Some will say it's Calgary city council, which has 15 distinct voices and it would be wrong to have everyone singing from the same book of hymns. Others will say it's dysfunctional. The reality is: it's sometimes a bit of both. Call it "middle ground". And it's almost too bad that councillors can't seem to agree on that "middle ground" on some pretty important portfolios. I can point to three in particular.
To me, these three need to be dealt with properly with adult conversations. Proponents on both sides need to take a gander across the room and realize the world doesn't revolve around them. And someone at the council table needs to be the leader. Or at least the mediator. Because talking in circles isn't going to get us anywhere in "building this beautiful city". Those three topics, in no particular order:
#1. Urban vs. Suburban
It's not a sexy topic but people need to realize it's affecting everyone. I know many will look at the past battle between the mayor and the homebuilders. But it's not just there. Look at how the inner-city councillors have banded together, just as much as the suburban councillors have done the same. The trouble is that both sides are kind of right. Calgary needs to start growing UP, as in more high-rise apartment buildings and urban planning to allow people to live, work and play in one area. Because it seems counter-intuitive to have EVERYONE live in the 'burbs and work in the inner city. On the flipside, we need to give people options. Not every family should be pent up in a 15th storey 2-bedroom apartment and not every unmarried person should be forced to own a home at the edge of the city because that's all they can afford. We need options. And pitting each side against one another is doing us no good. Imagine having a solid mix of inner-city and suburb living. Might actually make housing affordable across the city, rather than continue to drive people further and further out. Then we might finally get ahead of the transit shortage and the lengthy commute times as well. Oh the utopia!
#2. Secondary Suites
This one has been in the news for the last couple of days. It's driving some councillors absolutely nuts, forcing them to wonder why we're spending so much time drawing up reports and task forces when it will go all for not when it's voted down anyways. And there's a point to be made there. How many times does this story have to be recycled? As someone who has lived in a secondary suite before, I didn't consider myself the scourge of the earth. I was a good tenant with a back lane parking spot and no desire to invite "unfavorable characters" because I was busy trying to make enough money to get myself through school and out of there to move into a nicer place. I couldn't afford rent in one of those fancy apartment buildings at the time. It was nice to have an option. I can understand some of the concerns by certain neighborhoods or groups of residents. But at the same time, it does beg the question: do you not trust your neighbors, who might set up one of these "unsightly suites"? It's a baffling discussion. And the longer the debate goes on, the deeper the heels are dug in. No one is arguing we have a severe lack of affordable housing in Calgary, even those making "middle income" in the city who seem to be looked down upon because they can't afford to buy a $500,000 house at the moment.
#3. Bike Lanes
This one is a fun one. In one corner, we have the pro-cyclists who believe that bike lanes will be revolutionary for the downtown core and no one will ever need to drive downtown again. In the other corner, we have the anti-cyclists who believe that bike lanes will forever alter the space-time continuum, never to be repaired again because they're too attached to their vehicles. I've talked about this one before and the fact that I actually can't wait for these lanes to be put in for a trial basis. Because we will FINALLY have some ACTUAL evidence to prove one of these arguments to be absolutely false. Again, I go back to the idea of having options. Why shouldn't we give people an option/the ability to cycle? Might take a few vehicles off the road, which would reduce the mass chaos known as "rush hour" in Calgary, which would also lead to less demand for parking, which could mean the price for parking downtown wouldn't cost you one night a week with your wife AND your first-born. It does need to be done in a smart fashion, but where's the negative here? On the flipside, I don't believe for a second that we should choke off vehicle access into the core. That's just plainly naive, especially with the ever-expanding urban sprawl we've been so attached to. Not every neighborhood has convenient transit (or other transportation) options. Some people depend on their vehicle for their job (cough*reporters*cough).
All members of council need to take a deep breath on these files and think for a couple of minutes about the pros and cons for everyone. Stop playing to the tune of your specific special interest group and think of the benefits for Calgary as a whole. We need to have a wide-ranging (and adult) conversation on all three of these topics (and others I'm sure). We're talking about housing affordability, urban sprawl, commuter strategies and the future of Calgary. At the end of the day, each council member needs to answer one very simple question: is the status quo good enough?
No comments:
Post a Comment