Gord Lowe explains why Calgary property taxes are going up

[SebC]

Since 2003, when Lowe served as chairman of the city’s finance committee or on its priorities and finance panel, the city’s portion of the tax burden has gone from a median of $835 per household to $1,557.

In this, his final term on council, that number’s risen by $243.

[...]

The veteran Ward 2 alderman is asked where the city’s cash harvest fuelled by consistent tax hikes has gone.

“It’s gone into providing the same or in some cases a lesser level of service in an ever-expanding city, and that growth is very much the bottom line of it,” he said.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/08/03...-ald-gord-lowe

And that, my friends, is why we should be asking that growth in this city start paying for itself.

[burn_this_city]

I was hopeful that after the flood the inner city folks would lay off banging this drum for a while. I'm sure this comes across as crass, but if people in growth areas should rightfully pay for the full development cost, than shouldn't the folks living on flood plains in turn pay the full cost of remediation? It's only fair isn't it? Why should someone who lives well above the flood areas be forced to pay for other people's choices? Frankly I'm tired of this debate, at some point in time, everyone is subsidized by the overall tax base, whether it be healthcare, unemployment, infrastructure ect.

[mustache ride]

If you raise my property tax then i will pass it onto my tenants. I think this could benefit me since everyone else would have to charge more too! I might even make more profit off my houses than i do now

[PowerPlayoffs06]

There's 2 reasons I haven't moved from Evergreen into downtown. 1) Any decent 2 bedroom apartment seems to cost almost half a million dollars. 2) I'm afraid I'd become a huge whiner about how I personally have to prop up the rest morons in the city.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

There's 2 reasons I haven't moved from Evergreen into downtown. 1) Any decent 2 bedroom apartment seems to cost almost half a million dollars. 2) I'm afraid I'd become a huge whiner about how I personally have to prop up the rest morons in the city.

Are you suggesting SebC has barked up this tree so many times that it's starting to become ridiculous?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I was hopeful that after the flood the inner city folks would lay off banging this drum for a while. I'm sure this comes across as crass, but if people in growth areas should rightfully pay for the full development cost, than shouldn't the folks living on flood plains in turn pay the full cost of remediation? It's only fair isn't it? Why should someone who lives well above the flood areas be forced to pay for other people's choices? Frankly I'm tired of this debate, at some point in time, everyone is subsidized by the overall tax base, whether it be healthcare, unemployment, infrastructure ect.

It's a Sunday, so preachers are going to preach. I would not lay this on the feet of all inner city folk though. It will be interesting to see how some of the more divisive sort of politics at city hall play post-flood.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I was hopeful that after the flood the inner city folks would lay off banging this drum for a while. I'm sure this comes across as crass, but if people in growth areas should rightfully pay for the full development cost, than shouldn't the folks living on flood plains in turn pay the full cost of remediation? It's only fair isn't it? Why should someone who lives well above the flood areas be forced to pay for other people's choices? Frankly I'm tired of this debate, at some point in time, everyone is subsidized by the overall tax base, whether it be healthcare, unemployment, infrastructure ect.

Regarding the flood plain, I agree. People should pay for their flood insurance ("disaster assistance" is basically taxpayer-funded flood insurance) AND people should pay for their suburban houses.

It's important to draw a distinction though between socialism (helping low-income people) and pork. The subsidy on greenfield single-family homes isn't a socialist policy, it's just pork for a specific segment of the population and the economy that is paid for by society as a whole. And not only is it an arbitrary wealth transfer, it actually creates a wealth loss too.

[Northendzone]

The reality is that government have an insatiable appetite for taxes, they are only going in one direction, even if we all moved to downtown.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I was hopeful that after the flood the inner city folks would lay off banging this drum for a while. I'm sure this comes across as crass, but if people in growth areas should rightfully pay for the full development cost, than shouldn't the folks living on flood plains in turn pay the full cost of remediation? It's only fair isn't it? Why should someone who lives well above the flood areas be forced to pay for other people's choices? Frankly I'm tired of this debate, at some point in time, everyone is subsidized by the overall tax base, whether it be healthcare, unemployment, infrastructure ect.

Tell ya what, let's retroactively reverse a generation of wealth transfer from inner city to suburbs and shut the continuous flow of money, and I'd be happy to. That would be only fair isn't it?

You are tired of the debate because you don't like the obvious concept that inner city subsidies silly, unsustainable growth.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Tell ya what, let's retroactively reverse a generation of wealth transfer from inner city to suburbs and shut the continuous flow of money, and I'd be happy to. That would be only fair isn't it?

You are tired of the debate because you don't like the obvious concept that inner city subsidies silly, unsustainable growth.

You can cover a lot of years property tax differential with a 50k flood cheque.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Tell ya what, let's retroactively reverse a generation of wealth transfer from inner city to suburbs and shut the continuous flow of money, and I'd be happy to. That would be only fair isn't it?

You are tired of the debate because you don't like the obvious concept that inner city subsidies silly, unsustainable growth.

I don't have a vested interest in seeing the continual outward growth. I simply think it's ironic that when the tables are turned, many of the complaining people are willing take money from the public that will take them decades in property tax and insurance payments to pay back.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I don't have a vested interest in seeing the continual outward growth. I simply think it's ironic that when the tables are turned, many of the complaining people are willing take money from the public that will take them decades in property tax and insurance payments to pay back.

Whats ironic about it? nobody has a choice, they have to pay their taxes. Seems fair to want something back does it not?

What would you expect people pay for their entire life, and then when they are in need .... they just pay the suburbs some more?

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I was hopeful that after the flood the inner city folks would lay off banging this drum for a while.

Discovery Ridge is inner city?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

Discovery Ridge is inner city?

Those pesky double takers.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You can cover a lot of years property tax differential with a 50k flood cheque.

Who is getting 50k? cause as it stands I am getting sweet 0 from any level of government. Where do I get some, if any of this money?

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by SebC

Regarding the flood plain, I agree. People should pay for their flood insurance ("disaster assistance" is basically taxpayer-funded flood insurance) AND people should pay for their suburban houses.

It's important to draw a distinction though between socialism (helping low-income people) and pork. The subsidy on greenfield single-family homes isn't a socialist policy, it's just pork for developers and the economy that is paid for by society as a whole. And not only is it an arbitrary wealth transfer, it actually creates a wealth loss too.

Fixed your post.

Too bad we don't have a group of 15 people who are elected and tasked with managing the growth of the city in a smart and cost effective fashion.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You can cover a lot of years property tax differential with a 50k flood cheque.

Probably a few yea. Burbs still come out way ahead.