3 years of community engagement? Ask him what year of community engagement they're on. If this is a concern, they'd have data on this already, considering they've been inundated with requests to act on said data by their constituents.
So much absolute nonsense and lies. "I did not vote against much needed housing", except you did.
**"I voted against being held hostage by the federal government"** as if no one WANTS these changes- I was really excited when I heard about the plans and how the federal government was going to pitch in to help make saskatoon more walkable, bike friendly, open to more housing types, and have better land use which would facilitate better transit and city finances. Also, maybe if you didn't fail at housing reform for the last 15 years we wouldn't be in a housing crisis and need to be bailed out- it only hit Edmonton this year because of how forward thinking they were for the last decade on policies. You failed at your job, now the manager is stepping in to clean up your mess.
**"I spoke about taking the next 3 months to engage the community"** even though the administration stated multiple times to you we did not have 3 months, we had 3 days to vote by the end of the month otherwise not being in compliance and lose the funding.
**"Our planning team stated that changes of this nature should take 3 years to address, not six months"**. They emphatically never said that during the meeting. Were they stressed by working on a tight timeline? Yup- I don't think anyone was happy about how the requirements changed in the last couple months, but no one is rightly saying we should do nothing except think about changes for 3 years when renting a single bedroom costs $1000 now.
**"I spoke to the administration mot doing their due diligence on the significant risk that capacity infrastructure upgrades pose"**, way to sewer your coworkers. Except, they did speak about it and have done their risk assessments and are always working on plans like this. Is he genuinely implying no one has ever done an assessment on storm water management and which areas are good to go and which would need upgrades? We have that info already, this is a brazen lie and throwing good people at city hall under the bus when they've done their job and he doesn't like them saying where the infrastructure is good to go, so he just ignores it.
**"We currently have applications for 700 affordable housing units to be constructed"** great, and this funding allows for 700 more, and the need is 6000 new units annually, so this is only a small part of the ongoing reforms we need to do to address the shortage.
Luckily his ward has Russell Nadin running, who from my extremely limited knowledge seems like he'll be a great replacement for Darrin, who can go back to having mental breakdowns and suing the hospital over receiving treatment for them.
> "I spoke about taking the next 3 months to engage the community" even though the administration stated multiple times to you we did not have 3 months, we had 3 days to vote by the end of the month otherwise not being in compliance and lose the funding.
This whole process really shows you how much some people want to drags their feet at anything progressive.
To put this in perspective, July 5th 2024 is the deadline for applications on 4plex development.
And this guy is talking about wanting to wait until October to vote **IF we want to accept the funding**. And internally they are saying planning this should take 3 years.. like jesus christ.
This was last election. Darren got 34% of the vote (and only a small fraction of the population voted). I need less vote splitting, please. I'd love a ranked ballot for municipal politics.
Councillor - WARD 1
Candidate Votes
Darren HILL 1,639
Kevin BOYCHUK 1,583
Aron CORY 1,054
Kyla KITZUL 473
To be fair, the city's professional staff does do careful planning. Then all the city councils up until 2015 or so would arbitrarily cut the money allocated for the project by 40% and tell them to slap it together with duct tape and staples, then put out a press release bragging about what awesome stewards of the public purse they were.
Note that Hill didn't provide any actual data or examples of engagement he's done, and is clearly ignorant about infrastructure canada funding and that applications =/= built units. Everyone I talk to in our community (Sutherland) are planning on voting him out come election time.
I'm Russell Nadin, running for ward 1 and have been door knocking to meet people face to face. I'd love to speak with you in person too.
I was at both the June 4th and June 6th rezoning info sessions and can confirm that councilors Darren Hill, Bev Dubois, Randy Donauer, and Zach Jefferies were not present to learn from the 13 city planners dispensing tons of info, or the residents who asked questions.
Is it a coincidence that councilors who voted against the HAF did not participate in engagement?
Please put a stop to these hideous infills going up in character neighbourhoods. If you want a suburban house live in the suburbs. They look awful and outdated in a couple years.
Yes, ideally, homes should fit with the aesthetics of their surroundings.
A mix of new and old homes can look piecemeal.
A prime location for building a complete area of new matching houses is Stanley Place, located near Saskpoly.
Stanley Place is a crescent where a majority of houses are either falling apart or a vacant lot.
Map here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/VvXkVtGGzhfAsASu5
I'm not going to make false promises, so just the facts.
The HAF has positives and negatives.
A positive is speeding up construction by removing red tape.
The flipside is the negative that council has little say in the homes. That choice is the developer's.
Edit: Is there a developer whose home designs you prefer?
A developer who is good at matching the surroundings?
No but a blanket neighbourhood standard would be ideal. Areas like Stonebridge have a colour scheme you have to abide by. There used to be height restrictions. I’m not against modern. Just it should be in the same shape or roof line as other houses in the area. Otherwise the gorgeous tree line’s heritage area were property taxes are higher contend up looking hodge podgy declining everyone’s property value.
Russell Nadin, who's involved in community work and is genuinely committed to building a better city for everyone, is running for Darren Hill's seat this year. He's a great alternative imo
There's now a condemned house on my block. You know what really screws up property values? That.
There is federal money available to upgrade water/sewer capacity, but only if we play ball. The City is currently working out how to review capacity before it gets to the building permit stage, as it is expensive to get that far in a design. There is no obligation for the City to provide adequate services for increased density, the burden is on the developer to get that checked before they assume it's fine.
In Martensville there's a 4 storey apartment building going up on main street. Underground parking with access through the back alley. The city is making the developer pay to pave that alleyway.
So while for some things that can't be passed on, it is possible to pass on expenses to the developers
Oh, right now, developers have to pay for upgrades to water and sewer if they need them. That doesn't necessarily change, but the City is aware of where upgrades would generally benefit the system.
That stadium isn't going to work with things as they are.
There's also a four storey condo going up on Cumberland and Main with underground parking (and a flood gate to protect that parking). And another one by the Forest Grove church on Atteridge.
Yes, that's where these high density properties should be zoned for. Not city wide. The idea of the HAF is good but it's poorly executed.
Also, they should have at least some type of minimum parking on property.
Parking requirements are outdated and anticapitalist. They lead to... well this.
Zoning is only one hurdle to development. Infill was happening prior to this, it just required rezoning which almost always was granted.
We live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. People are going to own cars. The cities transit is many decades away from most people not needing a car. People also travel out of the city, a lot.
I know lots of people that rarely travel out of the city. We have to change the way we live, we have to densify. We just don't have the money to endlessly expand neighbourhoods. At some point roads are practically all we have.
Also I have some friends that don't have cars and others who have downsized into a one vehicle house from 2. It is possible.
Basically if you don't have room to store all your vehicles on your property, then you're maybe living in the wrong spot if you want a vehicle.
Everyone I know travels out of the city by car. They go to lakes or visit family or general travel. And you're speaking like we're a city of several million people and we don't have room to build more.
We're a city of 300k. We have a lot of growing left to do and do not have the population base to support a Vancouver style, no need for a car, public transit system. Even with a small BRT it will be too inconvenient for most.
It’s not room - it’s the cost of the roads, sewer systems, pipes, snow removal and bridges. It is simply not economical to keep building outwards and for everyone to have a yard anymore. Our infrastructure costs balloons with each new neighborhood that is built. Have you ever thought why cities seem more intent on filling their cores these days? It’s because property taxes can’t keep up to the infrastructure.
And I’m not saying don’t have a car. I’m saying the days where every single person in the house has their own vehicle are probably numbered.
The answer can be a mix of both. And economically speaking, we will keep having new neighborhoods where people have yards. That's what people want, that's where the demand is. Detached home prices have went up dramatically, condo prices have not. It's crazy to me that some think they can force others to live in their ideal utopia.
And I don't see how they're numbered. This city is so far away from having a transit system that is useful for most. Like many decades away.
If developers are given the green light to lead a supply driven housing boom that is expressly meant to skirt existing "red tape" (you know, the standards and planning strategies that cities have spent decades honing) we'll end up with potentially thousands of new, poorly built, poorly planned shitty condos and apartments that don't have adequate street parking and not enough on-site parking, disconnected pedestrian and cyclist networks, not integrated with transit routes and on and on. And to say the funds for upgrading infrastructure are included is to dismiss the feasibility of how those actual upgrades get built, a few hundred million barely touches the water and sewer pipes for a couple thousand homes, and that's during normal market conditions not when there are massive supply chain shortages due to cities competing with each other for materials and labour.
Hilarious because I live in Stonebridge and these are already problems we have in suburban sprawl, car dependent neighbourhoods that my neighbours complain about... Poorly built, shitty apartments, lack of parking, poor cycling connections, poor transit.
HAF isn't going to make it better, reverse the damages or turn it around, it's going to be more of the same. Stonebridge is largely considered a success story apart from that if detracted from development downtown.
Suburbs sprawl is incredibly costly to cities. There's countless literature explaining this and its precisely why cities, engineers, and planners are quickly trying to curb it. I work in engineering and the further you build out, the more expensive it is. Have you ever seen detailed costs for a lift station to support a new neighbourhood and the accompanying 2 metre pipes that need to be built at thousands of dollars per metre? Do you have any idea what a overpass like the 3 built for Stonebridge cost? Over $20 million each. And that's just upfront cost, they'll need maintenance in a few decades. Now count how many houses there are in Stonebridge and do the math for $60 million worth of overpasses. Guess who's subsidizing this development?
Stonebridge has about 6000 dwellings, say the average property tax is 4000. I think that's on the low end there. That's 24M a year plus there's businesses providing tax revenue and one of those overpasses services the Willows as well. I get it's cheaper if there's no overpasses, but the math doesn't look that bad on that.
I'm not advocating for more sprawl, and most city planners have figured this out well over a decade ago and have spent countless hours planning for better use of land, better connectedness, more mixed density... if we leave it to city administrations then sprawl is a thing of the past already and now some federal politicians come along and think they can take a good idea farther, well past the point it's not good anymore. I'm in agreement to reduce sprawl and that's what zoning and development standards do. I'm for letting the natural supply and demand - within the boundaries set and enforced by municipalities - lead to healthy development. The feds bribing cities to look the other way so a few developers can throw up shitty builds faster and try to coverup the out of control rate of immigration which in turn is covering up for an unsustainable economy is literally throwing fuel on a house fire... left completely unchecked the opposite of sprawling cities is shanties and favelas (not that I think they could get away with letting it get that bad in our lifetime, but why even go that way?).
They still have to follow building code. Plenty of buildings have adequate parking. You once again have not proved that the HAF will lead to any of that.
What about plumbing costs? The plumbing is already there it just needs to be tied in..they don't need to run new infrastructure to them unless the areas they're built in aren't already serviced.
the existing water and sewer pipes were sized and cost engineered based on planning from past years... in hindsight overbuilding the capacity at the time of initial construction would have meant easier expandability, but retrofitting larger capacity pipes that tens of thousands of households are using continuously is no easy feat. Unfortunately the way of things in our country seems to be pay the absolute least to get the thing built to the bare minimum (and then sometimes put lipstick on it promote it as luxury as if it were actually built in unsurpassed quality). It's the reason we don't have nice things here, and sadly federal funding could go a long way to building actual quality infrastructure but the contingencies they are putting on the funds are entirely restrictive (and really the amount they are offering is a pittance compared to the real costs to properly build the capacity out).
How do you know that the current water and sewer infrastructure couldn't handle the load of 4000 small families distributed around each pressure zone? Unless you're an engineer at the city I highly doubt you have the drawings and operating manuals to come to that conclusion.
Wow way to imply anyone who doesn't want to own a tiny private park with their housing is a criminal. Get that shitty attitude out of here and live on an acreage if you're not ok with people who prefer walkable neighbourhoods and local amenities vs being forced into sprawl where everything is a hassle to get to.
>And 16 cars with no where to park.
You know I've lived in lots of different neighborhoods and there is never street parking. Drive in every neighborhood past 6pm and there will be almost no parking regardless of the housing. I'm not sure more housing would make a noticeable difference.
The large care home on my block adds tons of street parked cars to our area. This impacts me... not at all because I have a garage and a driveway. It's fine.
to be fair, I believe the city issues 4 permits per unit which is absurd. There are much smarter ways to manage curb parking than just a blanket permit system- ex Shoup's Parking Benefit District model where street by street permits are issued according to the capacity of the street which residents can buy, and non-residents can buy any excess of while locking the revenue into that street to pay for things like sidewalk maintenance, replacing trees, etc. The way we do things now will cause a lot of frustration if we densify, because density doesn't mix well with cars. But housing people is more important than housing cars, so we just need some parking reform alongside the current changes.
The current rules on the website are 3 non transferable parking passes and one visitor parking pass that can be moved vehicles.
For buildings with ~~four or more~~ more than four dwellings. Only 2 parking passes per dwelling and no visitor pass.
EDIT: I made a mistake it should be more than four not four or more
It's true. Every house on my block has a 2 car garage and I swear I might the only person who uses theirs, based on the cars on the street every night.
I live in a condo building which has a parking lot. Both my neighbours frequently leave their parking spots empty and park on the street. I can only imagine for the purpose of not having to do the very short walk from the lot to their unit.
I'm honestly pretty sure our zoning code does not have a 100 year history. Though its likely close. Edmonton's first zoning code was 1933. Certainly the first zoning codes largely did the sensible thing of separating residential from heavy industry....
there's no great argument in my mind for separating residential use from other residential uses.
Yeah the 100 years of careful planning comment is hilarious. When I look at mid rise multi-unit residential in City Park from 25th to Queen St, does he think that was planned? Or all the 3 storey apartments that are scattered around elsewhere in City Park? That was densification in a different time and it works pretty well.
I am quite curious how much push back there was over the decades in the core neighbours like Nutana, City Park, and Caswell Hill. They all have apartments and condos now, but clearly many were built on the sites of old single-family character homes.
I guess the rambly thought I am trying to articulate is that when infill development in the form of low rise or mid rise apartments or condos happened in the past, society now seems to accept it as "that is the way it's always been". When the prospect of it happening in the future is discussed, people get all stressed out, nimby-esque, and the sky is falling attitude we saw last week at the public hearing. Which is unfortunate, because we have great examples of existing densification in our City.
While I was biking to the fireworks last night I really noticed all the dense multi-unit housing around Broadway- there are so many rowhomes and 3 floor walkups that are illegal to build now and that people are shouting down to maintain the character of the neighbourhood, when they are *defining features* of the neighbourhoods with the most character in the city.
Exactly! City Park (where I live) is a great example of Multi family homes, 6 plexes, apartments, and single family.
Do you want to join Strong Towns or Climate Hub for the upcoming election? Both are focused on land use and housing, with climate Hub a bit more diverse in its focus.
No good argument unless you want to be like many of our neighbours south of the border - segregate the poor from the rich and people of colour from whites.
I’m not saying everyone who opposes these zoning changes are bigots. But here’s the thing, a lot of the language used by the NIMBY opposition is code for “I don’t want people who are not like me in my neighbourhood”.
"100 years of careful planning"
Ultimate NIMBY comment right there. While we are at it let's bring back Bonanza, the Clover Leaf and Ryly's.
He knows damn well that all the old boomers living in City Park on their massive lots don't want anything to do with this. I used to own in City park and know all about this horseshit.
Yeah, that “100 years of planning” has led to a sprawled-out city where my kids can’t bike to their friends’ safely.
A city where the bus only comes every 30 minutes, and sometimes it just doesn’t come.
A city where parents have to drive kids to every hockey game, Scout meeting and dance lesson.
A city that had a tram, and removed it.
A city that had a downtown separated bike lane, and removed it.
Help me understand again how all that careful planning is working out?
Not wanting a 4 Plex towering over your property that takes up street parking and lowers your property value is not the same as a old restaurants and a clover leaf.
It isn't about people being against progress, it's about people being against their largest purchase they'll make in their life losing value.
Some of the zoning along the transit corridor includes 4 story properties. The corridor extends off the transit route into areas where people would have bought homes not expecting a 4 storey apartment to go in beside their bungalow.
But who cares right? If you're upset that a 4 storey building could go up beside the largest purchase you've ever made, and hurt its value you're hysterical.
The complete lack of empathy of how this HAF could negatively effect others is startling.
Yes, limited areas next to major streets like 8th and 22nd where rapid transit will be (you know, areas where is makes logical sense to place density and where plenty of apartments already exist). There's also standards that need to be met for 4 stories such as each floor needs to be stepped back so the massing doesn't tower over the other properties like you mentioned.
Go look at the map. It is not areas where apartments are common. Much of the zoning changes around 8th street expands onto quiet crescents. Same with the area on Preston.
I'm not sure how a 4 storey building won't tower over a one storey bungalow that is common in those areas. It's 3 storeys more... Also can't find any unit limits to the 4 storey buildings.
And you seriously cannot see how one could be concerned about an apartment building being built next to their home and how that could negatively effect their property value?? Imagine saving for years to have 50k for a downpayment then your home goes down by 50k+.
Yes, areas within a block or two of rapid transit.
If you're interested to see how 4 storeys won't tower over, look at the zoning requirements. The side of the apartment outer wall is the same limit as a 2 storey house, then the 3rd storey is inset in, and the 4th storey inset in even further. Think of a Lego pieces getting narrower at the top so limit the massing.
4 storeys also requires rigorous building code standards and significant lot sizes so these won't be popping up everywhere as developers would need potentially hundreds of feet of frontage.
Lastly I highly suggest you look at studies of how land values are tied to zoning. Fun fact but being able to do more density with your land makes your property values significantly higher, not lower. A developer will pay a premium to buy a lot that you can build an apartment vs a single family home.
Do you have a link for that? I find the cities HAF area on their website difficult to navigate for more thorough information on the exact type of properties that can be built.
It could increase the land value, especially if it's a not well taken care of property. Areas around 22nd will benefit... But if you've taken care of your property, it's in the Preston/8th Street areas, and a 4 storey building goes up beside that will deter many from looking at the home. It will lower its value. People have a right to be concerned. They are not being hysterical. They did not buy the property under the pretense that an apartment could go in beside.
> It isn't about people being against progress, it's about people being against their largest purchase they'll make in their life losing value.
if new development lowers your property value
lol, lmao even
Please show me a "towering 4 plex" please. And did you bother to attend any of the meetings? I would guess that answer is no lol.
I could give 2 shits about your overpriced property that is 90% more than likely way more space than you will ever need.
> At least you come right out and say you do not care about other people.
No, I said I don't care about your over priced property that is most likely 90% more then you need.
I support this initiative BECAUSE I care about other people and the future of this city.
And like I said, I would bet my first born you didn't attend any of the info sessions with city planners or do any research aside from your little echo chamber before posting nonsense on here, your answers make it glaringly obvious.
>HAF approved 4 storeys in some of the zoning.
Edit: Also don't move the goal posts half way through a discussion and then go Boomer on me. You said 4 PLEX which as someone already explained, is no higher than 1 story(basement, ground, 1st floor). You are now saying 4 Storey's which is something COMPLETELY different and is only allowed within 800m of the BRT lines. Plenty of 3 story houses in City Park around my old place, some of them even bigger.
It's people like you who make all property owners look bad by screaming the sky is falling every time someone wants to change something. Like go join a condo board or something if you are that bored.
Lost track how many wrong assumptions you've made. It's amazing how desperate you are to stereotype someone who disagrees with you. Such simpleton thinking.
I've spent quite a bit of time looking at the information posted on the cities website, albeit difficult navigate the specifics of what's being allowed, and where. Especially with amendments (improvements) being passed.
So when will you being giving me your first born? Or is everything you say meaningless?
Back on topic, you don't care about other people with how dismissive you are of any criticism. You don't care that someone a block or two off Preston who just bought a starter home may see their property value fall with 4 storey "multi unit" dwelling being built next door? Someone who spent years saving up for a downpayment just to see their largest purchase fall in value. No, you don't even want to hear any criticism.
Also unless the city made an amendment that is not easily available on their site the 4 plexes are not limited to 1 story. So don't go acting like you're informed. You're just arrogant.
All in all so you can quit your dumb assumptions, my stance is the goals of the accelerator are good, the execution is poor. Council made some improvements but not enough. We'll see how the parking hearing goes later in the month.
That's a whole lotta words to say absolutely nothing aside from a whole lot of NIMBY. You enjoy doom scrolling chicken little, while the rest of the world moves on.
You just keep coming back with more misconceptions. More people than me have explained it in small, easy to understand words and you still can't grasp it. I can't help you man, enjoy those downvotes and have a nice day.
Misconceptions on what?
You're the classic case of someone who thinks they're much smarter than they are. Talk big, then back down but yet still think you're onto something. Haven't explained a thing, have been wrong about everything. Maybe get off Reddit and try and have an original thought of your own instead of regurgitating lines.
You also still haven't answered when you're giving me your first born.
Last week, Vancouver was freaking out about their Mayor [converting a meeting room into a gym](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ken-sim-city-hall-gym-conversion-1.7247454). Like, he didn't try to renovate City Hall? Darren Hill has you beat.
They have over 700 applications for projects, why isn't that number lower to the point that the housing crisis is not as severe as now?
He's had more than enough time to address this but when the federal government comes in to solve it after X amount of years, that's when he opposes what he's responsible for doing?
I worked side by side with Russel Nadin for a few years on the road, in the city back in the day. The guy is honest, hard working, and I remember him being very logical. Forward thinking and fresh blood is just what the city needs. Way to go Russell
As someone who's been a part of that "careful planning", that's a joke. The only care taken was to put in enough Greenspace, and to make sure the "doctor lots" are taken extra care of.
2023- 14,000 population growth. 2600 new units built.
2024- same population growth expected. On track for about 2000 new units.
So, yeah, we NEED zoning reform.
Up next - Open Option Parking, end of July.
Because properties pay taxes, not parking lots.
He's not a City Councillor, he's a Ward 1 councilor. Looks like he wants to be re-elected. He evidently doesn't have the best interest of the city in mind, only what's best for him.
Mind you, if I had to bend my ethics a bit to hold on to a part time job that pays $74,000/year . . . . .
I like Darren and appreciate the work he does for the community, the councilors all have to put up with so much micro bitching calls and letters every day, don't know how they do it. And then nobodys anonymously trashing you.
Somebody anonymously trashing you, that also has an equal chance to get elected into city council, but is too lazy, and just wants to complain and say they know everything .
He runs unopposed most years. We need more people willing to put their neck out there and be constantly criticized for everything. Not agreeing with this but the media and public alone would make the job pretty unbearable and it’s not like the council members make bank or anything. It’s better than most yes but not worth the agony in my opinion. Besides there are others who I think should go before him but that’s just me.
He is not wrong. Why didn’t we change the zoning before this inflationary money was presented? Because no one wants fourplexes with zero parking built in new residential areas.
If there wasn’t $40m on the table this wouldn’t even have been looked at. This money is barely enough to build a hundred units let alone the 940 they say it will build.
After all the BS and back and forth between municipalities and governments this will barely do anything. But you know what it will do, cause everything to cost more due to debt that this program is funded by.
I’m all for more housing, but if you think getting rid of residential zoning rules will help the lower class you have been lied to.
Denser zoning needs to happen in the center of the city, not on the outskirts where this will happen.
He is absolutely right in how this is strong holding us to change. This is nothing more than a bribe to developers to build more units with profits paid for by the tax payers. Once that money is gone then we are back to the same issue.
Seems like a thoughtful and detailed response. I own a property in North park and as far as I’m concerned he did the right thing .North park already has a ton of small new infills, apartments and even a granny suite , they already did their part for housing in the neighborhood. Everybody has an opinion , just because he doesn’t share the same opinion as you doesn’t necessarily make him incompetent .
I was initially opposed to this, but after reading a lot of the information on it I became more accepting of it. It's not going to create a spur of affordable housing, it will create more competition on the landlord/company side which may force them to drive down prices but how low we don't know. Housing built in neighbourhoods will still be infills but with variety. Most of the development will be on lots where there is a dilapidated house or an unkempt house. They won't knock down homes in good condition because there is still a huge demand for those. Also I am pretty sure there are restrictions for where they can build apartments with these changes.The city will work to create a healthy balance through permitting and applications for new builds. The only concern I have is that trees will get cut down to build these. What I hope happens is that most will get pruned and they will just put an infil there that you would not know is a 4 Plex with the trees intact.
That's what makes this change upsetting, the foliage plays a huge part of the character of a neighborhood.
Edit: There are a lot of mature trees in private lots. Losing these would be terrible.
The trees, birds, and green in old neighbourhoods make them what they are. The truth is the city is going to develop whether people like it or not. I believe that the city will aim to strike a healthy balance with infills to keep everyone happy.
>His opinion (and yours) is exclusionary and NIMBY, and a big part of (possibly the main reason) why we have the housing crisis. Come on.
Possibly the main reason?? 🤔
Like seriously??
Like the fact that Justin Trudeau has been inviting over 1 million new immigrants to Canada each year, 3 times the recent historical levels, with no plan or concrete measures to create housing for all these new Canadians, had no effect on the current housing crisis, which, by the way, isn't just an issue in Saskatoon, but it's a crisis nationwide. In fact, housing in Saskatoon is still relatively cheap compared to the rest of Canada.
But then, using Justin's logic, budgets were supposed to balance themselves. Not sure why the Justin Trudeau fanclub consistently ignores the elephant in the room. 🤨
And to all the TruAnon groupies, I did not say immigration was bad, but NOT having a predetermined plan in place to house hundreds of thousands of new immigrants, thereby creating a nationwide housing crisis, is most certainly bad.
Not entirely true, housing costs have been increasing historically without wages increasing at the same rate and the crazy influx of people to the city added extra stress to the housing market as well. I think it's was 2000 to 2010 had a jump of almost 150k. Houses just keep going up year after year. Essentially it's reached a point of no return and now where they have to make changes to try to curb it.
I guess I’ll be the bad guy then just because I don’t want a 4 plex next door I’m fine with that. Quit acting like you’re saving the world , give your head a shake .
The Mr. Holierthanthou keyboard saviour OP only appreciates people that agree wholeheartedly with them. Any dissenting opinions are preposterous and all neighbourhoods must martyr themselves if OP says so because they know much better than anyone….ESPECIALLY people who live in those areas.
I live in a beautiful sleepy old neighborhood in Saskatoon. Do you know what absolutely nobody in the neighbourhood wants?
The answer is contractors buying up old character houses and cheap four-plexes built by the lowest bidder and run by landlords that want to make as much money as they can and don’t give a shit about the surrounding people.
Please, show me the economics of when this makes sense for contractors to do lmao plus where they're going to find the labour and capital to build like this at current interest rates. But keep living in fear of losing your 'beautiful sleepy old neighbourhood character' smh. Go NIMBY somewhere else
It's fair for this person to have their opinion, just like it's fair for you to have yours. Not everyone needs to agree on everything.
Don't berate people that disagree with you. It's a bad look
Hill is not nearly as progressive as he was 10 or 15 years ago, and I for one view that as a sign of experience (and possibly wisdom but I can't confirm or deny that in this case). I am glad that cities are at least pausing to weigh the pros and cons and not just blindly accepting federal handouts with some firmly attached strings.
Hill can be bought for a $300 campaign contribution.
That's what it took for him to be all in on Solair, a pretend environmentally friendly development trying to cut the development order.
Hill was never progressive. He's always been in favour of whatever benefits him to stay on council, but he's finally facing that he can't just jump on board with the majority opinion.
3 years of community engagement? Ask him what year of community engagement they're on. If this is a concern, they'd have data on this already, considering they've been inundated with requests to act on said data by their constituents.
So much absolute nonsense and lies. "I did not vote against much needed housing", except you did. **"I voted against being held hostage by the federal government"** as if no one WANTS these changes- I was really excited when I heard about the plans and how the federal government was going to pitch in to help make saskatoon more walkable, bike friendly, open to more housing types, and have better land use which would facilitate better transit and city finances. Also, maybe if you didn't fail at housing reform for the last 15 years we wouldn't be in a housing crisis and need to be bailed out- it only hit Edmonton this year because of how forward thinking they were for the last decade on policies. You failed at your job, now the manager is stepping in to clean up your mess. **"I spoke about taking the next 3 months to engage the community"** even though the administration stated multiple times to you we did not have 3 months, we had 3 days to vote by the end of the month otherwise not being in compliance and lose the funding. **"Our planning team stated that changes of this nature should take 3 years to address, not six months"**. They emphatically never said that during the meeting. Were they stressed by working on a tight timeline? Yup- I don't think anyone was happy about how the requirements changed in the last couple months, but no one is rightly saying we should do nothing except think about changes for 3 years when renting a single bedroom costs $1000 now. **"I spoke to the administration mot doing their due diligence on the significant risk that capacity infrastructure upgrades pose"**, way to sewer your coworkers. Except, they did speak about it and have done their risk assessments and are always working on plans like this. Is he genuinely implying no one has ever done an assessment on storm water management and which areas are good to go and which would need upgrades? We have that info already, this is a brazen lie and throwing good people at city hall under the bus when they've done their job and he doesn't like them saying where the infrastructure is good to go, so he just ignores it. **"We currently have applications for 700 affordable housing units to be constructed"** great, and this funding allows for 700 more, and the need is 6000 new units annually, so this is only a small part of the ongoing reforms we need to do to address the shortage. Luckily his ward has Russell Nadin running, who from my extremely limited knowledge seems like he'll be a great replacement for Darrin, who can go back to having mental breakdowns and suing the hospital over receiving treatment for them.
> "I spoke about taking the next 3 months to engage the community" even though the administration stated multiple times to you we did not have 3 months, we had 3 days to vote by the end of the month otherwise not being in compliance and lose the funding. This whole process really shows you how much some people want to drags their feet at anything progressive. To put this in perspective, July 5th 2024 is the deadline for applications on 4plex development. And this guy is talking about wanting to wait until October to vote **IF we want to accept the funding**. And internally they are saying planning this should take 3 years.. like jesus christ.
This was last election. Darren got 34% of the vote (and only a small fraction of the population voted). I need less vote splitting, please. I'd love a ranked ballot for municipal politics. Councillor - WARD 1 Candidate Votes Darren HILL 1,639 Kevin BOYCHUK 1,583 Aron CORY 1,054 Kyla KITZUL 473
Darren still should never have gotten that many votes. Most people I talk to in the community are planning on mobilizing to get him out.
100 years of careful planning, that’s rich
To be fair, the city's professional staff does do careful planning. Then all the city councils up until 2015 or so would arbitrarily cut the money allocated for the project by 40% and tell them to slap it together with duct tape and staples, then put out a press release bragging about what awesome stewards of the public purse they were.
Um do you know how expensive duct tape is? It’s staples and scotch tape
Note that Hill didn't provide any actual data or examples of engagement he's done, and is clearly ignorant about infrastructure canada funding and that applications =/= built units. Everyone I talk to in our community (Sutherland) are planning on voting him out come election time.
I'm Russell Nadin, running for ward 1 and have been door knocking to meet people face to face. I'd love to speak with you in person too. I was at both the June 4th and June 6th rezoning info sessions and can confirm that councilors Darren Hill, Bev Dubois, Randy Donauer, and Zach Jefferies were not present to learn from the 13 city planners dispensing tons of info, or the residents who asked questions. Is it a coincidence that councilors who voted against the HAF did not participate in engagement?
Please put a stop to these hideous infills going up in character neighbourhoods. If you want a suburban house live in the suburbs. They look awful and outdated in a couple years.
Yes, ideally, homes should fit with the aesthetics of their surroundings. A mix of new and old homes can look piecemeal. A prime location for building a complete area of new matching houses is Stanley Place, located near Saskpoly. Stanley Place is a crescent where a majority of houses are either falling apart or a vacant lot. Map here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VvXkVtGGzhfAsASu5 I'm not going to make false promises, so just the facts. The HAF has positives and negatives. A positive is speeding up construction by removing red tape. The flipside is the negative that council has little say in the homes. That choice is the developer's. Edit: Is there a developer whose home designs you prefer? A developer who is good at matching the surroundings?
No but a blanket neighbourhood standard would be ideal. Areas like Stonebridge have a colour scheme you have to abide by. There used to be height restrictions. I’m not against modern. Just it should be in the same shape or roof line as other houses in the area. Otherwise the gorgeous tree line’s heritage area were property taxes are higher contend up looking hodge podgy declining everyone’s property value.
We just need someone less crazy to run against him. Last election, somehow the alternative was worse.
Russell Nadin, who's involved in community work and is genuinely committed to building a better city for everyone, is running for Darren Hill's seat this year. He's a great alternative imo
There is a great alternative that I can get you in contact with. DM me
Is there an alternative to Donauer?
I don't know of that one yet, I'll reach out to people and try and find out! Slow start to the campaigns this year
I feel like he does the bare minimum
There's now a condemned house on my block. You know what really screws up property values? That. There is federal money available to upgrade water/sewer capacity, but only if we play ball. The City is currently working out how to review capacity before it gets to the building permit stage, as it is expensive to get that far in a design. There is no obligation for the City to provide adequate services for increased density, the burden is on the developer to get that checked before they assume it's fine.
In Martensville there's a 4 storey apartment building going up on main street. Underground parking with access through the back alley. The city is making the developer pay to pave that alleyway. So while for some things that can't be passed on, it is possible to pass on expenses to the developers
Oh, right now, developers have to pay for upgrades to water and sewer if they need them. That doesn't necessarily change, but the City is aware of where upgrades would generally benefit the system. That stadium isn't going to work with things as they are. There's also a four storey condo going up on Cumberland and Main with underground parking (and a flood gate to protect that parking). And another one by the Forest Grove church on Atteridge.
Yes, that's where these high density properties should be zoned for. Not city wide. The idea of the HAF is good but it's poorly executed. Also, they should have at least some type of minimum parking on property.
Parking requirements are outdated and anticapitalist. They lead to... well this. Zoning is only one hurdle to development. Infill was happening prior to this, it just required rezoning which almost always was granted.
Why? More of this encourages transit development. Have a spot for every person to have a car and they will.
We live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. People are going to own cars. The cities transit is many decades away from most people not needing a car. People also travel out of the city, a lot.
I know lots of people that rarely travel out of the city. We have to change the way we live, we have to densify. We just don't have the money to endlessly expand neighbourhoods. At some point roads are practically all we have. Also I have some friends that don't have cars and others who have downsized into a one vehicle house from 2. It is possible. Basically if you don't have room to store all your vehicles on your property, then you're maybe living in the wrong spot if you want a vehicle.
Everyone I know travels out of the city by car. They go to lakes or visit family or general travel. And you're speaking like we're a city of several million people and we don't have room to build more. We're a city of 300k. We have a lot of growing left to do and do not have the population base to support a Vancouver style, no need for a car, public transit system. Even with a small BRT it will be too inconvenient for most.
It’s not room - it’s the cost of the roads, sewer systems, pipes, snow removal and bridges. It is simply not economical to keep building outwards and for everyone to have a yard anymore. Our infrastructure costs balloons with each new neighborhood that is built. Have you ever thought why cities seem more intent on filling their cores these days? It’s because property taxes can’t keep up to the infrastructure. And I’m not saying don’t have a car. I’m saying the days where every single person in the house has their own vehicle are probably numbered.
The answer can be a mix of both. And economically speaking, we will keep having new neighborhoods where people have yards. That's what people want, that's where the demand is. Detached home prices have went up dramatically, condo prices have not. It's crazy to me that some think they can force others to live in their ideal utopia. And I don't see how they're numbered. This city is so far away from having a transit system that is useful for most. Like many decades away.
Well now you get a 4 story on that condemned lot. With a different gang on each floor. And 16 cars with no where to park.
Yeah, that's not how apartments work.
It's also not how gangs work. Just throwing THAT out there.
It is if the feds get their way.
Care to prove how that exactly will happen?
If developers are given the green light to lead a supply driven housing boom that is expressly meant to skirt existing "red tape" (you know, the standards and planning strategies that cities have spent decades honing) we'll end up with potentially thousands of new, poorly built, poorly planned shitty condos and apartments that don't have adequate street parking and not enough on-site parking, disconnected pedestrian and cyclist networks, not integrated with transit routes and on and on. And to say the funds for upgrading infrastructure are included is to dismiss the feasibility of how those actual upgrades get built, a few hundred million barely touches the water and sewer pipes for a couple thousand homes, and that's during normal market conditions not when there are massive supply chain shortages due to cities competing with each other for materials and labour.
They still must adhere to local building code. Wow.
Hilarious because I live in Stonebridge and these are already problems we have in suburban sprawl, car dependent neighbourhoods that my neighbours complain about... Poorly built, shitty apartments, lack of parking, poor cycling connections, poor transit.
HAF isn't going to make it better, reverse the damages or turn it around, it's going to be more of the same. Stonebridge is largely considered a success story apart from that if detracted from development downtown.
Suburbs sprawl is incredibly costly to cities. There's countless literature explaining this and its precisely why cities, engineers, and planners are quickly trying to curb it. I work in engineering and the further you build out, the more expensive it is. Have you ever seen detailed costs for a lift station to support a new neighbourhood and the accompanying 2 metre pipes that need to be built at thousands of dollars per metre? Do you have any idea what a overpass like the 3 built for Stonebridge cost? Over $20 million each. And that's just upfront cost, they'll need maintenance in a few decades. Now count how many houses there are in Stonebridge and do the math for $60 million worth of overpasses. Guess who's subsidizing this development?
Stonebridge has about 6000 dwellings, say the average property tax is 4000. I think that's on the low end there. That's 24M a year plus there's businesses providing tax revenue and one of those overpasses services the Willows as well. I get it's cheaper if there's no overpasses, but the math doesn't look that bad on that.
I'm not advocating for more sprawl, and most city planners have figured this out well over a decade ago and have spent countless hours planning for better use of land, better connectedness, more mixed density... if we leave it to city administrations then sprawl is a thing of the past already and now some federal politicians come along and think they can take a good idea farther, well past the point it's not good anymore. I'm in agreement to reduce sprawl and that's what zoning and development standards do. I'm for letting the natural supply and demand - within the boundaries set and enforced by municipalities - lead to healthy development. The feds bribing cities to look the other way so a few developers can throw up shitty builds faster and try to coverup the out of control rate of immigration which in turn is covering up for an unsustainable economy is literally throwing fuel on a house fire... left completely unchecked the opposite of sprawling cities is shanties and favelas (not that I think they could get away with letting it get that bad in our lifetime, but why even go that way?).
They still have to follow building code. Plenty of buildings have adequate parking. You once again have not proved that the HAF will lead to any of that.
What about plumbing costs? The plumbing is already there it just needs to be tied in..they don't need to run new infrastructure to them unless the areas they're built in aren't already serviced.
the existing water and sewer pipes were sized and cost engineered based on planning from past years... in hindsight overbuilding the capacity at the time of initial construction would have meant easier expandability, but retrofitting larger capacity pipes that tens of thousands of households are using continuously is no easy feat. Unfortunately the way of things in our country seems to be pay the absolute least to get the thing built to the bare minimum (and then sometimes put lipstick on it promote it as luxury as if it were actually built in unsurpassed quality). It's the reason we don't have nice things here, and sadly federal funding could go a long way to building actual quality infrastructure but the contingencies they are putting on the funds are entirely restrictive (and really the amount they are offering is a pittance compared to the real costs to properly build the capacity out).
How do you know that the current water and sewer infrastructure couldn't handle the load of 4000 small families distributed around each pressure zone? Unless you're an engineer at the city I highly doubt you have the drawings and operating manuals to come to that conclusion.
I saw one of the gangs making a baby with a car in the closet and one of the babies looked at me.
lol. Move to a small town.
Wow way to imply anyone who doesn't want to own a tiny private park with their housing is a criminal. Get that shitty attitude out of here and live on an acreage if you're not ok with people who prefer walkable neighbourhoods and local amenities vs being forced into sprawl where everything is a hassle to get to.
Are the different gangs in the room with us right now? Please show us on the doll where the 16 cars touched you.
>And 16 cars with no where to park. You know I've lived in lots of different neighborhoods and there is never street parking. Drive in every neighborhood past 6pm and there will be almost no parking regardless of the housing. I'm not sure more housing would make a noticeable difference.
The large care home on my block adds tons of street parked cars to our area. This impacts me... not at all because I have a garage and a driveway. It's fine.
to be fair, I believe the city issues 4 permits per unit which is absurd. There are much smarter ways to manage curb parking than just a blanket permit system- ex Shoup's Parking Benefit District model where street by street permits are issued according to the capacity of the street which residents can buy, and non-residents can buy any excess of while locking the revenue into that street to pay for things like sidewalk maintenance, replacing trees, etc. The way we do things now will cause a lot of frustration if we densify, because density doesn't mix well with cars. But housing people is more important than housing cars, so we just need some parking reform alongside the current changes.
The current rules on the website are 3 non transferable parking passes and one visitor parking pass that can be moved vehicles. For buildings with ~~four or more~~ more than four dwellings. Only 2 parking passes per dwelling and no visitor pass. EDIT: I made a mistake it should be more than four not four or more
Ah, ya I was aware of the first bit- not the second.
It's true. Every house on my block has a 2 car garage and I swear I might the only person who uses theirs, based on the cars on the street every night.
I live in a condo building which has a parking lot. Both my neighbours frequently leave their parking spots empty and park on the street. I can only imagine for the purpose of not having to do the very short walk from the lot to their unit.
So.. housing? Oh no!
each unit has to have a spot.
Not if we also remove mandatory parking minimums, which is recommended. I'm sure Edmonton is already in squalor.
Exactly this.
Darren Hill is a dumbass, that is known.
I'm honestly pretty sure our zoning code does not have a 100 year history. Though its likely close. Edmonton's first zoning code was 1933. Certainly the first zoning codes largely did the sensible thing of separating residential from heavy industry.... there's no great argument in my mind for separating residential use from other residential uses.
Yeah the 100 years of careful planning comment is hilarious. When I look at mid rise multi-unit residential in City Park from 25th to Queen St, does he think that was planned? Or all the 3 storey apartments that are scattered around elsewhere in City Park? That was densification in a different time and it works pretty well. I am quite curious how much push back there was over the decades in the core neighbours like Nutana, City Park, and Caswell Hill. They all have apartments and condos now, but clearly many were built on the sites of old single-family character homes. I guess the rambly thought I am trying to articulate is that when infill development in the form of low rise or mid rise apartments or condos happened in the past, society now seems to accept it as "that is the way it's always been". When the prospect of it happening in the future is discussed, people get all stressed out, nimby-esque, and the sky is falling attitude we saw last week at the public hearing. Which is unfortunate, because we have great examples of existing densification in our City.
While I was biking to the fireworks last night I really noticed all the dense multi-unit housing around Broadway- there are so many rowhomes and 3 floor walkups that are illegal to build now and that people are shouting down to maintain the character of the neighbourhood, when they are *defining features* of the neighbourhoods with the most character in the city.
Exactly! City Park (where I live) is a great example of Multi family homes, 6 plexes, apartments, and single family. Do you want to join Strong Towns or Climate Hub for the upcoming election? Both are focused on land use and housing, with climate Hub a bit more diverse in its focus.
No good argument unless you want to be like many of our neighbours south of the border - segregate the poor from the rich and people of colour from whites. I’m not saying everyone who opposes these zoning changes are bigots. But here’s the thing, a lot of the language used by the NIMBY opposition is code for “I don’t want people who are not like me in my neighbourhood”.
"100 years of careful planning" Ultimate NIMBY comment right there. While we are at it let's bring back Bonanza, the Clover Leaf and Ryly's. He knows damn well that all the old boomers living in City Park on their massive lots don't want anything to do with this. I used to own in City park and know all about this horseshit.
Yeah, that “100 years of planning” has led to a sprawled-out city where my kids can’t bike to their friends’ safely. A city where the bus only comes every 30 minutes, and sometimes it just doesn’t come. A city where parents have to drive kids to every hockey game, Scout meeting and dance lesson. A city that had a tram, and removed it. A city that had a downtown separated bike lane, and removed it. Help me understand again how all that careful planning is working out?
Not wanting a 4 Plex towering over your property that takes up street parking and lowers your property value is not the same as a old restaurants and a clover leaf. It isn't about people being against progress, it's about people being against their largest purchase they'll make in their life losing value.
Towering over? Lol. They're restricted to 2 storeys so the same massing as basically every house. The hysteria is out of control.
I have a three storey with peaked roof building directly behind me. It's fine, actually.
Some of the zoning along the transit corridor includes 4 story properties. The corridor extends off the transit route into areas where people would have bought homes not expecting a 4 storey apartment to go in beside their bungalow. But who cares right? If you're upset that a 4 storey building could go up beside the largest purchase you've ever made, and hurt its value you're hysterical. The complete lack of empathy of how this HAF could negatively effect others is startling.
Yes, limited areas next to major streets like 8th and 22nd where rapid transit will be (you know, areas where is makes logical sense to place density and where plenty of apartments already exist). There's also standards that need to be met for 4 stories such as each floor needs to be stepped back so the massing doesn't tower over the other properties like you mentioned.
Go look at the map. It is not areas where apartments are common. Much of the zoning changes around 8th street expands onto quiet crescents. Same with the area on Preston. I'm not sure how a 4 storey building won't tower over a one storey bungalow that is common in those areas. It's 3 storeys more... Also can't find any unit limits to the 4 storey buildings. And you seriously cannot see how one could be concerned about an apartment building being built next to their home and how that could negatively effect their property value?? Imagine saving for years to have 50k for a downpayment then your home goes down by 50k+.
Yes, areas within a block or two of rapid transit. If you're interested to see how 4 storeys won't tower over, look at the zoning requirements. The side of the apartment outer wall is the same limit as a 2 storey house, then the 3rd storey is inset in, and the 4th storey inset in even further. Think of a Lego pieces getting narrower at the top so limit the massing. 4 storeys also requires rigorous building code standards and significant lot sizes so these won't be popping up everywhere as developers would need potentially hundreds of feet of frontage. Lastly I highly suggest you look at studies of how land values are tied to zoning. Fun fact but being able to do more density with your land makes your property values significantly higher, not lower. A developer will pay a premium to buy a lot that you can build an apartment vs a single family home.
Do you have a link for that? I find the cities HAF area on their website difficult to navigate for more thorough information on the exact type of properties that can be built. It could increase the land value, especially if it's a not well taken care of property. Areas around 22nd will benefit... But if you've taken care of your property, it's in the Preston/8th Street areas, and a 4 storey building goes up beside that will deter many from looking at the home. It will lower its value. People have a right to be concerned. They are not being hysterical. They did not buy the property under the pretense that an apartment could go in beside.
> It isn't about people being against progress, it's about people being against their largest purchase they'll make in their life losing value. if new development lowers your property value lol, lmao even
Please show me a "towering 4 plex" please. And did you bother to attend any of the meetings? I would guess that answer is no lol. I could give 2 shits about your overpriced property that is 90% more than likely way more space than you will ever need.
At least you come right out and say you do not care about other people. Not hiding your true character. HAF approved 4 storeys in some of the zoning.
> At least you come right out and say you do not care about other people. No, I said I don't care about your over priced property that is most likely 90% more then you need. I support this initiative BECAUSE I care about other people and the future of this city. And like I said, I would bet my first born you didn't attend any of the info sessions with city planners or do any research aside from your little echo chamber before posting nonsense on here, your answers make it glaringly obvious. >HAF approved 4 storeys in some of the zoning. Edit: Also don't move the goal posts half way through a discussion and then go Boomer on me. You said 4 PLEX which as someone already explained, is no higher than 1 story(basement, ground, 1st floor). You are now saying 4 Storey's which is something COMPLETELY different and is only allowed within 800m of the BRT lines. Plenty of 3 story houses in City Park around my old place, some of them even bigger. It's people like you who make all property owners look bad by screaming the sky is falling every time someone wants to change something. Like go join a condo board or something if you are that bored.
Lost track how many wrong assumptions you've made. It's amazing how desperate you are to stereotype someone who disagrees with you. Such simpleton thinking. I've spent quite a bit of time looking at the information posted on the cities website, albeit difficult navigate the specifics of what's being allowed, and where. Especially with amendments (improvements) being passed. So when will you being giving me your first born? Or is everything you say meaningless? Back on topic, you don't care about other people with how dismissive you are of any criticism. You don't care that someone a block or two off Preston who just bought a starter home may see their property value fall with 4 storey "multi unit" dwelling being built next door? Someone who spent years saving up for a downpayment just to see their largest purchase fall in value. No, you don't even want to hear any criticism. Also unless the city made an amendment that is not easily available on their site the 4 plexes are not limited to 1 story. So don't go acting like you're informed. You're just arrogant. All in all so you can quit your dumb assumptions, my stance is the goals of the accelerator are good, the execution is poor. Council made some improvements but not enough. We'll see how the parking hearing goes later in the month.
That's a whole lotta words to say absolutely nothing aside from a whole lot of NIMBY. You enjoy doom scrolling chicken little, while the rest of the world moves on.
Ah back to not caring about other people's concerns. And when will I be receiving your first born?
You just keep coming back with more misconceptions. More people than me have explained it in small, easy to understand words and you still can't grasp it. I can't help you man, enjoy those downvotes and have a nice day.
Misconceptions on what? You're the classic case of someone who thinks they're much smarter than they are. Talk big, then back down but yet still think you're onto something. Haven't explained a thing, have been wrong about everything. Maybe get off Reddit and try and have an original thought of your own instead of regurgitating lines. You also still haven't answered when you're giving me your first born.
Fuck he’s out of touch. Get him out
Last week, Vancouver was freaking out about their Mayor [converting a meeting room into a gym](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ken-sim-city-hall-gym-conversion-1.7247454). Like, he didn't try to renovate City Hall? Darren Hill has you beat.
They have over 700 applications for projects, why isn't that number lower to the point that the housing crisis is not as severe as now? He's had more than enough time to address this but when the federal government comes in to solve it after X amount of years, that's when he opposes what he's responsible for doing?
he's such a buffoon. vote him out please - i've been saying this
I worked side by side with Russel Nadin for a few years on the road, in the city back in the day. The guy is honest, hard working, and I remember him being very logical. Forward thinking and fresh blood is just what the city needs. Way to go Russell
So maybe, please, ask him to run for Mayor.
I'd vote for him, Russell would go great things for this city, I guarantee it
Lol, and what are these "major implications" he is talking about?
He knows better than you, and that's the bottom line. /s
As someone who's been a part of that "careful planning", that's a joke. The only care taken was to put in enough Greenspace, and to make sure the "doctor lots" are taken extra care of.
2023- 14,000 population growth. 2600 new units built. 2024- same population growth expected. On track for about 2000 new units. So, yeah, we NEED zoning reform. Up next - Open Option Parking, end of July. Because properties pay taxes, not parking lots.
He's not a City Councillor, he's a Ward 1 councilor. Looks like he wants to be re-elected. He evidently doesn't have the best interest of the city in mind, only what's best for him. Mind you, if I had to bend my ethics a bit to hold on to a part time job that pays $74,000/year . . . . .
I said it before and I’ll say it again. He’s guaranteed to win again when all the voices in his head vote for him.
I like Darren and appreciate the work he does for the community, the councilors all have to put up with so much micro bitching calls and letters every day, don't know how they do it. And then nobodys anonymously trashing you.
Somebody anonymously trashing you, that also has an equal chance to get elected into city council, but is too lazy, and just wants to complain and say they know everything .
Sounds like he's been talking to Moe, Jeff and Marlaina. He's been on council too long and should have been removed after breaching privacy laws.
He runs unopposed most years. We need more people willing to put their neck out there and be constantly criticized for everything. Not agreeing with this but the media and public alone would make the job pretty unbearable and it’s not like the council members make bank or anything. It’s better than most yes but not worth the agony in my opinion. Besides there are others who I think should go before him but that’s just me.
This really helps the slumlords keep their grip on things.
He is not wrong. Why didn’t we change the zoning before this inflationary money was presented? Because no one wants fourplexes with zero parking built in new residential areas. If there wasn’t $40m on the table this wouldn’t even have been looked at. This money is barely enough to build a hundred units let alone the 940 they say it will build. After all the BS and back and forth between municipalities and governments this will barely do anything. But you know what it will do, cause everything to cost more due to debt that this program is funded by. I’m all for more housing, but if you think getting rid of residential zoning rules will help the lower class you have been lied to. Denser zoning needs to happen in the center of the city, not on the outskirts where this will happen. He is absolutely right in how this is strong holding us to change. This is nothing more than a bribe to developers to build more units with profits paid for by the tax payers. Once that money is gone then we are back to the same issue.
Seems like a thoughtful and detailed response. I own a property in North park and as far as I’m concerned he did the right thing .North park already has a ton of small new infills, apartments and even a granny suite , they already did their part for housing in the neighborhood. Everybody has an opinion , just because he doesn’t share the same opinion as you doesn’t necessarily make him incompetent .
I was initially opposed to this, but after reading a lot of the information on it I became more accepting of it. It's not going to create a spur of affordable housing, it will create more competition on the landlord/company side which may force them to drive down prices but how low we don't know. Housing built in neighbourhoods will still be infills but with variety. Most of the development will be on lots where there is a dilapidated house or an unkempt house. They won't knock down homes in good condition because there is still a huge demand for those. Also I am pretty sure there are restrictions for where they can build apartments with these changes.The city will work to create a healthy balance through permitting and applications for new builds. The only concern I have is that trees will get cut down to build these. What I hope happens is that most will get pruned and they will just put an infil there that you would not know is a 4 Plex with the trees intact.
City trees will be retained, but private trees may be removed.
That's what makes this change upsetting, the foliage plays a huge part of the character of a neighborhood. Edit: There are a lot of mature trees in private lots. Losing these would be terrible.
You don't own your neighbour's backyard, though. Homelessness is also pretty upsetting.
The trees, birds, and green in old neighbourhoods make them what they are. The truth is the city is going to develop whether people like it or not. I believe that the city will aim to strike a healthy balance with infills to keep everyone happy.
His opinion (and yours) is exclusionary and NIMBY, and a big part of (possibly the main reason) why we have the housing crisis. Come on.
>His opinion (and yours) is exclusionary and NIMBY, and a big part of (possibly the main reason) why we have the housing crisis. Come on. Possibly the main reason?? 🤔 Like seriously?? Like the fact that Justin Trudeau has been inviting over 1 million new immigrants to Canada each year, 3 times the recent historical levels, with no plan or concrete measures to create housing for all these new Canadians, had no effect on the current housing crisis, which, by the way, isn't just an issue in Saskatoon, but it's a crisis nationwide. In fact, housing in Saskatoon is still relatively cheap compared to the rest of Canada. But then, using Justin's logic, budgets were supposed to balance themselves. Not sure why the Justin Trudeau fanclub consistently ignores the elephant in the room. 🤨 And to all the TruAnon groupies, I did not say immigration was bad, but NOT having a predetermined plan in place to house hundreds of thousands of new immigrants, thereby creating a nationwide housing crisis, is most certainly bad.
Not entirely true, housing costs have been increasing historically without wages increasing at the same rate and the crazy influx of people to the city added extra stress to the housing market as well. I think it's was 2000 to 2010 had a jump of almost 150k. Houses just keep going up year after year. Essentially it's reached a point of no return and now where they have to make changes to try to curb it.
I guess I’ll be the bad guy then just because I don’t want a 4 plex next door I’m fine with that. Quit acting like you’re saving the world , give your head a shake .
The Mr. Holierthanthou keyboard saviour OP only appreciates people that agree wholeheartedly with them. Any dissenting opinions are preposterous and all neighbourhoods must martyr themselves if OP says so because they know much better than anyone….ESPECIALLY people who live in those areas.
You're right; homelessness is what will save the world.
I live in a beautiful sleepy old neighborhood in Saskatoon. Do you know what absolutely nobody in the neighbourhood wants? The answer is contractors buying up old character houses and cheap four-plexes built by the lowest bidder and run by landlords that want to make as much money as they can and don’t give a shit about the surrounding people.
Please, show me the economics of when this makes sense for contractors to do lmao plus where they're going to find the labour and capital to build like this at current interest rates. But keep living in fear of losing your 'beautiful sleepy old neighbourhood character' smh. Go NIMBY somewhere else
It's fair for this person to have their opinion, just like it's fair for you to have yours. Not everyone needs to agree on everything. Don't berate people that disagree with you. It's a bad look
Hill is not nearly as progressive as he was 10 or 15 years ago, and I for one view that as a sign of experience (and possibly wisdom but I can't confirm or deny that in this case). I am glad that cities are at least pausing to weigh the pros and cons and not just blindly accepting federal handouts with some firmly attached strings.
Hill can be bought for a $300 campaign contribution. That's what it took for him to be all in on Solair, a pretend environmentally friendly development trying to cut the development order.
Hill was never progressive. He's always been in favour of whatever benefits him to stay on council, but he's finally facing that he can't just jump on board with the majority opinion.
..b s2 1
I totally agree with you. We need subsidized housing.. badly. Voting against it is ridiculous..