The Main — April 26: Hot Eats, Cruel Tweets
Nobody has it exactly right in Calgary's Dairy Queen wars, but that doesn't mean the hot takes will fade from the election campaign
Calgary went dilly bars for Dairy Queen over the weekend. By sundae (sorry) if you hadn’t yet offered your take on the DQ debacle, you probably live in Edmonton. But beyond the puns and ice cream jokes, and the inevitable use of this story throughout the coming municipal election campaign, what’s the screaming all about? Why is Calgary at war with itself using DQ puns?
SHOT
The spark came Friday in a David versus Goliath type story by Licia Corbella in the Calgary Herald. Corbella told her readers that she’d been moved to tears as she listened to the tale of the Shim family, who owned a popular Calgary Dairy Queen in Tuxedo Park only to lose it in a fire in 2019. Now, Corbella wrote, the Shims have applied to rebuild their DQ and want to do so by including the drive-thru (which has been there since the original DQ was built in 1989). They submitted a development permit to the city for their new DQ building with these features. Then came the trouble.
As Corbella framed it, an anti-car, red-tape-loving city machine led by Coun. Druh Farrell next stepped in to stop the Shims and crush their dreams, by denying their permit application. “Ordinarily, such development permits — to essentially build the same development on the same piece of land following a fire — would go through without a hitch,” Corbella wrote.
“Except, Ward 7 Coun. Druh Farrell doesn’t appear to like fast-food restaurants with drive-thrus and parking lots.”
The Shims, Corbella continued, are now pleading their case to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB), which is a separate body from the city administration and council structure. This body is composed of regular citizens who apply relevant bylaws to make decisions on contentious development applications. This point will prove rather important in a minute — please read on!
Corbella framed the story as a crusading Coun. Farrell exerting influence to stop a family from rebuilding what they already had because they wanted to keep a drive-thru. “Perhaps if the Shims dished out expensive gelato or lattes instead of inexpensive fries and soft-serve sundaes, the red carpet would have been rolled out for their redevelopment permit,” Corbella wrote.
Urban elites! Lattes! Drive-thrus! DQ!
This is a modern Calgary story for the ages. Cue outrage.
CHASER
By late Friday, the story was picked up and then repurposed for everyone’s own goals. We now have a good ol’ outrage machine on our hands.
To many, the story underlines how Calgary’s city planners and councillors have gone too far in pursuit of walkability, density, or mixed use development. But to others, the story speaks to the city’s long fight to build itself in ways that aren’t, at their core, about prioritizing automobiles.
Who’s right? That’s a hard one (though read on). Who’s yelling? That’s a much easier question to answer.
Mayoral candidate Jeremy Farkas noted, with saccharine sentimentality, that he got his start at a Dairy Queen “dipping cones” at the age of 13. He then used the opportunity to start a new petition.
Not to be outdone, Mayoral candidate Brad Field tweeted that councillors shouldn’t wield power over regular peoples’ business investments. “As Mayor I would end this Council Knows Best attitude that we see too regularly. How dare Councillors tell biz owners what to build, just to fit with her boutique blueprint?”
Then came the Strategists podcast. Corey Hogan kicked off their recent episode with his tongue in cheek, talking about an injustice.
Hogan added, with less humour: “The Fucking City of Calgary development department has said no to the owners of the lot that they cannot rebuild the thing that was there, just before COVID hit … they’re trying to rebuild the building that was there.”
ENTER THE WONK ZONE
We started this note by saying that nobody has this quite right. To explain why, we spoke to Calgary developer Chris Ollenberger, with QuantumPlace Developments.
Ollenberger gets the nuance and reality of the laws and policies at work. Who’s wrong on the DQ debate? “I think everyone,” he said.
Development rules are opaque and confusing. In play for this DQ permit application are land-use bylaws, area redevelopment plans, and municipal development plans. It’s boring stuff. Unless you’re a wonk your eyes glaze over at this stuff. But bear with us. The point is that these rules are not equal.
The application was to build a new Dairy Queen, to current building codes (these have changed since 1989, of course). The building proposed is actually smaller than the original, has fewer parking stalls and even has more landcaping trees than the one built in 1989.
In its denial of the application, which Rage has read, Calgary’s administration applied “the direction and policies” of the Municipal Development Plan, the local Area Redevelopment Plan and transit-oriented development policies. The regulatory rules get little mention. The Tuxedo Park area is redeveloping and Calgary has pushed for it to be more pedestrian friendly. Drive-thrus aren’t pedestrian friendly. So, refused.
The city’s refusal reads (our emphasis): "We are mindful that a standalone restaurant with drive-thru existed on this site previously and would still exist had the previous use not burned down. However, that did happen. As such, we must review the application as a new development in the new evolving context."
Ollenberger said this is where the city could have overstepped, as it applied statutory rules on the application instead of regulatory laws. “The problem of this site is it’s on the cusp of transition, from a policy point of view.”
Here it’s important to understand the difference between a statutory plan and a regulatory bylaw. One is like a vision, or an intention; the other is, well, the rule. And as is most often the case, the rule wins.
Ollenberger explained that the development’s application will now be assessed by the Appeal Board, where the difference between statutory plans and regulatory rules is seen in black and white. The regulatory bylaws matter, the statutory visions don’t so much. As such, he said, he expects the city to lose.
To appease the city’s concerns about the drive-thru, it appears the applicant moved the proposed building and changed its orientation from the original, which burnt down. This made it a ‘new’ building, potentially subject to new rules, rather than simply a like-for-like rebuild that would be allowed without question.
But, in the real plot twist, the actual rules haven’t changed since those that were in place when the DQ was built in 1989, Ollenberger said. The new local area plans are only in draft form. The Guidebook for Great Communities has yet to pass council. Even the Municipal Development Plan is statutory, or aspirational, rather than regulatory.
What’s still concretely in place, from a regulatory standpoint, is the 2007 land-use bylaw for the city, as well as a direct-control land-use bylaw for the area, which dates back to 1980, Ollenberger explained. Back in 1980, drive-thrus were no problem, transit-oriented development was an unheard of concept (in Calgary at least) and pedestrians mattered far less.
Under the 1980 land-use bylaw, the application would likely be a slam dunk.
“The bylaw is really old,” Ollenberger said.
The city has argued plans and aspirational guidelines should supersede rules. Though there’s been long talk about changing those base rules, that hasn’t happened yet.
“If the Guidebook doesn’t pass through council, we’re going to have more sites like this that fall into this regulatory abyss,” Ollenberger explained.
OUR ANALYSIS
The city appears it might lose this battle at the Appeal Board.
The pressure will be intense. Any candidate who’s ‘pro business’ or anti ‘progressive’ is going to jump on this and use it for their own gain. The discussion will not end now. It will only intensify.
The city itself seems to have attempted to push its vision for a more pedestrian-friendly future forward a step faster than it could or should have. Given the heartbreaking story for the family that owns the Dairy Queen in question, it rather walked right into this one (sorry, the puns flow easily on this one).
Those pushing for a more progressive city in Calgary now have a real fight on their hands this election season. Why? The DQ story gets to the roots of citizen cynicism and frustration with city hall — even though most have some, or a lot, of their details wrong. The city was not unilaterally trying to stop a family from opening a DQ, but likely did fail to work hard enough to find a compromise on the drive-thru. Voters will now likely be asked to offer their thoughts at the ballot box by more than a few candidates.
Great summary. It's true nobody quite got it right. The story was out on Global first I believe and it was simply that the appeal was denied without getting into the whole regulatory stuff. 15 minutes after it was first reported, The Strategists recorded the podcast about it (Thursday). All they had was the info in the story. Then Corbella's column was published the day after who took it to a whole new level with her ridiculous rhetoric. That's when you know something's fishy because she's almost never on the right side of history.
Interesting summary but a big piece is missing. Who shopped this story to media especially Corbella (who never, ever tunes into SDAB) and why. I'll give you a hint... He's running for council in Ward 7.... Follow that trail and you'll also quickly bump into a lawyer who's got his hands all over this.