If the individual members of any unit want to collectively sign on to a statement, they could do so. Units shouldn’t speak on behalf of their members.

I was right in line with Skinners’ goal line in row 12 for goal 3. Time slowed down. It was like a car crash.

While this process sounds unworkable, I am certain that an AI would do a better job marking than 80% of TAs and at least 30% of Instructors. I’m not currently marking essays, but if I were, I think using AI as a first run through and sort would be very helpful.

The health care card addition is nice though.

Bryan, I live in Canada and we do not face the same issue here. With that said, the left needs to recognize how it contributed to Trump getting elected through its own attacks on liberalism (classical liberalism).

I think cancel culture harmed the openness of speech at universities. Many topics deserving of debate became taboo in a very short period of time. This has had a negative impact on the quality of debate and discussion.

Got it, sorry for the misinterpretation!

I think it's totally reasonable to take more time to discuss this. With that said, after November we will be dealing with a different group of councilors (who will be selected based upon the feelings of the public). We will probably come out of that election okay, but it's not certain.

We will only know the actual market impacts if the change is made.

If you are an advocate for good urbanism, public perception matters. Toronto made a huge step backwards when Rob Ford was elected. Edmonton has been a leader because it has managed to maintain progress through incrementalism.

The size limits the number of units, but it still allows six to be viable and it's a meaningful increase in density relative to what exists and what was permitted prior to 2024. In Toronto it was kind of a 'fake' expansion of development rights that didn't really allow any change to happen.

There are also cases like Toronto which allowed 4 units, but then made the building envelope so restrictive that 4 units were not viable.

Or may the modifier is square meters per unit required. RS u50, RS u75, RS u100, RS u125. I'm just brainstorming here.

I'll add that is very strange for me to be on the side of any retreat from liberalizing the zoning bylaw. I've been championing zoning bylaw reform in Edmonton since about 2007. That the debate is now between 4 and 8 units per lot everywhere is almost surreal to me.

Toronto and all of southern Ontario is a basketcase of zoning restriction, slow and unnecessary bureaucratic procedures, development charges, land transfer taxes, and so on. Indeed, the only reason we see high housing demand in Edmonton are people fleeing BC and Ont.

Edmonton also has a LOT of LRT transit with almost nothing but single detached housing in the 800m radius. So, commercial nodes struggle and LRT ridership can be low. We lack the vibrant dense areas of other cities and policy can help create these.

One key factor here is the difference between Edmonton and Toronto. Edmontonians won't walk as far as Torontonians for transit before just staying with their car. Parking is ample and cheap here and winters are colder. Once you are past the 800m mark from an LRT stop, its no different than 10km.