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

[Titan]

So how do you calculate fair share?

To use an example Westhills rec facility. How do you calculate who owes what? How do you account for the fact that the municipal government just pays for certain things as they are necessary in a modern vibrant city?

I live in the SE and occasionally drive to Westhills to use that facility. At what point does an area "deserve" a particular facility? Should we put the next rec facility in Sunnyside just because they have the highest property taxes or have been around the longest? That doesn't make much sense to me. With all of the development in the south, and more coming thanks to the hospital (like it or not it is true and happening) should the area not get some of the amenities the rest of the city enjoys? I did move here knowing there were'nt these facilities but at what point does the city bring those services to where the people actually are?

I was around the City when they went to Market Value Assessment and I have not heard any reasons to support the argument that this is not the fairest way to go. If my taxes went up because my house appreciated 20% I think I could live with that.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Addick

They also chose to become Calgarians and the fact is Calgary needs to increase its density. As such, all Calgarians will have to take their fair share. It's what functional communities do.

You really think you can get 1 MIL + people on the same page of living in a high density situation? Or are you suggesting it should be legislated?

[Addick]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You really think you can get 1 MIL + people on the same page of living in a high density situation? Or are you suggesting it should be legislated?

First off, I never said high density. Secondly, I am simply stating that people will have to accept the fact that they live in a city and densification will take place in some shape or form in their community. For some it will mean mid/high-rises in their backyards and for others rowhouses on the collector street in their neighbourhood.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Addick

First off, I never said high density. Secondly, I am simply stating that people will have to accept the fact that they live in a city and densification will take place in some shape or form in their community. For some it will mean mid/high-rises in their backyards and for others rowhouses on the collector street in their neighbourhood.

Unless they choose to live in a single family home community; which many do.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by fotze

Cranston get $500MM in roads, Sunnyside gets a chinese finger trap. Its settled.

Market value is the system because its the easiest, not sure about 'fairest'. Its like income tax, based on an assumption of the ability to pay.

People like me whine because they want it to be based on what you cost the city, which really is impossible to quantify. The thought is the further you are from your employer, the mroe you cost the city which may not be true in a lot of cases).

Ideally, but not practically, taxes are reduced to a minimum to cover operating costs and overhead/fire/police, every other service is fee based and is funded 100% through fees. Road are funded through a tax based on your odometer or gas tax, Calgary transit is funded 100% on fares. Utilities are covered on a usage basis. Planning/land use paid 100% through permitting/fees.

This is never going to happen though so not sure why I moan about it.

It can also be a giant c$%k trap if you prefer to look at it that way...which I do.

The argument of what you cost the City is a bit of a red herring I think. All the services you have were put there at some point and cost money. Should you pay retroactively? Should every new resident to an area pay a fee to account for all of the services that are already existing? And the fee is adjusted to account for the time value of money? Then new communities pay as stuff is added? Obviously this makes no sense.

Again, Cranston did not get $500mm in roads. The City and the Province and the country developed an interprovincial and international transportation system that Cranston is utilizing. Should we have a dirt road at the city limits in all directions? Obviously not again. A valid counter argument is you have a wonderful transportation corridor from Airdrie to High River (or at least Okotoks) and in order to make that roadway most effficient we should be adding developments all the way along it.

On a fee per use system so many things would either not get built or it would cost $20 for a transit ticket per ride (at least). Who would pay for a fire department or police until they need them? User fee on those as well? I am sure the pure capitalist economists would think this is the best route but as a society we all need things that we don't necessarily want to pay for directly. We can all agree we need an educated workforce but the lifelong childless guy gets his panties in a knot paying for school because "I don't have any kids" but he does get the benefit of an educated work force.

As a 1% CPer I am looking at my taxes that I have paid to the Province and the Feds. It is a crapton. Do I hate that? Yes. Do I think it is generally going to a good cause. Well, mostly. So I can justify paying it. I think if we were to prepare a list of the services and infrastructure paid for by the three levels of government it would be astounding. That Cranston gets to drive on new roads is offset by your ability to walk along the river and be in awe by an internationally renowned c&^k trap.

I think it generally balances out.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Unless they choose to live in a single family home community; which many do.

Once again, their SFH community is located in a large city that has various needs. The City needs to add density here and there and this need is becoming greater than the need to preserve the perceived community character.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Titan

So how do you calculate fair share?

To use an example Westhills rec facility. How do you calculate who owes what? How do you account for the fact that the municipal government just pays for certain things as they are necessary in a modern vibrant city?

I live in the SE and occasionally drive to Westhills to use that facility. At what point does an area "deserve" a particular facility? Should we put the next rec facility in Sunnyside just because they have the highest property taxes or have been around the longest? That doesn't make much sense to me. With all of the development in the south, and more coming thanks to the hospital (like it or not it is true and happening) should the area not get some of the amenities the rest of the city enjoys? I did move here knowing there were'nt these facilities but at what point does the city bring those services to where the people actually are?

I was around the City when they went to Market Value Assessment and I have not heard any reasons to support the argument that this is not the fairest way to go. If my taxes went up because my house appreciated 20% I think I could live with that.

I don't think that fair share is a useful way of looking at amenities, for the reasons you cite. For the record, I don't think that people in Sunnyside want a new rec centre built here (I certainly don't), because the additional traffic, parking, etc. that it would be impossible for the community to manage (not to mention the fact that there simply isn't the space to build).
At the same time, in the suburbs, there is this massive, expensive road network that's only being used to full capacity for a couple hours a day, and it makes sense for the city to ask people who live in the suburbs to use that road network to its full capabilities to reach amenities, up to the point that the capacity of the amenities is reached. You (not literally you, I don't want to put words in your mouth) can't very well ask the city to build the best road networks it can afford in order to get you to your job, but then say that you don't want to use the road networks to reach amenities. It makes sense for amenities in the suburbs to be much larger, further apart, and located with road access as the primary concern, rather than proximity to population.

As to your specific example, I would imagine that most of the population that emerges in the deep south around the new hospital would be expected to use the Fish Creek Leisure Centre. For anyone living close to Marquis of Lorne, or Deerfoot Trail, or MacLeod south of, say Anderson, it should be reasonably fast to access during non peak hours. I can't imagine they'd build a new rec centre in the south until the capacity of this one is reached. I'm curious to know what part of the SE you live in that Westhills is faster to reach. Would I be right to guess that you're probably north of Anderson road?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Titan

How long have you been waiting to pull the trigger on the obscure little area of the law that you are knowledgable in to be able to sound smart on a hockey message board? I am still waiting for someone to ask about the details of regulatory compliance of a Portfolio Manager and/or Investment Fund Manager. But boy, will I sound smart!!!

(This is not a jab just in case it is taken that way. More of a comment on the sometimes obscure lives lawyers lead.)

Awesome. So what you're saying is, if I get bored with oil and gas, if I pick "starting a hedge fund" as career two I should call you, and if its going to be "real estate developer" it should be onetwo_threefour?

Is there much demand for that in Calgary? The only fund manager here that comes to mind is Mawer.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Titan

I was around the City when they went to Market Value Assessment and I have not heard any reasons to support the argument that this is not the fairest way to go.

Then you haven't been listening. Plain and simple. However, the argument at its core is the market value assessment distorts the market, thus creating a deadweight loss which is a net loss to society as a whole.

Originally Posted by Titan

That Cranston gets to drive on new roads is offset by your ability to walk along the river and be in awe by an internationally renowned c&^k trap.

I think it generally balances out.

"I think it balances out" is one of the biggest BS lines in this debate. Unless you've done the math, simply having having things in column A and things in column B does not mean they are balanced. The people who have done the math know that they aren't. The suburbs are subsidzed. Economically, it does not balance out. That is a fact.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Awesome. So what you're saying is, if I get bored with oil and gas, if I pick "starting a hedge fund" as career two I should call you, and if its going to be "real estate developer" it should be onetwo_threefour?

Is there much demand for that in Calgary? The only fund manager here that comes to mind is Mawer.

There are a bunch of small capital companies here though. Lots of small capital corps, and even a few other managers (QV, Hesperian, etc.)

[Titan]

Originally Posted by SebC

Then you haven't been listening. Plain and simple. However, the argument at its core is the market value assessment distorts the market, thus creating a deadweight loss which is a net loss to society as a whole.

"I think it balances out" is one of the biggest BS lines in this debate. Unless you've done the math, simply having having things in column A and things in column B does not mean they are balanced. The people who have done the math know that they aren't. The suburbs are subsidzed. Economically, it does not balance out. That is a fact.

Interesting.

I don't understand what a deadweight loss to society is exactly.

Clearly, you are an expert in this field. I was just trying to get an understanding for the issues at play. It must balance out somehow on some metric because it is the system we have and the system that seems to be continuing. I am not arguing that is proper, I am not an expert, but clearly the math and the arguments have not been sufficient to sway the majority of the populace. I was trying to get a sense of what the actual arguments are but they have been few and far between. Simply stating sprawl is bad so it should stop is not an argument. Instead of providing some arguments which could sway me, or at least enlighten me, you respond like a dick.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I don't think that fair share is a useful way of looking at amenities, for the reasons you cite. For the record, I don't think that people in Sunnyside want a new rec centre built here (I certainly don't), because the additional traffic, parking, etc. that it would be impossible for the community to manage (not to mention the fact that there simply isn't the space to build).
At the same time, in the suburbs, there is this massive, expensive road network that's only being used to full capacity for a couple hours a day, and it makes sense for the city to ask people who live in the suburbs to use that road network to its full capabilities to reach amenities, up to the point that the capacity of the amenities is reached. You (not literally you, I don't want to put words in your mouth) can't very well ask the city to build the best road networks it can afford in order to get you to your job, but then say that you don't want to use the road networks to reach amenities. It makes sense for amenities in the suburbs to be much larger, further apart, and located with road access as the primary concern, rather than proximity to population.

As to your specific example, I would imagine that most of the population that emerges in the deep south around the new hospital would be expected to use the Fish Creek Leisure Centre. For anyone living close to Marquis of Lorne, or Deerfoot Trail, or MacLeod south of, say Anderson, it should be reasonably fast to access during non peak hours. I can't imagine they'd build a new rec centre in the south until the capacity of this one is reached. I'm curious to know what part of the SE you live in that Westhills is faster to reach. Would I be right to guess that you're probably north of Anderson road?

An interesting point. We do use Westhills but also Southland and very rarely Trico. I don't find SFC to be a great pool to take the kids to. We have lived here 10 years without "missing" a rec centre. We do drive to one when we want to go to one.

I do think though that the arguments against sprawl don't take into account the fact the roads are not there just so Joe Cranston can get downtown. They are a critical link in our entire economy. That should be part of the equation as well when considering who owes who what.

The Deerfoot extenstion to Highway 2 and all of the overpasses were built, at least in part, to meet our obligations for NAFTA (I believe, could be another treaty) to allow uninterrupted roadways from Mexico to Canada. Once that road is built does it not make sense to utilize it by building communities along it?

The other thought is a decentralized downtown. I forget the actual name for it but having work centres closer to where people live. That would seem to be against the anti-sprawl crowd but it would be beneficial to a lot of people and reduce a lot of commuting time.

I just don't see the magic of the downtown as a work destination. This is becoming more clear as I spend less time down there.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by fotze

Cranston get $500MM in roads, Sunnyside gets a chinese finger trap. Its settled.

Market value is the system because its the easiest, not sure about 'fairest'. Its like income tax, based on an assumption of the ability to pay.

People like me whine because they want it to be based on what you cost the city, which really is impossible to quantify. The thought is the further you are from your employer, the mroe you cost the city which may not be true in a lot of cases).

Ideally, but not practically, taxes are reduced to a minimum to cover operating costs and overhead/fire/police, every other service is fee based and is funded 100% through fees. Road are funded through a tax based on your odometer or gas tax, Calgary transit is funded 100% on fares. Utilities are covered on a usage basis. Planning/land use paid 100% through permitting/fees.

This is never going to happen though so not sure why I moan about it.

But the problem with this is that a persons contribution to sprawl has nothing to do with where they live. A persons contribution to sprawl is based on how much land they occupy. So I live on a 35x100 lot in the burbs. So a person living on an unsubdivided 50x150 lot in sunnyside or anywhere else is a greater contributer to sprawl then myself. Where you live is a measure of your ability to pay for the size of lot and house you want and not a measure of contribution to sprawl. A person in a Condo in the burbs should not have to pay for the extra roads required because a person in Sunnyside refuses to subdivide their lot, opposes legal basement suites, opposes condo construction and re-zoning and generally is opposed to there sprawling inner city commutity being densified.

If we are going to tax people based on how much they cost the city it needs to be based on lot size and not location otherwise it is just a regressive tax on lower incomes.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Titan

Interesting.

I don't understand what a deadweight loss to society is exactly.

Clearly, you are an expert in this field. I was just trying to get an understanding for the issues at play. It must balance out somehow on some metric because it is the system we have and the system that seems to be continuing. I am not arguing that is proper, I am not an expert, but clearly the math and the arguments have not been sufficient to sway the majority of the populace. I was trying to get a sense of what the actual arguments are but they have been few and far between. Simply stating sprawl is bad so it should stop is not an argument. Instead of providing some arguments which could sway me, or at least enlighten me, you respond like a dick.

The way I see it, the arguments have been made. Over and over again. In this thread, I'd say posts 72, 77, 147, 163, 170, 191, 200, 232, 243, 252, 262, 264, and 306 all contain arguments for greater density. Arguing for greater density is essentially equivalent to arguing against market value assessment, because market value assessment combined with the city's expenditure patters creates a net subsidy for low-density suburbs. So when you say that you haven't heard any such arguments, to me that merits a strong rebuke.

Having said that, if you actually want to learn about this stuff (an impression which you did not give), I'm happy to help.

A deadweight loss is a concept that requires a crash course in economics to explain, but the basic idea is an efficient market creates an optimal amount of something. Economic interference pushes the market away from optimal. At market equilibrium (optimal) the total of consumer surplus (roughly, the enjoyment consumers get from the something above the cost to consumers) and producer surplus (roughly, the benefit that producers get from producing the something above production costs - typically this means profit) is maximized. You push the market away from equilibrium (by making high density areas subsidize low density areas, for example) and that total decreases. The amount by which it decreases is the deadweight loss. (If that explanation was insufficient for you, I recommend Wikipedia! )

For what it's worth, I'm not an expert. I say this not to discredit myself, but to make the point that you don't need to be an expert to learn this stuff. I do, however, have a fair bit of knowledge of economics, which is what this is about for me. Subsidies (and other market interferences) produce net losses to society (unless the interference is to account for a cost or benefit to society). Always. They might benefit certain segments of the population, but the losses to other segments are always greater than those benefits. Once you understand that, you've not only got the explanation for why we shouldn't subsidize sprawl, but also for why we shouldn't have supply managment on taxis to the point where licenses go for $100,000+ on the black market or for why we shouldn't have dairy and poultry quotas.

Originally Posted by GGG

If we are going to tax people based on how much they cost the city it needs to be based on lot size and not location otherwise it is just a regressive tax on lower incomes.

Location is a factor though, for example with vehicle-miles travelled. Lot size can be a factor too. My ideal tax structure would have a location factor, lot size factor, and a wealth factor (progressive).

[Titan]

Thanks. I appreciate that response. It must have taken an hour to do. I went through the posts you referenced again and I think I have a better understanding of the arguments for density. My comment would be that so much of the pro-density points are just that, "Density is good, sprawl is bad. So there." I see, or at least understand, fewer arguments about how to "make it so" in Calgary. One of the posts you referenced seemed to be on the right track with the encouragement to in fill inner city neighborhoods. Also, more creative "single family" residences would perhaps make me consider something other than my house in the burbs.

It would seem that from the examples of other cities given that McKenzie Towne is actually an attempt to become more dense. On my street there are several townhomes 2, 4 or 5 story condos, two old folks multistory condos, a sobeys, a business district and lots of single family homes. I can walk to my bank, groceries, restaurants, a gym, dentist, doctor, chiro, optomotrist, barber etc. This seems to be a good start is it not? If not, why not?

There are still a couple things that are unclear to me. What is "inner city" What is the definition you use? Why is "downtown" the ultimate goal? Is it? It would seem that mixed use areas like Quarry park could meet a lot of the same goals and reduce the traffic on Deerfoot. Am I off base on this?

Finally, I am unclear on the inputs that go into the economic subsidy argument.
I don't think it is as simple as a house in Sunnyside pays 20% highe taxes than I do so they say they are subsidizing me. I'm not sure that is what they are saying but obviously it is far too simplistic. Also, the comment I have made a few times about the roadway being an essential part of our economic system and not solely for commuters seems to have not been addressed. The fact that the province pays to maintain the Deerfoot would seem to argue that the cost of the Deerfoot should be taken out of the equation. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks again for the response.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Titan

Thanks. I appreciate that response. It must have taken an hour to do. I went through the posts you referenced again and I think I have a better understanding of the arguments for density. My comment would be that so much of the pro-density points are just that, "Density is good, sprawl is bad. So there." I see, or at least understand, fewer arguments about how to "make it so" in Calgary. One of the posts you referenced seemed to be on the right track with the encouragement to in fill inner city neighborhoods. Also, more creative "single family" residences would perhaps make me consider something other than my house in the burbs.

It would seem that from the examples of other cities given that McKenzie Towne is actually an attempt to become more dense. On my street there are several townhomes 2, 4 or 5 story condos, two old folks multistory condos, a sobeys, a business district and lots of single family homes. I can walk to my bank, groceries, restaurants, a gym, dentist, doctor, chiro, optomotrist, barber etc. This seems to be a good start is it not? If not, why not?

There are still a couple things that are unclear to me. What is "inner city" What is the definition you use? Why is "downtown" the ultimate goal? Is it? It would seem that mixed use areas like Quarry park could meet a lot of the same goals and reduce the traffic on Deerfoot. Am I off base on this?

Finally, I am unclear on the inputs that go into the economic subsidy argument.
I don't think it is as simple as a house in Sunnyside pays 20% highe taxes than I do so they say they are subsidizing me. I'm not sure that is what they are saying but obviously it is far too simplistic. Also, the comment I have made a few times about the roadway being an essential part of our economic system and not solely for commuters seems to have not been addressed. The fact that the province pays to maintain the Deerfoot would seem to argue that the cost of the Deerfoot should be taken out of the equation. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks again for the response.

For me, the "how" to make Calgary denser is to change how the city collects taxes so that the low density areas are paying their way. Once they are doing so, I don't care if people choose high or low density.

The East Village is being paid for a with a Community Revitalization Levy - essentially, the city has projected the increased tax revenue the infrastructure upgrades in the area will bring and borrowed against that tax revenue to build the infrastructure. The result is it doesn't cost other taxpayers anything.

I'd like for Cranston to be funded the same way, but the reality is that it can't - not without tax rates going up. We could say that perhaps then it shouldn't be built at all, but I don't like that. Instead, I'd suggest that taxes in the area should be raised so that it can pay for itself. But, taxes don't need to go up for the areas that can pay for themselves at current rates (i.e. East Village), hence I'm advocating for a tax structure that is not solely based on market value.

You are absolutely correct that the design of the low-density areas is important. For efficient transit delivery, you need straight collectors and direct pedestrian routes to those collectors. For a given density, there a better and worse layouts (yet density is still a very important factor). The problem with McKenzie Towne is that while it may have a good local structure, it's very existence has created demand for the SE LRT. It has not and will not generate enough property tax for the city to pay for the SE LRT. Contrast that with the North Central line - many people see it as less of a necessity despite the fact that it would serve a higher population. This is because bus service is more efficient in the North Central area - it is closer to downtown, and the buses get to run in a (mostly) straight line.

Now, yes, the LRT is paid for by the province. But if we to allocate funding for the SE LRT, chances are it will be because we've chosen it over the NC LRT (which is more "paid for" than the SE LRT) and the downtown subway. That's actually one of the reasons I'm not a fan of the ring road - I think those funds would've been much better used for LRT. (There were political impediments to efficient use of the money, but that's a bit of an aside.) Point is, even provincially-funded infrastructure comes at a cost to other areas of the city.

Developments like Quarry Park are, in my opinion, not as good as downtown development. They are, however, the next best thing. As for a precise line between inner city and suburbs, I don't have one. I also don't know precisely where the line between subsidized and subsidizing is, but as far as the inputs go, essentially it works out like this: if the developer fees plus property taxes are insufficient to cover to delivery costs of services the house/area receives, it is being subsidized. If the taxes/fees cover the cost of services received, it is generating a surplus that is being used to pay for subsidies in other areas (as the city runs a balanced budget overall). You can pretty much assume that any development of new communities at the periphery of the city is going to be subsidized. After that, low density, peripheral communities that are recently built are the next most likely to fall on subsidized side of the line.

[Titan]

Out of thanks from the Fire Feaster thread but thanks.

[SebC]

I posted an article in the Calgary Public Transit thread that is relevant to my previous post here, but going forward that thread would be a more appropriate place for the discussion to continue, IMHO.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by SebC

I posted an article in the Calgary Public Transit thread that is relevant to my previous post here, but going forward that thread would be a more appropriate place for the discussion to continue, IMHO.

naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[frinkprof]

“Everyone must do better” — joint statement by Nenshi and home builders

March 6, 2013. 12:59 pm • Section: Hall Monitor


This was released Wednesday afternoon, following city council’s ratification of the text.

March 6, 2013

The Canadian Homebuilders’ Association – Calgary Region (the “CHBA-CR”) and the Mayor met last week to discuss the issues that arose from the CHBA-CR dinner in January. The purpose of this joint statement is to clarify the facts and set out the commitments of both parties going forward.


[...]


Going forward.

The City commits to developing new terms of reference outlining how stakeholders can work better on committees. The CHBA-CR commits to sharing accurate information it has garnered from its participation on these committees with its members.


Based on the commitments made by the parties in this joint statement, The Mayor and the CHBA-CR have agreed that the CHBA-CR can continue its role on City committees effective immediately.


[signed]


Naheed K. Nenshi


Mayor, The City of Calgary


[signed]


Charron Ungar


President, Canadian Home Builders Association, Calgary Region

Link to the rest of the article