I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[Nehkara]

So wait Bunk, you're telling me (through omission) that we are declaring war on Reykjavik?

Wow. Interesting times in Calgary.

[stevinder]

Bunk, When will the successful bidders for the Westbrook Lands be announced? Now that the station and line are open, lets get those empty parcels built on.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by stevinder

Bunk, When will the successful bidders for the Westbrook Lands be announced? Now that the station and line are open, lets get those empty parcels built on.

Good question. I was just at Westbrook Friday wondering the same thing. I believe the successful bidder has been selected - but I don't know when it will be announced. So much exciting potential there. I also really hope the owners of the mall move to redevelop that site as well.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

So wait Bunk, you're telling me (through omission) that we are declaring war on Reykjavik?

Wow. Interesting times in Calgary.

I think Winnipeg is a sister city to Reykjavik, no? Do we have to fight them for it? Or declare war on both?

[nik-]

If war swept through Winnipeg, would anyone notice a difference?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by nik-

If war swept through Winnipeg, would anyone notice a difference?

Nope, but let's bring back that fancy new museum of human rights to Calgary as a war trophy. I like its style.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by nik-

If war swept through Winnipeg, would anyone notice a difference?

Winnipeg would possibly be a lot nicer afterwards.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'm also looking forward to the day when the city starts rewarding people who live in the inner city a little more. I know it always comes down to money, but at some point, I'd love for neighborhoods to get a more reasonable share of what they put in to the coffers (kind of like how Albertans always say they put in more than they get back nationally). If we're paying higher property taxes (mine went up by about 20%), I'd like to think it's not just going towards placating some schmuck in Silverado who want his street cleared of snow every 30 minutes. Mo bike paths, mo street cars, mo frequent busses!

I'm specifically not looking forward to the city catering to the inner city. I know that this will fall on deaf ears here, but I might have some time today, so I figured I'll make this argument.

First, the issue of people paying more taxes (and "more than their fair share") is cute. I feel for you. Thing is that a) you knew that or ought to have before you decided to buy there and b) you issue is with the market value tax system and not with how the spending is completed. If the tax system was based on square footage,lot size or just split evenly regardless of where you are in the city then everything would be fine. In other words, the issue here isn't really urban sprawl, but its a matter of ,disliking the tax system as it is. That's fine, but call it what it is.

Second, I dislike the notion that "schmucks" like me (your term here, not mine) who don't live in the inner city are some how being placated with inner city money. Those of us in the suburbs aren't receiving any special treatment. Most of the things we demand from the city are pretty basic; a traffic system so that we can get to work and be productive, a reasonable infrastructure so that we can go to the ice rink, library, golf courses or other amenities. Our transit needs aren't even all that different.

I picked your post to quote here Table, but I just picked you non-specifically, particularly for my next comment. I am tiring of the seeming elitist attitude of people in the inner city. I get that there are some advantages to living inner city, but there are also advantages to the suburbs.

[Bigtime]

*Puts down his copy of The Economist and eagerly awaits the response to Slava's post.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

First, the issue of people paying more taxes (and "more than their fair share") is cute. I feel for you. Thing is that a) you knew that or ought to have before you decided to buy there and b) you issue is with the market value tax system and not with how the spending is completed. If the tax system was based on square footage,lot size or just split evenly regardless of where you are in the city then everything would be fine. In other words, the issue here isn't really urban sprawl, but its a matter of ,disliking the tax system as it is. That's fine, but call it what it is.

Second, I dislike the notion that "schmucks" like me (your term here, not mine) who don't live in the inner city are some how being placated with inner city money. Those of us in the suburbs aren't receiving any special treatment. Most of the things we demand from the city are pretty basic; a traffic system so that we can get to work and be productive, a reasonable infrastructure so that we can go to the ice rink, library, golf courses or other amenities. Our transit needs aren't even all that different.

With respect to point a) knowing about a situation doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change it. If the advantages of inner city living outweight the disadvantage, choosing to live there and wanting to not have to subsidize the 'burbs are both rational.

With respect to point b) it's not strictly a tax structure issue. It's a matter of subsidizing the suburban lifestyle (and not a matter of rich subsidizing poor either) at the expense of the inner city. If the tax structure were to stay the same but the spending structure shifted, that could eliminated the subsidy. Or the spending structure could stay the same and the revenue model could change, and that would also eliminate the subsidy. Both sides of the equation come into play.

As for special treatment, the special treatment that you receive is that you don't pay a market rate for the services you receive. This market failure is a net drain on the city as a whole, through deadweight loss. Roads, transit and fire stations may be basic services for a city to provide, but having a low density community is a luxury that should be paid for by those who choose it.

[Cal]

The solution is clear, the Inner City should secede from the rest of Calgary.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cal

The solution is clear, the Inner City should secede from the rest of Calgary. Vive la latte libre!

From an "eliminate the subsidy" perspective, this might actually work. Inner Calgary would have to spend a lot of time negotiating with Outer Calgary though.

You'd probably also need some tolls at the border to account for downsteam effects on Inner Calgary's infrastructure created by Outer Calgary (should Outer Calgary not agree to pay for them on a city-to-city level).

For what it's worth, inner Toronto has precisely the same problem (but they got there through amalgamation) - at its heart, it's a question of how you treat a minority fairly in a democracy. Independence is one solution (though this creates new minorities), but there are others.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Cal

The solution is clear, the Inner City should secede from the rest of Calgary.

No way, we'd be surrounded and easily cut off from essential latte supplies.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

With respect to point a) knowing about a situation doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change it. If the advantages of inner city living outweight the disadvantage, choosing to live there and wanting to not have to subsidize the 'burbs are both rational.

With respect to point b) it's not strictly a tax structure issue. It's a matter of subsidizing the suburban lifestyle (and not a matter of rich subsidizing poor either) at the expense of the inner city. If the tax structure were to stay the same but the spending structure shifted, that could eliminated the subsidy. Or the spending structure could stay the same and the revenue model could change, and that would also eliminate the subsidy. Both sides of the equation come into play.

As for special treatment, the special treatment that you receive is that you don't pay a market rate for the services you receive. This market failure is a net drain on the city as a whole, through deadweight loss. Roads, transit and fire stations may be basic services for a city to provide, but having a low density community is a luxury that should be paid for by those who choose it.

But remember that sprawl is purely based on the lot size you occupy and not where your lot is located. So if you are on an undivided 50 foot lot in sunnyside you are a bigger contributer to sprawl then someone on a 35ft lot in the suburbs. The only difference between a lot in the inner city and a lot in the burbs is cost. So by wanting to tax people just for living in suburbia isn't really fair what you are proposing is essentially a tax on people who make less income rather than people who are making a choice.

Also where you work matters, perhaps the real culprit behind our road problems is the density of employment downtown. I live and work in the burbs and would never go back. Commute distance is a significant impact on the amount of sprawl you contribute to.

So i would agree with you if you wanted a total overall of the tax system with density based taxation based on lot size, density priced toll roads that are more expensive in rush hour, excessive parking taxes downtown, full responsibility of home owners to replace aging infastructure (water mains etc). And then add some kind of income based scale to make it progressive so that higher income groups pay more in taxes than lower income groups based on their choices.

But just saying increase suburban taxes seems to grosly over-simplify the problem.

[Table 5]

Ok, well I guess since this was directed my way...

Originally Posted by Slava

First, the issue of people paying more taxes (and "more than their fair share") is cute. I feel for you. Thing is that a) you knew that or ought to have before you decided to buy there and b) you issue is with the market value tax system and not with how the spending is completed. If the tax system was based on square footage,lot size or just split evenly regardless of where you are in the city then everything would be fine. In other words, the issue here isn't really urban sprawl, but its a matter of ,disliking the tax system as it is. That's fine, but call it what it is.

Second, I dislike the notion that "schmucks" like me (your term here, not mine) who don't live in the inner city are some how being placated with inner city money. Those of us in the suburbs aren't receiving any special treatment. Most of the things we demand from the city are pretty basic; a traffic system so that we can get to work and be productive, a reasonable infrastructure so that we can go to the ice rink, library, golf courses or other amenities.

I have no issues with my tax bill numbers wise. Frankly, I think Calgary property taxes are pretty low compared to a lot of places (Im coming from a state where my property taxes would probably be at least 5x the amount I'm paying. And I know that my taxes are higher because I live in a more central location that is perceived as more desirable. I'm A-ok with that.

What I do have a problem with is subsidizing new communities and continuing the trend of stretching out city resources without them paying the true cost. Communities where the city is spending a ton of money building new roads, infrastructure, and other amenities, but where the residents have to pay a fraction of the taxes compared to the rest of us. And with every new community, the roads that need to be maintained are stretched out, the pipes are stretched out, we need more cops and firemen…..it's an endless cycle of inefficiency compared to how many people use them. Somebody has to pay for all this….yet, it never really seems to truly be the residents of these communities.

Strictly speaking, at the end of the day, spending $1 in the inner city is more efficient than spending $1 in a suburb. If you build, say a small park in my neighborhood, it has the potential to be used by hundreds of thousands of people (including those from the suburbs). If you build a park in Silverado, it has a catch area of a few thousand at best. Yet, chances are the cost to build it will be fairly similar. And it's not like any other suburbanite will use your facilities either. Because someone in Tuscany will never go to Silverado either. So now we have to build all this stuff for every community that only certain people use, but everyone has to pay for.

Now I'm not saying that everything should be built in the inner city, but I think there needs to be a better balance, and a city should be spending it as efficiently as possible. Because even if our tax bills were exactly equal, it doesn't really represent the best interests of the city when so much of it has to go maintain the endless miles of suburbia.

And yes, you are right, I CHOSE to live in the inner city knowing that I have to pay higher taxes….but maybe you need to understand that you also CHOSE to live in Silverado (or wherever), so you should be ok with living with longer transportation times, less amenities, and being #35 on the priority list because there aren't enough of you. Or pay the price tax wise…up to you.

Our transit needs aren't even all that different.

Our transit needs are hugely different. You need heavy-rail and/or highway infrastructure just to get to work or go to to a mall. In an ideal (ie, not necessarily Calgary) inner-city situation, all I need is a bike-lane or a street-car/subway, or often times…a basis sidewalk. And even if I need a subway, I'm sharing it with hundreds of thousands of people….possibly even you. You're interchange in the middle of nowhere will never be used by anyone outside of a small section of the city.

I am tiring of the seeming elitist attitude of people in the inner city. I get that there are some advantages to living inner city, but there are also advantages to the suburbs.

Of course there are, I don't think I've ever said to the contrary. It's not good versus evil for me……hell, I'd love a yard and a garage and am mucho jealous if you have those. But I do have pretty strong convictions about the suburban lifestyle is a lot less sustainable for a city economically and environmentally. I'm more efficient, use less infrastructure dollars per capita, and share my amenities with more people…….yet I pay higher taxes. Why exactly?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

No way, we'd be surrounded and easily cut off from essential latte supplies.

I'm sure we can organize some sort of Amnesty International backed coffee-bean airdrop. The lattes will cease to be frothed over my frail hipster body!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

But remember that sprawl is purely based on the lot size you occupy and not where your lot is located. So if you are on an undivided 50 foot lot in sunnyside you are a bigger contributer to sprawl then someone on a 35ft lot in the suburbs. The only difference between a lot in the inner city and a lot in the burbs is cost. So by wanting to tax people just for living in suburbia isn't really fair what you are proposing is essentially a tax on people who make less income rather than people who are making a choice.

Also where you work matters, perhaps the real culprit behind our road problems is the density of employment downtown. I live and work in the burbs and would never go back. Commute distance is a significant impact on the amount of sprawl you contribute to.

So i would agree with you if you wanted a total overall of the tax system with density based taxation based on lot size, density priced toll roads that are more expensive in rush hour, excessive parking taxes downtown, full responsibility of home owners to replace aging infastructure (water mains etc). And then add some kind of income based scale to make it progressive so that higher income groups pay more in taxes than lower income groups based on their choices.

But just saying increase suburban taxes seems to grosly over-simplify the problem.

One significant difference between a lot in Sunnyside is and a lot in the suburbs is that residents in Sunnyside have paid off the capital costs of their infrastructure many times over. Yes, a particular house and lot will cost more in the inner city than it would in the suburbs, but that's not the right comparison to be making. A person in a $500,000 condo downtown subsidizes a person in a $500,000 house in the suburbs (because while they pay the same taxes, the person in the house consumes far more city resources) and that's where the problem is.

Furthermore, "we've got to subsidize the suburbs becasue that's where the poor live" is self-fulfilling. Susidizing the suburbs is part of why it's cheaper to live there. Again, I'm not against progressive taxation at the muncipal level, but there should be a semblance of "user-pay" between people of equal means.

Obviously where you work is part of it, but I contend that centralized employment is overall good for city. Labour mobility, dual income households, efficient public transit etc.

[SebC]

(Hopefully a mod will move select posts here into a new thread - "I'm an 'inner city elitist', ask me anything"?)

[SeoulFire]

I think the whole inner city thing is the CP equivalent of Godwins Law.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

One significant difference between a lot in Sunnyside is and a lot in the suburbs is that residents in Sunnyside have paid off the capital costs of their infrastructure many times over. Yes, a particular house and lot will cost more in the inner city than it would in the suburbs, but that's not the right comparison to be making. A person in a $500,000 condo downtown subsidizes a person in a $500,000 house in the suburbs (because while they pay the same taxes, the person in the house consumes far more city resources) and that's where the problem is.

Furthermore, "we've got to subsidize the suburbs becasue that's where the poor live" is self-fulfilling. Susidizing the suburbs is part of why it's cheaper to live there. Again, I'm not against progressive taxation at the muncipal level, but there should be a semblance of "user-pay" between people of equal means.

Obviously where you work is part of it, but I contend that centralized employment is overall good for city. Labour mobility, dual income households, efficient public transit etc.

It doesn't matter that sunnyside has paid off its infastructure many times over. The options to add a new family to calgary are bulldoze and infill or build out. So it really comes back to lot size. Location contributes nothing to sprawl.

Also even if you doubled suburban taxes I don't think you see much of a shift in the way people live. You would however see a shift in property values. As the tax burden is lowered for those in the inner city it becomes more affordable so demand increases and price increases to meet it. In the burbs demand would drop and prices would drop until equlibrium is reached. And the effect on monthly mortgage payment vs taxes is minimal. In my case less than 10% so relative to my total monthly housing expenses taxation has very little effect.

I don't know what is out there now but when I decided to buy and move to the burbs I did look inner city first. In the sub 450k market there was nothing really in the 3 bedroom townhouse type housing or attached housing. A problem with the city at least when I was looking was a lack of practicle family friendly options that I could afford. Minor changes in taxation arent going to change that.