2010 Calgary Civic Election issues ?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Also, what do you mean inner city has the greatest benefit of the transit system? Buses and trains run all the way to the four corners of the city.

We have a spider design (not spider web). Nearly all routes thread thru the downtown.

From downtown you can hop a train or bus and get nearly anywhere in the city. Perhaps with one transfer.

From anywhere else you have to first go downtown and then change directions to your destination. Guaranteed one or more transfers. Unless you happen to live near the circle route and it happens to be go by your destination.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by First Lady

We have a spider design (not spider web). Nearly all routes thread thru the downtown.

From downtown you can hop a train or bus and get nearly anywhere in the city. Perhaps with one transfer.

From anywhere else you have to first go downtown and then change directions to your destination. Guaranteed one or more transfers. Unless you happen to live near the circle route and it happens to be go by your destination.

A pipe dream of mine is some sort of Circle Route LRT design at some point for Calgary

Other random LRT thoughts....

-Can someone fill me in on the 8th ave tunnel? Haven't heard much about it.
-When the LRT finally goes for cars there are going to be some interesting problems that prop up. The NW cars frequently stop downtown just after (or before) the bridge in between 5th and 6th ave. When the line is 4 cars they aren't going to be able to do that and I can see even more delays as they try to exit west via Bow trail.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Love how this thread has started with all of the inner-city dwelling people hating sprawl. Typical.

While there does need to be more development in the inner city - ie: tearing down old houses and building in-fills - there is a reason why new communities are being built on the outskirts of town... PEOPLE WANT THEM! Refusing to build more will just drive people to live in Cochrane, Airdrie, Okotoks, Chestermere, etc and further the problem. In order to sustain business growth, that manpower will still be needed, but the residential taxes will no longer be collected as they aren't living in the city.

Unless this is going to turn into a new GCA (Greater Calgary Area), there are going to be lots more problems generated by these 'solutions'.

It's typical of people that have educated themselves a bit on urban planning. Unless you want to end up like the US one day with completely decayed inner city areas all of the country that may be torn down completely (http://www.businessinsider.com/will-...-cities-2009-6), we need to start making changes before it's too late. Sustainable Development is a buzz phrase tossed out a little too often for some, but the truth is the way we are developing right now is NOT sustainable. Live 2 hours away from work, I don't care, just pay for the infrastructure you use.

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Haven't heard of Stoney Trail huh?

What?

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Don't most of the subdivisions pay for themselves?

No. That's the huge gripe. If they did, the prices would be much higher and moving to the edge of the city wouldn't be so attractive. Right now the only negative is travel time. With our road happy city council, traffic really isn't that bad for a city of our footprint, so people will continue flooding to the edges. You hit a point however where there isn't enough tax revenue to support all of this infrastructure to low density areas, as the US is having happen now. http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=2131042&page=1

[jammies]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

No. That's the huge gripe. If they did, the prices would be much higher and moving to the edge of the city wouldn't be so attractive.

This is the problem - people want to live in the suburbs, and they want me and the rest of the inner city to subsidize it. Why should I subsidize YOUR lifestyle choice?

"It's always been that way," isn't much of an argument, either. Inner-city taxes have always been higher, but that doesn't mean they can't change. A more equitable tax system where those who put the greatest strain on municipal resources pay the most tax is not impossible nor unfair. Of course, it'd anger developers who have gotten used to making money by having the city subsidize expansion, but that can't last forever anyway.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

A pipe dream of mine is some sort of Circle Route LRT design at some point for Calgary

You're not the only one. A couple years ago, a guy named William Hamilton did an awesome writeup for his vision of the LRT system with a completion date of 2040. It includes a circle route of sorts. He puts all the extensions into chronological order with maps for each one. I'll skip to the last one, which shows the whole network and looks like this:



All the dark grey lines are either existing LRT or lines that he proposes.

Here's the link - it's broken up into a series of blog entries, so just follow the links on the right.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Other random LRT thoughts....

-Can someone fill me in on the 8th ave tunnel? Haven't heard much about it.

When the LRT was first planned in the early to mid 70s, having it run under 8th Avenue downtown was plan A, and the surface transit mall along 7th Avenue was plan B. When costs started to escalate in the later planning stages, 7th Avenue was chosen, but not before some facilities under City Hall (specifically, the shell of an underground station) had been constructed when the new City Hall was constructed. In the years since, it was planned that eventually at least one of the LRT would have to move under 8th Avenue as 7th Avenue approached capacity. Every new building along 8th Avenue has had to take this into account, and every time there has been utility work in the area, they have moved as many utilities as possible to make way for the eventual 8th Avenue Subway. For example, there is a space in the lower levels of the Banker's Hall complex that is currently being used as an auditorium but is actually a placeholder for the tunnel and/or station.

Fast forward to now. The 7th Avenue transit mall is at capacity and political will and public sentiment has been growing to finally build the 8th Avenue Subway. 2007 mayoral candidate Sandy Jenkins had it in his platform, and others mused about it. A budget was approved after the 2007 election for a preliminary engineering study that will recommend routes, station locations, alignment, platform lengths, construction methods and staging, timeframe, costing, etc. Also being dealt with will be the SELRT downtown alignment, which will be in its own separate subway. This study is just getting underway now (as far as I understand anyway) and is supposed to be completed next year sometime.

Planning done to date points toward the 201 line (south and northwest legs) using the 8th Avenue Subway with 3 or 4 stations. The SE LRT will enter downtown from the east on 10th Avenue, go underground somewhere east of MacLeod Trail, travel under 10th Avenue to 2nd Street West, turn north, continue underground all the way to Eau Claire. Stations tentatively at 1st Street West, 7th/8th Ave., and Eau Claire. The 202 line (northeast and west legs) would continue to use the existing 7th Ave. The recommendations in the study may change some of these elements but will probably resemble most of it. After that, it would need approval, to be made a priority, and the biggest hurdle, funding.

This image from Steve Perry's "LRT in Calgary" site shows the current consensus on the future configuration of LRT infrastructure in the downtown. Disregard the yellow line continuing north after the Eau Claire Station though, that is speculation/wishful thinking on his part.



I highly recommend checking out the rest of that site. Gives you a good visualization of what is to come for the LRT system, as well as some history, photos, links and other information.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

-When the LRT finally goes for cars there are going to be some interesting problems that prop up. The NW cars frequently stop downtown just after (or before) the bridge in between 5th and 6th ave. When the line is 4 cars they aren't going to be able to do that and I can see even more delays as they try to exit west via Bow trail.

Yeah, there are certainly a couple issues, including the 4th/5th Avenue thing. The exit toward the new West LRT shouldn't be a huge problem though.

[Muta]

Any mayor that increases funding for social infrastructure projects and reduces encouragement of suburban sprawl (which just isn't sustainable any way you look at it) by building up, not out, gets my vote.

This city is large enough. Let's start maximizing the resources we have within current city borders, as opposed to expanding outward.

The more properties we have available inner-city, the lower it costs to live there. It's that simple. We need a mayor who becomes the catalyst for this and actively encourages densification.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by jammies

This is the problem - people want to live in the suburbs, and they want me and the rest of the inner city to subsidize it. Why should I subsidize YOUR lifestyle choice?

"It's always been that way," isn't much of an argument, either. Inner-city taxes have always been higher, but that doesn't mean they can't change. A more equitable tax system where those who put the greatest strain on municipal resources pay the most tax is not impossible nor unfair. Of course, it'd anger developers who have gotten used to making money by having the city subsidize expansion, but that can't last forever anyway.

Canada has always been a society where the person with the most ability to pay the taxes pays the most, not the person who uses the most services. And I'm thankful for that, and when you or someone you know is laid up in the hospital for a extended period of time and walks out of there without a bill you will be to, just remember to be thankful to that rich guy out there whose bitching about paying too much tax who just subsidized your health care.

Your post to me shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why people move to the suburbs, they move there because it's the only place they can afford, not because they enjoy a 45 minute communte to work, their neighbours house being 4 feet away or a tiny postage stamp for a backyard. Offer someone a similar property in the inner city as the one they're buying on the outskirts and don't ask for them to pay the price difference and i would wager 95%+ would jump at the chance.

You're not subsidizing anyones lifestyle choice, you're just bitching about the costs of maintaining yours in a soceity like Canadas, I hear Russia has some pretty good tax laws for the well off if you're not happy here, atleast that's what the hockey players tell me.

I'm not saying the level of sprawl is sustainable or should be allowed to continue unchecked, but it needs to be managed rather then attempting to just contain it. All that will do is increase the rate of expansion of the outlying communities(Airdrie, Cochrane, Okotoks etc) who use Calgary services and pay 0 taxes.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calculoso

While there does need to be more development in the inner city - ie: tearing down old houses and building in-fills - there is a reason why new communities are being built on the outskirts of town... PEOPLE WANT THEM! Refusing to build more will just drive people to live in Cochrane, Airdrie, Okotoks, Chestermere, etc and further the problem. In order to sustain business growth, that manpower will still be needed, but the residential taxes will no longer be collected as they aren't living in the city.

I don't think anyone is calling for a moratorium on suburban development. But for a lof of people, the reason they live on the outskirts is not that they prefer the lifestyle, but that its more affordable. And its more affordable in part because its subsidized. And guess what? People living in Cochrane, Airdrie, Okotoks, Chestermere etc. aren't getting new LRT stations. They do still strain Calgary's infrastructure, but that's what toll roads are for.

Anyways it's a basic principle of economics that the cost of a subsidy is always greater than the sum of the benefit to consumers and the benefit to suppliers. And a tax always raises less money than the value of the benefit lost by consumers. So the bottom line is that as a whole, our city suffers from using inner city taxes to pay for suburban development.

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Agree 100%. No city council can dictate where people should live. You have to build where the demand is. If people can't get houses here then Okotoks and Airdrie it is. If there is a house shortage then that's what needs to be built.

[...]

I'll vote for infrastructure and satisfying demand.

That's exactly it. Suburban house prices should be support by demand, not supply side subsidies.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I respect your views, but I don't want to live inner city in crammed environment where because of the density the small parcel of property that I buy is hideously over priced.

I've done the downtown living, and while it was thrilling and interesting when I was young, it wore thin and I wanted to get away from it.

I bought in the sprawl because I want a decent sized backyard or my own greenspace.

That's all fine. You can have what you want, just be willing to pay for it.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I also don't think its fair that people should get tax breaks because they choose to buy and live downtown and they choose to pay the preminum both in tax and in initial purchase value by living in a concept based around density.

"Tax breaks for rich people". Nice spin. What I'm looking for (and I'm far from rich) is a fair tax system that allows people to live downtown without imposing penalties. The tax breaks worth supporting are the ones that create benefits for people not receiving the tax break. High density is environmentally friendly (relatively) and reduces stress on municipal infrastructure. What positive externalities does suburban growth have? Traffic, smog, loss of natural areas are all negatives.

Originally Posted by First Lady

And they [the inner city] certainly have the greatest benefit of the transit system.

Not necessarily. Calgary transit is largely designed for getting people from the suburbs to the inner city for work and back. Inner city residents may drive less, but that doesn't necessarily mean they take transit more. Some of that driving gets replaced by walking and biking. I know I personally had a transit pass for commuting when I lived in the South... when I moved downtown I just switched to ticket packs. And even if we assume that downtown residents get the greatest benefit out of transit, that doesn't mean that they're the ones who are contributing the most to the cost of transit. Downtown residents are likely travelling shorter distances, and they're not the ones who are being served by infrastructure expansions. If you measure transit use in kilometers, or better yet cost to the system, I think you'd find downtown residents are easier to support. That's one of the effects of higher density living.

Originally Posted by Dan02

Canada has always been a society where the person with the most ability to pay the taxes pays the most, not the person who uses the most services. And I'm thankful for that, and when you or someone you know is laid up in the hospital for a extended period of time and walks out of there without a bill you will be to, just remember to be thankful to that rich guy out there whose bitching about paying too much tax who just subsidized your health care.

Taxing the inner city to pay for suburban development is more akin to taxing fruit and veg to subsize junk food than a progressive tax system that pays for everyone's health care.

Originally Posted by Dan02

Your post to me shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why people move to the suburbs, they move there because it's the only place they can afford, not because they enjoy a 45 minute communte to work, their neighbours house being 4 feet away or a tiny postage stamp for a backyard. Offer someone a similar property in the inner city as the one they're buying on the outskirts and don't ask for them to pay the price difference and i would wager 95%+ would jump at the chance.

EXACTLY! Make the price to live in the inner city fair, and more people choose to live there instead of on the outskirts. Maybe it won't be the same property, but you might tip the balance enough to make the trade-offs worth it.

Originally Posted by Dan02

You're not subsidizing anyones lifestyle choice, you're just bitching about the costs of maintaining yours in a soceity like Canadas, I hear Russia has some pretty good tax laws for the well off if you're not happy here, atleast that's what the hockey players tell me.

LOL. You seem not to get that what you described earlier (people choosing things they wouldn't naturally prefer due to economic pressures) is a result of taxing one choice to subsudize another. It is subsidizing a lifestyle choice.

[SebC]

Also, I'm gonna answer Firt Lady directly with something that I'll admit isn't big on a lot of people's radars but that I'd love to see discussed: electoral reform.

In this day and age its crazy that voters and candidates have to worry about vote-splitting, strategic voting etc. Lets have Instant Runoff Voting! (Rep-by-pop, STV don't even need to be considered as there are no parties.)

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Canada has always been a society where the person with the most ability to pay the taxes pays the most, not the person who uses the most services.

Making the suburbs pay their own way means that the people that live there will consequently be the ones that have the ability to pay the most taxes. Or is it only ok when people who live in the inner city see their cost of living become unaffordable so that they have to relocate?

Originally Posted by Dan02

You're not subsidizing anyones lifestyle choice, you're just bitching about the costs of maintaining yours in a soceity like Canadas, I hear Russia has some pretty good tax laws for the well off if you're not happy here, atleast that's what the hockey players tell me.

It costs more in taxes (directly or indirectly) to live in the inner city than someone who has a similar dwelling in the suburbs, despite it actually costing less to provide services. That's a subsidy. Maybe you should move to Quebec, I'm sure you'll fit right in with your interpretation of what's "fair" taxation - apparently it means getting more from the government than you put in for no particular reason other than that it's always been that way and the teat is very difficult to let go of.

We are not talking about kicking the urban poor out of their homes here, so spare the social justice talk. The majority of new developments are priced in the $350 - 450 000 range, which is affordable only to the middle class; the majority of people living in the inner city are also middle class, like me. The money is moving around in the same demographic, not flowing from the rich to the poor like you are trying to portray.

Originally Posted by Dan02

Your post to me shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why people move to the suburbs, they move there because it's the only place they can afford.

No, they move there because it's the only place they can afford a HOUSE. People don't NEED to live in houses, apartments work just fine all over the world, including here. What amazes me is that so many of the same people that complain about a culture of entitlement are the same people who think a house and a plot of land is their right; the hypocrisy doesn't occur to them as it's apparently hard to be objective when it's your own sacred cow being led off to the slaughterhouse.

Originally Posted by Dan02

All that will do is increase the rate of expansion of the outlying communities(Airdrie, Cochrane, Okotoks etc) who use Calgary services and pay 0 taxes.

Someone living in Airdrie uses their water, power, and transport systems at no cost to Calgary. Yes, they do use our roads, but they would use our roads if they lived in the city anyway.

It would be interesting if a study was done to see if it actually costs the city more to subsidize the entire infrastructure of a new community than it does if that same community is built on someone else's dime; if the city makes $2000 in taxes but it costs $4000 a year to support that taxpayer, is that actually a better idea than getting $0 in taxes but only costing $500 in support?

Further, there are ways to discourage bedroom communities; toll roads already being mentioned as one. Paying unsubsidized transit fares is another. Reserving parking garages for city residents only is another.

Lastly, before the tired "social engineering" argument comes out, realize that we already live in a socially engineered city - one that encourages people to live in identical and sterile communities, drive a good distance to work, and drive again to shop at regional megamalls. Again, just because that's the way it's always been doesn't mean it's the way it should be.

[algernon]

No, they move there because it's the only place they can afford a HOUSE. People don't NEED to live in houses, apartments work just fine all over the world, including here. What amazes me is that so many of the same people that complain about a culture of entitlement are the same people who think a house and a plot of land is their right

That's the crux.
If all the "poor" in suburbia lived in condos, they'd have a case... but they don't. They sprawl and decrease density, by needing that scrap of sod.

[CaptainCrunch]

A house and a plot of land are our right to own if we want it, its one of the tenants of our form of society.

Just like its someonelse's right if they want to live in a densely packed downtown.

Its market rules that dense areas have higher real estate values thus the higher taxes. If the city wants us to move everyone downtown let them offer tax neutral incentives that I don't have to pay for.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

A house and a plot of land are our right to own if we want it, its one of the tenets of our form of society.

Wanting is in itself insufficient - are you willing to pay for government housing for low-income people that would come from increased taxation on yourself, so that this so-called "right" to land and a house is available to everyone? Or do you actually mean it's a "right" for those who can afford it, which is not at all the same thing...

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If the city wants us to move everyone downtown let them offer tax neutral incentives that I don't have to pay for.

As usual the straw man makes its appearance - no one is saying everyone has to move downtown. There just needs to be an equitable distribution of the tax burden so that the true cost of suburban living comes out of the pockets of the people that actually live there.

[MrMastodonFarm]

frinkprof, you're so money. Great post.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by jammies

Again, just because that's the way it's always been doesn't mean it's the way it should be.

I don't disagree with a lot of your issues jammies, my only issue is the narrowmindedness of your position. You've determined what your minimum needs/wants/whatever is and now you want to force that upon everyone else.

You've choosen through you own freewill to live in a city where it is advertised as family friendly/you get your own little piece of sod/whatever you wanna call it. You can try to scream and shout but most of the people aren't going to hear you because they moved here for those reasons.

You seem to be living in a city which doesn't fit the lifestyle you want to lead, which begs the question, why?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

Also, I'm gonna answer Firt Lady directly with something that I'll admit isn't big on a lot of people's radars but that I'd love to see discussed: electoral reform.

One of my favourites as well.

At least locally we have fixed election days; which I would like to see provincially.

I know there have been some recent changes to municipal elections regarding financing of campaigns. There is now a $5000.00 limit (per individual contributor). It also sounds like there will also be some disclosure of contributiors, but I haven't been able to find verification.

I think we need to address the "campaign period". Currently (municipal) candidates can raise funds during the 3 years leading up to the election. I would prefer to see a shorter, fixed period.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

One of my favourites as well.

At least locally we have fixed election days; which I would like to see provincially.

I know there have been some recent changes to municipal elections regarding financing of campaigns. There is now a $5000.00 limit (per individual contributor). It also sounds like there will also be some disclosure of contributiors, but I haven't been able to find verification.

I think we need to address the "campaign period". Currently (municipal) candidates can raise funds during the 3 years leading up to the election. I would prefer to see a shorter, fixed period.

Hilarious. The Liberals suggested fixed election dates (amongst other electoral reforms this spring) and you posted your husbands blog deriding the announcement!

So when are you announcing for Ward 9 anyway?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Hilarious. The Liberals suggested fixed election dates (amongst other electoral reforms this spring) and you posted your husbands blog deriding the announcement!

Really? Care to provide proof of that?

I have never heard my husband disagree with fixed election dates and I certainly don't remember him blogging about it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Really? Care to provide proof of that?

I have never heard my husband disagree with fixed election dates and I certainly don't remember him blogging about it.

I guess its one of the 12 steps referred to here:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...8&postcount=29

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

I guess its one of the 12 steps referred to here:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...8&postcount=29

You guess? Have you read it?

That is a blog deriding the liberals in general. There is no discussion of fixed elections dates.

And even if there were, what would it matter? I have met you and you certainly didn't strike me as someone who was narrow minded and would think a woman can't form her own opinions without consulting her husband!