Originally Posted by Ottawan
I actually disagree with this statement, especially compared to previous iterations of Council.
-I think Hobbs is fairly pro-intensification, and would be more so if she wasn't being dogged by Ken Grey.
Correction: she's pro-developer.
The test for whether she was pro-intensification or pro-developer was the Fendor site.
Recall that the developer's proposal didn't actually change the level of intensification allowed on the site; it just changed it from being a mid-rise wall of sorts against the Transitway to a pair of taller towers that will overshadow a few houses on the north side of Workman in the winter.
If she was pro-intensification, she would have held to what the CDP and zoning already permitted because that allowed for intensification while minimizing impacts to anyone else. Heck, she could even have tried to split the difference, because I think one could build as high as a dozen storeys on that site without shadowing anyone. Instead, she fully supported the developer and presented a couple of minor street improvements (one of which was based on old data and not even doable anymore) without having consulted anyone else. Given the context, those are not the actions of someone who is genuinely pro-intensification.
So sorry, she's pro-developer, not pro-intensification.
-Fleury is a bit of a sheep and doesn't seem to have strong opinions either way.
-Chernushenko, whether or not he could be considered successful, seems to be trying to genuinely reconcile the NIMBY and pro-development groups. Certainly he is far less obstructionist than Clive was.
The only central councillor that truly is a problem is Diane Holmes.