Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Wow, a lot of rhetoric. Portland is high up in municipal debt, at $5,200 per capita. Calgary debt is at half that amount. Assuming 2.5 to 3 people per average household, this translates to $12,500 - $15,000 municipal debt per household for Portland. Most of this debt has been incurred doing ambitious urban renewal projects that were not supported by corresponding population growth. Instead, they went the tax hike route and reduction in general service level (which is where Calgary is headed now). Plus, they have stopped outside growth through a political decision, thus inflating inner city real estate prices artificially and forcing out those who couldn't afford a home to the bedroom communities (which is where Calgary is headed now as well).
|
I can't comment on the reasons for Portland's debt, but Calgary's debt is directly caused by subsidizing sprawl.
Don't want tax hikes and/or reduction in services? Then you need appropriate user fees (which is where Calgary is headed, if Nenshi gets his way) or to start legislating an urban form that better lends itself to getting bang for your buck.
A growth perimeter does artificially increase inner city prices, but subsidizing sprawl also decreases inner city affordability (through artificially high taxes). I don't know of any serious push to implement a growth boundary for Calgary. What has been suggested is merely to stop artificially lowering costs of new homes on the periphery, and thus make the rest of the city (which is more desireable) more affordable.