Dave Rutherford considering running against Nenshi

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The biggest thing that annoys me with Nenshi is the planning piece. We've been hearing since he was elected how this was going to fix our broken planning system. But there has only been one ARP implemented (North Kelvin Grove) since he was elected, and it didn't include any density increases. That's a worse record on proactively using our existing landbase than Bronco or Duerr. Bike lanes don't fix the fact that R1 zoning abounds right near LRT stations. I want TODs dammit.

I can understand why people are wondering why things in planning haven't changed by now. But, the largest changes at the City are happening right now within the planning department and the planning and development system as a whole. These are massive systemic changes so they are taking time to figure out, but they will start manifesting soon.

Transforming Planning, something the Mayor initiated directly (and I've been involved in deeply myself - including setting out the scope of the project) is well underway and will begin to direct big regulatory, process and culture changes. An associated project is a big organizational restructuring within the City in planning.

So that's the biggest piece - yeah, we wish we could snap a finger and things would change overnight, but the reality is that changes of this nature are big beasts and it's critical to get them right. But it is a huge priority.

There of course has been lots of other changes happening with planning - The growth management framework is a very important change about how we sequence and prioritize growth.

As for your comment on ARP and Transit Oriented Development - It's not true that North Kelvin Grove is the only ARP implemented. 50th Avenue ARP was recently approved, Marda Loop ARP is through Council, Downtown West and Stadium Shopping Centre ARPs are coming to Council soon. A lot of the highest priority TOD station area plans - Brentwood, Banff Trail, Chinook, Anderson, Westbrook, Sunalta, etc are already done and moving into implementation.

The problem we have in updating old ARP policies is our existing planning department structure means that resources are pulled in a million different directions - one of the things that may change with the org review and Transforming Planning is perhaps moving away from a Land Use Planning and Policy (LUPP) side and an Implementation side (applications processing - DBA) to a geographically focused multidisciplinary model - where policy and implementation are embedded together (with Transportation planners, parks planners etc) and capacity is built into each unit to update and maintain policy - and that there's far fewer silos between departments that gum up the works in our current system.

Hope that helps.

[MarchHare]

I don't buy it.

That's the same argument people used following the 2004-05 NHL lockout to claim that ticket prices should decrease because player salaries were going down following the introduction of the salary cap. That, of course, was a naive view that ignored the fact that ticket prices are set to maximize gate revenues irrespective of the cost of doing business.

If I'm a landlord, I set my rent to the greatest amount that I can while avoiding vacancies. My personal costs don't factor into that at all (other than determining how profitable or unprofitable I will be, but that's a separate issue from maximizing revenue).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't buy it.

That's the same argument people used following the 2004-05 NHL lockout to claim that ticket prices should decrease because player salaries were going down following the introduction of the salary cap. That, of course, was a naive view that ignored the fact that ticket prices are set to maximize gate revenues irrespective of the cost of doing business.

If I'm a landlord, I set my rent to the greatest amount that I can while avoiding vacancies. My personal costs don't factor into that at all (other than determining how profitable or unprofitable I will be, but that's a separate issue from maximizing revenue).

Supply is far more elastic for rental units than it is for NHL tickets. Bad comparison.

If you're a landlord, the greatest amount of rent that you can charge while avoiding vancancies depends on your costs, because your costs are also the costs of your competitors and potential competitors. If your profit level rises too high, it will attract competition. Too low drives away competition.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by SebC

..,
Edit: CaptainYooh agrees with me. I retract my position.

LOL. Pragmatism, scepticism and cynicism all come with age. Don't be afraid and embrace them.

P.S. Can you still remember the elasticity formula?

[Slava]

The reality is we can't actually know how much a dollar increase for a substitute good will impact demand for new housing. There are an enormous number of variables and likely few if any are pure dollar for dollar trade-offs. All we've really established at the end of it is that the owner pays property taxes. They're solely responsible for them and are paid regardless of whether a property is rented or not.

It might be only my opinion, but its somewhat disingenuous to hear from beltline renters about how people living past an imaginary line (where is that exactly?) aren't paying their fair share. Its easy to advocate tax increases for everybody else though!

[Cube Inmate]

Two pages of semantics on whether or not a tenant pays property taxes...for what? The only key thing is that they (many of 'em) don't *think* they pay property taxes, because they don't see it directly. That in itself is enough to cause the differences in opinion that started the whole discussion. Who cares about the specific flows of cash, supply/demand, elasticity, profit, etc...?

1) City demands money from subset of population who technically owns property / businesses.
2) People who actually see tax bills get annoyed by a > inflation increase *every year*
3) People who don't see tax bills say "suck it up!"

The end.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

LOL. Pragmatism, scepticism and cynicism all come with age. Don't be afraid and embrace them.

P.S. Can you still remember the elasticity formula?

FYI, green text = sarcasm. I don't retract my position.

PS E = (delta Q / Q )/(delta P / P)

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Two pages of semantics on whether or not a tenant pays property taxes...for what? The only key thing is that they (many of 'em) don't *think* they pay property taxes, because they don't see it directly.

This is kind of the opposite of what's happening. It's people who (I assume) own property (albeit not necessarily rental property) who are claiming that renters don't pay property taxes. The implication is that if you're not a property owner then you don't have a stake in whether property taxes go up or down, and that's clearly not true.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is kind of the opposite of what's happening. It's people who (I assume) own property (albeit not necessarily rental property) who are claiming that renters don't pay property taxes. The implication is that if you're not a property owner then you don't have a stake in whether property taxes go up or down, and that's clearly not true.

Good point -- I missed that. I guess some property owners have a tendency to see non-owners talking about property taxes and think "shut up until you have some skin in the game!" And on the other side, some renters don't think that property taxes affect them, so they just think the rest of us are whining.

But regardless, the exact path of money into the city's treasury is not what matters...it's the perception that there IS a difference that causes the debate. In reality, the economy is a continuous flow of value--from the point that something new is created until that thing is made worthless--and governments have to find *some* identifiable point at which to skim off their share. To say that the government is skimming only from "owners" because it's the owners who actually get the bill is crazy. That single point of taxation filters through the entire economy, affecting markets for everything from rent to lumber to beer. Everybody pays; but only owners actually see the bills.

A tax bill is easy to wave around and rail against. Trying to explain to a non-bill-payer that their Traditional Ale is 0.21% more expensive this year because we're building an airport tunnel is a little harder to do.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

If it was so overinflated and overpriced, then people wouldn't still be renting. Economics 101.

Really? Where would these people go that need a place to live and can't get a mortgage?

Try owning a rental property and turning a profit, it might open your eyes.

If you can't turn a profit, month to month from owning a rental property then you're likely doing it wrong or severely under priced in these markets. Basement suites are getting $1100 a month with the main floors going for $1500+ in your typical run down bungalow.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Really? Where would these people go that need a place to live and can't get a mortgage?



If you can't turn a profit, month to month from owning a rental property then you're likely doing it wrong or severely under priced in these markets. Basement suites are getting $1100 a month with the main floors going for $1500+ in your typical run down bungalow.

As mentioned earlier he is confusing turning a profit with being cash flow positive. I could see how it would be difficult to be cash flow positive.

[transplant99]

Back to the OP...I like Rutherford as i think he is quite intelligent and always fairly well versed on his subjects during his show. I certainly dont always agree with him, but he is always spurning good debate which is a healthy thing.

That being said, as a mayor, my feeling is he would make a really good talk show host.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

As mentioned earlier he is confusing turning a profit with being cash flow positive. I could see how it would be difficult to be cash flow positive.

Even being cash flow positive is real easy in this market.

[Ozy_Flame]

Man, I wish we weren't talking about rent and profit. Is that what we are doing now? Lets get back to Dave Rutherford.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Man, I wish we weren't talking about rent and profit. Is that what we are doing now? Lets get back to Dave Rutherford.

Dave Rutherford looks like Denis Leary circa 1995 had a transmogrifying accident with Liam Neeson.

[MrMastodonFarm]

That's the photo the sun ran of Rutherford too. It's funny to see the difference in photos they use for him vs Nenshi.

[Daradon]

I really hope he does decide to run. It'll make this election interesting. Not for the right reasons, but interesting. Car crash, train wreck, nuclear leak interesting.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

That's the photo the sun ran of Rutherford too. It's funny to see the difference in photos they use for him vs Nenshi.

I think they took it in the same studio where they photograph the Sunshine Girls.

Wonder if there're any bikini pics.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

That's the photo the sun ran of Rutherford too. It's funny to see the difference in photos they use for him vs Nenshi.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Umm.. Cut Red Tape. nextCity. Transforming Planning. Rollin Stanley?..

So you're saying we've had a lot of committees, initiatives, and big talking new hires. I prefer to judge politicians based on results, not talk. Now that 50th Avenue is out, Nenshi's administration has produced 2 arps since he was elected. Those are poor results, imo.

Originally Posted by Bunk

As for your comment on ARP and Transit Oriented Development - It's not true that North Kelvin Grove is the only ARP implemented. 50th Avenue ARP was recently approved, Marda Loop ARP is through Council, Downtown West and Stadium Shopping Centre ARPs are coming to Council soon. A lot of the highest priority TOD station area plans - Brentwood, Banff Trail, Chinook, Anderson, Westbrook, Sunalta, etc are already done and moving into implementation.

Ok, so I hadn't noticed that 50th ave was passed last month. That's two now since Nenshi was elected. IIRC all of the other high priority ones you mentioned were done by previous councils or aren't finished yet. Previous councils' were able to do ARPs at a higher rate, so I'm not seeing an improvement.

Originally Posted by Bunk

The problem we have in updating old ARP policies is our existing planning department structure means that resources are pulled in a million different directions - one of the things that may change with the org review and Transforming Planning is perhaps moving away from a Land Use Planning and Policy (LUPP) side and an Implementation side (applications processing - DBA) to a geographically focused multidisciplinary model - where policy and implementation are embedded together (with Transportation planners, parks planners etc) and capacity is built into each unit to update and maintain policy - and that there's far fewer silos between departments that gum up the works in our current system..

This sounds good. When are we going to start seeing results from these initiatives?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

As I pointed out during the NHL lockout, a picture like that is a deliberate editorial decision where the newspaper is abandoning any pretense of neutrality or even-handedness and taking a particular side.

GaryBettman has gotten the same visual treatment from SUN Media through several lockouts that Nenshi is getting in that picture.

It's amateurish but certainly no accident. Deliberate choices.

Cowperson