03-12-2019, 10:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2019, 11:18 AM by robdrimmie.)
(03-12-2019, 10:20 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: This is a misread of the article, (I know I made the same mistake), which was already an exaggeration.
They cannot touch this parking garage "from" their back yard. They can touch it from the other side of the laneway behind their house. That is, already standing 4 meters from their property line, and behind their own garages and parked cars. This is probably 20 or so meters from their actual back yard. Now I am to understand that these people may hang out in their laneway, but it is still misrepresenting things to say this is in their back yard.
I was always mixed on this (I'd love to see less parking near an LRT station) but at the same time, development is more important, and probably 9 times out of 10 the objections I hear seem to be an excuse for "no development" rather than "this development is bad, you should do x development instead".
You'll note that these folks do live in houses which are still zoned for single family low density housing, even 400 meters from an LRT station.
Thank you for the clarification and elaboration. I very much agree that most of the time "no development" is the preference. I do think this particular situation has a bit more nuance, or at least the neighbourhood group appears to support the development in principle and not this specific one (edit to add: I meant for this to suggest that this particular building in the development is the sticking point, not the entire project). That could entirely be a front of reasonableness and an effort block the whole thing though.