Recent content by IKnowNothing

"A" mechanism- a well defined mechanism with clear and reasonable executable parameters/process to avoid situations is good policy. Carte blanche to bulldoze without accountability is not. As a rural Ontarian the prospect of such provincial legislation being copycatted is very worrying, and so...

Specifically- Who determines what is in the public interest? What is the threshold for enacting that? Without those questions answered and parameters defined SKT's colloquial "for no reason" stands. And so does his question. Is this still a win if it allows a hypothetical NDP government to...

So you didn't at least read the PR release/ summary for yourself before declaring it another check for the win column? Essentially- "Allow Cabinet to remove a councillor if in the public interest, or to order a referendum to determine whether the councillor should be removed" Yes. " Minister...

PP's housing platform is to do the exact same thing- Carrot and stick monies directly to municipalities. Is that also courting cities to end run provinces? Alternatively- the UCP is acting to thwart the duly elected municipal governments from enacting policies that are within the jurisdiction...

Pfft nahh. Short-sighted partisan schadenfreude is way more important than democratic principles, conservative principles, or simple good governance. Gotta put those urban NDP voters in their place- that's the important thing. No irony in a "freedom" espousing supposedly conservative government...

nah, the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption still applies, 1.25 mil and indexed moving forward

Nah, you're objectively wrong.

No they are not. They are demanding that cities not get in the way of people that want to build 4plexes where they have the space to do so. Federal money contingent on reducing red tape and cutting through the gatekeeping. Sounds familiar...

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.