I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[4X4]

Where'd you go, Seb? Let's get this figured out once and for all.

[Bigtime]

Oh I get it, then invest that money back into my neighbourhood as the infrastructure falls apart. How about we start with those storm sewers?

So the more suburbs we build, the more my taxes will go up? That sounds like a great deal...

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Oh I get it, then invest that money back into my neighbourhood as the infrastructure falls apart. How about we start with those storm sewers?

Dude, what's your point here? Your rate of tax is the same as mine. I don't know if every dime I pay in taxes gets re-invested in the deep SW, but maybe it should. I don't care. Not the discussion here.

What I'm asking is whether inner city developments pay this levy that Seb refuses to shut up about.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Oh I get it, then invest that money back into my neighbourhood as the infrastructure falls apart. How about we start with those storm sewers?

So the more suburbs we build, the more my taxes will go up? That sounds like a great deal...

Are you unclear on how market value assessment works, or are you unclear on what market value is?

[Bigtime]

Yeah I know how they work, just think there could be better ways to do stuff like this and get rid of things like squabbling over $7000.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Yeah I know how they work, just think there could be better ways to do stuff like this and get rid of things like squabbling over $7000.

Hey, I agree. But we're not talking about whether MVA is a good taxation system. I'm trying to end the "squabbling" over the $7,000 and asking Seb a direct question.

[Bigtime]

Indeed, derailing into talk over getting away from MVA is a whole other conversation, best left for a miserable weather day and not a weekend like this!

Perhaps Kermitology can supply an answer?

[4X4]

The thing that's just so tiring about Seb and his anti-suburbs campaign is that people need to live somewhere. The inner city is already built, and the only new developments are infills. So each 50' lot that gets divided should be paying some percentage of this magical seven grand that he wont STFU about. Because for every additional resident, the local infrastructure gets used more, and gets worn down faster, and needs to be replaced sooner.

Do you think that just because you're withing the glenmore/sarcee/16th/deerfoot range, that you're not a tax on the system? Any new development within that range does not affect the infrastructure?

It's tiring listening to all the latte sippers rant about the suburbs. Where the F else do you want the other 700,000 people to live? In Edmonton? Ok, then you'd have your wish, and your taxes would be nice and low, because you'd be living in downtown Regina.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by fotze

No is inner city folks don't have a water bill.

Our water bills do not cover the capital costs of water treatment. New treatment plants are covered in capital budgets. The burbs pay a fee for each acre as far as I know inner city pays nothing. Each time a house is built in the burbs it cost the city 7k. Each time a dwelling is built in the inner city it costs x amoumt. This x amount is never talked about.

So my question to bunk or others is are there fees to offset the capital costs such as water treatment on redevelopment or does the city subsidize these costs

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by fotze

Who repaves the strip of street that is ripped up to change out the sewer service on an infill? Is it a contractor or the city? What if they do a terrible job and it is caving in or is like a ######ed speed bump.

What if? It's almost guaranteed they will do a poor job. It's very seldom in this city that when they rip up pavement to make a water pipe repair that they do a thorough and proper job that doesn't sink in a few months and turn into a suspension/wheel/tire destroying pot hole. Some were done in our area a few weeks ago and already the filled in areas have sunk. I don't know if it's a "you get what you pay for" or "these paving companies are doing the bare minimum to make out like bandits off the city" situation or a bit of both but I wish someone was held accountable for the terrible work that is done on city roads by most of these contractors.

[DFO]

7k would be great! I had to shell out 25k to have my newly constructed house hooked back up to city water/sewer in Renfrew.

[edn88]

How is it that the city can let a cluster**** of a situation occur like what has happened at Westhills for the last two weekends. Impossible to get into and out of... I am sure there are some unhappy businesses (not to mention customers) in that area.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by DFO

7k would be great! I had to shell out 25k to have my newly constructed house hooked back up to city water/sewer in Renfrew.

Our lowest quote was 30k; we got one that was 42,000.

These pirates deserve every piece of derision they get.

Idiots also set the shut off valve a foot and a half above grade. Trying to get them back to fix their stupidity is as easy as you would expect.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DFO

7k would be great! I had to shell out 25k to have my newly constructed house hooked back up to city water/sewer in Renfrew.

Is that a construction cost to hook up to the lines or a fee to the city to pay for things like water treatment plants

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Where'd you go, Seb? Let's get this figured out once and for all.

I was out!

Anyways, my answer is that a development fee isn't necessary where taxes are sufficient to pay the lifecycle costs of services provided. A development fee is only needed where a development doesn't pay for itself through taxes. So the answer that high-density/inner city pays for itself (and more) through taxes is absolutely correct, whether or not you like it.

A fine example of this is the East Village. The infrastructure built there was funded by borrowing against the future increase in taxation that the infrastructure will induce. Skyview Ranch can't be funded that way because it doesn't have the right market-value-to-capital-cost ratio.

Having said all that, I'm pretty sure that for small-scale residential infills do pay something, but I don't know what it is. Maybe Bunk can tell you more precisely.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

I was out!

Anyways, my answer is that a development fee isn't necessary where taxes are sufficient to pay the lifecycle costs of services provided. A development fee is only needed where a development doesn't pay for itself through taxes. So the answer that high-density/inner city pays for itself (and more) through taxes is absolutely correct, whether or not you like it.

A fine example of this is the East Village. The infrastructure built there was funded by borrowing against the future increase in taxation that the infrastructure will induce. Skyview Ranch can't be funded that way because it doesn't have the right market-value-to-capital-cost ratio.

Having said all that, I'm pretty sure that for small-scale residential infills do pay something, but I don't know what it is. Maybe Bunk can tell you more precisely.

The infrastructure in East Village was paid for by gerrymandering the Bow development into a politically expedient redevelopment area. The new condos and restaurants will be nice, but that tax money wouldn't have otherwise been sufficient without the billion dollar+ bonus assessed value they added in that was getting built anyway and won't benefit from the east village improvements.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

I was out!

Anyways, my answer is that a development fee isn't necessary where taxes are sufficient to pay the lifecycle costs of services provided. A development fee is only needed where a development doesn't pay for itself through taxes. So the answer that high-density/inner city pays for itself (and more) through taxes is absolutely correct, whether or not you like it.

A fine example of this is the East Village. The infrastructure built there was funded by borrowing against the future increase in taxation that the infrastructure will induce. Skyview Ranch can't be funded that way because it doesn't have the right market-value-to-capital-cost ratio.

Having said all that, I'm pretty sure that for small-scale residential infills do pay something, but I don't know what it is. Maybe Bunk can tell you more precisely.

So your position is that places like Aspen Woods are fine because the property taxes are high enough to support that sprawl, but a community like Skyview Ranch isn't sustainable because they pay less in tax?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

So your position is that places like Aspen Woods are fine because the property taxes are high enough to support that sprawl, but a community like Skyview Ranch isn't sustainable because they pay less in tax?

No, my position is more nuanced than that. I'm okay with wealthier areas subsidizing poorer ones. It's just the geographic / low density bias that's the problem. The problem is when then owner of a $450,000 condo is subsidizing the owner of a $450,000 house. It gets worse when you can buy a $450,000 condo and end up subsidizing a $500,000 house.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

No, my position is more nuanced than that. I'm okay with wealthier areas subsidizing poorer ones. It's just the geographic / low density bias that's the problem. The problem is when then owner of a $450,000 condo is subsidizing the owner of a $450,000 house. It gets worse when you can buy a $450,000 condo and end up subsidizing a $500,000 house.

Sure, but they're not. The taxes are based on the market value? If my place is $450k and your place is $450k then we both pay the same. While you contend I use more services because I live further away, its a generalization. Maybe I walk to the C-train and someone who lives closer drives in. Maybe I work 3 blocks from my house, or have a home office. Its just silly.

Never mind the fact that someone with a ten percent higher property value pays more taxes (as in your example), there is just no proof that the guy in the condo uses less services or costs the city less money. What if they call the fire department 8 times this year, recycle absolutely nothing and have a family of 4 living in that condo whereas the suburban dweller is single, composts everything and uses very few services? Just because you live in a condo doesn't mean you're more sustainable.

[Byrns]

I thought this was a Nenshi thread....