So I attended @B_MayesSTV 's townhall on the infill guidelines and took three pages of notes so here’s the thread:

First off, general impressions, I think he said “in theory” about 50 times. If it were a drinking game, I would have died. I can’t help but wonder if it’s in reference to the time he told me to live in reality and not in theory that one time he blew up at me. (1)

He also mentionned several times that people need to share their views. Did that, he didn’t quite seem to care for my opinion. (2)

Mayes made sure to mention that some people in the meeting (I think he meant me) live on Handyside, where lot splits are not allowed because of our 48 ft lots. This is often brought up against me or Ryan. I think it’s to invalidate our opinion on infill. (3)

The fact that our lots are too narrow to allow for more density means that I want to push for the guidelines to include 48 foot lots. BRING IT ON. (4)

Mayes made sure to mention that he has approved many infill projects. He likely means appartment buildings like the ones on St Anne’s and St Mary’s which is awesome. (5)

Personally I don’t think that rentors’ only option should be on a busy street though. My son lives half time in a 6plex on Kitson and he gets to play on a lower traffic residential street. (6)

Mayes also made sure to distance himself from the very ugly attitudes going around making people living in infill housing feel unwelcome. Though he himself claims to not critique the aesthetics of the homes or make disparaging remarks against rentors...(7)

...his tirades against infill has emboldened people to make those kinds of remarks so though he distanced himself from those people at the meeting, they are the same people he is encouraging with his anti-infill blogs and town halls. (8)

Furthermore, the record seems to contradict his remarks about how he doesn’t critique the looks of these houses. Words like disaster, shoddy have been uttered by Mayes in the conversation around infill and the meanest and angriest people in Glenwood have taken their cue. (9)

According to the guidelines, to lot split, a 50 ft lot on a back lane is required, in a mature community. Mayes says this is unfair because it excludes 48 ft lots like Handyside. I agree. (10)

Mayes says this is unfair because homes without a back lane are excluded. from having lot splits. I agree. Mayes says that it’s unfair that certain areas like Armstrong point are excluded from lot splitting because of heritage status. I agree. (11)

(with a caveat that I think we should try harder to preserve beautifully handcrafted architectural works of art a lot harder than houses like mine that are mass produced in a post-war housing boom) (12)

Mayes says that what’s defined as a mature community excludes places from getting lot splits and that too is unfair. I agree. (13)

What we don’t seems to agree upon is that I don’t see that as a reason to end infill where those conditions do allow for them. I want to change the conditons to allow for infill to occur where they are not currently permitted. (14)

Mayes also laments that the increase in the property tax base in heavily infilled neighbourhoods doesn’t necesarily inhance that community. I agree. That’s totally unfair. But also fixable. (15)

He also talked about the increased load on infrastructure that infill brings. You know the arguments. More water, more cars, harder on the roads, the backlanes, more kids in the schools, more people using the community centres, etc (16)

He countered the counter argument anecdotally by saying that people have trouble booking community centre halls and schools were not empty before. We’ve been to board meetings for the Glenwood CC and the lack of children on sports teams due to low population is a real problem(17)

Though it might be hard for some to book a room in the community centre, we’ve never had a problem, we’ve booked rooms there many times and have had many dates to pick from. (18)

There’s also an underlying expectation that everyone has at least two cars, which simply isn’t always the case. One of the people who spoke up in question period claims that everyone she knows has two cars, more anecdotal evidence. (19)

Anecdotally, of our friend group on our street, we know one family that has two cars (and we know a lot of people on our street). (20)

This is because this neighbourhood is so walkable, so many people are telecommuting (especially not with covid, and I suspect more families will downsize to one car if this continues), many people take transit or use active transportation to get to their jobs. (21)

Mayes ends with an ominous warning to residents of St George and other St Vital communities on grids with backlanes: “ be prepared for a lot of issues. This is the case in Glenwood.” And though it's true that there have been a lot of complaints about lot splits in Glenwood, (22)

there is a lot more the city can be doing to minimize these conflicts. Enforcement needs to ensure that the construction companies are being good neighbours during the tear down and construction stages. (23)

But Glenwood is not in a state of chaos. It’s in a state of renewal and I love it. More and more people are seeing infill houses as an investment in our community, bringing new families here to call this amazing neighbourhood home, and that is the reality. Not just theory. (24)