plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
16909 stories
·
20 followers

Government hits Canada Life with financial sanctions | CBC News

1 Share

The federal government has begun imposing financial sanctions on Canada Life after months of outcry from public servants, retirees and their families who were left fighting for medical claims to be covered.

Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) said it "is taking steps to address startup delays faced by Canada Life and has begun to apply financial consequence mechanisms under the contract," according to a statement from spokesperson Michèle LaRose.

She said PSPC is not yet in a position to share details about the nature of the sanctions.

On July 1, 2023, the federal government transferred responsibility for the public service health insurance plan from Sun Life to Canada Life.

The company had a six-month transitional period before the government could begin assessing the level of service, according to tendering documents for the $514-million contract. 

For months, the federal government has repeatedly stated that it's prioritizing collaboration with Canada Life to improve service, before resorting to financial penalties or withholding payments. 

During that time, CBC News heard from several members of the Public Service Health Care Plan (PSHCP) complaining of long waits, failing to get through to an agent and claims denied without explanation. 

A spokesperson for the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) said she hopes the sanctions will serve as a warning to motivate change, but said they're only a first stab at fixing what's wrong.

"These sanctions really are only to acknowledge the fact that Canada Life is not respecting its contract," said Stéphanie Montreuil. 

"It is not compensating our members. It is not ensuring that there's a plan in place so that this does not continue to happen, so it really just is a start — and the bare minimum at that."

Canada Life says early challenges 'resolved'

A Canada Life spokesperson said on Wednesday that early challenges related to the transition "have been resolved."

"Canada Life is delivering benefits under this plan in Canada within expected service levels, including answering calls within 30 seconds and processing electronic claims within 1 day on average," the spokesperson wrote in an email.

The president of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers (PAPSO) said her members are frustrated and angry about delays in coverage outside Canada.

Pamela Isfeld welcomed the news of sanctions as "a positive step," but said the government is still responsible for actually fixing the underlying problem. 

"As a taxpayer, I'm happy to learn that they are not going to continue to just keep paying this very lucrative contract, even when they're not receiving the service," she said.

"But as the representative of 2,000 foreign service officers here in Canada, we still have the same problem with the lack of an adequate health insurance plan, especially abroad and especially in the U.S. where the problems are the worst," Isfeld added.

"That still needs to be fixed."

Subcontractor MSH International handles the international side of the plan, including emergency travel coverage and comprehensive coverage.

As far as PSPC is concerned, though, the ultimate responsibility still rests with Canada Life.

"As the contractor for this project, Canada Life is responsible for ensuring that all deliverables set out in the contract are met, including work that is subcontracted out to other companies," LaRose said.

Struggle to get claims covered abroad

Isfeld said delays in processing member claims and those of family members are "enormous."

"In some cases, it's a question of large sums of money, and when the refund comes, there's just some amount in their bank account. It doesn't match the amount claimed and there's no explanation," she said in French.

That's what happened to Sonia Rioux, who lives in Europe with her military spouse. She was waiting for a refund for medical costs from a trip to Australia in July.

The couple was in a remote region preparing for a hiking excursion when Rioux began suffering abdominal pain. It was getting worse and worse, so she went to a clinic where nurses decided to send her to the closest hospital by air for an emergency operation.

She estimates the total cost at more than $8,000. It was the end of her trip — but only the beginning of her struggles with MSH International.

Rioux said she began her claim with MSH International at the end of August. In mid-April, she received a refund of about $2,000, without any clarity on which bill was being covered.

Rioux said she feels powerless and trapped because nothing she's tried seems to work, leaving her with "no escape."

"It becomes almost anxiety-inducing," she said in French. "I won't give up, but I find it exhausting."

Unions looking at legal remedies

PAFSO has decided to follow the example of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) and study all possible legal remedies to force the government to provide a functioning health plan.

"It's the responsibility of the employer, and it's time they find a way to fulfil it," said Isfeld. "We haven't ruled out any legal options at this point. Everything is on the table."

PAFSO's lawyers are studying whether it would be possible to get a ruling forcing the government to put in place a temporary system that would allow employers to take out private insurance, she explained.

The union has also filed a policy grievance with the Treasury Board. The document obtained by Radio-Canada states that the switch to a new insurance provider violates the collective agreement because it "doesn't take account of the members' rights to a functioning health insurance system."

PSAC, Canada's largest public sector union, filed a similar grievance in February.

The two unions are demanding all affected public servants be compensated for the harm they've suffered including stress and pain, as well as financial losses.

PSAC national president Chris Aylward said in a written statement he encourages all its members to file individual grievances to put pressure on the employer.

Montreuil said PIPSC is now in the process of submitting a grievance.

Government 'working daily' with insurer

The federal government said it is still following up with Canada Life to ensure it meets its contractual obligations.

"We are working daily with Canada Life to make it understand that the company it subcontracted for international coverage must improve the situation and ensure that contractual obligations are respected to the letter," Treasury Board President Anita Anand said in a written statement.

"All public servants deserve the highest quality of service for their healthcare plans."

Treasury Board Secretariat spokesperson Joie Huynh noted that Canada Life has taken several measures to improve service since November, and that there have been "important improvements in wait times and processing delays."

She added that Canada Life is working with MSH International to put in place an action plan for international insurance coverage.

Employees of Global Affairs Canada who are living abroad can also count on interest-free cash advances from the government to cover medical costs until they can be refunded by MSH International.

A Canada Life spokesperson said in an email that the company working with MSH International and the federal government to improve the level of service for public servants and retirees living or travelling abroad.

MSH International's program delivery director, Jina Park, said the company has put in place measures to speed up processing times, reduce call centre wait times and prioritize urgent cases.

"We have doubled our claims processing capacity and continue to add more staff to meet demand that was higher than projected in the RFP," she wrote in an email.

Pamela Isfeld is the president of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
22 minutes ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Firstyear's blog-a-log

2 Shares

At around 11pm last night my partner went to change our lounge room lights with our home light control system. When she tried to login, her account couldn't be accessed. Her Apple Keychain had deleted the Passkey she was using on that site.

This is just the icing on a long trail of enshittification that has undermined Webauthn. I'm over it at this point, and I think it's time to pour one out for Passkeys. The irony is not lost on me that I'm about to release a new major version of webauthn-rs today as I write this.

The Dream

In 2019 I flew to my mates place in Sydney and spent a week starting to write what is now the Webauthn library for Rust. In that time I found a number of issues in the standard and contributed improvements to the Webauthn workgroup, even though it took a few years for those issues to be resolved. I started to review things and participate more.

At the time there was a lot of optimism that this technology could be the end of passwords. You had three major use cases:

  • Second Factor
  • Passwordless
  • Usernameless

Second Factor was a stepping stone toward the latter two. Passwordless is where you would still type in an account name then authenticate with PIN+Touch to your security key, and usernameless is where the identity for your account was resident (discoverable) on the key. This was (from my view) seen as a niche concept by developers since really - how hard is it for a site to have a checkbox that says "remember me"?

This library ended up with Kanidm being (to my knowledge) the very first OpenSource IDM to implement passwordless (now passkeys). The experience was wonderful. You went to Kanidm, typed in your username and then were prompted to type your PIN and touch your key. Simple, fast, easy.

For devices like your iPhone or Android, you would do similar - just use your Touch ID and you're in.

It was so easy, so accessible, I remember how it almost felt impossible. That authentication could be cryptographic in nature, but so usable and trivial for consumers. There really was the idea and goal within FIDO and Webauthn that this could be "the end of passwords".

This is what motivated me to continue to improve webauthn-rs. It's reach has gone beyond what I expected with parts of it being used in Firefox's authenticator-rs, a whole microcosm of Rust Identity Providers (IDPs) being created from this library and my work, and even other language's Webauthn implementations and password managers using our library as the reference implementation to test against. I can not understate how humbled I am of the influence webauthn-rs has had.

The Warnings

However warnings started to appear that the standard was not as open as people envisaged. The issue we have is well known - Chrome controls a huge portion of the browser market, and development is tightly controlled by Google.

An example of this was the Authenticator Selection Extension.

This extension is important for sites that have strict security requirements because they will attest the make and model of the authenticator in use. If you know that the attestation will only accept certain devices, then the browser should filter out and only allow those devices to participate.

However Chrome simply never implemented it leading to it being removed. And it was removed because Chrome never implemented it. As a result, if Chrome doesn't like something in the specification they can just veto it without consequence.

Later the justification for this not being implemented was: "We have never implemented it because we don't feel that authenticator discrimination is broadly a good thing. ... they [users] should have the expectation that a given security key will broadly work where they want to use it."

I want you to remember this quote and it's implications.

Users should be able to use any device they choose without penalty.

Now I certainly agree with this notion for general sites on the internet, but within a business where we have policy around what devices may be acceptable the ability to filter devices does matter.

This makes it very possible that you can go to a corporate site, enroll a security key and it appears to work but then it will fail to register (even better if this burns one of your resident key slots that can not be deleted without a full reset of your device) since the IDP rejected the device attestation. That's right, even without this, IDP's can still "discriminate" against devices without this extension, but the user experience is much worse, and the consequences far more severe in some cases.

The kicker is that Chrome has internal feature flags that they can use for Google's needs. They can simply enable their own magic features that control authenticator models for their policy, while everyone else has to have a lesser experience.

The greater warning here is that many of these decisions are made at "F2F" or Face to Face meetings held in the US. This excludes the majority of international participants leading some voices to be stronger than others. It's hard to convince someone when you aren't in the room, even more so when the room is in a country that has a list of travel advisories including "Violent crime is more common in the US than in Australia", "There is a persistent threat of mass casualty violence and terrorist attacks in the US" and "Medical costs in the US are extremely high. You may need to pay up-front for medical assistance". (As an aside, there are countries that have a "do not travel" warning for less, but somehow the US gets a pass ...).

The Descent

In 2022 Apple annouced Passkeys.

At the time this was just a really nice "marketing" term for passwordless, and Apple's Passkeys had the ability to oppurtunistically be usernameless. It was all in all very polished and well done.

But of course, thought leaders exist, and Apple hadn't defined what a Passkey was. One of those thought leaders took to the FIDO conference stage and announced "Passkeys are resident keys", at the same time as the unleashed a passkeys dev website (I won't link to it out of principal).

The issue is described in detail in another of my blog posts but to summarise, this push to resident keys means that security keys are excluded because they often have extremely low limits on storage, the highest being 25 for yubikeys. That simply won't cut it for most people where they have more than 25 accounts.

Now with resident keys as passkeys as users we certainly don't have the expectation that our security keys will work when we want to use them!

The Enshittocene Period

Since then Passkeys are now seen as a way to capture users and audiences into a platform. What better way to encourage long term entrapment of users then by locking all their credentials into your platform, and even better, credentials that can't be extracted or exported in any capacity.

Both Chrome and Safari will try to force you into using either hybrid (caBLE) where you scan a QR code with your phone to authenticate - you have to click through menus to use a security key. caBLE is not even a good experience, taking more than 60 seconds work in most cases. The UI is beyond obnoxious at this point. Sometimes I think the password game has a better ux.

The more egregious offender is Android, which won't even activate your security key if the website sends the set of options that are needed for Passkeys. This means the IDP gets to choose what device you enroll without your input. And of course, all the developer examples only show you the options to activate "Google Passkeys stored in Google Password Manager". After all, why would you want to use anything else?

A sobering pair of reads are the Github Passkey Beta and Github Passkey threads. There are instances of users whose security keys are not able to be enrolled as the resident key slots are filled. Multiple users describe that Android can not create Passkeys due to platform bugs. Some devices need firmware resets to create Passkeys. Keys can be saved on the client but not the server leading to duplicate account presence and credentials that don't work, or worse lead users to delete the real credentials.

The helplessness of users on these threads is obvious - and these are technical early adopters. The users we need to be advocates for changing from passwords to passkeys. If these users can't make it work how will people from other disciplines fare?

Externally there are other issues. Apple Keychain has personally wiped out all my Passkeys on three separate occasions. There are external reports we have recieved of other users who's Keychain Passkeys have been wiped just like mine.

Now as users we have the expectation that keys won't be created or they will have disappeared when we need them most.

In order to try to resolve this the workgroup seems to be doubling down on more complex JS apis to try to patch over the issues that they created in the first place. All this extra complexity comes with fragility and more bad experiences, but without resolving the core problems.

It's a mess.

The Future

At this point I think that Passkeys will fail in the hands of the general consumer population. We missed our golden chance to eliminate passwords through a desire to capture markets and promote hype.

Corporate interests have overruled good user experience once again. Just like ad-blockers, I predict that Passkeys will only be used by a small subset of the technical population, and consumers will generally reject them.

To reiterate - my partner, who is extremely intelligent, an avid computer gamer and veterinary surgeon has sworn off Passkeys because the user experience is so shit. She wants to go back to passwords.

And I'm starting to agree - a password manager gives a better experience than passkeys.

That's right. I'm here saying passwords are a better experience than passkeys. Do you know how much it pains me to write this sentence? (and yes, that means MFA with TOTP is still important for passwords that require memorisation outside of a password manager).

So do yourself a favour. Get something like bitwarden or if you like self hosting get vaultwarden. Let it generate your passwords and manage them. If you really want passkeys, put them in a password manager you control. But don't use a platform controlled passkey store, and be very careful with security keys.

And if you do want to use a security key, just use it to unlock your password manager and your email.

Within enterprise there still is a place for attested security keys where you can control the whole experience to avoid the vendor lockin parts. It still has rough edges though. Just today I found a browser that has broken attestation which is not good. You still have to dive through obnoxious UX elements that attempt to force you through caBLE even though your IDP will only accept certain security models, so you're still likely to have some confused users.

Despite all this, I will continue to maintain webauuthn-rs and it's related projects. They are still important to me even if I feel disappointed in the direction of the ecosystem.

But at this point, in Kanidm we are looking into device certificates and smartcards instead. The UI is genuinely better. Which says a lot considering the PKCS11 and PIV specifications. But at least PIV won't fall prone to attempts to enshittify it.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

What's Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse | WIRED

1 Share

I grew up in Los Angeles, the city by the freeway by the sea. And if there’s one thing I’ve known ever since I could sit up in my car seat, it’s that you should expect to run into traffic at any point of the day. Yes, commute hours are the worst, but I’ve run into dead-stop bumper-to-bumper cars on the 405 at 2 a.m.

As a kid, I used to ask my parents why they couldn’t just build more lanes on the freeway. Maybe transform them all into double-decker highways with cars zooming on the upper and lower levels. Except, as it turns out, that wouldn’t work. Because if there’s anything that traffic engineers have discovered in the last few decades it’s that you can’t build your way out of congestion. It’s the roads themselves that cause traffic.

The concept is called induced demand, which is economist-speak for when increasing the supply of something (like roads) makes people want that thing even more. Though some traffic engineers made note of this phenomenon at least as early as the 1960s, it is only in recent years that social scientists have collected enough data to show how this happens pretty much every time we build new roads. These findings imply that the ways we traditionally go about trying to mitigate jams are essentially fruitless, and that we’d all be spending a lot less time in traffic if we could just be a little more rational.

But before we get to the solutions, we have to take a closer look at the problem. In 2009, two economists—Matthew Turner of the University of Toronto and Gilles Duranton of the University of Pennsylvania—decided to compare the amount of new roads and highways built in different U.S. cities between 1980 and 2000, and the total number of miles driven in those cities over the same period.

“We found that there’s this perfect one-to-one relationship,” said Turner.

If a city had increased its road capacity by 10 percent between 1980 and 1990, then the amount of driving in that city went up by 10 percent. If the amount of roads in the same city then went up by 11 percent between 1990 and 2000, the total number of miles driven also went up by 11 percent. It’s like the two figures were moving in perfect lockstep, changing at the same exact rate.

Now, correlation doesn’t mean causation. Maybe traffic engineers in U.S. cities happen to know exactly the right amount of roads to build to satisfy driving demand. But Turner and Duranton think that's unlikely. The modern interstate network mostly follows the plan originally conceived by the federal government in 1947, and it seems incredibly coincidental that road engineers at the time could have successfully predicted driving demand more than half a century in the future.

A more likely explanation, Turner and Duranton argue, is what they call the fundamental law of road congestion: New roads will create new drivers, resulting in the intensity of traffic staying the same.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
10 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Brad "Nice Bones" Dragon (@breakfastgolem@goblin.camp)

1 Share
Read the whole story
sarcozona
10 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

National COVID-19 guidelines vary widely, often promote ineffective treatments | CIDRAP

1 Share

A comparative analysis yesterday in BMJ Global Health shows that national clinical guidelines for treating COVID-19 vary significantly around the world, and nearly every national guideline (NG) recommends at least one COVID-19 treatment proven not to work.

The authors considered the gold standard for clinical guidelines to be the World Health Organization's (WHO's) 2022 updated guidelines—the 11th version of the WHO guideline. 

They looked at NGs for 109 of the 194 WHO member states after the summer of 2022. Of the 85 countries not included in the final analysis, 9 did not have any NGs.

Regionally, Europe had the most countries with easily identifiable guidelines (69.8%), followed by Africa (53.2%). A country's ministry of health published 73.4% of guidelines, while 12.8% of the guidelines were published by a national disease organization. 

The 11th WHO guidelines recommend that clinicians categorize disease severity as non-severe, severe, and critical. However, 84.4% of reviewed NGs defined COVID-19 severity differently from the WHO, and 6.4% of the guidelines did not define severity at all. 

Just 10 countries (9.2%) had NGs that published severity definitions comparable to the WHO.

Steroids most widely recommended 

The WHO guidelines recommend 10 therapeutics or medications, but NGs recommended 1 to 22 therapeutics. The therapies recommended in NGs were graded in 25 (23.8%) of the guidelines assessed. Most (77%; 84) guidelines did not include an assessment of the strength of the therapeutic recommendation.

"The most commonly recommended drugs were corticosteroids; 92% (100/109) of the NGs featured corticosteroids, and 80% (88/109) recommended corticosteroids for the same disease severity as did the WHO," the authors wrote. 

Corticosteroids were not recommended in severe disease in nearly 10% of guidelines, however, despite strong evidence of their benefit.

Several countries, especially those in poorer regions, in 2022 continued to recommend treatments that had been disproven and were not recommended by the WHO, including chloroquine, lopinavir–ritonavir, azithromycin, vitamins, and zinc.

Why do NGs differ so much in their treatment guidance for such a widespread and potentially serious infection when all have access to the same information?

"Why do NGs differ so much in their treatment guidance for such a widespread and potentially serious infection when all have access to the same information?" the authors wrote. "Apart from the prohibitive cost of some medications for low-resource settings, we do not have a satisfactory explanation."

Read the whole story
sarcozona
18 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Loosen Up: How Mixed-Use Zoning Laws Make Communities Strong

1 Share

(Source: Amy Gizienski, Flickr)

One of my favorite things about living in a neighborhood with a lot of young families is the way children make their presence known.

I love the sights and sounds of kids shrieking with joy as they take their first bike and scooter rides of the spring, running through sprinklers in the summer, or gleefully jumping in piles of leaves in the fall. I don’t even mind the sound of teens goofing around on the basketball court — while their blaring music and the endless reverberating thunks against the backboard can get old, it reminds me that they’re having fun and not getting into trouble.

One thing I especially love seeing is posters for kid businesses. Lemonade stands, snow shovelers, lawn mowers, dog walkers (and dog pooper scoopers), babysitters... Kids often have a strong entrepreneurial spirit, and most people enjoy supporting them.

While kids eventually grow out of the card-table-on-the-lawn stage of life, I think it’s a mistake to see this as a sign that entrepreneurial spirit fades with age. Modern zoning rules have put up huge barriers to starting or running a business from home, the place with the lowest barrier to entry and the lowest stakes — the natural jumping-off place to try out a new idea or venture.

Looking around any older neighborhood, you’ll find signs that it used to be normal to have businesses coexisting with residences.

The most obvious example is the “clearly used to be a corner store” house. Here’s one in my neighborhood. Years ago, it was Hart Meat & Grocery Store. Each time I pass by, I daydream a little about it being a small convenience store again, where I could walk for a bag of ice, a Saturday newspaper or a carton of milk. Or an ice cream shop where my kids could walk on their own to get a cone or sundae. Or a small cafe to meet a friend for coffee. The possibilities are endless. Except that it’s no longer zoned for commercial use, so to bring it back to that use, you’d need to apply for rezoning and likely several variances, which would be prohibitively expensive — with no guarantee of the application even being successful!

This house used to be a corner store, a sign of how neighborhoods were once a mix of residential and commercial buildings.

Other home-based businesses operated in ways that left no trace. A couple of years ago, some neighborhood friends outgrew their house and bought a bigger one, one street over. As I was describing the location of their new home to an acquaintance who’d lived here for decades, he mused, “Hmmm… I think that’s the house that used to do Christmas tree sales in their yard.” Say what, now? I looked through old classified ads in a newspaper archive database and discovered this was indeed something people did: set up a tree lot in December, on their own property, right in the middle of their neighborhood. And sure enough, our friends’ new home had been the location of a Christmas tree lot for several decades.

The days of mid-block tree lots and corner stores seem to be over. Over time, zoning has reshaped our neighborhoods and our buying patterns. And we’ve just gotten used to getting our Christmas trees and milk from bigger outfits. What have we lost, though? Maybe a lot.

As a kid, the first place I remember being allowed to go on my own was a small grocery store called Jennifer’s Grocery (though everyone called it Joe’s because Joe was the friendly man behind the counter). It was in a small strip mall with a handful of small units, smack in the middle of a residential area. We’d walk or ride our bikes over to get penny candy or a bag of chips. This strip mall had a few stalls of angle parking out front, but it blended pretty seamlessly into the neighborhood. It was built in the ‘50s, probably right at the tail end of an era where commercial buildings were still incorporated into new neighborhoods (you can see the auto-orientation creeping into its design). Although there’s no longer a grocery store there, the little mall remains and evolves with a variety of different small businesses.

Local businesses can bring neighborhoods together.

In this post from the Lethbridge Historical Society, folks wax nostalgic about the big role that Jennifer’s played in their childhoods. They remembered being sent to the store to pick up a missing supper ingredient, and they remembered the names of the folks who worked there and the other businesses that sat alongside it. “The hub of the neighborhood,” one person categorized it.

There’s just something so special about a place you can walk to — a place that adapts and endures, where you know and are known. It feels like it’s yours. In a piece about the community benefits of walkability, Sarah Kobos captures this sense of familiarity and engagement beautifully:

“As people start to recognize you, the smiles get bigger, and the hellos get friendlier. You start to feel that we’re all in this thing together. Every time it happens, it makes my day. Every time, I feel a part of something bigger and better than myself. Maybe that’s the definition of community.”

That commercial units have been zoned out of existence in older neighborhoods — and never allowed in the first place in newer ones — is a real loss for residents. Kids miss out on opportunities to build independence. People have no choice but to drive to get groceries or anything else they might need, even something as small as a carton of milk. And there are fewer opportunities to just bump into people you know. These seem like little things, but collectively, they make life harder, more expensive and more isolated.

And while people will often point to parking or noise as reasons we should keep commerce out, it’s usually the scale of the operation that is objectionable, not the use. Many of us would be happy to live beside a small coffee shop that folks could walk to; most of us wouldn't want to live next door to a Tim Hortons or Dunkin Donuts drive-through.

Despite the restrictive environment that entrepreneurs find themselves in these days, there are, all sorts of home businesses operating — though many of them are not technically permitted. And even when they are permitted, they’re certainly not encouraged. I tried to find home-based business rules for my city and had to dig through a 400-page zoning bylaw and then a bunch of application forms and web pages to try to make sense of what’s allowed here.

Imagine how many thriving home businesses there could be if we actually encouraged people to make a go of them, rather than creating as much red tape as possible. Chuck Marohn made a good point here:

“Would Bill Gates or Steve Jobs be able to start their multibillion-dollar businesses in their garage today? Not with the zoning restrictions found in most cities. If you can do the business inside the house or an outbuilding and nobody passing by can tell, then there is not a lot of justification for regulating it. We can let entrepreneurs get started by easing up on home occupations.”

I see the rich relationships and connections that grow out of supporting small local businesses in my neighborhood, whether they are artisans, teachers, yoga instructors or beyond. More opportunities for people to make a living, and for the rest of us to support them, can only be a good thing.

Dylan Reid had a great article on spotting (and reviving) the neighborhood corner commercial building. In it, he suggests that “one small nudge… could be to designate all of these former corner shops inside neighborhoods as automatically, as-of-right, eligible to be reconverted to commercial uses.” Even if these buildings didn’t return to being corner shops, this designation would allow other businesses to enter the community. “It’s a change that would be relatively subtle,” Reid explains, “since it would only affect a tiny fraction of the buildings in a neighborhood.”

That would be a great start! I think we can go even further. Ashley Salvador makes a compelling case for permitting accessory commercial units, saying, "Many of today’s urban dwellers want their leisure, consumption, health, and employment needs to be met within close proximity to their home in an affordable, accessible manner.” Accessory commercial units could make this possible.

If it were easier to run a business from home, would every kid with a snow-shoveling hustle or dog-walking gig grow up and keep running a business from home? Not necessarily. But one thing’s for certain: With our current zoning rules, there's a lot of them who’ll never get the chance.

Whether it’s restoring commercial uses within neighborhoods, allowing the construction of accessory commercial units, or easing red tape and restrictions on home-based businesses, there’s so much that cities can do to help entrepreneurs make our neighborhoods more vibrant, walkable and prosperous.



RELATED STORIES




Read the whole story
sarcozona
19 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories