Speaking Municipally

City administration is bowing down to provincial bike lane legislation that doesn't even exist yet. Plus, council requested more information on how infill impacts surrounding property values, and we discuss the proposed LRT station fare gate pilot.

  • (00:00) - Introduction
  • (01:31) - Municipal bike lanes
  • (10:23) - Bike lanes in Ontario
  • (13:25) - Pause on active transportation infrastructure
  • (18:29) - Fare gate pilot
  • (24:40) - Infill impacts
  • (32:46) - Movers & Shakers
  • (36:19) - Fringe update
  • (38:25) - Close


Here are the relevant links for this episode:

Municipal bike lanes
Fare gate pilot
Infill impacts
Movers & Shakers
Speaking Municipally is produced by Taproot Edmonton. We deliver reliable intelligence about the Edmonton region. Sign up to get The Pulse, our weekday news briefing. It's free!

Want to reach the smartest, most-engaged people in the Edmonton region? Learn more about advertising with Taproot Edmonton!
★ Support this podcast ★

Creators and Guests

Host
Mack Male
Co-Founder and CEO of Taproot Publishing Inc.
Host
Stephanie Swensrude
Stephanie is a curator and reporter at Taproot Edmonton. She attended NAIT's radio and television program and has worked at CBC, CFJC in Kamloops, and 630 CHED.

What is Speaking Municipally?

Taproot Edmonton presents a weekly discussion on key stories in municipal politics. We pay attention to City Council so you don't have to! Join us as we delve into conversations about the context surrounding decisions made at City Hall.

Mack Male:
Everyone is mad for different reasons. This week, administration is bowing down to provincial bike lane legislation that doesn't even exist yet.

Stephanie Swensrude:
Plus, council requested more information on how infill impacts surrounding property values.

Mack:
Hi, I'm Mack.

Stephanie:
I'm Stephanie.

Mack:
And we're...

Both:
Speaking Municipally.

Mack:
Welcome back to Speaking Municipally, episode 368. I had promised more about the Edmonton Pit Tour, Stephanie. And I've seen lots of really great coverage and awareness and everything. Unfortunately, we're trying to get a hold of some better audio and video to bring to you, listeners and watchers. So stay tuned. We're going to have more in the future, but not this week like I was hoping for. Sometimes, you know, good things come to those who wait.

Stephanie:
Yeah, exactly. We'd rather put out something that you can actually hear because I think probably the pitter-patter of the rain was disrupting the audio, I'm sure.

Mack:
This week is what we kinda call a regular episode of Speaking Municipally. We don't have a guest. It's Stephanie and I talking about the news at city council and what's been happening municipally. We haven't done one of those in a little while, Stephanie.

Stephanie:
Yeah, we haven't spoken municipally in a while.

Mack:
Well, we're gonna try to get to some of the biggest things since our last kind of quote-unquote regular episode, which was, if you can believe it, in early July. Lots has been happening this week too, of course. I, over the weekend, had to make a stop at Bike Edmonton at the workshop downtown here on 105th Avenue, I guess it is. Really great, super helpful team in there. It was awesome. And on the counter, I noticed these postcards, ready-to-mail postcards. There's a campaign going on. Like, I know Dreeshen, the provincial minister, is causing all kinds of problems for bike lanes, and there's some sort of a campaign to combat it, but it seems like there's more going on here, Stephanie. So bring us up to speed. What is going on with municipal bike lanes?

Stephanie:
Yeah, it seems like so much happened over the time that the podcast was on a break. So I'm gonna try to go through kind of everything and then also look forward a little bit. So what I'll talk about first is, of course, there was actually a bit of a demonstration in Capilano in mid-July. Transportation Minister Devin Dreeshen came up from Sylvan Lake and toured the neighbourhood of Capilano with some folks, you know. Weirdly, it didn't seem like he was that interested in hearing from the cyclists who were there and would actually be using the bike lanes. Yeah.

Mack:
How strange.

Stephanie:
The weird thing is, though, is that before this meeting, council had already voted that week to change the design of the infrastructure to retain parking and vehicle travel lanes. And that is what everyone is still mad about. Like, that's what everyone's mad about for different reasons, because I think in the end, the people who don't want the bike lanes just didn't want them at all. It didn't matter if they were taking away parking or not. Personally, I just think that they were still mad because they don't want them at all. And then some folks in the cycling community were upset because of the price difference in these two designs. And the rhetoric that I've been hearing from cycling advocates is that they are against the change because even though it retains parking and travel lanes, it's going to cost nearly $5 million, which is up from about $2.4 million. So it's about double the price to change the design, to take away some of that big median in the middle of the road, and to maintain parking spots. And there's a lot of debate on how many parking spots it actually is, and how many of these spots are actually used. And of course, whenever we talk about residential parking, all or almost all of these homes have garages and alleyways and driveways in the back. And, you know, that could fit two to maybe three or maybe even four cars. So the cyclists were like, wow, you're willing to spend two and a half million extra dollars just to maintain these parking spots. That doesn't seem like a very good use of money. Okay, so anti-bike lanes, they don't want bike lanes. Pro-cycling, they are mad that they're spending money on parking.

Mack:
And not spending more money on more bike lanes. Like, we were supposed to have a much further built-out bike network by now, I think. And so when decisions like this come up, it's the cost factor that people are upset about, but I feel like it's also, hey, I thought we decided that our direction was more active transportation. I thought that's part of our City Plan goals to shift transportation modes. I thought we decided we were gonna build out the bike network. And then you have all of these little micro decisions that eat away and chip away at that. And that's frustrating, I think.

Stephanie:
Yeah, so a bit of that was actually laid out in a report that is going to committee next week that I'm bringing up now because there's a lot of really interesting information in that. So the report is about the entire, wider active transportation implementation plan, whose headline name is kind of the $100-million-for-bike-lanes plan, which I know is also not a 100% accurate characterization because it's not just bike lanes, it's shared-use paths and stuff like that. But I thought this was really interesting. The report said that because the previous council, back in 2022, chose the rapid approach to building bike lanes and other active transportation infrastructure, public engagement was limited and adaptable infrastructure was often used. So when I say adaptable, it's more like putting in flex posts rather than completely redesigning a street. So it can go in quickly and it can be changed quickly if needed. The report said that the lack of public engagement and the adaptable infrastructure have garnered significant negative feedback. And it did specifically point to the recent decision to redesign the infrastructure on 50th Street.

Mack:
As an example of why they shouldn't have done this accelerated approach. That just feels a little bit like revisionist history to me, right? Like, let's look at anger that has resulted from this and then go back and say that decision that we made that was well-intentioned and reasoned at the time now doesn't look like a good one because some people are upset.

Stephanie:
Yeah, I mean, it was such a long time ago, and I haven't gone back to listen to the hours and hours of debate that this item had at budget. But I can't imagine—obviously hindsight is 20/20, right? I wonder if, looking back, those councillors would have made the same decision still if they would have seen how so many communities are pushing back against it because of the limited engagement. I think that's the big thing. It's because of the limited engagement. But that doesn't mean that no engagement was done. The bike plan had been in the works for years. And I always say this, but when people get a little postcard in the mail saying, engage on the bike plan, engage on the zoning bylaw renewal, engage on the budget, they just throw it in the garbage with the rest of their junk mail because they don't care. And then, when it actually affects someone and it's getting installed in front of their house, they do care. And that is a gap that, if I could study how to close that gap, I would, you know, donate all my money to do that because I just wish that people would engage earlier and have their voices heard. But people just don't care about municipal issues, unfortunately.

Mack:
Well, I would take a slightly different tack, and I'd go a bit further on the "there was enough engagement here," because these are things that are consistent with City Plan, which we did the most municipal engagement for of any project we've done in the last number of years. Like, every time we say we didn't engage on this, it's like, okay, maybe there are some specific implementation things that we didn't get your opinion about four years ago. But in broad strokes, we have agreed this is the direction. The input that the city, that council received was: We gotta do something to combat climate change. That involves shifting the way we get around the city. That involves building the city differently so that it's possible to get around to all of your day-to-day needs without having to hop in the car, ideally, right? Like, these are things that we've all decided, and there was an extensive amount of engagement on them. So I just don't like that argument when it comes up in these specific instances to say, see, we didn't do any public engagement on that. It's like, okay, let's not say that we did no public engagement. Let's be really clear about what it is that engagement would have changed here, right? And in this case, maybe on the 50th Street one, some more focused engagement would have changed the design of that. But I think that's an intentional choice that council has made to differ from the stated direction that they had previously approved. I don't think it's a response to some people showing up at public engagement and being mad about it. Like, that's not what happened here. And I don't think that's what would have happened, even if a little bit more public engagement had taken place.

Stephanie:
Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. And also, I mean, the ultimate public engagement exercise is every four years. It was on October 20th in 2025. And I don't mean to sound like a dictator or like, respect the government at all costs, but at the end of the day, Ashley Salvador, who is a cycling person herself and has always voted pretty well in favour of cycling projects, was re-elected with a pretty wide margin of the vote. And, you know, there are some things—I don't know if citizens should always get a veto vote on these things that happen in their neighbourhoods.

Mack:
If we're gonna go back and change something we did in the past, like I've said before, all we need to do is stop talking about bike lanes and start talking about shared-use paths or paths or active pathways or anything else that doesn't have the word bike lane in it, right? It just makes it so much easier for people to react and say, I'm opposed to bike lanes, even if it's not about the bike lane itself. It's just about what it represents, right? It's kind of like the whole data centre conversation right now. Like, are people really upset about data centres? Or are they upset about big tech and privacy and all the other things that, you know, data centres have become a sort of catch-all for, right? In a lot of ways, I feel like bike lanes are kind of like that municipally, right?

Stephanie:
Yeah, I think it's like a keyword for like woke. Wokeism.

Mack:
Totally. Yeah. All right, so this is municipally, but there's been other stuff going on related to bike lanes that is affecting or could affect things, right? Tell us about that.

Stephanie:
Yeah. We've known for a few months now that the provincial government is looking to introduce legislation that would limit municipalities' power over where they can put bike lanes, more specifically targeting taking away travel lanes and taking away parking. And yeah, this has been going on for a while. It's also been going on for a while in Ontario with some bike lanes that are in Toronto. And a while ago, a court ruled that essentially cyclists have a right to this safe transportation option, specifically infrastructure that is protected. And then recently, an Ontario court overturned that earlier ruling that stopped the provincial government from replacing those protected bike lanes with car lanes in Toronto. And Dreeshen applauded that. And he said the appeal court made clear that governments have the authority to make and change transportation policy, that there's no constitutional right to a bike lane. He has also straight-up said before, like, we're going to be watching what court challenges happen in Ontario so that we don't make the same mistakes and so that we can put through legislation that will be more challenge-proof.

Mack:
At the risk of displaying my constitutional ignorance, is there a constitutional right to a drive lane, to parking? Like, are those constitutional? I don't understand this argument that there's no constitutional right to a bike lane.

Stephanie:
The way some people talk about parking, you would think that there was a constitutional right to park your car directly in front of your house. I don't believe there is. I'm also not a constitutional expert. Anyone write in if you are, but I do not believe that, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have enshrined a right to park.

Mack:
Why did the Ontario Court overturn that earlier decision? What was the rationale for that?

Stephanie:
So the reason why the court overturned it: There was a panel of three appeal court judges. They ruled that there is no constitutional obligation to regulate the use of roads in any particular manner. The decision reads: "The legislature is free to legislate to remove a bicycle lane from a road. Indeed, it may remove a road entirely without implicating the Charter." And the judges wrote that the original ruling inflated the negative impacts of removing bike lanes. Quote: "The original ruling is talking of injuries and deaths that will occur only if the bicyclists choose to ride on the roads that have no bicycle lanes."

Mack:
Interesting. Okay. So kind of throwing the onus back onto the cyclists to keep themselves safe rather than on the city and the municipal infrastructure to provide safe transportation mechanisms for those modes of transportation. I don't agree, but I can understand the argument. Okay, now given that this is happening, you mentioned earlier that it seems like the City of Edmonton is already making changes to account for this, even though nothing has happened in Alberta yet. So what specifically did you mean by that?

Stephanie:
Yeah, so I understand that this is kind of burying the lede a little bit, listener, but I wanted to get some of that background out of the way. But this new report that is going to council next week says that administration wants to put a hold on all active transportation infrastructure that takes away parking spaces or vehicle travel lanes—anything that hasn't been constructed yet. So there's a list in it that we'll link to in the show notes. There's a bunch of segments that haven't yet been constructed that they're going to put a pause on and maybe stop completely. And another thing is that it's an extra big L because the report says many projects have to be delayed to next year, a.k.a. delayed indefinitely, because of the weather—all the rain this construction season.

Mack:
Active transportation infrastructure that takes away parking spaces or vehicle travel lanes. Isn't that any bike lane that we might construct? Doesn't this effectively say we're not building any bike lanes anymore if this were to be approved? I mean, obviously we build shared-use trails and things like that through, you know, neighbourhoods, through the river valley, through those kinds of places, but any kind of bike infrastructure that we've built that people think about as bike lanes does take away at least a traffic lane or a parking lane, and that is an intentional shift that we are making, right? So is this basically saying this is the end of the $100-million bike lane plan?

Stephanie:
Well, I think the important distinction here is the shared-use path. Lots of the new infrastructure has been through shared-use paths, though some of it has also been through on-street bike lanes, like one in my neighbourhood connecting Whyte Avenue to the Happy Beer Street area. Which, I'm confused about this, because that project, 101 Street south of Whyte Avenue, is still on the keep list, though it definitely takes away parking and travel lanes. And then it says construction is underway. I promise you it's not, at least from my eyeballs. It's very confusing to me.

Mack:
Well, this sounds like a fairly big change that would have to take place. Like, full council approval would be needed on something like this. The timing is really strange here. Maybe the city administration knows something we don't about some provincial legislation coming down the pipe.

Stephanie:
Obviously, we haven't seen the legislation yet, though the government has been pretty open about what they wanna do. And the report says that even though that provincial legislation limiting the infrastructure doesn't exist yet, making a proactive decision can help mitigate legal implications, which will be discussed in camera. So there'll be some private discussions—no reporters, no residents allowed to watch those.

Mack:
Hence the campaign to try to avoid all of this craziness from happening here in Alberta and limit what Minister Dreeshen can do to restrict what municipalities can do around bike lanes. I mean, obviously we know municipalities are creatures of the province. We only exist at their pleasure, but we do exist, and we have essentially offloaded all of the decisions about transportation to the cities. It is the city and council that decide about highways and roads and arterials and all kinds of stuff. It is the city and council that should decide about bike lanes as well, not the provincial government.

Stephanie:
Apparently not.

Mack:
Okay, what's next?

Stephanie:
Right, so this report is going to infrastructure committee on Wednesday, August 26th. And this change in direction, because it's a significant change from what council originally approved four-ish years ago, requires council approval. So probably what will happen is infrastructure committee will debate it a bunch. They might give a recommendation, they might requisition it without a recommendation, and then council will have to make the final decision at a future meeting. And just one more thing about this is that the report says administration is in the process of updating the active transportation implementation guide, which will be presented to council before the four-year budget deliberations. That guide four years ago is what kind of led us on the path to getting the quote-unquote $100 million for bike lanes. And I've been wondering what this guide could potentially result in for this four-year budget deliberation. Not looking like much. Just based on this report and also people I've been talking to, the $100 million four years ago was a bit of a catch-up. You know what I mean? Like, they had underinvested for a long time. And yeah, sorry, actually one last thing is that I plan to do a whole episode of Speaking Municipally about this very topic, talking to some councillors, some bike advocates, and really getting into, like, okay, what is gonna happen in the next budget deliberation for bike lanes? So stay tuned for that.

Mack:
I'm looking forward to that. All right, well, that feels a little like revisiting a decision we made four years ago. Council seems to be doing a lot of that lately. The next one we want to talk about is this fare gate pilot. What happened at council this week, Stephanie?

Stephanie:
Edmonton City Council voted 7-6 to have administration prepare a budget package for a fare gate pilot at one downtown LRT station. So they did not decide to do this yet. They're going to have the unfunded service package or the capital profile go to budget deliberations in a few months. But they are going to be considering this thing that has been voted down several times. Those who voted in favour are Knack, Clarke, Elliott, Morgan, Parmar, Principe, and Stevenson. Opposed: Janz, Paquette, Rutherford, Salvador, Tang, and Wright.

Mack:
And Councillor Jon Morgan is the one who put this motion forward. He said it's really about reducing fare evasion and improving cost recovery. That was his intention. The last time this came up, in 2024, the argument then was more about either perceived or real safety in LRT stations. So he was saying, you know, he worked for Edmonton Transit himself for 20 years. He saw lots of fare evasion, and he thinks that there are maybe some opportunities to do some better cost recovery here. We talked about this on Speaking Municipally in 2024, the last time this came up. It was episode 277. And I said, quote, "This is a ridiculous proposal." And then I enumerated all of the ways that it was ridiculous. And Troy, our co-host at the time, said, quote, "A lot of people, when they're talking about fare gates, really, it's coded language for: I don't want people who aren't professional commuters in my transit stations." End quote. Which I think is very true. If you look at the seven-six vote this time, you've got Andrew Knack, who ultimately was the swing vote on this. He said he's not likely to support this when it comes up during budget deliberations, but he voted for it now because it's okay to get more information. Let me just pause right there, Stephanie. Everyone, including the mayor, has been talking about how difficult this budget is going to be, how limited we are in terms of funds, but they're quite happy to flush thousands of dollars down the drain on a report that is sure to die during budget and will not go forward. This pilot will not happen. Like, what a waste of time and money to ask for this report now. It makes me angry. The other people in the in-favour column are all the new councillors. They weren't around the last time that this decision came up. Maybe someone on council should have informed them that, hey, we already voted against this one. Actually, I think Councillor Paquette did, but it fell on deaf ears. Councillor Principe voted in favour of it. I'm not surprised, given comments she's made in the past about safety in the LRT. And then Councillor Stevenson. What are you doing, Councillor Stevenson? Why would you vote in favour of this? It makes no sense to me. So, anyway, this to me is, like I said in September of 2024, a ridiculous proposal. What is a fare gate at one LRT station going to do?

Stephanie:
What is it going to teach us? If the goal is a pilot project, what on earth is it going to teach us? Because if people go down—I think they were aiming towards having it at Churchill—people are going to walk down the stairs to Churchill, see that they have to scan their card, go back up the stairs, go over, what is it, like a block to Central or whatever it is, and go down the stairs there. Do you really think that vulnerable people who want to shelter from the cold are going to walk down the stairs to the LRT station and see that and then what, disappear into thin air? Like, dematerialize? I'm almost at a loss for words. Like, you know, you're totally right. It makes absolutely no sense to do this pilot project, especially with the way our LRT system is designed. It just doesn't work. And even in places like New York, where it's all very underground and they have those big gates that you have to turn to get in and out, people still find a way. Because if you want to ride the train for free, you're gonna do it. And the thing is, even if we caught every single person they believe does not pay the fare, it wouldn't cover the amount that this gate, that this project, is gonna cost, because they estimate that about 5% of people don't pay the fares. Five percent. That's very low.

Mack:
And this pilot, last time, was estimated to cost more than $7 million. Like, we have a lot of transit needs. Councillor Rutherford, who voted against it this week, you know, basically said this: We have lots of other transit priorities and pressures. We don't need to be spending money on this pilot that we know is not gonna teach us anything and is not the solution that we're looking for here. Just absurd to me. Absurd to me. Council did make one other transit-related motion this week, which is a little bit better, I suppose. It was carried unanimously, 13-0, and this is a motion on high-floor LRT performance metrics. So ridership, fare compliance, on-time performance data, etc., from 2021 through 2025. And this report is due back in November. So it seems like we would get the information we're looking for around cost recovery and fare evasion in that report. I don't understand why we also need to consider this other one for the fare gates. It doesn't make any sense. We're gonna get some data back that will give us more information that could be useful for determining what is the appropriate next step on the LRT. Not a fare gate. That's not the appropriate next step.

Stephanie:
No.

Mack:
So Stephanie, I feel like I was right in 2024, and I feel like we are right again now that this is a waste of time, and I don't know why council supported it. And I look forward to seeing this budget package voted down when we get to the budget deliberations this fall. Okay, next up—we're hitting all the hot topics here. Downtown safety, bike lanes. Now we got infill.

Stephanie:
This is gonna be such a negative episode, but hey, like we said, everyone's mad right now. Okay.

Mack:
Everyone's mad. Okay, what's going on with infill?

Stephanie:
So this is also another kind of silly motion that happened on the same day. Edmonton City Council has voted to request a report with more information on how infill development impacts the property values of surrounding homes in the small-scale residential zone, a.k.a. the RS Zone. In a 9-4 vote, council approved a motion from Councillor Karen Principe, who said she introduced the motion after hearing concerns from residents both about decreasing property values and about rising taxes due to increased property values. So she basically just said she wants to clear the air about which it is. Four people voted against it. That would have been Erin Rutherford, Ashley Salvador, Keren Tang, and Jo-Anne Wright. Basically, they were all saying they didn't want to support this motion because property values are influenced by a very complex set of factors and there is no way to tell if an adjacent infill property has had an impact. Jo-Anne Wright said, "I can't support this motion because I think we're giving administration an impossible task. They cannot determine property values have either increased or decreased solely as a result of infill."

Mack:
Though that hasn't stopped people from trying, right? So I think this really comes out of a study that was funded by Edmonton Neighbourhoods United that showed that there was, on average, a, what, 7% decrease in property values of homes that are located within 50 metres of these types of infill projects. So people have tried to make the argument that it is depressing property values. And I think that's one of the things that Councillor Principe was picking up on here. But I agree with those councillors. Like, how can you determine what those factors are? There are so many factors that go into assessing property in the city that you can't pin it down to just one thing.

Stephanie:
Yeah. I mean, one thing that Jo-Anne Wright brought up a couple of times is if the roof needs replacing, or if the carpets are mouldy, or if you haven't been maintaining your deck or the paint outside. And then also if a new recreation centre was built, if new stores have gone in around the corner—which I guess is kind of a form of infill in itself—but there are just so many factors. And then another thing, I don't know if any of the councillors specifically said this for a reason, but they did have questions about this: Councillors cannot vote against a rezoning application because of property values. That is not a legal thing to talk about during a land use hearing, a public hearing. They are not allowed to say, we're not gonna approve this infill or this rezoning application because the property beside it, the property value will go down. They're not allowed to do that. And so a lot of the councillors are saying, we can't use this information. We don't know if the information is gonna be correct, we don't know if it's going to be a comprehensive review. It's way too general. I can already tell you what the report is going to come back and say. It's going to say infill may have an impact. It could also be impacted by these other things. Legal reminder: You can't talk about this during public hearings.

Mack:
We've saved them money yet again, Stephanie. They should hire us, absolutely.

Stephanie:
They should just hire us.

Mack:
If we are building infill developments that are multi-unit, that in theory is going to result in greater property tax revenue for the city, which means we should have to collect less property tax from everyone else. And if it is true that those infill projects are depressing the property values around them, surely that's a good thing if you're concerned about high taxes. It's only really a problem if you want to sell your house right away, right? Otherwise, you just get a lower tax bill as a result. So I guess I'm not really following why people are so upset about this apparent connection.

Stephanie:
I think what I hear a lot in these public hearings and these infill discussions is a lot of people in these mature neighbourhoods being like, I've lived here for 50 years, I've put all of my life savings into this house, I raised my grandkids, they took their first steps in the backyard, my beautiful garden is in the backyard—and they tie a lot to the property. I mean, their property is their biggest investment, which I think is true for a lot of Canadian people.

Mack:
Sure. It is.

Stephanie:
And I understand that people are very nervous about losing their retirement plan if their property value goes down. And that is why I think people are so upset about property values allegedly going down. Though again, we don't know.

Mack:
Okay, I understand that perspective. What about supporters of this? What are they saying?

Stephanie:
Yeah, so some of the supporters were just fully on Karen Principe's side and were saying, yeah, we need to have more information about how bad infill is for property values. I'm exaggerating a little bit. But funny enough is that some people you wouldn't necessarily expect to vote in favour of this motion did. One I'll bring up is Councillor Michael Janz. He voted—I, in my opinion, it was a bit of a snarky move—because he's like, yeah, let's get the information and we'll show how good infill is for the tax situation. Because he referenced, I'm pretty sure, this blog post from housing advocate Jacob Dawang, who analyzed a bunch of property assessment data to estimate how much infill development is adding to the city's tax revenue. Now, huge disclaimer: I'm not going to pretend I understand this data analysis. I literally tried reading it and started going cross-eyed. So please take this all with a grain of salt. I cannot independently verify that these findings are true or that the conclusions are accurate and relevant. Jacob is a data scientist, but, you know, he's also an advocate. So just take that with a grain of salt. But apparently, from what's been built in the RS Zone since it was introduced at the beginning of 2024 to the end of 2026, with a projection—so over three years—all of that infill in the RS Zone will add nearly $15 million annually to the tax roll. And also, all of that small-scale infill has added $1.82 billion to the property values of the city as a whole.

Mack:
So I at first sounded like I don't support this. Why are we doing this motion, right? And maybe I'm gonna contradict myself a little bit now because the kinds of analysis that Jacob has done or that Edmonton Neighbourhoods United is trying to do by funding that other study, those actually feel like the kinds of things that the city itself should be doing. Or maybe they already have, and they have some of this data, and they should just be making it readily available, right? I mean, if we wanna understand the impact of our decisions, let's figure out the data to understand that impact, right? Like, again, what I said earlier in the episode: We've already decided that infill is an important part of the future of the city. Nobody, even the people who are against infill, is saying we should stop infill completely. Nobody currently. You know, infill's gonna be here. So all of these starts and stops along the way are just expensive and they waste time. And, you know, I feel like we could go about this in a much better way than this sort of reactive thing that a motion like this is.

Stephanie:
And I think—I mean, that's a bit of what the city was saying, because all of this information that Jacob pulled from is open data that you can get from the city. Anyone can access it. But like I said, obviously it's hard to get that in a readable format. It's hard to understand. So this motion might result in a report that has a bit of a narrative to it. And I don't mean exactly—

Mack:
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. Like, obviously they have the data because they need to assess properties in order to tax us. It's just like, help us make sense of that, right? What's the construct around it? So, impossible task or not, we're gonna get some information back because this one passed. All right, well, like you said, a little bit of a negative episode in terms of everybody's mad about everything, but we did wanna end with just some movers and shakers at City Hall, some things going on we've been paying attention to, noticing some people moving into new roles. What should listeners and viewers know about this week?

Stephanie:
Yeah, we've got a couple of LinkedIn updates to bring you. The first—well, I think listeners probably will remember that a few months ago, Blake Desjarlais, former NDP MP, was hired as the chief of staff for the mayor's office and then, like, three months later left. We don't really know why. We don't know what happened. We don't know if it was an amicable or a not-so-amicable split. We'll link to Keith Gerein's column because I thought it was pretty interesting. But anyways, a new chief of staff has joined the office: Yetunde Oke. She joins the team with more than two decades of experience in municipal and provincial government. She was director of intergovernmental affairs in the office of the city manager at the City of Edmonton. And this is a very different choice than Blake Desjarlais because I think the Blake Desjarlais choice was obviously aligning himself with NDP values. And then this is a longtime top executive of city administration. So I think it's a very different shift.

Mack:
Yeah, I can't remember where I saw it. It might have been Keith's article or other commentary online, but, you know, a politician is not the right person for that chief of staff role. You need somebody with the management experience and the ability to, you know, get things done, move people together in a sort of operational way. And so I think this is a wise choice, and I expect she will last much longer than three months in this role.

Stephanie:
Yeah. And then another change in the office of the mayor is Rajah Maggay has left the office of the mayor. Now, city council nerds like myself—and I'm sure many of our listeners—will remember Rajah because she worked in Knack's office as a councillor for some time. And then she ran for Ward Nakota Isga, and then immediately after she lost, she was hired again in the mayor's office. And now she has moved on. And again, we have no idea why this is, but it just caught my eye because they've had a relationship for years and years now, and now she has moved on.

Mack:
I mean, it could just be personal growth and opportunity to do something different, which is always great. But obviously, yeah, she's made some significant contributions to Mayor Knack's office. So I'm sure she'll be missed. And then we have one other big change.

Stephanie:
Yes, the city clerk and returning officer at the City of Edmonton, Aileen Giesbrecht, is moving on. Her final day as Edmonton city clerk will be August 28th. Just, like, a huge shout-out to Aileen, because I have been doing this job for almost four years now, and I find it so hard to follow along in meetings, just getting all the procedural stuff right, and she was always so on top of it. It is amazing that someone can be so knowledgeable of all the different processes, procedures, how things have to move through. She knows exactly what council has to do next, you know, points of order, all this stuff. So shout-out to Aileen. What a diva.

Mack:
I have huge amounts of respect for Aileen in the Office of the City Clerk. I think she's done such a fantastic job. So this is a big, big change for council and for the City of Edmonton. Aileen was with the city for 21 years, and she was the city clerk since 2020. So it sounds like she's going off to the private sector, which—great, good for her. Wish you all the best, and very eager to see who will get to fill those big shoes next.

Stephanie:
Yes, and best of luck to all of you who are going on to new careers.

Mack:
All right, well, let's end on something a little bit more fun. It's Fringe time, of course, right now. I took the kids down to KidsFringe recently. They had a wonderful time. We saw an outdoor show as well. But I know you're a big fringer, Stephanie. How's your experience been?

Stephanie:
Well, unfortunately, this year I've only caught three shows, and that'll probably be it. I'm just super busy getting ready for my trip. In case listeners wouldn't know this, I will be away for a few weeks. You'll still hear my voice because I'm pre-recording some interviews, but I will be gone gallivanting around Europe for a couple of weeks. But anyways, I saw three shows, and I loved all of them, which is a very lucky percentage.

Mack:
Yeah.

Stephanie:
The first one I saw was Matt & Ben. I'm biased because my friends did put on the show, but it's a story about Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and how they came up with the story for Good Will Hunting. Sounds a little weird, but give it a try. It's really funny. The actors are two very talented women playing these men. And then the second show I saw is called The Flail. It's a one-man show, a storytelling show about this man who grew up in rural Alberta and spent some time homeless, doing drugs on the street. But I was crying laughing. He is such a good, smart storyteller, very responsive to the audience. And it was just a different viewpoint than you typically get. I find that those stories aren't normally told by the people actually living them or who have formerly lived them. Just a really interesting, you know, picture into that life. And then the last one I'll mention is called Shrute and Tungsta. Actually, I guess the second two—The Flail is definitely rated R, Shrute and Tungsta R-plus. Like, do not bring your kids there. It's a little bit saucy, but really, really, really, really funny, silly, audacious techno. It's set in the bathrooms of Berghain in Berlin. Super, super silly and fun. It's a splash-zone type of show, if you know what I mean. So have fun.

Mack:
That's awesome. Well, I'm glad your percentage has been so high this time around. Our podcast co-founder, Troy Pavlek, is also a really big fringer. He's been sharing information about the sellouts of shows because they've made some changes this year. There's no more rush tickets. They're all sold out in advance. So shout-out to Troy for that. And then if you're a Taproot Edmonton member, check your inbox, because on Wednesday this week, you've got a little discount code that you can use for Fringe. So one of the perks that we share every single week with people who are members of Taproot Edmonton—we'd love for you to join us and become a member. There are lots of benefits, including these kinds of ticket giveaways and discount codes and other things that we regularly share. And you can learn all about that at taprootedmonton.ca. Okay, Stephanie, we'll be back again next week with another episode of Speaking Municipally. Until then, I'm Mack.

Stephanie:
I'm Stephanie.

Mack:
And we're...

Both:
Speaking Municipally.