughty indignation helps this team, ‘how dare you build a basement suite, density is not welcome here’, is juxtoposed with how friendly and cohesive their beloved community is (that is being ruined by any density). Predictably, when the sign goes up of some boutique, luxury mansion builder intent on mansion building, the narcissist swoons, counting on higher land value for a future sale of their own home (to a developer of course).

• spot zoning zealots - spot zoning is the rallying cry, what lies beneath is assumption that planning department exist to protect entrenched interests. Attending the public hearing and decrying ‘spot’ zoning, is actually insulting the role of the department, and council in land use evolution (i.e planning). Spot zoning advocates believe in the sacredness of the R1 zone, as if 1962 was the definitive peak in the art of urban planning. They demand their R1 enclave remain intact and like to use militarized language, fighting battles, penetrating of lines, a creeping attack, evil enemies (like me), etc. The fear is precedent and changing context will lead to further opportunistic spot zoning applications, a contagion even. This is of course, inevitable, over the coming decades these communities, endowed with huge lots and tiny homes will see redevelopment pressure. Where else is the building to take place?

One open question is how much weight current residency should carry in these infill development and policy debates. Note, these local groups and individual property owners choose to ignore other stakeholders (the market, city management plans, new ideas, renters, new households/immigration, industry) when deliberating. Some decisions (like a Local Area plan) adopt policy which extend beyond our lifetimes potentially, and surely beyond the time any one person would own a house in a redeveloping area. I’ve complained many times regarding ‘planning from beyond the grave’ and ‘snowbird planning’. This is how older, long term resident seem to hog the mic in processes, but aren’t impacted by societal outcomes from their winter home in Arizona. Or restricted covenant are placed on title which overpowers modern day need to be more nimble, while the large legal department at City Hall washes its hands of its central role to remove these. I think the staff did a good job in the Westbrook process to prevent a group of frozen in amber curmudgeons monkey-wrench the process and represented their work honourably at committee. The staff is too young and over qualified to cave on core deontological planning principles, provided it feels higher up admin has its back.

In all the debate and public feedback heard, only one comment has really struck home with me. It is how the more politically connected, high wealth R1 communities have kept out development, while others have become chronic ‘go’ zones. Only the city can tackle this inequity, it must not allow certain communities a ‘pass’ on sharing in growth. My plan is to build a rowhouse in elbow park before I quit this business!