[Bunk]

Regarding the relationship between sprawl, taxes and infrastructure - the underlying issue in Calgary (and in all cities for that matter) is that the outward growth pattern has become inherently unsustainable. That is, the amount of taxes that new communities generate are less than what it costs to create the infrastructure and to provide services to them. This is essentially what Plan It was about. It sought to make changes to the density and design of new subdivisions such that they were efficient enough to become financially sustainable. Suburban Developers resist these changes because it means altering a business model that has been highly profitable for 60 years, but has put a massive strain on city finances.

So when the City came up with a new model for growth encouraging more redevelopment within the existing footprint and coming up with new standards for subdivisions they accompanied it with a study that indicated that if the City changed to it's proposed "smart growth" model, the City would have to pay for $11 billion less in infrastructure compared to the 'business as usual' approach.

Opponents to this trotted out all sorts of arguments and scaremongering tactics stating that "you will no longer be allowed to live in a single family house" or "everyone will be forced to live in a 600 square foot box downtown". This is simply not true. What it does propose is ensuring higher density, more efficiently designed and better designed subdivisions. Communities more along the lines of Garrison Woods in design, which have narrower roads, smaller but better quality open spaces, a greater mix of housing types, less waste of land, high density nodes adjacent to transit (or planned transit lines) walkable streetscapes, commercial main streets rather than really inneficient and car-oriented big box complexes, and more efficiently designed road patterns that make transit routes shorter and more logical. Communities that are somewhat different than the typical subdivision of the last 50 years, but are more efficient and actually provide some interesting qualities lacking in typical subdivions.

It also talked about making better use of existing built up land by finding ways to encourage downtown residential growth and revitalization, Transit-Oriented Development and sensitive intensification of older established communities.

If you consider yourself a fiscal conservative this "smart growth" model that candidates like Kent Hehr want to champion and move forward in earnest is what you should really consider attaching yourself to. Ric McIver and Joe Connelly fought hard AGAINST Plan It. They advocate more of a business as usual approach to growth - just let developers do whatever they want, at whatever cost it is to the City and its citizens. If they were successful at stopping efforts at smart growth that Plan It promotes, that will cost the citizens far, far more in taxes than any little grandstanding gesture that they chest thump about with regard to pedestrian bridges or building a fitness facility at City Hall.