Tuesday’s letters: Infill shouldn’t mean ugly neighbourhoods

Re. “Zoning isn’t zoning when the process is a free-for-all,” Opinion, April 25

Steph Neufeld is spot-on in her assessment of the city’s new wild-west zoning bylaw. And it is not just about historic neighbourhoods. Once affordability is established, you choose a neighbourhood because you like the look and feel. Then, you upgrade your home and, by extension, your neighbourhood with renovations and landscaping changes — not to reap a gain on resale, but because you want to live there for many years.

Article content

Now, imagine you’ve done this and a developer plops an eight-unit apartment building next door or down the street and you have zero recourse to oppose it.  This is no longer the neighbourhood to which you committed time, money and emotion. The abandonment of the consideration of character in zoning decisions is a betrayal of those many citizens who love their neighbourhoods. What is gained by this and why would a potential resident want to invest in this city when such a scenario can unfold?

Article content

I get the need for developing transit nodes and filling in the numerous parking and vacant lots downtown makes sense; however, creating these frankenhoods is not the answer. Densification is becoming uglification and the new emotion is outrage.

Article content

Article content

Earl McNeil, Edmonton

Province should stay in its lane

Re. “Bike lanes no business of the UCP government,” Keith Gerein, April 22

Thank you, Keith Gerein, for pointing out the importance of bike lanes to Edmonton’s transportation network. I use my bike as much as I can and would love to cycle more, but so often the gaps in the bike lane network make it difficult to safely get around the city. City council, please continue the effort, and province — stay in your lane!

Tim Wiebe-Neufeld, Edmonton

100 St. parking cuts bad for business

This is in reference to the active transportation network expansion program: 100 Street operational and parking changes near 82 Avenue. I just received a letter regarding this plan. After reading the letter, I have huge concerns. This plan is removing much-needed parking to support the surrounding businesses. It is in essence putting some businesses out of business. As well as making my properties, unrentable.

Article content

I would propose stopping this project, unless there is a specific plan to provide similar parking at the same location. Business will be hurt or die. The tax dollars needed for this and future projects will then be in jeopardy. As it is, parking is limited and the type of business that can operate in this area is already limited due to lack of parking.

This project will ultimately hurt the values for the business properties in the area. What are the results of reduced property values? What happens when there are more vacancies? I would say less property tax dollars for the city and when there are vacancies, there is vandalism and all that goes with that. More homeless living nearby, more police needed for the area, et cetera.

Article content

Gene Thiel, Tucson, Ariz.

Letters welcome

Article content