Search results

Not burn him at the stake. Point out that this kind of nonsense quite neatly demonstrates the "put stick in the spokes of your bike tire" self sabotage that will give the LPC a crack of daylight between now and next October.

A. If the "free-er market" (allowing 4-plexes within building envelopes) is the better, more natural market state- that means the market under exclusionary zoning featured prices artificially inflated by government intervention. Should those gains have been "socialized"? B. What's a real loss...

Granted. But the market decides what happens within those restrictions. And you believe that free-er markets better allocate scarce resources yes? So as such any shift towards more market freedom- such as enabling greater choice in the residential structures that can be built within the...

They might erode values, or they might not. Shouldn't the market decide? The best (reasonable) use of residentially zoned serviced land?

Yes. That's 100% the same thing as allowing the exact same size of residential building to be built following the same regulations but allowing it to house 4 families instead of one large one. Those damn poors depositing soot all over the lawns.

Whenever you choose. It's your right. But why are you assuming the value is dropping? Are developers knocking down your neighbour's house for fun or as the most profitable use of the land?

And if you don't like the way things change you can exercise your right to sell. "Your freedom to do reasonable things with your property ends with my wishes" Bringing "property rights" as argument for exclusionary zoning is pretty close to the height of cognitive dissonance.

What's incorrect? Want to post a link to the actual article- I didn't see it in the last few months, including in the most recent article with the following excerpts: Sounds familiar.

If he couldn't get the severances and variances because municipal policy was to point at the 3,4,5, x plex building the lot could support under an existing bylaw rather than rather than implicitly encouraging that things be chopped up to satisfy the "spirit" of maintaining an SDH only zoning.

Perhaps semantics- he is ultimately at fault / responsible for the current state of the country, but that's not the same thing as being the sole or even primary cause of certain issues.

I'd argue that this is actually an argument for 4 plex as a "right" Firstly "right" -unless councils/provinces get really stupid- doesn't/shouldn't mean universal free for all. It just means the specific restriction on doing it because of what is is will be removed- there would/should still be...

A colloquialism. Replace with large, add in a "relatively" if you want- the point remains the same. Lots capable of supporting fourplexes without any relaxation of the functional rules- or even the application of stricter ones. Example- compare these zoning stipulations. One is for an SDH...

High interest rates = higher cost. Not enough people willing to buy at given price = insufficient demand/oversupply. There is not a limitless supply of people willing to pay 700k+ for a shoebox. Another one about the state of Toronto condos/ rentals...

Doesn't have to. There's no reason a "fourplex" can't honour both the architectural character and regulatory minutia of most neighbourhoods and zonings- except for the the single line of text that arbitrarily excludes them. I agree that putting up a lot line to lot line 4 story appt building...

We need to address the missing middle https://storeys.com/ontario-condos-getting-smaller-detached-homes-get-larger/

Fair, but similiarly anyone who truly made "decades-long plans" cannot reasonably claim to have been counting on the massive shift we saw in the last 4-6 years from said fuck up, and as such measures to bring prices back to a pre 2019 reality cant be fairly described as a "rug pull"

"Follow the money" as part of an argument skeptical of the science behind human caused climate change is one of the most puzzlingly ironic things you see