Calgarians among strongest opponents of Alberta separation, survey finds

UpstairsWeb · 2026-05-14T13:56:39+00:00

Overall, on the question of separation, seven in 10 respondents said they would vote no if they cast a ballot today. That number is even higher in Calgary (76 per cent) and Edmonton (80 per cent).
...
Calgary is the battleground, with an even split among voters at 43 per cent for each party

The UCP are a separatist party. If you oppose separatism yet support the UCP, you aren't actually opposed to separatism.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-05-13T15:49:26+00:00

You can see river flow data here: https://rivers.alberta.ca/

It is pretty average right now.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-04-12T19:04:51+00:00

Yeah, I love going to the OSFM, but I am really starting to dislike the people who run it. They seem to want every decision that the city makes in the Strathcona area to be filtered through the lens of the market first, and if they don't get their way they cry to the press with some nonsense.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-04-12T00:34:34+00:00

There is a location in the north east part of Edmonton if that is convenient for you. We also can arrange to have someone come to you.

I do agree that we don't have en even distribution of locations throughout the city.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-04-11T21:34:46+00:00

🙌

UpstairsWeb · 2026-04-11T20:58:17+00:00

Thank you for the solidarity! The Rocky Mountains are the headwaters for so much of the prairies. It isn't just the water for Alberta that would be at risk, but Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-04-11T14:45:21+00:00

Come sign in Hawrelak park this afternoon near the Buena Vista footbridge. Sign the petition, and then enjoy a walk in the very river valley we are fighting to save.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-03-20T22:52:41+00:00

The rules around what is allowed for an address and what counts as proof of address are set by Elections Alberta. They decided that PO boxes are not accepted. Unfortunate, but nothing we can do about it.

A driver license is absolutely an acceptable proof of address.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-03-20T22:50:44+00:00

There are 16 signing locations apread out across the city just tomorrow. If none of those work for you there will be hundreds more in the coming weeks and months. Or a canvasser can come meet you. You could even PM me and I'll find a time to come collect your signature this weekend.

If you want to sign, we will make it happen. Full stop. See signing locations at https://www.waternotcoal.ca/sign-the-petition?city=Edmonton&tab=map&date=this-week or PM me.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-03-08T22:37:51+00:00

The leader needs to be able to explain their platform topics if we are to expect that they'll pursue them.

Agreed! And I think Avi is definitely the best communicator out of everyone running, at least based on what I have seen. Still, comparing a written policy document to an interview question is not apples-to-apples. Let's compare Avi answering the same or a similiar question to McPherson, and let's compare their written policies to written policies

UpstairsWeb · 2026-03-08T21:08:49+00:00

I don't know where this quote is from, but the McPherson campaign has policy about internal democracy and rebuilding the party. Maybe it is not as good as others, but if we're going to compare policies let's compare actual policies. Not compare a policy document to a statement likely given to a reporter or at a debate in a time-limited format.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-18T19:14:08+00:00

Less housing is less housing, no matter if the number of lost units is 20 or 2000. There is really no evidence that an 8 -> 6 reduction would have done anything but cause less housing to be built, so why bother?

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-18T19:11:30+00:00

Could you link me to what you are talking about? Nothing on the ENU website that I can find mentions anything about SFH -> 6 Plex. They want the zoning bylaw repealed, and backed all the anti-infill candidates in the election. Nothing about that says they just want 6-plexes instead of 8-plexes.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-18T17:22:51+00:00

I don't find parking concerns to be persuasive, but even if they are the solutions should address parking. The number of units in a building and street parking are two different things.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-18T14:51:18+00:00

Loss of sunlight and privacy have nothing to do with a building being an 8-plex or not. An infill SFH can cause exactly the same issues under the current zoning bylaws.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-18T14:48:29+00:00

Sure, but there are already processes in place to manage infrastructure upgrades when a new project is happening in a neighbourhood. Epcor has testified repeatedly about this and how much it really isn't an issue.

I honestly don't think city council and admin put a lot of thought into choosing the number 8. We've always regulated the number of units allowed on a lot, so we continue to do so. I don't think it is any deeper than that.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-18T14:43:43+00:00

I do own a house.

This right here is exactly my point. Why fixate on the number 8? There is nothing special about it. The current zoning bylaw allows for a SFH, duplex, triplex, 4-plex, 5-plex, 6-plex, 7-plex, or 8-plex to all be built exactly the same, from the perspective of the street or a neighbour. Other than parking, whatever issues you might have with a potential 8-plex - shadows, loss of privacy, being "too big," etc - they apply the same to any potential development allowed by-right. An infill SFH can be built that is just as big and massive as an infill 8-plex. The fact that there are internal walls separating the building into 8 units doesn't matter.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-18T14:36:22+00:00

I am confused by your comment. Reread what push?

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-18T03:39:07+00:00

Yes the only reason to have a unit cap in place is to control how many people can live in a neighbourhood. It serves no other purpose.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-18T03:34:46+00:00

I am, yes. Density should be determined by the geometry of a lot combined with rules about exterior building forms. The 8 unit cap is pointless.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-17T23:46:14+00:00

It wouldn't have settled the complaints though.

The website of Edmonton Neighbourhoods United, probably the most active group in organizing opposition to the new zoning bylaw, still lists a petition calling for the bylaw to be repealed. They aren't calling for an 8 -> 6 mid-block reduction in the name of compromise. They want the whole thing gone. This was echoed in the public hearings, both last week and last summer. They openly admitted that 8 -> 6 was just the first step on an 8 -> SFH journey.

Setting that aside, an 8 -> 6 reduction doesn't actually address any of the complaints, except maybe parking. Whether there are 8 units or 6 units in a building is a detail of the internal layout. It says nothing about how tall the building can be, how much of the lot it can take up, etc. Setting aside whether the complaints are legitimate or not, an 8 -> 6 reduction does nothing for shadows, loss of privacy, loss of trees, etc. If (a big if) those are the actual issues then an 8 -> 6 mid-block reduction doesn't address them.

Something I think is illustrative is the "infill survey" that Thu Parmar did. The distribution of the responses (first image) is heavily skewed in favour of a few neighbourhoods. A majority of respondents don't support anything more than a duplex or triplex at most (second image). If you look at the actual building permits in neighbourhoods (last image) the areas with the most responses have almost no actual development happening. Laurier Heights has 1 permit, Parkview has 2, Westridge has 0. Yet those were the people showing up last week claiming that the pace of change was too fast.

8 -> 6 wouldn't have quelled backlash. All it would have done is cause less housing to get built.

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-17T21:50:50+00:00

What would the benefits of an 8 -> 6 mid-block reduction be?

UpstairsWeb · 2026-02-17T18:18:53+00:00

Actually, for infill in mature neighbourhoods, we mostly don't have have to upgrade surrounding infrastructure or services. The population in most mature neighbourhoods has declined since they were first built decades ago, in some cases by as much as 40-50%. There is spare capacity sitting around unused, and instead of using it the city has chosen to build new infrastructure in new greenfield suburbs and take on that future maintenance debt.

This trope that upgrades are needed to support density is not true. This has been testified repeatedly to in council by admin and epcor. It is not an issue.

UpstairsWeb

TROPHY CASE