What's the stupidest reason to oppose a development you've heard in your city?

[SignalHillHiker]

Two stand out above all the others to me.

One, regarding a five-floor boutique hotel/condo project: "It'll turn us into Toronto". Because, you know, the only difference between St. John's and Toronto is one, five-floor building.

The other I remember almost verbatim because it was so ridiculous. Regarding a hotel in the Downtown West End: "If they build this hotel, they're going to need parking. And if there's a parking lot, then in the winter it's going to be covered in snow. Then they're going to have to plow it and the beep beep beep is going to destroy our neighbourhood."

[Bcasey25raptor]

Fearing gentrification and driving the poor out of town.

Despite the fact theres truth to this, letting huge parts of town decay and businesses close up shop isn't helping the poor and homeless in any way, gentrification brings businesses and residents, it brings jobs.

[1overcosc]

“All people can say is, ‘Oh my God’,” said Eileen Howell, who sits on the executive of the KBCA. “It’s Beaverbrook’s 9/11.”

No, it wasn't terrorists crashing into the west Ottawa suburb of Beaverbrook. It was a proposed condo tower.

Yep, this actually happened.

[Architype]

"It won't fit in because all the other buildings are 1 or 2 stories high" (and that's in a central part of Vancouver).

[Dmajackson]

The Toronto argument pops up in almost every development fight in Halifax. Apparently becoming Toronto-like is the worst thing a Canadian city can ever do. It may seem strange but when you realize that many people move to the East Coast from Southern Ontario for the relaxed lifestyle I guess it makes sense they would make the comparison a lot.

[matt602]

Many developments in Hamilton run into problems because the city has a ridiculous by-law that requires buildings to be set-back, allowing for future road widening. This gets really ridiculous when it happens to developments on streets are are already 4 or 5 lane one-way streets with excess lane capacity.

This by-law might be eradicated in the next few years though.

[Architype]

^ In Vancouver it's the Hong Kong comparison, in St. John's it's the Halifax (or Toronto) comparison.

[SignalHillHiker]

But the comparisons imply two different things. They compare it to Halifax if it's modern in a heritage area, and to Toronto if it's more than 3 floors high.

[Innsertnamehere]

Just this week a proposal for a new TTC bus garage in Scarborough faced fierce opposition with the opposers showing photos of explosions claiming the deisel stored there would explode, murdering every senior in the nearby seniors residence.. Funny enough just as much fuel will be stored there as a regular gas station, but nobody ever has any issues with those.

[MolsonExport]

in my city, most arguments supporting "development" (i.e., big box barf ad nauseam) are extremely stupid. In a slow/no growth city, these developments are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul. Nothing more. Actually shitty for the environment, but who cares about that when Woot Woot!!

[ScreamingViking]

Another Hamilton example, this one from a city councillor serving one of the wards in the upper city, regarding further discussions on converting more of Hamilton's large downtown one-way street network to two-way (seen by many as a key step in creating more complete streets downtown and making it more livable and attractive for development... note that this issue has been studied and discussed since the 1990s, with very slow progress on actual conversions)

...
His frustrations boiled over at Wednesday's marathon general issues committee.

First, he bemoaned at length a proposal to create a lobbyist registry.

Then he bleated out his frustrations over a proposed citizen panel to study converting one-way streets to two-way traffic.

Jackson, who has represented Ward 6 on the east Mountain since 1988, supported public consultation on the former but voted against the latter.

He said he and his constituents are "exhausted" by the "mammoth amount of changes" to transportation in the lower city via bike lanes and two-way conversions.
...

Source: Hamilton Spectator

[vid]

A vacant prosvita society in the central part of the city was proposed to become a new youth centre, with a new Indian friendship centre attached to it. It was very strongly opposed, privately/anonymously because of the aboriginal component to the project, but publicly due to crime:

Michael Lemesani, who lives in the area and has raised concerns about the idea, told council that there might be more crime in the area if the city did approve the plan. But he was told that the centre would actually have programs, such as youth removing graffiti in the area, that would help reduce acts like vandalism.

http://www.tbnewswatch.com/news/317011/Raising-the-roof

Location: (It is a narrow strip of residential use between two arterial roads)

He was also concerned that the centre would be difficult to find and youth might have trouble accessing. Coun. Ken Boshcoff said the youth of today are pretty resourceful when it comes to finding locations.

http://www.tbnewswatch.com/news/317011/Raising-the-roof

Traffic:

But residents in the area, known as Friends of the Intercity Area, have raised numerous concerns. Council heard Monday that the youth centre could see up to 30,000 visits a year.

Friends of the Intercity Area’s Michael Lemesani said that's too much traffic. While the Prosvita held community events and concerts that brought people to the area, that was once in a while.

"We really can't handle that," he said.

But just last week, the 8,000 square foot building was proposed to become a bar. Opposition so far?

None actually. Former opponents of the youth centre are supportive.

Traffic? Not an issue. Parking? There is lots. Crime? No worries.


In 2004 Thunder Bay reacted to a 20 storey building proposal by making any construction over 4 storeys or 10m illegal in much of the city for 7 years.

[WhipperSnapper]

Some time ago, I recall an old fart appealing several of council's approvals for new condo towers in the downtown area out of fear his garden or potted plants would die.

[niwell]

Thunder Bay sounds messed up...

My personal favourite is the opposition to 190 Oz, a 6 storey infill condo on Ossington Avenue just north of Queen St in Toronto. This is a six (6) storey building:



sutton realty, http://www.suttonrealty.com/109_OZ_C..._on_Ossington/

There is a group of people in the neighbourhood who fought this tooth and nail. They spent a bunch of money bringing it to the OMB. Of course these were wealthy people who had moved into a neighbourhood displacing the previous residents. They didn't care of course. I'm glad the group lost at least $60k at the OMB fighting this thing. City of Toronto staff basically said it was good infill and it didn't replace any historic buildings.

[Steveston]

In my city, a small (12 unit) seniors residence was opposed because

1. It will result in an increase in traffic
2. Crime in the neighbourhood will increase
3. It brings in "the wrong kind of people"

Based on those arguments, I'd say "the wrong kind of people" already live in that neighbourhood.

[Mongo62]

Originally Posted by Steveston

In my city, a small (12 unit) seniors residence was opposed because

1. It will result in an increase in traffic
2. Crime in the neighbourhood will increase
3. It brings in "the wrong kind of people"

Based on those arguments, I'd say "the wrong kind of people" already live in that neighbourhood.

This one wins the thread!

Monty Python -- Hell's Grannies

[vid]

Thunder Bay had this one back in January

Excerpts:

The irregularly shaped lot on the corner of Valley Street and Hutton Park Drive was originally zoned multi-residential until 2009 when the owner asked for it to be zoned for a single home. But after several years without selling, they asked the city to rezone the lot in order to build a four-plex complete with seven parking spaces.

J.P. Prinsloo said he wouldn't have bought his home if he had known that a rental property would go next door, leaving him without the ability to know his neighbours. He called it a safety concern.

"Renters aren't safe?" Coun. Andrew Foulds asked.

"Well they come and go," Prinsloo said.

Another neighbour, Caroline LaBelle, said she moved to the neighbourhood to get away from living near rental properties. From increased traffic to substance abuse, she said the apartment building would be an eyesore to the area. Currently it has a "better class of neighbours," which is why she moved there in 2011.

And, with regard to increased traffic: This is at the intersection of a road that is current being expanded to four lanes, as it is the primary arterial serving the fastest growing subdivision in the city, currently with 5,000 people and a target population of 15,000 people. A 56 unit apartment block is located one block away, and it is surrounded by 8- and 12-unit apartment blocks.

BTW, Thunder Bay's new land use policies abolished all height limits except for those in place to protect the view from a single park in the north end, and restrictions in place in the south end to accommodate the airport, as well as the allowance of a multi-unit development on any corner lot, and mixed-uses allowed on corner lots involving at least one collector or arterial street. We've got a draft policy on streetscapes, image routes and building masses that has been approved in principle, it actually won an award a few months ago. So not only is a four plex allowed on that corner, but they could likely get away with putting in as many as 24 units on 6 floors with ground floor retail if they made use of underground parking.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Just this week a proposal for a new TTC bus garage in Scarborough faced fierce opposition with the opposers showing photos of explosions claiming the deisel stored there would explode, murdering every senior in the nearby seniors residence.. Funny enough just as much fuel will be stored there as a regular gas station, but nobody ever has any issues with those.

Diesel from a TTC bus garage blowing up a senior residence eh? What about oxygen tanks in the senior's residence exploding the neighborhood?

[J.OT13]

In Ottawa, the City itself opposes development for stupid reasons. Staff and council opposed this one from Mizrahi...



... because it is 3 floors above the height limit. That might set a precedent, unlike the times when the city approves 5-40 floors above the height limit/CDP.

Thing is, Mizrahi consulted heavily with the community, modifying the plans multiple times until he won the support of the majority. If anything, rejecting this proposal will set a precedent based on the fact that consultation with the community is an exercise in futility. Developers will start proposing the cheapest possible buildings that respect the current zoning bylaws, regardless of public opinion.

Worth knowing that in the same meeting, at 3 floors lower than the Mizrahi proposal, 700 m down the road, the City approved this thing, which faced heavy public opposition, because respects the height limit. No arguments, no nothing.

[Coldrsx]

Renters for a new upper end 29 storey will not contribute to the community.