Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greater Hardisty standing up for their neighbourhoods

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Greater Hardisty standing up for their neighbourhoods

    RC looks prettt restrictive. Good for them for organizing and trying.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...eater-hardisty

  • #2
    *crosses Gold Bar, Fulton Place & Capilano off his list of desirable neighbourhoods*

    Not that they were high up on my list, but still...
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

    Comment


    • #3
      They were and still are nice neighbourhoods. No reason not to consider a non-registered property there, but I'd rather not have property rights restricted by what some fool thought was wonderful in the past.
      There can only be one.

      Comment


      • #4
        Less standing up for a neighbourhood, more 'standing up' for your individual property. Because if your neighbours don't sign they're not limited. So if you weren't going to move or sell, it doesn't affect you anyways. And if you are, then you're not signing. Basically just creating a patchwork.

        Comment


        • #5
          It seems short sighted. It really only works if your neighbours also put on a restrictive covenant, otherwise you're just killing the value of your property for no reason.

          Comment


          • #6
            Neighborhoods should never mature or change, zoning shall be static forever. Write never ending covenants to hold the status quo because single family housing stock as it is today will forever be how humans want to live in those neighborhoods.
            If you sign this, you are pretty silly, you just limit your own ability to sell the property and limit it's value.

            Strange.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by zims23 View Post
              RC looks prettt restrictive. Good for them for organizing and trying.

              http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...eater-hardisty

              Good on them for shooting themselves in the foot.
              Edmonton first, everything else second.

              Comment


              • #8
                Why on Earth did put something about home-based businesses only being allowed one employee? I know of three people in my block that have home-based businesses that are husband/wife, and none of them generate any noticeable traffic (maybe they get a delivery once and awhile). This is a silly, restrictive covenant that would be ascinine to sign.
                They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I fail to see the point.
                  Nobody is forcing these people to divide their lots. Why do they think they need a restrictive covenant? And why do they feel they have the right to decide what future owners might do with the property?
                  Non semper erit aestas

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That's the whole issue, Darkwalker. All they're doing is making sure that their property is restricted; it doesn't prevent others from doing whatever they want with their properties.
                    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gord Lacey View Post
                      That's the whole issue, Darkwalker. All they're doing is making sure that their property is restricted; it doesn't prevent others from doing whatever they want with their properties.
                      Yikes! Wouldn't they have a greater effect going to council and having their desires met with zoning?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I doubt it. Imagine if every community went to council to say "Hey, we only want _____ in our neighbourhoods." I don't think council would be too receptive to that.
                        They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Anyone signing this RC is insane. Why would anyone limit their prospective buyers when eventually they want to sell??? People do not live in their homes forever. Even if they pass away living there, the estate eventually wants to sell the house!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I hope the city puts any communities that choose to forego density at the very bottom of any list for infrastructure upgrades.
                            "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I hope the city puts any communities that choose to forego density at the very bottom of any list for infrastructure upgrades.

                              "Uh, yeah, we were going to pave your street, but now there's not enough taxes to do it. Sorry!"
                              "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X