[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

Let's see what you've got.

Alright - what you're presenting as his position doesn't remotely resemble reality.

They are going to try to grow up and not out... Sounds cool but will really drive the prices of single family homes up and the young working class will not be able to afford to buy them.

Nowhere has the Mayor ever suggested we only grow up and not out. Of course both will happen.

'Growing up' will have no material impact on the price of a house in a community that's 'growing out'.

The reason why Calgary grows out and not up is because of basic economics: supply and demand! Nenshi and his slate don't have a clue about business.

Calgary does grow up and out and this is because of enabling policy, by-laws and investment, but is mostly driven by the market. No one is forcing redevelopment (growing up) to happen, it is market driven and the City facilitates that market through provision of infrastructure and policy (just as it does in new communities as well). Redevelopment is in fact far more constrained by policy than new development.

How many people want to raise families on the 11th floor of a beltline residential development?

I sure don't.

False dichotomy. There isn't some choice being made that would stop single family home development, and force people to live in a Beltline condo. In any event, the market is driving many different housing choices in between single family detached and high rise condo. Most new subdivisions have singles, semis, rows, back-to-backs and low-rise condo. If you're asserting that the City's policy is driving densities in new communities higher than would otherwise happen in the market, that's false too. The City does have a minimum density, but practically all new subdivisions substantially exceed the minimum (developers often tout this fact). That is to say, it is a market driven decision by developers - they are not struggling to meet unrealistically high density requirements.

Also, Nenshi's argument that developers steal $4,800 / house from taxpayers neglects the fact that developers fund, but are not obligated to fund, recreation centers, parks, and more amounting to approximately $4,300 / house. That's a $500 subsidy, not a $4,800 subsidy. In addition, developers front-end that, driving IRR's way down. In addition, taxpayers subsidize inner-city development like East Village.

He never suggested they "steal" $4800 - he's arguing it's fair that development pay for the full cost of the initial outlay of capital and that not doing so amounts to a subsidy. The community and recreation charge cannot be unilaterally imposed by a municipality under the MGA, so it is negotiated into the agreement. The fact that it is not imposable, has little to do with whether it's necessary infrastructure for the build out of a community. It's been suggested that this is a "good will tax" that developers pay to buy a smoother planning process. Not only is such a concept absurd, it's also offensive. I asked a couple large land developers whether the motivation for negotiating in the community and rec portion of the acreage assessment was for "good will" - I got very puzzled looks. The answer was no - if we can't get things like fire halls built, we have no new community development - the City has to pay for it somehow.