Calgary developer’s caught with pants down - Nenshi white knight or not?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

This thread just cannot choose what direction it's going in. Now its a tax discussion?

This is the thread to keep CP'ers with ADD occupied.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by nik-

Guns .... in our streets.

What else is Nenshi hiding?

In 1998 Nenshi went to Harvard, in the United States. Twelve years later and he's all of a sudden running for mayor of Calgary?

Naheed Nenshi: He didn't come back for you.

[johnnyrocket03]

Let me preface this by saying I am the least politically knowledgable person ever, I have very little information on what is going on this city in any way politically.

Am i to understand that the popular opinion is that everyone hates residents of Cranston and Auburn Bay and south communities because they chose to live there? I live in Cranston and liked the affordability and that it is close to where I work and where my fiance works, so in your guys opinion, i should have had to move downtown and commute from there? That is a more logical and reasonable solution that developing outward instead of upward? I ask these questions honestly and with no sarcasm or "feather ruffling" intended. I am jus trying to get a read on the issue.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by johnnyrocket03

Let me preface this by saying I am the least politically knowledgable person ever, I have very little information on what is going on this city in any way politically.

Am i to understand that the popular opinion is that everyone hates residents of Cranston and Auburn Bay and south communities because they chose to live there? I live in Cranston and liked the affordability and that it is close to where I work and where my fiance works, so in your guys opinion, i should have had to move downtown and commute from there? That is a more logical and reasonable solution that developing outward instead of upward? I ask these questions honestly and with no sarcasm or "feather ruffling" intended. I am jus trying to get a read on the issue.

I hate those people because they live on the east side of macleod trail.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Uh what? You suggested an HST like in other provinces?

I was talking about a tax that would be paid to the municipality. It could be administered like the HST is administered in other provinces, however, the extra money would go directly to the city instead of to the province.

(I don't necessarily endorse this option, BTW, it's just one idea for helping funding cities)

[Muta]

Originally Posted by johnnyrocket03

Am i to understand that the popular opinion is that everyone hates residents of Cranston and Auburn Bay and south communities because they chose to live there? I live in Cranston and liked the affordability and that it is close to where I work and where my fiance works, so in your guys opinion, i should have had to move downtown and commute from there? That is a more logical and reasonable solution that developing outward instead of upward? I ask these questions honestly and with no sarcasm or "feather ruffling" intended. I am jus trying to get a read on the issue.

Your assumption is quite inaccurate. Firstly, no one hates the residents that live in your community or communities, that's just assinine. Secondly, the argument for urban development is so that someone like you HAS the realistic option to live in the inner city if they choose to. At the moment, focus is being put on suburban living, but that's changing. Suburban living is not ecologically sustainable in the long run if growth patterns keep up.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by johnnyrocket03

Let me preface this by saying I am the least politically knowledgable person ever, I have very little information on what is going on this city in any way politically.

Am i to understand that the popular opinion is that everyone hates residents of Cranston and Auburn Bay and south communities because they chose to live there? I live in Cranston and liked the affordability and that it is close to where I work and where my fiance works, so in your guys opinion, i should have had to move downtown and commute from there? That is a more logical and reasonable solution that developing outward instead of upward? I ask these questions honestly and with no sarcasm or "feather ruffling" intended. I am jus trying to get a read on the issue.

I live in Cranston as well (and love it), but what I think most people are talking about is building neighborhoods like Seton. Check out the plans here: http://www.setonurbandistrict.com/se...rict/index.php

After doing some research based on the posts here, I think the primary goal of adding density is to reduce our reliance on driving and the associated space it takes up. Freeways, parking lots, right-of-ways, etc. take up a ton of space. I am not convinced it is possible to build an entire city like this, but I think we can all agree that we can do a better job at it.

[mykalberta]

For the City, its far more expensive to support you in Cranston than if you lived say North of Anderson Road (it always has been with every suburb - the only difference is with this Mayor there is a discussion ongoing on how to better fund the suburbs so they are affordable). Currently the low home prices are being subsidized by other parts of the city to pay for things that the suburb will ultimately demand/want/need. Unless you say that in 15 years you wont be asking for a local rec centre, library, police station, fire station etc.

So promoting a more dense community saves the City money (which in case you havent heard is pretty much broke (most cities are) as it has only 1 taxation method and the province wont allow it any others (gas, food service, hotel tax etc. And with a 4 Billion deficit I doubt we will be getting much in terms of spending down here from the Province other than what is already announced.

I have been wondering this for a while, if the City were to crunch the numbers, in the long run would it be in its best financial interest to allow no more suburban building unless it meets a certain density requirement and just tell everyone that if they dont like it move to Okotoks etc?

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by First Lady

It's still equates to an increase in taxes. And there was a very recent poll that showed clearly (72%) Albertans don't support the notion.

WHOA WHOA WHOA

Stop the presses!

Someone did a poll asking people if they wanted higher taxes, and they said no?!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

For the City, its far more expensive to support you in Cranston than if you lived say North of Anderson Road (it always has been with every suburb - the only difference is with this Mayor there is a discussion ongoing on how to better fund the suburbs so they are affordable). Currently the low home prices are being subsidized by other parts of the city to pay for things that the suburb will ultimately demand/want/need. Unless you say that in 15 years you wont be asking for a local rec centre, library, police station, fire station etc.

So promoting a more dense community saves the City money (which in case you havent heard is pretty much broke (most cities are) as it has only 1 taxation method and the province wont allow it any others (gas, food service, hotel tax etc. And with a 4 Billion deficit I doubt we will be getting much in terms of spending down here from the Province other than what is already announced.

I have been wondering this for a while, if the City were to crunch the numbers, in the long run would it be in its best financial interest to allow no more suburban building unless it meets a certain density requirement and just tell everyone that if they dont like it move to Okotoks etc?

Which would be even worse for the city.....as then you lose all tax collection from them and they are still using the city's infrastructure.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Which would be even worse for the city.....as then you lose all tax collection from them and they are still using the city's infrastructure.

Collect tolls from those dirty parasitic communities. Or just build a wall around them.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Which would be even worse for the city.....as then you lose all tax collection from them and they are still using the city's infrastructure.

Or . . . They'll say "#### Cranston, I'll just go live in Okotoks!"

I call it the vacuum cleaner effect

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Which would be even worse for the city.....as then you lose all tax collection from them and they are still using the city's infrastructure.

Which is exactly what is going to happen if the City of Calgary makes it more difficult and expensive to build in the suburbs.

Very fine line the City is walking with this.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by rohara66

Which is exactly what is going to happen if the City of Calgary makes it more difficult and expensive to build in the suburbs. Very fine line the City is walking with this.

Really? Mckenzie Towne is down at the ass end of nowhere, and people are going to say, "well, might as well commute from just about twice as far away!"

[valo403]

Originally Posted by psicodude

So here is my issue with that video specifically, but densification in more general terms; there is an obvious correlation between density and living costs. The video uses NYC and San Francisco as examples, but those are rated as the 1st and 3rd most expensive cities in the U.S. to live in. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/expen...y?id=17118717#) I am by no means suggesting that Calgary will become anywhere near as expensive as those great cities, but there are some tough questions still unanswered that are making many people uneasy.

I guess my main concerns are that these other, quite dense cities are significantly more expensive to live in and have much, much better public transportation. Prices in this city are already crazy (and transit isn't great) so isn't it a legitimate concern that densification could push prices to an unsustainable level and result in massive damage to the economy?

Honestly, Calgary isn't that far behind IMO.

Rents in NYC are obviously higher, but I just did a quick search online and I'm not getting much different amenities in Calgary for $2000/month as I would in NYC for $3000 (1 BR in the core). A big jump sure, but things aren't as vastly different as they are sometimes made out to be (this was literally a 2 minute search, but the point is that rent isn't super cheap in Calgary).

My living expenses are lower than they would be in Calgary outside of rent. I have no need for a car, and the subway can get me pretty much anywhere with ease and do it cheaper than the C-Train. Food costs aren't low here, but overall they're still cheaper than Calgary for most things. Alcohol is MUCH cheaper, and most entertainment options are in the same price range.

[moon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Really? You think more than three-quarters of Calgarians are out-of-touch with Nenshi's politics and support him solely because they think it's cool that he's a minority? That comment places you among the likes of HOZ and Calgaryborn in the CP hall of shame for ignorant, stupid posts.

I think that a large majority of most NA's are out of touch with what is going on in municipal politics. Even those that get out and vote often don't really pay attention to the issues outside of maybe one or two that directly affect them.

If you asked 75% of Calgarians to have a meaningful conversation about municipal issues I think most would have a tough time with that other than just saying what they think should happen.

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Of course you deal with clueless people all day. Only moon understands the world and how it should be run or how it's being run.

LOL

Do you ever post anything that isn't a personal attack?

[troutman]

I was curious. Random population densities:

Montreal = 4,517.6/km2

Dublin = 4,588/km2

Santiago = 21,924.81/km2

Wellington = 890/km2

San Francisco = 6,632.9/km2

Vienna = 4,002.2/km2

Calgary = 1,329.0/km2

Denver = 1,561/km2

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by troutman

I was curious. Random population densities:

Montreal = 4,517.6/km2

Dublin = 4,588/km2

Santiago = 21,924.81/km2

Wellington = 890/km2

San Francisco = 6,632.9/km2

Vienna = 4,002.2/km2

Calgary = 1,329.0/km2

Denver = 1,561/km2

Keep in mind that Calgary's "footprint" has about 250km2 of land yet to be developed. Calgary maintains at least a 30 year unbuilt land supply. Most other cities on this list are central municipalities (the oldest parts of a metro city) long built out - i.e. downtown and surrounding older communities. Very apples to oranges comparison.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

DCU has quite a negative perspective in this column:

Link: Planning boss' provocative views insult Calgarians and undermine city council

DCU is a moron. Anyone who finds himself/herself agreeing with DCU should probably re-evaluate his/her positions.

Nenshi is asking Ungar to stick to facts. If he doesn't, he has to apologize. Seems fair to me. If it was an honest mistake, perhaps a retraction would be sufficient. For deliberate misrepresentation, an apology seems to be in order. The apology prevents Ungar from mispresenting facts when it suits him to a greater extent than a retraction would.

DCU doesn't understand the facts at all.

Originally Posted by Slava

At times I probably come across as being against densification (I'm not entirely). I just get tired of the holier than attitude of some of the people pressing for this, and specifically those who rent rather than own and are ideologues on this topic largely due to their current stage of life.

I also better note that I don't even mean that comment to specifically apply to CP as I've run into some of the people at various times and places. I should also note that I'm not makig the rent v. own distinction as a comment about whether people owning should mean they have greater say either; its just that renting a 500 sq. foot apartment in the beltline and saying "we can densify" as compared to someone who actually owns and pays taxes is a night and day scenario IMO.

An inner city renter (particularly if renting an apartment - which must be profitable, and not a condo) is paying more than his fair share of taxes (through rent), whereas someone who owns in the burbs is being subsidized. (Now please print an apology before you may return to this conversation )

Originally Posted by Titan

I did a search and if I sold my house, I could only afford a townhome in Lakeview.

A pro-densification agenda would decrease the cost spread between Lakeview and McKenzie, thus reducing the economic penalty you'd incur from living in a location where neither of you would have to commute (and thus you'd be putting less stress on the city's infrastructure, costing the city less in the long run).

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Wait till you see what Nenshi does with taxes too.

You have to realize that taxes today reflect on the development policies of previous mayors. If we screw it up today, there will be long-term costs (e.g. snow removal, road maintenance, circuitous bus routes), just as we are paying today for the mistakes of the past. Long-term, Nenshi's policies should reduce overall tax rates, but it will take several years for the changes to make their way through the system and outweigh the momentum we have going against us. It's like the ozone hole - we've stopped using CFCs, but ozone won't reach 1980 levels until about 2060. You probably won't have to wait 50 years for taxes to go down, but it's the same principle.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

You build wherever the demand is otherwise your just increasing values of existing homes. Economics 101.

Not too long ago the market wanted to extend themselves with mortgages they couldn't possibly understand, never mind payback. The market also wanted to buy and sell mortgage backed securities at values that were miles away from recognizing the actual risk.

The market self implodes if left on its own. That is what Calgary development has done over the last few decades, and now we have a mess of a layout with absolutely massive property taxes increases hardwired for a long time.