Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 226

Thread: Slumlords, Sustainable Development, and the neighbourhoods that pay the consequences

  1. #1
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default Slumlords, Sustainable Development, and the neighbourhoods that pay the consequences

    Sad that our neighbourhood keeps having to go through this.

    Shame on the city, especially sustainable development for their handling of problem properties. This is an ongoing issue and when they are presented with actual means to prevent slumlords from creating more problems, such as in this case, they side with the negligent land owner

    The manager in SD interviewed in the piece outright lies to the media about their powers in a discretionary variance.

    http://glbn.ca/QB4v3
    Parkdale

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    Pervez was convicted in a $30 million mortgage fraud scheme in 2008. He owns several rental properties in Edmonton and has previously been accused of failing to maintain them
    How does someone convicted of a $30 million fraud still have assets? His sentence should have included seizure of all of his properties.

  3. #3
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,816

    Default

    I'm sure Pervez could be nailed for misrepresentation (his new name).
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  4. #4
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    So the SDAB refused to consider arguments of material interference and the intent of the RA7 redevelopment zone and allowed slumlord Carmen Pervez the permit to occupy a run down basement suite in a dilapidated house. This is a direct result of the lack of consistency and balance within the Sustainable development department and our cowardly leaders' focus on "housing first be-damned everything else"

    Honestly I am embarrassed to be a resident and ratepayer in this city right now. Might be time to move to Sherwood Park
    Parkdale

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,005

    Default



    Sherwood Park.

    Sweathog capital of the world.

    It's like they decided to use Clareview as a model for an entire town.

    And then gated it to keep the severely normal out.

  6. #6
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,222

    Default

    And at the same time, I hear about perfectly good proposals for, e.g., garage suites that are denied because of lack of parking spaces, or ratio of land with structures, etc.

  7. #7
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,390

    Default

    according to the city's zoning bylaw, a development officer:

    "4. shall approve, without conditions, or with such conditions as required to ensure compliance, an application for development of a Permitted Use provided the development complies with the regulations of this Bylaw, or shall refuse an application for development of a Permitted Use if the development does not comply with the regulations of this Bylaw, unless he uses his discretion pursuant to Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of this Bylaw.

    "5. may relax a regulation in a Zone or other Section of this Bylaw in accordance with the regulations contained in that Zone or Section, or may relax regulations in accordance with Sections 11.3 and 11.4, and in such case, the development applied for shall be a Discretionary Development;

    "6. may refuse or approve, with or without conditions, with or without changes in the design of the development, or with or without the imposition of regulations more restrictive than those required by the specific Zone or General Development Regulations of this Bylaw, an application for development of a Discretionary Use, having regard to the regulations of this Bylaw and the provisions of any applicable Statutory Plan;"

    this permit clearly wasn't issued under section 4 where it states "shall" but instead under sections 5. and 6. which clearly state otherwise for the exercising of discretionary rights and goes even further in their use of "may" and not "shall".

    the clip/comments linked to seem to imply that approval must/shall be given for discretionary uses which is nonsensical - if that were the case there wouldn't be any discretionary uses, they would be all outright.

    the bylaw goes on to state that where a variance - which includes discretionary uses - is being considered that:

    "the proposed development would not, in his opinion:
    • unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood; or
    • materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties."

    and while some might be prepared to consider this as a simple planning versus an enforcement issue my own opinion is that several mistakes have occurred here. while i respect the intentions of the planning department and the sdab and the individuals that make them up, i have to concur with 240glt that neither one of them is infallible and that outright errors in each of planning and regulation and law - all of which happen far more often than they should - is what has occurred here.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #8

    Default

    The City dropped the ball on this one. All I can say is don't let anything slide and don't let them take over the neighborhood. Any problems that are worthy of calling the police, call them. Keep a record of everything.

  9. #9

    Default

    ^the city is the biggest slumlord in the city, so they can't really preach when others do it.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^the city is the biggest slumlord in the city, so they can't really preach when others do it.
    I don't know the context to this, you'll have to explain more.

  11. #11
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    The mayor will be speaking on this issue at noon

    It will be interesting to see what he has to say
    Parkdale

  12. #12

    Default

    This is disgusting.

    I hope Iveson grows a set and actually does something to remedy this.

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    according to lawyer Robert Noce, "the concerns of the community were ligitimate" via Vinesh Pratap.. More coming


    Nothing yet from Iveson.. Hoping he finally grows s pair and gets this dealt with. Too often we hear "well this was a valuable lesson for the future" but nothing ever gets done
    Parkdale

  14. #14

    Default

    K seriously I live central this Carmen fella his a piece of *****. I know legitimate stories reguarding his properties and witness this crap every day. He has a property almost on every block in this city! Every crackhouse u drive by and just looking at them see sense trouble high odds are they belong to him.

    Every year a minimum several people get murdered in his houses or right out front on the street. He is edmonton biggest problem the city needs to crack down on his properties!

  15. #15

    Default

    K seriously I live central this Carmen fella his a piece of *****. I know legitimate stories reguarding his properties and witness this crap every day. He has a property almost on every block in this city! Every crackhouse u drive by and just looking at them see sense trouble high odds are they belong to him.

    Every year a minimum several people get murdered in his houses or right out front on the street. He is edmonton biggest problem the city needs to crack down on his properties!

  16. #16
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,454

    Default

    Be careful about making specific claims about this character or his actions, otherwise you're potentially exposing yourself and the site to legal action.

  17. #17
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^ perhaps you are simply not familiar with him

    Carmen Pervez, aka Gohar Pervez, aka Abdullah Shah is a convicted mortgage fraudster who has wreaked havoc in areas like Alberta Ave & McCauley for over a decade. His properties are synonymous with drug dealing, gang activity, disorder and causing general mayhem for neighbours. He also takes in vulnerable tenants and charges them exorbitant rents for run down properties, so much so that those folks often have to take in room mates and panhandle just to live. He is well known to EPS and pretty much every other compliance and regulatory agency. He preys on vulnerable people and has associations with other criminals. Those are facts.

    That he is a piece of *****, scumbag, cockroach etc is a matter of conjecture of course. But I'd say those descriptors are pretty accurate
    Parkdale

  18. #18
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,454

    Default

    I'm not saying he's a model citizen. I'm saying that making claims like "every year a minimum of several people get murdered in his houses" is most likely provably false, and would therefore be libel. Call him names all you want. But be careful about making specific claims.

  19. #19
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Well we do know that someone was murdered in one of his properties earlier this year, in what neighbours called "a disorder property".

    So who knows how many may have been murdered in his houses over the years, but the shoe does fit..
    Parkdale

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Follow up from Global tonight

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2154181/de...2d57d60d3980d7

    Real Estate lawyer Robert Noce says the DO and SDAB could have denied the permit

    Our mayor Don Iveson passes the buck. For shame, Don
    Parkdale

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^the city is the biggest slumlord in the city, so they can't really preach when others do it.
    I don't know the context to this, you'll have to explain more.
    It's a reference to the various low income / subsidized housing projects around the city owned by the city. A lot of them don't look particularly attractive in their communities, but they serve a purpose. I don't know anything about this landlord, but I do know there is a need for low income housing, shouldn't we be glad when private citizens provide it rather than the city?

  22. #22
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,879

    Default

    I'm just wondering why convicted fraudsters are still allowed to operate in this city? Could it also be a provincial issue - thinking of shifty operators like Kevyn Frederick.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I do know there is a need for low income housing, shouldn't we be glad when private citizens provide it rather than the city?
    This guy doesn't provide low-income housing, he is an enabler of crack dens and bawdy houses.

    Totally different.

  24. #24

    Default

    ^how is he to blame for low income people wanting to do that (not that such activities are restricted to those on low incomes)? I'm sure plenty of crack is smoked in city owned rental properties as well.

  25. #25
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^ Moa, Capital Housing Corp. has a 66 unit building in our neighbourhood and a 44 unit building just outside our boundaries. They have GNA's (good neighbour agreements) and EPS crime free housing designation (we were instrumental in getting that done a few years ago) I would take twice that in our neighbourhood in exchange for getting rid of the 12 units in Carmen Pervez's five run down properties on 86th street in a second.

    There is absolutely no comparison
    Last edited by 240GLT; 07-08-2015 at 07:34 PM.
    Parkdale

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^how is he to blame for low income people wanting to do that (not that such activities are restricted to those on low incomes)? I'm sure plenty of crack is smoked in city owned rental properties as well.
    Is it not possible that any slum landlord that allows nefarious dealings on their property maybe/could be profiting from said dealings, whatever they may be.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    I still don't know why all of his properties weren't seized as restitution after being convicted of a $30 million dollar fraud.

  28. #28
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,879

    Default

    Abdullah Shah denies slumlord accusations

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ions-1.3184085
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Poor Carmen

    Wow, what a terrible, lazy article. It's no wonder the CBC is circling the drain
    Parkdale

  30. #30

    Default

    ^why? He points out he regularly evicts tenants, that his powers ar limited in this respect, and he also points out, where are these people supposed to live then? Maybe on the streets? Oh hold on, that's bad isn't it? Or is only the government allowed to house poor people? Seems to me, this case is more about NIMBY than anything else, heaven forbid a landlord who provides rentals to low income people is "allowed on our street".

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^ as usual, you have no clue what you're talking about
    Parkdale

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^ as usual, you have no clue what you're talking about
    In other words, "I can't think up intelligent counterpoints, so I'll do a pathetic personal attack", what a useles contribution. Same with CBC article, "I don't agree, so thats all I need to write". Got it, landlords who provide low income housing that's badly needed = evil if in my backyard and if they were once convicted of something.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-08-2015 at 02:00 PM.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Poor Carmen

    Wow, what a terrible, lazy article. It's no wonder the CBC is circling the drain
    Poor guy getting rode by the public and the media and all he did was commit $30million in mortgage fraud. Can't a guy catch a break?

  34. #34

    Default

    ^^
    Awesome. The guy who rails against secondary suites and slum trains thinks the guy is practcally Robin Hood. Maybe you should invite him to your neighborhood.

  35. #35

    Default

    Honestly moahunter you really have no idea how extremely bad his properties are. I would love to see you or any critic live beside of one of these houses.

    these neighbours that are driven to mental health problems are not sensitive people, they are not racist or give a damn about Carmen being convicted of fraud charges, and about 30 million. It comes down to being on guard 24hrs a day ( even without being home there is a weight on these people's shoulders). Houses that were 2 or 2.5 story homes converted into rooming houses sometimes with 6 or more bedrooms( not exaggerating, I know of houses in central edmonton with 10&11 rooms in 2000sq ft of space. Only $750 a month rent typically is the norm. These are not safe houses in our inner city even for tenants themselves

  36. #36

    Default

    ^sure, but where should these people live then? I realize it would suck to be beside such, but what is the alternative? If everyone of these properties was shut down, would the people inside all disappear, or not cause problems anymore? It's like a game of whack a mole, remove them here, oh they show up there now...

  37. #37

    Default

    I don't know where they'd live but the conditions are only homelessness in a different form. They are not safe, and to anyone who didn't know better, it appears like the properties are overrun with squatters.

    Also i'll choose my words carefully here but take what he says himself with a good dose of salt. Maybe start by questioning how a convicted fraudster still owns 100 properties.

  38. #38

    Default

    ^i think fraud is despicable, but then, a lot of people make mistakes, and rebuild their lives. He makes a compelling case in the article.

  39. #39

    Default

    Your right on that, we as a city and province weneed to respect bylaws,and create tougher legislation ( which I know for a fact bylaws are not followed on dozens of properties). Also we need to assist change by encouraging properly run facilities like YMCA on 95st. A shoebox for $750 is not a fair rent in a run down shack with unhealthy environments

  40. #40
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^ guidelines need to be changed but the city also needs to work with the tools they have

    In this case they had the tools to stop this permit, and they chose not to use them
    Parkdale

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swillv8 View Post
    Houses that were 2 or 2.5 story homes converted into rooming houses sometimes with 6 or more bedrooms( not exaggerating, I know of houses in central edmonton with 10&11 rooms in 2000sq ft of space. Only $750 a month rent typically is the norm. These are not safe houses in our inner city even for tenants themselves
    This is the biggest problem with slumlords - they slap together a building bordering on disrepair just so they can make a quick buck. Very little regard for proper permits, security, or safe construction. Nobody who has the choice would settle for those conditions. The only people who rent those places sadly are people who are already in a desperate situation (recently incarcerated, battling drug addiction, etc.), and unlike non-profit or government agencies that provide low-income housing, these slum houses do not come with social support to assist these people, and the landlords don't enforce visitors, so often these houses get overcrowded with transient "friends" of the renters.

    So in effect, the renters are in a dodgy home that exacerbates their problems, and the neighbors are the ones who have to clean up the messes left by junkies, drug dealers, transients, and frequent break-ins. Meanwhile the slumlord stays far away, collects his cash, and leaves his properties unkempt and unmaintained, and tries to paint himself as a martyr.
    Last edited by MrOilers; 08-08-2015 at 08:37 PM.

  42. #42
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^ that is exactly it MrO.

    The folks that are being forced into Carmen's houses need support, and they're getting the exact opposite, and everyone suffers. Except Carmen who's collecting the rent and living far away from the problems in his house in Terwillegar.

    This is not about fighting non- market housing. This is about a negligent landlord who profits from his tenants and his neighbours misery
    Parkdale

  43. #43

    Default

    IMO from the limited knowledge I have. the DO did everything right. If it was to be denied it was the SDAB who should have denied it.

    Even in that case however Planning deals with land use... not anything else. Building codes and other such regulations are in the power of enforcement not in the powders of planning. If a secondary suite actually causes undo harm to the community (AND was issued under a discretionary permit) they could nullify the permit with substantial evidence that the secondary suite is the issue.

    (imo that would mean the neighbors would need to prove that the secondary suite causes a material problem on their own property. {which is probaly easy} but also that the landowner would need to show intent of not doing anything about it){if he evics people causeing problems.. he IS doing something about it}

    It doesn't matter of the landowner is Carmen Pervez or Don Ivison himself, the same regulations and Burden of proof (to that specific property) apply.

    Personally we would not have so many of these problems if rent was lower in the rest of the city.. but the city does not want that.. they fight tooth and nail against any form of densification with an end product of forcing the "undesirables" to live in conditions in the slums above. Let the market do the work, eliminate minimum housing sizes. Merge R1-R6 districting, let us in general lower the cost of housing to spread these undesirable in the city in decent housing instead of relying on slumlords to provide housing for them.

  44. #44
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^ this is not about what the DO did "right"

    Did the community prove that the addition of the suite would cause material interference with the use, enjoyment and value of neighbouring properties ? Yes.

    Did the community prove that allowing the suite will cause harm to the community ? Yes

    In a discretionary decision the city had the ability... And in this case I'd say the responsibility to consider these matters when considering the permit

    They did not, yet I can name many cases, such as the Crazy Horse strip club, Norwood liquor store, or the Salvation Army Community Church that all had permits denied for the exact same reason

    The real problem is a lack of clarity in the MGA, and the lack of training or DO's and SDAB board members
    Parkdale

  45. #45

    Default

    I don't think the community proved the detriment to community enough. I think we should get the hundreds of people that are affected together and lobby against this crap. More video, more documentation in general, also how much eps visit his properties? Let's expose the real Carmen

  46. #46
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    Might be slightly off topic but did not the province at one time pay for empty suites in apartments? Is this practice still going on?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  47. #47
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,390

    Default

    while it might well seem that this is a game of whack a mole, we shouldn't forget that to some degree those playing it aren't setting the rules of the game, aren't playing it alone, aren't issuing their own permits, aren't setting the conditions or lack of them attached to those permits, and aren't policing themselves for non-compliance etc. these things - and others - are all things the city controls. sometimes it seems as if there are a myriad of touch points but the various exercises are not meant to ensure success as much as to ensure a lack of accountability/responsibility or liability for the inevitable result... individual frustration and community frustration - in all of our wards, not just this one - is that it's not their responsibilities or roles which have been abdicated. many of the city's critics have done their bit and more, sometimes for decades. while not blaming the mayor or their councillors, when administration has clearly failed them and their neighbourhood when they have actively participated in the system, who else should they appeal to? blaming the mga and the provincial government is an extension of why these frustrations arise in the first place. no one is saying these are easy problems to solve but everyone playing the blame game is a big part of why we all end up playing whack a mole while living with things we shouldn't.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  48. #48
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    ^ If the Province is still subsidizing the landlord for having vacant suites as it creates a culture of irresponsibility on the Province. If such a practice is still ongoing
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  49. #49
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    while it might well seem that this is a game of whack a mole, we shouldn't forget that to some degree those playing it aren't setting the rules of the game, aren't playing it alone, aren't issuing their own permits, aren't setting the conditions or lack of them attached to those permits, and aren't policing themselves for non-compliance etc. these things - and others - are all things the city controls. sometimes it seems as if there are a myriad of touch points but the various exercises are not meant to ensure success as much as to ensure a lack of accountability/responsibility or liability for the inevitable result... individual frustration and community frustration - in all of our wards, not just this one - is that it's not their responsibilities or roles which have been abdicated. many of the city's critics have done their bit and more, sometimes for decades. while not blaming the mayor or their councillors, when administration has clearly failed them and their neighbourhood when they have actively participated in the system, who else should they appeal to? blaming the mga and the provincial government is an extension of why these frustrations arise in the first place. no one is saying these are easy problems to solve but everyone playing the blame game is a big part of why we all end up playing whack a mole while living with things we shouldn't.
    Sadly, in this case it may well be to the Queen's Court Bench, which has been done before, with great success. We'll have to see when the official decision is presented, and also when council re-convenes next week. No one's been around at city hall this last week, or I guarantee we would have already seem definitive action being taken

    Some critics have noted that complainants are being "hysterical" or "emotional" and claiming to have superior knowledge of the particular aspect of the MGA that you referenced earlier, however we know from rendered legal opinions and subsequent reversals of decisions made by SD and the SDAB that those who claim the city's hands are tied is patently false, and when the final decision is made, and council is angry at the SDAB or SD, and promises of change are made, they are never followed through

    If people see those who are upset at this ruling as "emotional" had a similar situation occur next door to their residence, they would be beside themselves and likely making some pretty loud noise about it

    People are making a big stink now, because in neighbourhoods like Parkdale, people feel like they literally have nothing to lose

    when there's nothing left to burn, you must set yourself on fire -Stars
    Last edited by 240GLT; 09-08-2015 at 07:39 PM.
    Parkdale

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    I don't know where they'd live but the conditions are only homelessness in a different form. They are not safe, and to anyone who didn't know better, it appears like the properties are overrun with squatters.

    Also i'll choose my words carefully here but take what he says himself with a good dose of salt. Maybe start by questioning how a convicted fraudster still owns 100 properties.
    He was convicted for $30 million in mortgage and housing fraud. If he had any of these houses upon his conviction why were these not seized to pay restitution to the banks and people he ripped off. White collar fraud at it's finest. If he has amazed these 100 rental properties since getting out of gaol the guy has missed his vocation. He should be writing books on how to get rich real fast.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  51. #51
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Here is a guide the city created for landlords who are supposed to be licensed to manage rental property

    http://www.edmonton.ca/bylaws_licenc...tion_Guide.pdf

    I felt quite disheartened and a little bemused when I read it. Why is the city printing guides that clearly outline responsibilities and fail so miserably at enforcing them ?
    Parkdale

  52. #52

    Default

    So did he actually break any of those guidelines? As far as I can tell he evicts people regularly for breaking any of those conditions. He probably has a business license to rent property. And he obviously gets development permits. What seems to be the issue? That you just don't like renters in your community?

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^ that quite an obtuse and ignorant comment.

    Yes, he's broken nearly every rule in that guide. Nearly. Every. One. Multiple times. For years on end. Without repercussion

    or is it you don't like renters

    What a dumb thing to say. Parkdale is nearly 40% rentals. I knew that when I bought my home there 10 years ago. I have zero issue with 99% of those rentals
    Parkdale

  54. #54

    Default

    I apologize that was slightly rude. However what happens if he doesn't get this secondary suite? All of a sudden a new numberd company appears.. and applies for a secondary suite.. there is no good reason to deny the permit to a numbered company that for all intents and purposes is following all the rules. And the whole cycle starts over again. And do we as a city want to mak it harder to get secondary suites or do we want to have enforcement do their job?

    If the property is unsightly the city has all the power to go in and clean it up and charge back on the landowner. If the issue is more who (or what type of renter) rents out his places then it's a lot harder to enforce yet even then it's a problem for enforcement not really the fault of SD.

  55. #55

    Default

    Again, i think you guys are really underestimating just how bad the situation is. We're talking about a man who is a convicted fraudster (in real estate), who has changed his name several times, is snapping up inner-city properties and renting them to the most vulnerable for obscene prices. Stretch your imagination and fill in the blanks here what else may be going on.

  56. #56

    Default

    And I'm intentionally being vague because i do not want to make unsubstantiated allegations. I just know what I see, and it's not good.

  57. #57
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    I apologize that was slightly rude. However what happens if he doesn't get this secondary suite? All of a sudden a new numberd company appears.. and applies for a secondary suite.. there is no good reason to deny the permit to a numbered company that for all intents and purposes is following all the rules. And the whole cycle starts over again. And do we as a city want to mak it harder to get secondary suites or do we want to have enforcement do their job?

    If the property is unsightly the city has all the power to go in and clean it up and charge back on the landowner. If the issue is more who (or what type of renter) rents out his places then it's a lot harder to enforce yet even then it's a problem for enforcement not really the fault of SD.
    if the city issues a commercial development permit it requires a letter of credit or certified cheque for an agreed upon value for the landscaping. if it's not done after two years, not only will they cash it they send letters to all of the directors of the company threatening them with fines of up to $10k and jail for up to 6 months. this really is about a collective willingness by administration to respond appropriately, not a complete inability to respond.

    not only would your numbered company not (or should not) invoke immunity, it clearly moves the venture from personal to business which should open things to more stringent and more expensive penalties and provisions, not fewer.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  58. #58

    Default

    I agree, and if the problem was purely landscaping I wouldn't even think of this as an issue.(of enforcement) (I'm assuming the problem is more then landscaping) even if it's a private individual generally the city should be able to ask for deposits and bonds (although it's been a while since I read that bylaw) and have the landscaping fixed. And even with landscaping problems the city has full right to just do the work and bill back. If they are not doing so imo it means a lazy enforcement.

  59. #59

    Default

    If it wAs about landscaping, this thread wouldn't exist.

  60. #60
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    If this landlord's properties are indeed infringing on the material use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties (noise, unsightly, etc), it is a nuisance. The neighbours are fully capable of defending their rights through the courts.

    I fail to see why the city is being blamed for this. If he is committing a nuisance, sue him.

  61. #61
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    ^ Why should it be up to the neighbors to enforce the nuisance bylaw? That should be the city's job.

  62. #62
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ No, it should not. Nuisance is a private property rights disagreement. If you believe someone is infringing on your rights, you should have to prove as such in the courts. The city should not be stepping in as a nanny. They should set up a regulatory atmosphere.

    If he is breaking bylaws, the city has due cause to step in. If he is not, it is up to the private landowners to fight him.

  63. #63
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    I agree, and if the problem was purely landscaping I wouldn't even think of this as an issue.(of enforcement) (I'm assuming the problem is more then landscaping) even if it's a private individual generally the city should be able to ask for deposits and bonds (although it's been a while since I read that bylaw) and have the landscaping fixed. And even with landscaping problems the city has full right to just do the work and bill back. If they are not doing so imo it means a lazy enforcement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    If it wAs about landscaping, this thread wouldn't exist.
    i didn't say it was about landscaping...

    my point was if the city can manage that kind of control and enforcement and penalties in regard to something like landscaping, then surely they have more avenues at their disposal to deal with the very real issues under discussion here.

    i could have just as easily made similar references to photo radar enforcement as to landscaping (i.e. it doesn't matter who was driving, it's pursued against the registered owner; violations are shared with insurance companies; non-payment is coordinated with the province in terms of enforcement resulting in withholding of future licensing etc.).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  64. #64
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ No, it should not. Nuisance is a private property rights disagreement. If you believe someone is infringing on your rights, you should have to prove as such in the courts. The city should not be stepping in as a nanny. They should set up a regulatory atmosphere.

    If he is breaking bylaws, the city has due cause to step in. If he is not, it is up to the private landowners to fight him.
    what is under discussion here in no way qualifies as just a nuisance.

    but even if it did, there are many similar instances in which the city doesn't hesitate to become involved including fire pits and noise and whether or not you keep sheep or have your cats licensed...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  65. #65
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Bylaws in that sense are created to expedite the process of shutting down nuisances.

    Again, if the property owner is violating a bylaw the city can step in. If they are not violating a bylaw, it is a private property rights matter.

    I'm not saying that the city shouldn't have bylaws. I am questioning why the neighbours are sitting back and blaming the city instead of doing something about it themselves. There is an avenue to address this. Why are they not using it?

  66. #66
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^ you'd be a fool if you were to think those avenues haven't previously and aren't currently being pursued

    This goes far and beyond bylaw issues. They are community standards issues, safety issues, personal property and health issues

    Is it fair that neighbours have to barricade and fortify their properties, install security cameras, abandon their back alley because it has become overrun with chaos and disorder

    You really don't grasp the size and complexity of this problem

    Enforcement is a big issue here, it is lacking and not effective. The city is aware of the problem and in this case had the opportunity to deny a permit to someone who's rental properties are having a material effect in the use, enjoyment and value of private property and having negative effects on the broader community
    Parkdale

  67. #67

    Default

    ^

    See that list that link 240GLT posted? If there's a poster child for breaking those bylaws, this is it, and we're talking the most serious transgressions. The city is gutless. Not 1% of what is happening would be tolerated in more upward-mobile neighborhoods.

  68. #68
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    If the landlord is breaking laws, the City needs to step in.

    It seems here though that the neighbourhing homeowners want the City to ban an individual from the area. This is not a power that is within the City's domain. They could not do that even if they wanted to.

    Furthermore, the article explicitly states:

    City of Edmonton staff say the area is zoned for a secondary suite, and as long as the bylaws are followed their hands are tied;
    If the bylaws are being followed, the neighbours need to sue. There is no other option. The City can't do anything about it.

    We've seen that even if individual properties get shut down, the landlord just opens new ones. As the City does not legally have the power to ban him from the area, that is how it is going to be. He will open properties, let them get shut down, and start a new one. Rinse and repeat for easy cash. The only way he will be stopped is if people sue him, as then they can collect damages. If he keeps making money, he will keep doing it. If he has to pay damages, he will stop.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 10-08-2015 at 01:27 PM.

  69. #69
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^^ that's exactly it. In my comfy, safe, clean & orderly suburban neighbourhood of Goldbar this crap would not be tolerated for a second, and you be you'd see action if this happened here

    Moving to a "have" neighbourhood has really opened my eyes to the lack of support and enforcement in the "have not" neighbourhoods

    If the city is serious about downtown renewal they're going to have to start dealing with these issues properly, and work more closely with the Province to address issues related to homelessness and the at-risk population. If allowing these folks to simply occupy non-supported run down rooming houses the problems will just keep getting worse
    Parkdale

  70. #70
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    If the landlord is breaking laws, the City needs to step in.

    It seems here though that the neighbourhing homeowners want the City to ban an individual from the area. This is not a power that is within the City's domain. They could not do that even if they wanted to.

    Furthermore, the article explicitly states:

    City of Edmonton staff say the area is zoned for a secondary suite, and as long as the bylaws are followed their hands are tied;
    If the bylaws are being followed, the neighbours need to sue. There is no other option. The City can't do anything about it.
    That is simply not true.
    Parkdale

  71. #71
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ What isn't true? The City cannot ban individuals from neighbourhoods. That is completely illegal. It is called "discrimination".

    The city CAN shut down violating properties, but they can't ban him from owning or developing property.

    The problem here is that he keeps starting up new properties whenever one gets shut down. Clearly he is making money off of this. Therefore, I posit that neighbouring property owners should sue him and seek damages. This will reduce his profit, and prevent him from continuing the practice.

  72. #72
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    Ok, for the last time, in this case in the RA7 zoning a basement suite is discretionary.. At the discretion of the DO. The DO has the ability to consider the material impact on the neighbourhood and surrounding properties in making the decision. The league and residents made a compelling case for this, but the DO chose to allow the suite under a different provision, so the MGA was not followed as it was intended in this case

    No different than the downtown strip club, that was refused in part for this exact same reason
    Parkdale

  73. #73

    Default

    ^^
    Read kcantor's post #7 above.

  74. #74
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Ok, for the last time, in this case in the RA7 zoning a basement suite is discretionary.. At the discretion of the DO. The DO has the ability to consider the material impact on the neighbourhood and surrounding properties in making the decision. The league and residents made a compelling case for this, but the DO chose to allow the suite under a different provision, so the MGA was not followed as it was intended in this case

    No different than the downtown strip club, that was refused in part for this exact same reason
    "We don't trust this guy" isn't a valid reason for a DO to turn down a development permit. If the submitted application has a proposed land use that relates well to the surrounding uses, they can't deny it. They can only judge an application based on its own merit. Judging it based on the character of the applicant is discriminatory. They could lie and deny it based on another premise, but I don't think that is a good precedent to set.

    Now, if the landlord is lying about the proposed use, he is committing fraud. That is a completely different ball game.

    So the issue right now is that he is submitting applications that are legit, but then he is breaking laws A-Z once he develops the property. His properties are being shut down according to the article, but that takes time. You need to go through the legal process just like everyone else does. Apparently this guy still manages to make profit fully expecting properties to be shut down, so he just keeps doing it.

    ^ Again, they can only judge an application based on the merit of the application itself. They MAY deny an application if the proposed land use will unduly interfere with the neighbourhood, but if the application does not suggest as such, there are no grounds for the DO to deny it based on that. If the application itself is all properly done, they can't claim it will interfere with the neighbourhood.

    The issue here would be that the applications are not suggesting that the proposed land use would be incompatible. The only reason we think they are is the character of the applicant, but refusing the application based on that would be discriminatory.

    If he is applying for things based on falsified information on applications, that is fraud, but that also needs to go through the courts.

    You can't just have development officers denying proper applications based on the person applying. If anything, applications should be completely blind to who the applicant is. They can ONLY be judged on their own internal merit.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 10-08-2015 at 01:49 PM.

  75. #75

    Default

    ^ So when should a discretionary use be turned down? In your opinion, what is an example of a "material impact on the neighbourhood and surrounding properties" that deserves an application be denied?

    If you can't consider the record of a landlord who has 100 or so other properties he is either unwilling or unable to keep in good standing, what can you consider?

  76. #76
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    A discretionary should be turned down when the proposed land use does not meet the requirements set out in the land use bylaw.

    The problem here is that the applications don't say "Horrible slum development with loud noise and garbage everywhere".

    They read "Perfectly normal secondary suite with no issues".

    The City unfortunately cannot turn it down based on who is applying because, again, that is discrimination. I'm sure you can imagine how allowing discriminatory denials is a VERY bad precedent.

    If he has shown a pattern of developing things other than what his proposed land use was, I would suggest that the City could pursue him for fraudulent applications. Otherwise all that can happen is private lawsuits and shutting down his properties for violations.

  77. #77
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^^It's only Justice that is blind, not planning. And that even in courts prior convictions and pleas can be considered for sentencing.

  78. #78

    Default

    ...........and sometimes the law is an ***.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  79. #79

    Default

    ^sometimes. Sometimes its just there to protect us all, regardless of who we are.

  80. #80

    Default

    Something seriously wrong when some people can hold a few blocks hostage. I thought the police has strategies to make it difficult for people doing these kinds of things. I'm sure I read somewhere that they have methods to get people out of houses where drugs are being sold or the tenants are up to no good. They basically give the tenant such a hard time that the tenant moves. I am sure the Edmonton Journal did an article on it a couple of years back. Unfortunately I can't find it.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  81. #81
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ What isn't true? The City cannot ban individuals from neighbourhoods. That is completely illegal. It is called "discrimination".

    The city CAN shut down violating properties, but they can't ban him from owning or developing property.

    The problem here is that he keeps starting up new properties whenever one gets shut down. Clearly he is making money off of this. Therefore, I posit that neighbouring property owners should sue him and seek damages. This will reduce his profit, and prevent him from continuing the practice.
    the city exercises all sorts of "discrimination" when they choose to.

    as an example, you cannot tender a city project if you have any outstanding litigation with the city (even if you are right and the city is wrong) or if you have previously in the city's sole discretion "performed poorly". it's a category termed "disputes and past performance" in their standard instructions to bidders:

    "1.5.1 The City has an administrative directive that deals with contracting with parties who are in a dispute with the City that may need to be resolved through litigation or arbitration. The City may reject a Bid submitted by a Bidder or an affiliate or associate of a Bidder who is in a dispute with the City that may need to be resolved through litigation or arbitration. For the purpose of this section, an affiliate or associate shall have the same meaning as defined in the Business Corporations Act,R.S.A. 2000, c. B-9.

    "1.5.2 The City may reject a Bid submitted by a Bidder if the City determines that a Bidders' performance or the performance of an affiliate or associate of a Bidder on previous contracts with the City is unsatisfactory and the City's Materials Management Section has advised the Bidder or its affiliate or associate of this determination
    ."

    again, it seems the city is prepared to enact and enforce measures for its protection/lack of liability when it deems it to be appropriate to protect them (and i fully acknowledge that "them" in many respects is "us" - it is our money). to think those same measures are simply not available to protect the public - who are also "us" - in the same way they are used to protect the city is something i find difficult to agree with or accept.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  82. #82
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Both of those things are about the right of the City to choose who to enter into a contract with. Development is about the responsibility of the City to approve or deny applications. The problem here is that the development officer does not have those same powers. They are not entitled to decide on applications based on anything other than the contents of the application.

    This just comes down to legal powers. The law sometimes sucks, but this one is here for a reason. Land use decisions need to be made impartially, as they are highly political decisions. The solution here is not discriminatory zoning, it is legal action for actions that break bylaws / laws through use of the property.

  83. #83
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ Both of those things are about the right of the City to choose who to enter into a contract with. Development is about the responsibility of the City to approve or deny applications. The problem here is that the development officer does not have those same powers. They are not entitled to decide on applications based on anything other than the contents of the application.

    This just comes down to legal powers. The law sometimes sucks, but this one is here for a reason. Land use decisions need to be made impartially, as they are highly political decisions. The solution here is not discriminatory zoning, it is legal action for actions that break bylaws / laws through use of the property.
    i believe you are wrong on several fronts... to start with, where the use is discretionary the development officer has exactly that - the power to turn down the application. this doesn't take away from the applicants rights. it's why some uses are discretionary - that discretion is the city's, not the applicant's.

    the applicant has the right to appeal to sdab and the sdab has the power - vested in them by the province, not the city, as sdab is a provincial and not a municipal body - to uphold the decision or not based on the mga, not the city's city's zoning bylaw (been there, done that, won and lost).

    the applicant and the city then have the right to appeal the sdab decision to the alberta court of appeal if they feel sdab made an error in law in reaching their decision (been there, done that and won).

    the city also has considerable powers to the conditions it chooses to add or not add - including the up front recovery of costs and the requirement to post bonds etc. - when it does issue a permit and has the ability to require the applicant to enter into other contracts such as development agreements in addition to complying with the conditions contained within the development permit itself.

    yes, the law sometimes sucks. but sometimes how the law was or was not applied also sucks and in too many cases we are dealing with the latter, not the former. and while that may sometimes be nothing more than a simple mistake (which the law contains provisions to correct), in too many cases is a series of conscious decisions and actions and/or inactions that make up the latter.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  84. #84
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The Subdivision and Development Appeals Board as a quasi-judicial body gaining power from the MGA has the power to bring in "soft" arguments such as the history of the applicant (MGA section 629 a). Appealing to the court almost never happens, as it is reserved for matters of legal correctness (the court will not hear cases about whether or not a decision was reasonable, only if it was made legally).

    Like it or not, the development officer cannot (at least in the currently accepted interpretation of the MGA) deny applications based on the character of the applicant. They can only interpret applications based on their own merit, hence the language in the MGA referencing denial based on the "proposed development". If the DO is denying based on the character of the applicant, they are not making a decision based on the proposed development. Again, if the applicant is submitting fraudulent applications, they have an avenue to stop that. Outside of that, the DO's hands are tied until the laws change.

    Maybe the City could push the envelope on the current interpretation (sort of like what Fox Creek is doing with hotel taxes), but that inevitably leads to court challenges, costs, and headaches.

  85. #85

    Default

    ^That sounds like a wise policy as well. Do we really want development officers abirtrarily deciding whether someone is worthy of being allowed to do a development? Who knows what stereotypes they might then apply, be it sex, ethnicity, race or whatever. I could imagine then a development officer refusing a house extension on the fear the developer will then over fill the extension with room boarders, simply based on their race. Its just a minefield it would be better to avoid I think. Ideally, the applicant should be completely annomynous, and the ruling based on the merit of their application. If its later shown they did something fradulent, or false, or keep the property in an unfit state, then apply laws to correct at that time.

    Imagine if a drivers license tester could refuse someone for a license on a discretionary basis? Its the same thing, their eligibility is based on that test, not on their history. If that person turns out to be bad, and to bad things on the road, we prosecute them then. We don't "discretion" that they might do something evil on the roads based on their upbringing, history, or whatever.
    Last edited by moahunter; 11-08-2015 at 09:00 AM.

  86. #86
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^^^ Absolutely correct Ken. We have successfully argued on that clause as well
    Parkdale

  87. #87
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^That sounds like a wise policy as well. Do we really want development officers abirtrarily deciding whether someone is worthy of being allowed to do a development? Who knows what stereotypes they might then apply, be it sex, ethnicity, race or whatever. I could imagine then a development officer refusing a house extension on the fear the developer will then over fill the extension with room boarders, simply based on their race. Its just a minefield it would be better to avoid I think. Ideally, the applicant should be completely annomynous, and the ruling based on the merit of their application. If its later shown they did something fradulent, or false, or keep the property in an unfit state, then apply laws to correct at that time.

    Imagine if a drivers license tester could refuse someone for a license on a discretionary basis? Its the same thing, their eligibility is based on that test, not on their history. If that person turns out to be bad, and to bad things on the road, we prosecute them then. We don't "discretion" that they might do something evil on the roads based on their upbringing, history, or whatever.
    That is precisely the purpose behind the wording in the MGA as "proposed development". The Development Officer is NOT reviewing all of the potential variables around what might happen should something be built - that is the planners job, or the job of the SDAB should it be appealed.

    I think there is a lot of confusion here as to what the development officer is exactly doing. They are reviewing the information presented to them on the application for development, full stop. That is it. They are not doing a character analysis of the applicant.

    Could you imagine if development officers needed to review the history and personal attributes of every person that applied for a permit? Every permit would take years to process. Could you imagine, as Moahunter stated, the opportunities for abuse there?

    The system is as it exists for a reason. The development officer approves or refuses an application based on the merit of that application.

  88. #88
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    A DO is quite capable of making a decision as to whether a business is allowed to operate in a certain area, or under what conditions. This individual is running a rental property business. The business is adversely affecting the surrounding area
    Parkdale

  89. #89
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    A DO is quite capable of making a decision as to whether a business is allowed to operate in a certain area, or under what conditions.
    Based on the proposed development. It is not within the scope of the development officer's role to perform a historical review of actions or a psychoanalysis of applicants prior to approving or denying applications.

    The role of the DO is to review proposed developments based on development applications.

    Again, this guy is not submitting an application that says "slumlord hovel that destroys property values". He is submitting a properly done application that presents a valid use of the land. If he goes ahead and does something else, he is doing so in contravention of what his permit was for (or is breaking other laws), but that is beyond the powers of the development officer to contemplate.

    Side point to bring it back to your arguments about the appeals court: I would strongly suggest that if a DO did deny him based on his character, he could get the case heard as it would be an incorrect decision.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 11-08-2015 at 10:39 AM.

  90. #90
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^ question, are you a planner ?


    In any case, and in spite of circular arguments regarding what a DO can & can't do, it is nice to see that we have EPS, the EFCL planning committee and Community Standards on board. We will be petitioning the mayor and the city manager to form a task force to start dealing with these issues
    Parkdale

  91. #91
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    More traction coming on this.. Another wave of media stories will start tonight
    Parkdale

  92. #92
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ I do have formal training in planning, but I am not working as a planner - besides, "appeal to authority" and all that. The goalposts change so fast that this could all be different tomorrow as well (eg Fox Creek hotel tax).

    It may be possible that the City could expand the role of a DO and successfully defend that stance. However, I know that the interpretation now is that the DO should be making decisions based on a fit of the proposed development outlined in the application, not the character of the applicant.

    Personally, I believe this is the proper system. The people who should be handling issues are exactly who you just mentioned - EPS and Community Standards. The property owner is clearly breaking rules that they can enforce. I also think that private owners should go after him for damages, but I understand that most are not willing to do so. What I was taking issue with was simply that people were blaming the DO, when the DO had zero say in this under the City's interpretation of the MGA and their own LUB.

  93. #93
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    If the DO doesn't have the ability to discern whether a discretionary facility or use is permissible then the default answer should always be no.

    That would force the proponent of the discretionary use to appeal, and involve neighbours and other stakeholders automatically, instead of requiring some attentive neighbour to notice.

  94. #94
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ That is why we have very specific, mandated application forms. If the application is complete, the DO has all the relevant information they need to make a decision. If they can't make a decision, no decision is made at all because it means that the application is missing information.

  95. #95
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    And lets be clear here.. Development officers and the SDAB do make bad decisions.

    There needs to be a better system of checks and balances at that level.. But that's a whole other story

    Council is back in on the 17 and I expect this issue will be top of agenda
    Parkdale

  96. #96
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Yes, there have been some questionable decisions (such as the variances some DOs were handing out in error regarding garage suites and parking spots). Thing is, a DO is only "wrong" if they are in violation or acting outside the LUB, and the SDAB is only "wrong" if they are acting outside of the MGA.

    Tricky situation to fix. Do you take power away from the SDAB? Who would get it? Do you mandate more training? Who is giving that training, and what kind of bias will it introduce? The whole point of the SDAB is that it is a "citizens court", so a mix of average people educated on the topic have a say in what is developed. It is non-judicial in requirements for a reason.

    Personally I think that in this case we already have enough avenues to solve the problem. The owner is violating laws and bylaws, and is also causing a nuisance. Community standards, EPS, and private lawsuits should be utilized to stop him. We don't need to adjust the fundamental powers of DOs, planners, or the SDAB to solve this.

  97. #97

    Default

    We found city planning staff to be absolutely useless when we were dealing with a problem neighbour who was renting the house next to us. Bad behaviours included noise at all hours, illegal activities, unlicensed and derelict vehicles, and general nuisance issues. We were fortunate to get assistance from a EPS community liason officer who was able to make progress and actually appeared to give a damn about things.

    One of the previous posters is absolutely correct re: things are tolerated in Edmonton that would not be in most cities in Canada. This is even true when there are clear bylaws in place that city staff either can't be bothered to enforce properly or seem to not understand. We have actually had to explain city bylaws to city staff for them to understand them properly.

    While no one wants to live in a city where big brother is always watching, I would like city staff to be a least a bit proactive with respect to things like vehicles parked on front lawns, derelict vehicles in driveways and the mother of all "garage" sales as per the current issue in McKernan. I go by that twice a day every day. Wow.

  98. #98
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestendMark View Post
    We found city planning staff to be absolutely useless when we were dealing with a problem neighbour who was renting the house next to us. Bad behaviours included noise at all hours, illegal activities, unlicensed and derelict vehicles, and general nuisance issues. We were fortunate to get assistance from a EPS community liason officer who was able to make progress and actually appeared to give a damn about things.
    They were probably useless because you were talking to the wrong people. Planners have nothing to do with bylaw violations. It would be equally fruitful to ask the bus driver to stop them. You need to call 311 and report them so a bylaw officer can go out.

  99. #99
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,244

    Default

    ^ ideally in this case enforcement would be the preferred scenario, however that takes resources and leadership, and so far I've yet to see any of that from our mayor or council. We'll see what happens on the 17th

    The folks at Community Standards, EPS, and bylaw say they don't have the resources to tackle these these issues, and have not been given any sort of clear mandate. They're doing what they can under the circumstaces, but better leadership is required

    I still agree with Ken and the lawyers that have weighed in on this case, however I don't necessarily believe that taking this to court will be the most effective avenue. We'll have to see what the SDAB ruling is
    Parkdale

  100. #100

    Default

    Yes, I know that planning people do not enforce bylaws. I started with a call to 311 and followed up with a communication with a bylaw person who had difficult interpreting more than one of the bylaws. I was subsequently put in touch with others in various branches of city government.

    240GLT is correct -we need better leadership for Edmonton to be the type of city it should be. If someone thinks the bylaws are already too restrictive you should go live in a city like Toronto for a while.

    It's not always a resource issue. The bylaws are clear. For example, if someone is parking on their front lawn give them a ticket (not that much if it is a first offence perhaps) and not just a warning. If they continue to do it the value of the ticket should be escalated. This should help prevent multiple visits to one property for the same issue.

    I'm still amazed that the a city staff person said that they started getting complaints in June regarding that junk sale in McKernan. Why has nothing be done yet and we are almost mid-August???

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •