[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rathji

This I would totally support, but randomly saying that XYZ community needs to pay more tax seems like it is simply punishing the person who bought the house because the City didn't control sprawl (by charging developers).

I know in the end it is pretty much the same thing, though.

I agree with you to some extent. I find it increasing taxes on people who made a rational decision based on the city's existing structure to be distateful. Increasing taxes would decrease property values (whereas increasing acreage fees would increase them). That could put people under water on the mortgages, which is definitely not good.

The problem is that increasing acreage fees is only really viable as a long-term solution. The city still has an infrastructure debt and balloning spending to deal with in the short and medium-term. So either we let our level of service drop or we increase taxes.

And I find increasing taxes evenly, thus "punishing" people who didn't buy subsidized housing to be even more distasteful than recouping the costs of the subsidies from the people who actually benefitted (and continue to benefit) from the subsidies. And I don't think decreasing spending is an option - we're already behind on our infrastructure.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Alternatively, many US cities (eg Denver**) have income taxes at the municipal level. I actually think that would be a reasonably elegant solution, although it would require the province to authorize municipalities to collect that sort of revenue. There could be some sort of refundability built into the system for those who already live in Calgary.

Municipal income taxes are interesting, but they don't fix the subsidy issue. I think it's reasonable to replace property taxes with income taxes (why selectively discourage property ownership?) but you'd still need to jack up acreage fees to make it work.

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Agreed. The ultimate goal of the South Calgary Hospital and area (for example) is to create a southern hub/node of professional, commerce, food (restaurants) etc etc. that services the massive SE. If they do it effectively the value of the homes in the area should increase and the taxes to follow which should tend towards self-sufficiency - that is what the dt people claim they want so I don't see how there can be too much opposition (unless their actual goal is a further increase in their own property values due to more dt development).

I am just guessing that many who claim to desire density have never actually experienced it - this is also referring to the trendy nature of the debate (from the dt perspective). I am also guessing that they have never experienced the drawbacks of a high density urban environment but are clinging to the current glamour of that side of the debate.

I highly doubt the South Calgary Hospital will be good for the city's finances. At least not once we built the LRT out to it. It's gonna put strain on the road network, on public transit, on water treatment and it will drive construction of new communities in the surrounding area that will be net drain.

And yes, I live in a VERY high density area, and yes, it's awesome. But it could still be better with a tax structure that doesn't transfer resources to the periphery, just for being peripheral.

Originally Posted by Bunk

I agree with the idea of decentralizing via centralized transit-oriented hubs. Seton, Brentwood/University, Westgate, etc. But the core should and will always be pre-eminent - and more resources need to go into improving it (it's an economic driver and represents the image of the city more than anywhere else).

Yeah, centralized cores are good for cities. For one thing, labour mobility: you can switch jobs in the core and your commute doesn't change. But the bigger a city gets the less efficient a single core becomes, so it makes sense to have other hubs as well, just not on the current edge of the city. (I'm looking at you, South Calgary Hospital.)