City of grumblers

IanO · 13-12-2006, 03:41 PM

City of grumblers
The Edmonton Journal
Published: Wednesday, December 13, 2006
What is this cranky, querulous streak that's slipping into many civic conversations in our growing, prosperous city these days?

Whether it's new housing, snow-clogged streets or rising property taxes, many citizens seem to have little positive to say. After complaining until the city plows the streets, we want driveways cleared of those post-plow barriers of ice and snow. But heaven forbid property taxes go up to pay for it.

We love the booming economy, but we don't want to make room for the thousands of people coming here to work, even if they earn a very respectable $80,000 a year.

Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****We're fed up with traffic congestion and urban sprawl, but we resist in-fill housing in older neighbourhoods and more money for transit.

In another bizarre example, residents near Borden Park oppose a skateboard park, of all things, because they fear it would bring kids with drugs -- and never mind that it would actually give kids in that sometimes tough neighbourhood something to do.

But perhaps most worrisome lately has been community reactions to council's decision to build about 1,000 housing units on 12 surplus school sites. The idea is a practical way to use a public resource to get some badly needed housing on the market, and help keep this a stable, healthy, inclusive city. But it's brought out that old Not-In-My-Backyard syndrome.

Of course, community groups have a right to speak their mind, and change is rarely popular, so maybe the negative reaction is not surprising. Still, consider the argument of a resident of Twin Brooks, a well-off suburb in the southwest, who believes adding addition of 100 townhouses for first-time buyers will transform his well-off suburb for the worse.

How could such a small number bring drastic change, and in any case, why is it assumed that people who can't afford big houses are bad news? The units will accommodate middle-income families caught by the rising house market, people who will never be able to afford the more expensive houses across the street if they don't get a foot in the door of the market. Those who oppose this new housing might ask themselves how many of them could afford to buy into their community if they were starting out right now.

Maybe it's time to reflect on what kind of city we want to build and how to balance what's in the public interest -- in terms of a building a progressive, livable city -- and protecting our own private interest. Since when, for instance, did having a mix of incomes or housing types in a neighbourhood become such a bad thing?

Let's be careful not to lose our sense of what constitutes a whole and healthy community where everyone feels they belong and everyone is welcome.

© The Edmonton Journal 2006

onishenko · 13-12-2006, 05:40 PM

This hits the nail on the head. I was thinking about similar things today as I saw a copy of the Sun at a convinience store and flipped it open. They still seem to be continuing on with their rant against the proposed tax hike, and are championing Nickle as the only sane person with influence at City Hall.

There seems to be this general attitude that says, "I want all the benifits but don't want to have to pay for it. Clear my street, fix the potholes, widen roads, more schools, etc.... but don't you dare think about raising my taxes to pay for it. Find the money somewhere else like the pay raises city council got. (Yeah, $120,000 more is really going to do a lot.)"

or the selfish attitude that says, "Do whatever you want to do, but not if it effects me." Build townhouses for the guy who makes 80k a year in someone else's neighbourhood. Raise taxes for people who just moved here, but don't touch mine.

Move them all to Red Deer.

MylesC · 13-12-2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onishenko

Move them all to Red Deer.

But Red Deer already built several skate parks

Doug · 13-12-2006, 08:01 PM

The reaction to the new housing proposal in the south west part of the city was very predictable. Before the news broke about their reaction I knew that the southwest part of the city would fight it. I think it is great that communities in the northeast end of the city have welcomed it.

In terms of a tax hike, I am willing to pay as long as i see results that lead to better service. The snow removal policy has needed to be reviewed for some time and I think it is too bad that it took all kinds of pressure from the taxpayers for that to happen. I wish the mayor or the counsellors had taken the initative before it got to this point.

m0nkyman · 13-12-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

I wish the mayor or the counsellors had taken the initative before it got to this point.

Naah. Then the papers would be lambasting them for wasting money on snow clearing as if we were made of money. This way they get to spin it as being fiscally conservative, yet bowing to the demands of citizens. Now it's policy... And bucking policy is something that is very courageous* for politicians to do.

* -
[size=1] Civil service trick to lead politicians to the acceptable alternative when they have to chose between policy alternatives. When they want a policy alternative to be accepted it must contain the following 4 words: quick, simple, popular, cheap. When they want an alternative thrown out they put in the following 4 words: complicated, lengthy, expensive, controversial. When they want to make sure an alternative is rejected they say that accepting it would be courageous. Controversial means "you will loose votes", while courageous means "you will loose the election".[/size]

LindseyT · 13-12-2006, 08:37 PM

That article sums up my thoughts exactly.

RichardS · 14-12-2006, 08:19 AM

monkyman....LOVE the disclaimer....

m0nkyman · 14-12-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardS

monkyman....LOVE the disclaimer....

All credit is due to Yes Minister.

13-12-2006, 03:41 PM	#1
IanO Addicted to C2E Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edmonton	City of grumblers City of grumblers The Edmonton Journal Published: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 What is this cranky, querulous streak that's slipping into many civic conversations in our growing, prosperous city these days? Whether it's new housing, snow-clogged streets or rising property taxes, many citizens seem to have little positive to say. After complaining until the city plows the streets, we want driveways cleared of those post-plow barriers of ice and snow. But heaven forbid property taxes go up to pay for it. We love the booming economy, but we don't want to make room for the thousands of people coming here to work, even if they earn a very respectable $80,000 a year. Email to a friend Printer friendly Font: ****We're fed up with traffic congestion and urban sprawl, but we resist in-fill housing in older neighbourhoods and more money for transit. In another bizarre example, residents near Borden Park oppose a skateboard park, of all things, because they fear it would bring kids with drugs -- and never mind that it would actually give kids in that sometimes tough neighbourhood something to do. But perhaps most worrisome lately has been community reactions to council's decision to build about 1,000 housing units on 12 surplus school sites. The idea is a practical way to use a public resource to get some badly needed housing on the market, and help keep this a stable, healthy, inclusive city. But it's brought out that old Not-In-My-Backyard syndrome. Of course, community groups have a right to speak their mind, and change is rarely popular, so maybe the negative reaction is not surprising. Still, consider the argument of a resident of Twin Brooks, a well-off suburb in the southwest, who believes adding addition of 100 townhouses for first-time buyers will transform his well-off suburb for the worse. How could such a small number bring drastic change, and in any case, why is it assumed that people who can't afford big houses are bad news? The units will accommodate middle-income families caught by the rising house market, people who will never be able to afford the more expensive houses across the street if they don't get a foot in the door of the market. Those who oppose this new housing might ask themselves how many of them could afford to buy into their community if they were starting out right now. Maybe it's time to reflect on what kind of city we want to build and how to balance what's in the public interest -- in terms of a building a progressive, livable city -- and protecting our own private interest. Since when, for instance, did having a mix of incomes or housing types in a neighbourhood become such a bad thing? Let's be careful not to lose our sense of what constitutes a whole and healthy community where everyone feels they belong and everyone is welcome. © The Edmonton Journal 2006 __________________ inspiration or mediocrity www.decl.org Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

13-12-2006, 05:40 PM	#2
onishenko Partially Addicted to C2E Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Edmonton	This hits the nail on the head. I was thinking about similar things today as I saw a copy of the Sun at a convinience store and flipped it open. They still seem to be continuing on with their rant against the proposed tax hike, and are championing Nickle as the only sane person with influence at City Hall. There seems to be this general attitude that says, "I want all the benifits but don't want to have to pay for it. Clear my street, fix the potholes, widen roads, more schools, etc.... but don't you dare think about raising my taxes to pay for it. Find the money somewhere else like the pay raises city council got. (Yeah, $120,000 more is really going to do a lot.)" or the selfish attitude that says, "Do whatever you want to do, but not if it effects me." Build townhouses for the guy who makes 80k a year in someone else's neighbourhood. Raise taxes for people who just moved here, but don't touch mine. Move them all to Red Deer. __________________ Shameless Urbanophile

13-12-2006, 08:37 PM	#6
LindseyT Addicted to C2E Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: City Of Champions	That article sums up my thoughts exactly. __________________ "the best social program is a job"

14-12-2006, 08:19 AM	#7
RichardS C2E Junkie * Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edmonton	monkyman....LOVE the disclaimer.... __________________ Everywhere I go, I've been slandered, Libeled, I've heard words I've never heard in the Bible - and I am so tired. Simon and Garfunkel "Keep the customer satisfied" Yup, that about sums it up.

13-12-2006, 08:01 PM	#4
Doug Addicted to C2E Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: edmonton, alberta	The reaction to the new housing proposal in the south west part of the city was very predictable. Before the news broke about their reaction I knew that the southwest part of the city would fight it. I think it is great that communities in the northeast end of the city have welcomed it. In terms of a tax hike, I am willing to pay as long as i see results that lead to better service. The snow removal policy has needed to be reviewed for some time and I think it is too bad that it took all kinds of pressure from the taxpayers for that to happen. I wish the mayor or the counsellors had taken the initative before it got to this point.