I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Can the mayor fire the moron who decided to tear down the bridge at 14 st and 9th ave and also close two lanes at 9th and 9th AT THE SAME TIME?! You know what that is?

It rhymes with smishshorshion

Also, paving 11th Street at the same time. Gong show!

Why do people always think the Mayor is the one in charge of hiring and firing people at the City?

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Also, paving 11th Street at the same time. Gong show!

Why do people always think the Mayor is the one in charge of hiring and firing people at the City?

The Mayor is the lead politician for the whole city, and people got use to the Mayor driving the agenda of council under Bronconnier.
I really think Nenshi has a lot of cleaning up to do in his own backyard in terms of city operations before he goes yapping on about CP rail again. He has no jurisdiction over CP rail and bleating on in the media isn't even the right channel to be addressing the problems of CP with . We have unorganized road city road projects , road projects that have gone on for way to long and left abandoned to become permanent speed traps, where is the political outrage over that?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

The Mayor is the lead politician for the whole city, and people got use to the Mayor driving the agenda of council under Bronconnier.
I really think Nenshi has a lot of cleaning up to do in his own backyard in terms of city operations before he goes yapping on about CP rail again. He has no jurisdiction over CP rail and bleating on in the media isn't even the right channel to be addressing the problems of CP with . We have unorganized road city road projects , road projects that have gone on for way to long and left abandoned to become permanent speed traps, where is the political outrage over that?

Of course he should concern himself with CP within city boundaries. Every time there's a derailment, every time there's a bridge collapse - it's the City's emergency responders that have to risk their lives to ensure public safety. It's the citizens of Calgary, that the Mayor represents, that are massively inconvenienced when we have to shut off major roadways and evacuate areas of the city. It's city taxpayers that pay the price.

He should call attention to these facts in the media, and also meet with CP representatives directly (as he has been doing) to make sure the railway operations and city can co-exist safely and effectively. Just as CP would have every right to question or call out City operations if they were affecting the safety of its employees.

[Bigtime]

I was going to reply "permanent speed traps = minor inconvenience. CP Rail derailing and blowing up half of downtown Calgary = just a slightly bigger deal.".

But Bunk's reply is much better.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Of course he should concern himself with CP within city boundaries. Every time there's a derailment, every time there's a bridge collapse - it's the City's emergency responders that have to risk their lives to ensure public safety. It's the citizens of Calgary, that the Mayor represents, that are massively inconvenienced when we have to shut off major roadways and evacuate areas of the city. It's city taxpayers that pay the price.

He should call attention to these facts in the media, and also meet with CP representatives directly (as he has been doing) to make sure the railway operations and city can co-exist safely and effectively. Just as CP would have every right to question or call out City operations if they were affecting the safety of its employees.

I would have less of an issue with his soapboxing with CP, if the headline was "Mayor demands meeting with Federal transportation officials about CP". Since its the Feds that really can only do anything about CP.. Its just a lot more sexier and headline grabbing I guess than making sure your own backyard is clean.

[BlackArcher101]

I just think there's better ways for Nenshi to go about it instead of the way he is in the media. If you want to co-exist with someone, don't bash them publicly, give them a chance to fix their ways. Were they denying him meetings or something and that's why he did it?

Btw, what's up with the Glenmore crossings? The new concrete crossings have been sitting there for over a year, waiting to be installed. Yet only half (I think) have actually been completed. Is there a battle in the background going on there?

[terminator]

Hey Bunk,

Do you guys need any volunteers for the upcoming elections? I would love to help out!

PM me if you do.

[SebC]

If you've pegged the suburb subsidy at $4500 per house, why did National Post write:

"In 2011, city council partially reinstated levies on new developments, which had been abolished by the city in 2000. But the mayor isn’t satisfied, arguing that each new home on the fringe still costs the city $10,000 more in infrastructure than it receives in levies."

[CaptainYooh]

So, we should re-calculate the amount of subsidy every new home in Calgary has received over the last 100 years and make the suckers pay then. How far back towards the downtown shall we go? I'd say let's go all the way, SebC. Obviously, you can't argue with the fact that the "subsidy" you and others are objecting, has been declining. This means that the highest repayments would be received from the homeowners in Mount Royal, Elbow Park, Britannia, Inglewood etc... Oh, yeah, don't forget to add the time value of money to that calculation!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

I would have less of an issue with his soapboxing with CP, if the headline was "Mayor demands meeting with Federal transportation officials about CP". Since its the Feds that really can only do anything about CP.. Its just a lot more sexier and headline grabbing I guess than making sure your own backyard is clean.

The trains are in our backyard, and lately, and the railroad has developed a bit of a habit of messing up our backyard.

But I do agree that talking to someone at the railroad is "sexy" and "headline grabbing". Textbook grandstanding right there. Very flashy.

[Rathji]

What's the deal with moving the pedestrian crossings back from the traffic circle in McKenzie Towne?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

So, we should re-calculate the amount of subsidy every new home in Calgary has received over the last 100 years and make the suckers pay then. How far back towards the downtown shall we go? I'd say let's go all the way, SebC. Obviously, you can't argue with the fact that the "subsidy" you and others are objecting, has been declining. This means that the highest repayments would be received from the homeowners in Mount Royal, Elbow Park, Britannia, Inglewood etc... Oh, yeah, don't forget to add the time value of money to that calculation!

Every time I think you might be somewhat economically literate, you go and write something like this.

[CaptainYooh]

You have no idea what economically literate means based on your posts. Just like you have no idea about what is a subsidy, urban sprawl and municipal growth. You just want to pretend to be urbanistic and progressive without any background to support your silly one-sided arguments.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You have no idea what economically literate means based on your posts. Just like you have no idea about what is a subsidy, urban sprawl and municipal growth. You just want to pretend to be urbanistic and progressive without any background to support your silly one-sided arguments.

Okay, tell me how it's mathematically possible for everyone to have received a net subsidy.

[CaptainYooh]

Define a net subsidy. The way you understand it, in clear and unambiguous terms, without rhetoric. Then I can try and explain to you why you are wrong, as good as I can.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Define a net subsidy. The way you understand it, in clear and unambiguous terms, without rhetoric. Then I can try and explain to you why you are wrong, as good as I can.

Net subsidy: (NPV of expenditures by the city to service an area) > (NPV of taxes + fees paid by that area).

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

So, we should re-calculate the amount of subsidy every new home in Calgary has received over the last 100 years and make the suckers pay then. How far back towards the downtown shall we go? I'd say let's go all the way, SebC.

Leveling the playing field makes sense. There's no economic efficiency to be gained from tilting it the other way as a form of reparations though.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Obviously, you can't argue with the fact that the "subsidy" you and others are objecting, has been declining.

It was decreased in 2011. That doesn't mean it has been in a state of constant decrease. At other times, it was increased.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This means that the highest repayments would be received from the homeowners in Mount Royal, Elbow Park, Britannia, Inglewood etc... Oh, yeah, don't forget to add the time value of money to that calculation!

Patently untrue, as the older areas of Calgary were established before we started subsidizing growth. Most of our current situation can be traced back to the 1999 agreement where the city stopped charging for water and sewer infrastructure. If we were to try to rebalance the net present values, the areas developed from 1999-2011 would likely have the highest repayments, and the inner city would be receiving repayments.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

Okay, tell me how it's mathematically possible for everyone to have received a net subsidy.

It's possible if we've borrowed the subsidy, and thus accumulated an offsetting debt.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

It's possible if we've borrowed the subsidy, and thus accumulated an offsetting debt.

Yes, and how much of our debt is old debt vs. new debt? Furthermore, that's only really possible in the shot run, not over 100 years.

Spoiler!

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by SebC

Net subsidy: (NPV of expenditures by the city to service an area) > (NPV of taxes + fees paid by that area).
...

Right there. It is not NPV inequality, but the FV comparison that you have to take, if you insist on making a feasibility analysis that is based on one isolated area. The FV of the permanent future cashflow increasing at the rate of 3-5% in perpetuity that needs to be higher than the pro-rated NPV of City's investment. Regardless, this approach is flawed to begin with. You cannot, ok, should not apply it on an isolated area. Elbow Valley, technically, fully paid for itself. It is a beautiful community. But that was a classic example of an urban sprawl - very low density subdivision that was allowed to hook up to City's services with no housing type diversity. A true community for the rich. By applying the same methodology, if, hypothetically, the City allows the entire new subdivision to be built in skinnies (single-family houses on the narrowest possible lots), the net difference would be positive in favour of the City (provided that there are no requirements to oversize utilities).

Re-read Bunk's post on acreage assessment breakdown. It is factual and it does represent the current political position and thinking of Mayor Nenshi and some of the inner-city aldermen well. Re-read my follow-up post. It is also factual, as it represents the fees that are not included in Bunk's calculation. When you add those up, the cost difference disappears.

This is a very complex issue, because it also involves the premise of who and how pays to support the growth and who and how benefits from it. Even your friends are telling you that you are talking about it from a very narrow and unsubstantiated angle. Either open up to counter-arguments or stop proselytizing.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Right there. It is not NPV inequality, but the FV comparison that you have to take, if you insist on making a feasibility analysis that is based on one isolated area. The FV of the permanent future cashflow increasing at the rate of 3-5% in perpetuity that needs to be higher than the pro-rated NPV of City's investment.

NPV includes FV, so we agree.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Regardless, this approach is flawed to begin with. You cannot, ok, should not apply it on an isolated area. Elbow Valley, technically, fully paid for itself. It is a beautiful community. But that was a classic example of an urban sprawl - very low density subdivision that was allowed to hook up to City's services with no housing type diversity. A true community for the rich. By applying the same methodology, if, hypothetically, the City allows the entire new subdivision to be built in skinnies (single-family houses on the narrowest possible lots), the net difference would be positive in favour of the City (provided that there are no requirements to oversize utilities).

Well, for starters, Elbow Valley isn't even a part of Calgary, so it's not contributing anything to Calgary for downstream effects (i.e. the cars that go from Elbow Valley to downtown Calgary every day). It is, effectively, a parasite community.

For the sake of argument, though, let's assume that it is part of Calgary and it pays for itself. Our wealthy communities should be paying for themselves, and then some! If only the wealthiest of suburbs are paying for themselves, that's a problem. As I've said many times, I support wealthy areas supporting less wealthy ones (a socialist subsidy). The problem is the lifestyle subsidy. Elbow Valley would still get a lifestyle subsidy, which would cut into its ability to help fund services for low wealth areas. It would be paying for itself, but not contributing as much as a high-density community of comparable wealth.

Originally Posted by Captain Yooh

Re-read Bunk's post on acreage assessment breakdown. It is factual and it does represent the current political position and thinking of Mayor Nenshi and some of the inner-city aldermen well. Re-read my follow-up post. It is also factual, as it represents the fees that are not included in Bunk's calculation. When you add those up, the cost difference disappears.

I read that one. It includes this gem.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Bunk, I want to comment on this whole "cost gap" suggestion. While your summary of the acreage assessment breakdown was very illustrative for a lot of people here that only hear about these issues in negative light, you didn't mention that [...] the City requires developers to pay for infrastructure oversizing (to support future growth), [...] and boundary cost-sharing (to reimburse previous developers for provision of excess infrastructure capacity), which are very significant components of the upfront development charges.

Infrastructure oversizing is part of the cost of growth, and if it gets reimbursed anyways, there's absolutely no way that ihaving the developers pay for it does anything to address the cost gap.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is a very complex issue, because it also involves the premise of who and how pays to support the growth and who and how benefits from it. Even your friends are telling you that you are talking about it from a very narrow and unsubstantiated angle. Either open up to counter-arguments or stop proselytizing.

I'll fully admit that right now this debate is about capital costs only, which is a very narrow perspective. We should be talking about lifecycle costs, but I'll take the small victory that 100% recovery of capital costs would be as a positive and attainable step before we start addressing with the lifecycle costs of growth. It is unlikely that we can get anywhere on lifecycle if we can't even get capital costs right.

Now, can you please let Bunk address my question?