I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[Slava]

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.

I'm sure to make friends with this comment, but hopefully its taken in the right way. The reality of a lot of inner city communities is that they're full of rental properties and people complaining about this issue who don't pay their own way anyway. Sure, the owner of that property pays property taxes, but in a lot of cases its not the same person at all. So who's paying the full market rate here?

To the same point, of course no one bears the full brunt of the costs for their public services. That is how public services work. You have no kids, but you still pay taxes and support education. I might rarely need medical attention, yet I still pay for that system. You can't pick and choose what you're supporting. We're not running a cafeteria here; you pay into the system and we elect people to distribute the resources accordingly.

Originally Posted by Table 5

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



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 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.




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?

Again, my intention wasn't to single you out Table, so apologies in advance if you took it that way. I figure that you can handle it though, so I don't feel that bad about it!

My point here again is that as taxpaying citizens we fund all kinds of things that we might prefer not to. Its great that you might prefer to fund more bike lanes to go from Mt. Royal and Elbow Park downtown as opposed to an overpass in my neck of the woods. Maybe you prefer to add transit routes and services in case that stroll to work is too cold whereas I might want to build another library branch here; those are decisions we elect people to make.

I am secretly thrilled that you chose the park example. I happen to sit on the board for a park in our community that gets an enormous amount of use. Its nowhere near downtown and entirely public. I couldn't give you a headcount sort of figure, but I know that we're drawing people from all over SW Calgary and getting a minute amount of funding from the city. In fact, we're getting the vast amount of our funding from the community residents. Frankly, the funding we receive from the city is an absolute pittance compared to what we spend; I have a hard time thinking those handfuls of dollars could be better spent in the inner city somewhere.

To your point about you paying higher taxes, it all comes back to the market value system of collections and the fact that people are in favour of user pay when its something they don't plan on using. Its funny, but people seem to be against things like toll roads when they're going to drive them on a regular basis.

[speedog]

Another Q for Bunk/Nenshi - why is the city plowing/sanding my gravel alley every week the day before garbage/recycling pick-up? They plow/sand even when there hasn't been any fresh snow down in the previous week and we've seen more plowing/sanding in our alley this year then all of the past 16 years combined?

Now the last time I checked, our alley is as flat and level as it's been for the past 16 years and city trucks using our alley appear to be just as capable as before in navigating our alley. That said, it would appear to the average joe blow that this is a rather extravagant waste of tax payer dollars and especially so when one considers that the pea gravel they're putting down in our gravel alley is not recoverable as compared to the pea gravel they spread on the paved streets which is swept up in the spring.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

Railtown, East Village, West Village, surface lots downtown... plenty of room to build up instead of out. If we're adding a new family to Calgary, that family can pay the cost of being added.

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

Yes, tax rate would affect property values, but the property value shift wouldn't eat up the whole tax reduction. You'd also want to adjust the rates so that there is no "sprawl subsidy" after the market values adjust to the tax rates, rather than before.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm sure to make friends with this comment, but hopefully its taken in the right way. The reality of a lot of inner city communities is that they're full of rental properties and people complaining about this issue who don't pay their own way anyway. Sure, the owner of that property pays property taxes, but in a lot of cases its not the same person at all. So who's paying the full market rate here?

That's not offensive, it's just silly. Whether the renter pays the landlord, who pays the property taxes, or an owner pays the property taxes, the effect is still that the resident of the property is paying the taxes.

Originally Posted by Slava

To the same point, of course no one bears the full brunt of the costs for their public services. That is how public services work. You have no kids, but you still pay taxes and support education. I might rarely need medical attention, yet I still pay for that system. You can't pick and choose what you're supporting. We're not running a cafeteria here; you pay into the system and we elect people to distribute the resources accordingly.

Since you are using provincial services as your analogy, if one person earning $100,000 a year lives a in a city, and another lives on top of mountain, should they both expect the same travel time to a hospital? To a school? Or, should the mountain hermit perhaps receive a lower level of service or pay a surcharge that reflects the higher cost of providing services to him?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

That's not offensive, it's just silly. Whether the renter pays the landlord, who pays the property taxes, or an owner pays the property taxes, the effect is still that the resident of the property is paying the taxes.

Since you are using provincial services as your analogy, if one person earning $100,000 a year lives a in a city, and another lives on top of mountain, should they both expect the same travel time to a hospital? To a school? Or, should the mountain hermit perhaps receive a lower level of service or pay a surcharge that reflects the higher cost of providing services to him?

It does matter though, at least to me. People complaining about the tax system, and whether people are paying their fair share ought to at least be payers to begin with.

We can use civic examples as well. I might go to the library every week on my way to a city rink, and you might never use either. Should you opt out of funding these things because you would prefer we have more swimming pools and golf courses? I say no, but that is a similar implication made by the inner city residents who complain about building overpasses or providing services to the suburbs. We're not really talking about commute times to get to services here, but its basic services. Should residents in certain areas pay more for the same services to be provided? If the city allows development to take place aren't they allowing it to take place and committing to a certain standard of services to those communities?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

If we're adding a new family to Calgary, that family can pay the cost of being added.

This is interesting?

Are large cities (population not sprawl) more expensive to run than small cities? (I dont know?)

If so then as a group we should all pay more when more people are added as there are economic benefits to a larger city. The last person to the party shouldn't be completely burdened with all of the associated costs from their addition as they in theory provide economic benifit.

Also are there reasoanlbe family friendly options in the inner city now? (3 bedroom townhouse for less than 500k, 400k, or 300k). If there aren't any affordable options then really tis is just a debate on whether Childless people should subsidize families or not and not really about sprawl.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Also are there reasoanlbe family friendly options in the inner city now? (3 bedroom townhouse for less than 500k, 400k, or 300k). If there aren't any affordable options then really tis is just a debate on whether Childless people should subsidize families or not and not really about sprawl.

Stopping the subsidies would make family-friendly options in the inner city more affordable and there would be more incentive for developers to create them (via the link between tax rate and property value that you previously noted, as well as substitution effects).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Stopping the subsidies would make family-friendly options in the inner city more affordable and there would be more incentive for developers to create them (via the link between tax rate and property value that you previously noted, as well as substitution effects).

If there was a huge demand for family housing in the inner city, why isn't it more prevalent today?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

If there was a huge demand for family housing in the inner city, why isn't it more prevalent today?

Because the price is artificially high whereas the price for family housing in the suburbs is artificially low.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Because the price is artificially high whereas the price for family housing in the suburbs is artificially low.

By how much, in each case?

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by SebC

Because the price is artificially high whereas the price for family housing in the suburbs is artificially low.

Do you think a bump in property taxes for the suburbs is going to correct that? If taxes go from 3000 to 4000 for someone in Auburn Bay is not going to make or break that buy decision or the property values.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Slava

By how much, in each case?

You are arguing religion with the true believers. Good luck.

[Magnum PEI]

New Central Library: Is it still going east of City Hall? When does construction start, and will it effect C-Train service?

[GGG]

I have a question on the whole 1% for public art on all capital projects.

Why doesn't intersting architecture count as public art in terms of that money? If you look at the west LRT stations each one looks awsome. The copper off axis ovals look far better than the utilitarian anderson station. But isn't that architecture and extra material cost "ART". Why does the money tossed at art have to be statues or convential art shouldn't it just be making ulititarian structures nicer?

So when I here that the West LRT hasn't met its 1% public art spending it frusterates me because the design itself incorporated it. Its like saying 1% of the peace bridge would need to be spent on public art when the bridge itself is art.

Wouldnt a better approach be to ensure that architecturally please desgins were used rather than some arbitrary % to be added afterwards.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Do you think a bump in property taxes for the suburbs is going to correct that? If taxes go from 3000 to 4000 for someone in Auburn Bay is not going to make or break that buy decision or the property values.

Property taxes relate most closely to operating costs. Property taxes cover only a small portion of capital projects.

The big shift if we were aiming for true cost recovery of new growth would relate to the acreage assessments (development levies). The City recently doubled the acreage assessment from about $7500 a door to about $15,000 a door. This moved us from covering about 25% of the capital cost to service a new home to about 50%. The Mayor believes this did not go far enough and that we should work toward full cost recovery. If we moved to full cost recovery, the acreage assessment will move to about $30,000 a door, which would have an impact on the purchase price of the home. Each agreement is 5 years, so I imagine it will continue to move closer to that full cost recovery number eventually.

It's an inherently unsustainable situation when each new home is actually a net cost to the City, rather than a net contributer - at least on the capital side. There's been less work done (although it's ongoing) on the relationship between new growth and operating costs.

Of course, redevelopment comes with some cost, although not as much as growth on the fringe - and at some point there's likely to be a new redevelopment levy to help cover some of those costs. Of course, you don't want to be punitive with that and discourage redevelopment, which on balance costs the City much less.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GGG

I have a question on the whole 1% for public art on all capital projects.

Why doesn't intersting architecture count as public art in terms of that money? If you look at the west LRT stations each one looks awsome. The copper off axis ovals look far better than the utilitarian anderson station. But isn't that architecture and extra material cost "ART". Why does the money tossed at art have to be statues or convential art shouldn't it just be making ulititarian structures nicer?

So when I here that the West LRT hasn't met its 1% public art spending it frusterates me because the design itself incorporated it. Its like saying 1% of the peace bridge would need to be spent on public art when the bridge itself is art. The policy will likely keep evolving.

Wouldnt a better approach be to ensure that architecturally please desgins were used rather than some arbitrary % to be added afterwards.

The Mayor has said that he's open to a more flexible public art program. Perhaps truly exceptional architecture (however that's defined), could account for at least a portion - as you suggest. Or, in the case of the NWLRT extension, why couldn't we use the public art contribution to say restore the Eamon's Camp building? The Mayor believes it should - but we currently don't have the flexibility under the public art policy.

One could argue that the level of architecture of the WLRT should simply be considered the new standard. It's certainly very competent, quality design, but I wouldn't say it's particularly groundbreaking.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Property taxes relate most closely to operating costs. Property taxes cover only a small portion of capital projects.

The big shift if we were aiming for true cost recovery of new growth would relate to the acreage assessments (development levies). The City recently doubled the acreage assessment from about $7500 a door to about $15,000 a door. This moved us from covering about 25% of the capital cost to service a new home to about 50%. The Mayor believes this did not go far enough and that we should work toward full cost recovery. If we moved to full cost recovery, the acreage assessment will move to about $30,000 a door, which would have an impact on the purchase price of the home. Each agreement is 5 years, so I imagine it will continue to move closer to that full cost recovery number eventually.

It's an inherently unsustainable situation when each new home is actually a net cost to the City, rather than a net contributer - at least on the capital side. There's been less work done (although it's ongoing) on the relationship between new growth and operating costs.

Of course, redevelopment comes with some cost, although not as much as growth on the fringe - and at some point there's likely to be a new redevelopment levy to help cover some of those costs. Of course, you don't want to be punitive with that and discourage redevelopment, which on balance costs the City much less.

Sorry, I have nothing to add, I just love how you capitalize the "C" in "City" every-time you type it. I have terrible grammar, and that might be correct, but it just makes me feel like Calgary is this religious lord we speak only with respect about. I like it.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

New Central Library: Is it still going east of City Hall? When does construction start, and will it effect C-Train service?

Yes, the Central Library is going directly behind the Municipal Building. The project's plugging along. Working out the project management has been a bit complicated as the Library is a civic partner (has an independent board), but the City is primarily funding it, and it is going in the East Village, which has a development corporation. But, there should be news on this soon. It will be going ahead.

Although it will be constructed above the tracks/tunnel - I believe there's an understanding that the construction cannot affect c-train service. It will be an intersting challenge.

Very excited about this project.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Kavy

Sorry, I have nothing to add, I just love how you capitalize the "C" in "City" every-time you type it. I have terrible grammar, and that might be correct, but it just makes me feel like Calgary is this religious lord we speak only with respect about. I like it.

When capitalized, it usually means the City of Calgary as the organization (corporation actually). Elected officials, administration, employees and assets.

Not capitalized would mean the geographical entity of Calgary.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Kavy

Sorry, I have nothing to add, I just love how you capitalize the "C" in "City" every-time you type it. I have terrible grammar, and that might be correct, but it just makes me feel like Calgary is this religious lord we speak only with respect about. I like it.

When I use capital C in City - I'm referring specifically to the City of Calgary (the corporation/government). When I use city - I mean Calgary - the place.

Edit - oh Frink beat me to it!