2013 Calgary Municipal Election Thread

[MoneyGuy]

Donations must be disclosed unless you're self funded. When papers are filed you must disclose if you're taking donations or self funded,

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why? It costs a ridiculous amount of money for a credible campaign. If he can't raise money, a candidate has to foot the bill on his own and how many people want to spend $90-100k to run?

I'm not saying it's not a rational choice, but it reflects poorly on democracy as a system that a candidate might get better results from buying signs or whatever than going to a forum that is streamed and archived on the web.

[AMG_G]

So when Richard Poon stood up to lead the shark fin fight I knew he had other motives. What better way to get a lot of exposure in the Chinese community than to fight for our right to eat shark fins and throw in a few words about racism and unfair Chinese representation to butter us up for an upcoming election. He fails to mention he is actually representing all the restaurant owners he knows because he is a Chinese food supply salesman. Obviously they complained to him so he saw an opportunity in the making. I am Chinese and it bothers me that his strategy is the ethnic vote and vote splitting. Just look at his website his full interest lies within the Chinese community only. You will not get fair represention in ward 2 if you are Caucasian. His campaign motto says he cares and accuses me of not caring which really pisses me off.

Putting aside what is the truth and what is fiction about finning, if a person who can't stop eating a bowl of tasteless jelly because the bigger picture he will not get my vote.

[JobHopper]

Couple articles in the Calgary Papers this morning regarding the subsidies for sub-urban developments.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/10/04...luck-with-that

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...854/story.html

I guess I don't agree with Mayor Nenshi on this myself. For one thing, things like rec centers and libraries are for all Calgarians regardless of where they choose to live. So leave that out of the debate.

Inner city development, like some alderman are saying is just as expensive. Also, where are people supposed to live? The inner city is simply not an option for a lot of people. It's to expensive.

If the city has been using the current model to expand why change it now? The airport tunnel is in the suburbs and we had to pay for that and are still paying for it.

And if the Mayor is correct and ends the subsidies, what will happen to those portion of taxes and what will it get spent on?

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by AMG_G

So when Richard Poon stood up to lead the shark fin fight I knew he had other motives. What better way to get a lot of exposure in the Chinese community than to fight for our right to eat shark fins and throw in a few words about racism and unfair Chinese representation to butter us up for an upcoming election. He fails to mention he is actually representing all the restaurant owners he knows because he is a Chinese food supply salesman. Obviously they complained to him so he saw an opportunity in the making. I am Chinese and it bothers me that his strategy is the ethnic vote and vote splitting. Just look at his website his full interest lies within the Chinese community only. You will not get fair represention in ward 2 if you are Caucasian. His campaign motto says he cares and accuses me of not caring which really pisses me off.

Putting aside what is the truth and what is fiction about finning, if a person who can't stop eating a bowl of tasteless jelly because the bigger picture he will not get my vote.

Poon missed the community forum in Ranchlands last night, and the CivicCamp forum in Royal Oak a few days ago. Not even sure why he jumped into the race.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

Couple articles in the Calgary Papers this morning regarding the subsidies for sub-urban developments.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/10/04...luck-with-that

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...854/story.html

I guess I don't agree with Mayor Nenshi on this myself. For one thing, things like rec centers and libraries are for all Calgarians regardless of where they choose to live. So leave that out of the debate.

Nonsense. New rec centres and new libraries primarily serve the area they are built in.

Originally Posted by JobHopper

Inner city development, like some alderman are saying is just as expensive. Also, where are people supposed to live? The inner city is simply not an option for a lot of people. It's to expensive.

Ending the subsidies will result in a more affordable city overall. If you can afford a single-family home, you can afford to live in the inner city. On the other hand, there are people who can afford to live in the inner city who cannot afford single-family homes.

Originally Posted by JobHopper

If the city has been using the current model to expand why change it now? The airport tunnel is in the suburbs and we had to pay for that and are still paying for it.

Because the current model sucks! "If we've been using the slavery model to make cotton why change it now?" The "logic" you're using here is terrible.

Originally Posted by JobHopper

And if the Mayor is correct and ends the subsidies, what will happen to those portion of taxes and what will it get spent on?

That's up to council to decide, but $30M/year is pretty small.

[Slava]

Some of these comments are gold. If you've played hockey you know that you drive all over the place to play, and those rinks serve people from all over the city. Its more convenient for a guy next door, but then other rinks won't be for that same guy. Same goes for gymnasiums, soccer facilities, etc.

Then the part about being able to afford to live in the inner city vs the suburbs. You're clearly not comparing apples to apples. For the same lot size, house size etc. the costs are not equal. I have no idea how you suggest that they are.

Oh, and a big LOL that the amount of money is 'pretty small' when the city keeps it, but apparently a huge deal for people in favour of keeping it. That is pure gold.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Some of these comments are gold. If you've played hockey you know that you drive all over the place to play, and those rinks serve people from all over the city. Its more convenient for a guy next door, but then other rinks won't be for that same guy. Same goes for gymnasiums, soccer facilities, etc.

And if you do a family swimming program, you're going to go to the local rec centre not the one accross town. But even if you wouldn't, but if the city sustains a certain level of rec centre per capita, then new rec centres are accurately assessed as a cost of growth - independent of geography.

Originally Posted by Slava

Then the part about being able to afford to live in the inner city vs the suburbs. You're clearly not comparing apples to apples. For the same lot size, house size etc. the costs are not equal. I have no idea how you suggest that they are.

Of course it's not apples-to-apples. Subsidizing SFH is not a viable strategy for affordable housing, because SFH is one of the least cost-efficient ways to house people.

Originally Posted by Slava

Oh, and a big LOL that the amount of money is 'pretty small' when the city keeps it, but apparently a huge deal for people in favour of keeping it. That is pure gold.

The principle and the indirect effects matter more than the amount.

Edit: also, the amount of money was bigger in the past, so the potential losses from restoring the subsidy are larger than the potential gains from eliminating it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Of course it's not apples-to-apples. Subsidizing SFH is not a viable strategy for affordable housing, because SFH is one of the least cost-efficient ways to house people.

The principle and the indirect effects matter more than the amount.

Edit: also, the amount of money was bigger in the past, so the potential losses from restoring the subsidy are larger than the potential gains from eliminating it.

This is just silly though. You're trying to argue that this amount is so egregious on one hand must be stopped immediately. At the same time, when someone asks where the money will be redirected, its not much money at all. Its obviously not both.

If the savings is so small so as to be ineffective when the funds are allocated elsewhere it makes me wonder what's driving this fight in the first place. Ideology? Ego?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by SebC

...Subsidizing SFH is not a viable strategy for affordable housing, because SFH is one of the least cost-efficient ways to house people...

Gee, SebC, sometimes I wonder if something horrible happened to you in a suburb when you were a kid... The most cost-efficient way to house people is concentration camps. Not only they live communally in a high-density setting; they also contribute to the society by working hard and exert very little strain on the infrastructure.

According to Conference Board of Canada, 80% of Canadians would prefer to live in a single-family home. High-density setting does increase property taxes from a smaller area of land (the point that Rollin Stanley love to proclaim on his stupid slides), but they also bring a variety of negative issues, i.e. traffic woes, inner-city infrastructure shortages, crime etc. It should not be one or another when it comes to housing, but a peaceful co-existence based on people's preferences.

[Bunk]

Rec centres are certainly the one component where there is overlap between local and city-wide use. I can't recall if regional scale rec centres are funded from levies, or only smaller more local ones are. Although these days we usually only build large ones - but have had to use Tax Room to finance most of the current 4. The Transportation levy is divided amongst the broad greenfield area, with 17% contribution toward downstream impacts.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Gee, SebC, sometimes I wonder if something horrible happened to you in a suburb when you were a kid... The most cost-efficient way to house people is concentration camps. Not only they live communally in a high-density setting; they also contribute to the society by working hard and exert very little strain on the infrastructure.

According to Conference Board of Canada, 80% of Canadians would prefer to live in a single-family home. High-density setting does increase property taxes from a smaller area of land (the point that Rollin Stanley love to proclaim on his stupid slides), but they also bring a variety of negative issues, i.e. traffic woes, inner-city infrastructure shortages, crime etc. It should not be one or another when it comes to housing, but a peaceful co-existence based on people's preferences.

The single to multi split is evolving though - 55% to 45% last year in Calgary. Housing expectations and desires are shifting and people at different life stages require and want different housing forms. I was talking with two different (very) large land developers & home builders and they said they have been really adjusting their housing mixes to adapt to market conditions (not because of any sort of City policy).

I would also challenge you on the traffic front - low density, segregated land uses are worse for traffic than somewhat denser, mixed use areas where different mobility options are more realistic options. If you make a place car dependent you guarantee traffic congestion - it is impossible to build out of. Living in Lower Mount Royal it seems much easier to me to navigate by car (or any other mode) than say Scenic Acres because not everyone else is driving!

Also, I have never seen a correlation between crime and density. People on streets reduces crimes of opportunity.

Of course that is not to say in any way we should not build single family homes, or new suburbs, but evolve the way we design these communities. This is already happening - often led by developers - Brookfield is looking at very innovative things in their new South Seton ASP for instance, which is great!).

[Faust]

Former alderman accused of exaggerating accomplishments

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The single to multi split is evolving though - 55% to 45% last year in Calgary. Housing expectations and desires are shifting and people at different life stages require and want different housing forms. I was talking with two different (very) large land developers & home builders and they said they have been really adjusting their housing mixes to adapt to market conditions (not because of any sort of City policy).

I would also challenge you on the traffic front - low density, segregated land uses are worse for traffic than somewhat denser, mixed use areas where different mobility options are more realistic options. If you make a place car dependent you guarantee traffic congestion - it is impossible to build out of. Living in Lower Mount Royal it seems much easier to me to navigate by car (or any other mode) than say Scenic Acres because not everyone else is driving!

Also, I have never seen a correlation between crime and density. People on streets reduces crimes of opportunity.

Of course that is not to say in any way we should not build single family homes, or new suburbs, but evolve the way we design these communities. This is already happening - often led by developers - Brookfield is looking at very innovative things in their new South Seton ASP for instance, which is great!).

Bunk, this is not a fair argument. I am not speaking against higher density housing in any of its built-form (semi-detached, row townhome, stacked-townhome, low-rise, mid-rise and high-rize apartment). I am only opposed to picking easy targets for political gains and making individual visions into social engineering policies.

The attitude shift towards multi-family housing you are referring to has been happening mostly because of the affordability gap, this is not even questionable. When Plan It Calgary essentially legilslated a future SF/MF split heavily towards MF, the political direction has formed the administration's attitude towards new development. The business will do what it can to survive. If MF is easier to get approved, we will see more MF being built.

Crime vs. density - is absolutely an issue, unless a lot of police force is used to control it. The City of New York has experienced it all too well in the past. Chicago is dealing with it now, especially, in the higher density suburbs! How could you deny that?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

It'll be interesting to watch this unfold. The mayor is overplaying his hand and might see this backfire, though probably not before the election.

Developers served them up a boogeyman and the mayor an his handlers have done a great job framing their agenda about old rich guys and poor city cost, but they are walking a fine line.

The more specific they get on the 'subsidy' the more people will pay attention and poke at it, and eventually he's going to have to talk about the brass tacks. The worst case scenario for the mayor is the developers signal they are ok with the 5k provided the city commits to delivering the rec centres and fire halls and whatever else gets lumped in. Then he either has to move his target or lose his boogeyman. And then the change agenda gets much more difficult.

Maybe he has polling numbers that make him nervous about who is going to be elected, but I think he'd be better off closing his lips.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by Faust

Former alderman accused of exaggerating accomplishments

Pretty funny and interesting article to read, even though I don't live in the ward...

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Bunk, this is not a fair argument. I am not speaking against higher density housing in any of its built-form (semi-detached, row townhome, stacked-townhome, low-rise, mid-rise and high-rize apartment). I am only opposed to picking easy targets for political gains and making individual visions into social engineering policies.

The attitude shift towards multi-family housing you are referring to has been happening mostly because of the affordability gap, this is not even questionable. When Plan It Calgary essentially legilslated a future SF/MF split heavily towards MF, the political direction has formed the administration's attitude towards new development. The business will do what it can to survive. If MF is easier to get approved, we will see more MF being built.

Crime vs. density - is absolutely an issue, unless a lot of police force is used to control it. The City of New York has experienced it all too well in the past. Chicago is dealing with it now, especially, in the higher density suburbs! How could you deny that?

Yes, Calgary has become a more expensive city - the massive influx in 2006-07 really put a lot of upward pressure on the market resulting in a new plateau for prices in Calgary. Price of course is a factor in housing expectations, it's part of the decision-making mix. Location vs. space vs. price vs. travel times etc.

I don't see how Plan-It mandates a new single-multi split that the market would not be delivering if it didn't exist. For instance, the minimum densities in greenfield are almost all being exceeded by a couple UPA. I've yet to see a greenfield project (except for West Springs/Aspen area which has crazy low ASP mandated densities) come through in my 3 years at the city not floating around 9-10 UPA. In practically all cases, land developers are pushing density numbers and resulting housing mixes, not the City.

Re: ability/ease to build single versus multi - there is no circumstance I can think of whereby it's easier to build a multi-family building, especially apartment-form over a single. In new communities, singles are permitted uses that only require a BP. Multi is discretionary and requires a DP - the process is much more rigorous. In established areas if you have R-1 or R-2 with single and semi contextual rules your project enters a stream that can get you your DP in 20 days. It's not circulated to CA or Alderman. For multi ranging from towns to high rise condos in established communities, in most cases you need a land use change, DP with extensive circulation and traffic studies, and will most often get appealed. Sometimes you will even require a new ARP (for example Brentwood or Stadium Mall).

Re: crime. The 5 cities with the highest crime rates in the US in terms of violent crime are: Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Memphis and Atlanta. NYC is 42nd. The list is very similar for non-violent crimes such as against property.

In Canada, Toronto and Montreal are the densest cities, but rank no where near the top of the list in overall crime severity. The highest crime cities are Prince George, Victoria, Saskatoon and Regina.

Toronto (City proper - the densest part) ranks 52nd among Canadian cities.

http://www2.macleans.ca/crime-chart/

That is to say that density is not a primary or even secondary factor affecting crime rates. Clearly it is socio-economic factors.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is just silly though. You're trying to argue that this amount is so egregious on one hand must be stopped immediately. At the same time, when someone asks where the money will be redirected, its not much money at all. Its obviously not both.

If the savings is so small so as to be ineffective when the funds are allocated elsewhere it makes me wonder what's driving this fight in the first place. Ideology? Ego?

No, I'm not trying to argue that the initial, capital subsidy is huge. The total lifecycle subsidy is what's huge, and we can reduce that by reducing the capital subsidy. So in the short run, it's $30M/y. In the long run, it's more. Where would $30M/y go? Could be taxes, could be services, but most people would barely notice a difference. Either way, it's better than where it currently goes, which is into incentivizing a city form that's costly to maintain. Heck, the $52M/y was small potatoes too.

What's driving this? Principle. Having supply management double the price of cheese doesn't affect my life very much, but it's still ridiculous that we make dairy farmers rich at the expense of the general public through market intervention.

There's also a risk of backsliding. If we go back to the previous agreement, we'd be looking at $80M+/y. That's becoming more significant, particularly if compared to inflation.

====================

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

According to Conference Board of Canada, 80% of Canadians would prefer to live in a single-family home. High-density setting does increase property taxes from a smaller area of land (the point that Rollin Stanley love to proclaim on his stupid slides), but they also bring a variety of negative issues, i.e. traffic woes, inner-city infrastructure shortages, crime etc. It should not be one or another when it comes to housing, but a peaceful co-existence based on people's preferences.

80% of Canadians might prefer to drive a sports car, but that doesn't mean we should start subsidizing them.

Also you have a very flawed idea of what causes traffic. Low density is what causes traffic, because everyone has to drive everywhere. Vehicle-miles go up in a low density city, which means you need more road infrastructure. Deerfoot trail doesn't service the Beltline, it services the suburbs.

I am all for choice, but those choices have to be free of market interference. If we were talking about a growth perimeter, I'd likely be appear to be pro-suburb.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by fotze

Captain Yooh got his puss punched.

You wish!

I am effin too drunk to respond right now...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

It'll be interesting to watch this unfold. The mayor is overplaying his hand and might see this backfire, though probably not before the election.

Developers served them up a boogeyman and the mayor an his handlers have done a great job framing their agenda about old rich guys and poor city cost, but they are walking a fine line.

The more specific they get on the 'subsidy' the more people will pay attention and poke at it, and eventually he's going to have to talk about the brass tacks. The worst case scenario for the mayor is the developers signal they are ok with the 5k provided the city commits to delivering the rec centres and fire halls and whatever else gets lumped in. Then he either has to move his target or lose his boogeyman. And then the change agenda gets much more difficult.

Maybe he has polling numbers that make him nervous about who is going to be elected, but I think he'd be better off closing his lips.

I like Nenshi, but I am not a fan of the mayor getting involved in councillor races. Say Druh loses. How toxic will the relationship be between him and new councillors? It could be a contentious four years.

I also think that the $4-5k 'subsidy' is a red herring. We're talking a miniscule percentage of a new house here. The amount of money is basically insignificant and honestly who cares if that new house in Skyview Ranch costs $355k instead of $350k? You could pass it all to the consumer and barely see a blip in costs or change the market significantly. This is again where it becomes a 'be careful what you wish for' situation I think. Put that through and you can't complain about sprawl or needing to fund fire stations or whatever else. Its a politically motivated way to attack the so-called slate.