Global reveals developer’s plan to control CGY city council

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You've got to stop saying "subsidizing". Nobody is subsidizing new communities. $300M came to the City budget from developers in 2012 in various fees, levies and transfers; check the numbers published in Herald yesterday. Infrastructure is owned by the City once it's built. We are fortunate that people want to live here. There are so many cities where nobody wants to move to and nobody wants to develop anything. Those cities actually paying all of their development costs themselves (100% taxpayer-funded), just to get something going.

I think we've found Mr. Wenzel's CP account...

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

^^ Acreage assessments cover about 50% of the total "off-site" infrastructure costs to support new growth. This was a well established fact in the Standard Development Agreement.

For now. It will change again. But, why is this fair? Off-site infrastructure is normally oversized and installed with consideration for future. What is the right ratio of cost-sharing? Why not 20-80 or 35-65? This goes to the argument of who benefits from the growth? Yeah, we can keep saying "those greedy #######s" get all the benefits, but that's quite shallow, don't you think?

[Senator Clay Davis]

I was just gonna say any guesses at to which developer CaptainYooh works for/is invested in?

[CaptainYooh]

LOL. Whatever, dude. I don't give ... about Cal Wenzel, Jay Westman and their jets. This was more of a theoretical point I strongly disagree with. Keep at it.

[V]

You're running contrary to the only obvious rational opinion, so your perception must be clouded by some ulterior motive that we can make up for you.I don't really need green text, do I?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by V

You're running contrary to the only obvious rational opinion, so your perception must be clouded by some ulterior motive that we can make up for you.I don't really need green text, do I?

No kidding.

Some people are crazy medieval religious about this, which doesn't really help.

I think this is a huge issue for the city (as in the people) and our future. And neither the City (mayor and his circle) nor the developers really want to talk about it.

Developers want to go back to the days when they ruled. Maybe the mayor figures he slew the king so now he is the king.

No one really knows what the impact will be in 25 years after the city makes meaningful change to costs and choices. But lord help anyone on CP who dares wonder if people will actually like it.

I wish the debate were much more about what we are running to, rather than what we are running from.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Wow, a lot of rhetoric. Portland is high up in municipal debt, at $5,200 per capita. Calgary debt is at half that amount. Assuming 2.5 to 3 people per average household, this translates to $12,500 - $15,000 municipal debt per household for Portland. Most of this debt has been incurred doing ambitious urban renewal projects that were not supported by corresponding population growth. Instead, they went the tax hike route and reduction in general service level (which is where Calgary is headed now). Plus, they have stopped outside growth through a political decision, thus inflating inner city real estate prices artificially and forcing out those who couldn't afford a home to the bedroom communities (which is where Calgary is headed now as well). If that is "trendsetting and resounding success" for you, then we have different understanding of success.

Portland's saving grace is its attractive location and climate. Calgary does not have those luxuries.

Houston the poster child for sprawl has a municipal debt of about $6200 per capita.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You've got to stop saying "subsidizing". Nobody is subsidizing new communities. $300M came to the City budget from developers in 2012 in various fees, levies and transfers; check the numbers published in Herald yesterday. Infrastructure is owned by the City once it's built. We are fortunate that people want to live here. There are so many cities where nobody wants to move to and nobody wants to develop anything. Those cities actually paying all of their development costs themselves (100% taxpayer-funded), just to get something going.

Still waiting for you to back up your earlier claim.

See, this is where you are so wrong. There will be less options in Calgary. New homebuyers, especially young families, will be choosing between a studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom, if they wish to remain in the City. Affordable new single-family homes will only be available outside at some point.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You've got to stop saying "subsidizing". Nobody is subsidizing new communities.

Subsidizing is correct, so there is no reason to stop.

If a developer were to build a new community, complete with a water, sewage, roads etc., without the city's assistance, then the prices of the houses in that community would go up vs. what they are today. The city is providing things at less than cost, and that's a subsidy.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

Subsidizing is correct, so there is no reason to stop.

If a developer were to build a new community, complete with a water, sewage, roads etc., without the city's assistance, then the prices of the houses in that community would go up vs. what they are today. The city is providing things at less than cost, and that's a subsidy.

According to the chart at the bottom of this page:

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Pages/...anagement.aspx

Developers build the following:

Local streets, sidewalks, streetlights, local water mains, local sewer pipes, parks, playgrounds, pathways, walkways, playfields, open space, resident association facilities.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

^^ Acreage assessments cover about 50% of the total "off-site" infrastructure costs to support new growth. This was a well established fact in the Standard Development Agreement.

For inner city development what % of infastructure costs do developers pay? Increasing density still has the associated capital costs with water treatment, roads,etc. it is less than adding a new house in the suburbs but still exists.

So in terms of costs what do inner city developers pay?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by GGG

For inner city development what % of infastructure costs do developers pay? Increasing density still has the associated capital costs with water treatment, roads,etc. it is less than adding a new house in the suburbs but still exists.

So in terms of costs what do inner city developers pay?

Keep in mind there is are different viewpoints on this than the mayors.

http://www.votecalgary.ca/vote-calga...ts-the-answer/

I some cases there really ought to be further conversation about how much things cost and who pays what.

In some cases 'costs' are trumped up because telling people you want to dictate how and where they live can be touchy.

[Tinordi]

Calgary Herald editorial board lays an egg:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...264/story.html

Amazing

The Canadian dream still very much consists of owning your own plot of land, your own walls and a backyard. There isn’t much point in home builders being forced to build housing that people don’t want to buy.

The Canadian dream? Laugh, we're down the bottom of the rhetoric barrel.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by GGG

For inner city development what % of infastructure costs do developers pay? Increasing density still has the associated capital costs with water treatment, roads,etc. it is less than adding a new house in the suburbs but still exists.

So in terms of costs what do inner city developers pay?

You pay for all infrastructure upgrades, using city certified contractors, which often result in costs about 2 times what they should be. In my case we had to give up a corner of our lot to the city so they could drive their waste and recycling trucks. Basically, if the city needs anything from your lot to be changed/upgraded, you pay for it.

Then there are all the various fees for application (obviously not on par with the fees that developers pay for new communities).

[Tinordi]

I'm too lazy to do some detailed link scavenging but there's a burgeoning field of research that young Canadians, millenials etc. are rapidly receding from the single family home in the burbs Canadian Dream. Morever, Richard Florida's most recent research is showing huge increases in the amount of people renting over the past 5 years in the U.S. especially in urban areas in the core.

What the Herald misses is that they're advocating for just as much "social engineering" as smart growth folks. The reason we have this suburban built form is because of government decision making, it's about as "organic" as a national park.

The real danger that people like CaptainYooh and the Herald miss is that the city is putting all of its eggs into a basket that the future generation will not want. Then Calgary becomes an undesirable place to live. This isn't about putting some stamp down on how you think things out to be because both sides are doing that. It's about being pragmatic and having foresight to understand that sustainably built cities are in everyone's best interest.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Calgary Herald editorial board lays an egg:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...264/story.html

Amazing



The Canadian dream? Laugh, we're down the bottom of the rhetoric barrel.

It's a valid point to say that sizable amounts of people still want their own four walls and a backyard. I think where the editorial goes off the rails is making the assumption that single family homes should be the default housing choice. Increasingly our population base is no longer nuclear families and as such there's an element of housing mix demand change to this story as well.

[Tinordi]

That's my point above as well Cowboy. To me that editorial just speaks to how in the pocket local newspapers are to developers. instead of sticking up for "the City" and saying that the elected representatives by virtue of being elected seem to have a pretty good handle on whats' best for the future of the city and what Calgarians want. Instead they've said that these developers are the ones that are mroe tuned in, which beggars belief.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

That's my point above as well Cowboy. To me that editorial just speaks to how in the pocket local newspapers are to developers. instead of sticking up for "the City" and saying that the elected representatives by virtue of being elected seem to have a pretty good handle on whats' best for the future of the city and what Calgarians want. Instead they've said that these developers are the ones that are mroe tuned in, which beggars belief.

I must have been slow on the draw, because I was still posting when you made the added post about evidence of demand change too.

[Tinordi]

And it's important to distinguish here, the Herald purposefully misrepresents the issue. This isn't about some hipsters and academics condemning suburbs as sprawl. Not everyone is saying to stop building suburbs and not all suburbs are contributing to sprawl. The problem burbs are car dependent, isolated, low-density neighbourhoods that promote inefficient deliver of services, automobile dependency. and lack connectedness to the urban fabric. But it's entirely possible to build suburbs that address those issues. From my take, that's what Nenshi and co. are trying to do. They're trying to build in a multiple account analysis from various socially optimal outcomes, not jsut the bottom line of developers for new housing developments. The salad days for the development industry are over, they need to recognize that and it has nothing to do with the individual personalities on council. They're trying to roll the clock back in time. The world, North America is wising up and moving onto new modes of development. They can either engage or they can continue to try to stop the tide from coming in.

People like myself don't want to limit peoples' choices for the housing types that they want by some fiat of city council. What we want to do is get the pricing right so that you pay of the full cost of the type of housing you want, that you have a legitimate choice of housing options of all types, and that the built form of the city starts to resemble one of interconnectedness and sustainability.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

...
The real danger that people like CaptainYooh and the Herald miss is that the city is putting all of its eggs into a basket that the future generation will not want. Then Calgary becomes an undesirable place to live. This isn't about putting some stamp down on how you think things out to be because both sides are doing that. It's about being pragmatic and having foresight to understand that sustainably built cities are in everyone's best interest.

Tinordi, I don't. I am very worried of having nothing but ugly looking barrack-style new single-family communities popping-up everywhere like we see in some US cities. But I also worry about another extreme and argue for the reasonable compromise.

Nobody knows for sure what is the BEST way to develop cities. There is none, because the variables defining any specific city growth constantly change. The proof is in the absence of perfectly built cities worldwide (name one, if you can). There are advantages and disadvantages in densely populated cities and vice versa. We can only discuss potential consequences of various political and planning decisions in light of what we know today. Today's editorial in Herald says it well: "don't take sides, stop fighting, work together."

On a more general note to some of the posters here: this is an off-topic thread in a hockey forum. No need to turn aggressively venomous and accusatory. This is a good topic for a debate, many polar opinions. But a debate is about being genuinely interested in hearing other people's arguments while arguing your own point of view, not shutting them down. Let's be more respectful to each other.