I also think that the $4-5k 'subsidy' is a red herring. We're talking a miniscule percentage of a new house here. The amount of money is basically insignificant and honestly who cares if that new house in Skyview Ranch costs $355k instead of $350k? You could pass it all to the consumer and barely see a blip in costs or change the market significantly. This is again where it becomes a 'be careful what you wish for' situation I think. Put that through and you can't complain about sprawl or needing to fund fire stations or whatever else. Its a politically motivated way to attack the so-called slate.
This is the point, not an unmanageable burden for the cost of an individual home (developers can also adjust densities to spread out the levy burden), but it is a significant amount of money for the public purse when it's accumulated across 7000 houses in a year. The Mayor has been talking about this for 3 years, it's not just politics during an election. The current agreement is much better, but the previous two five year agreements resulted in huge amounts of debt because they didn't include any water or sewer infrastructure, we're now facing big rises in water rates as a result.
This is the point, not an unmanageable burden for the cost of an individual home, but it is a significant amount of money for the public purse when it's accumulated across 7000 houses in a year. The Mayor has been talking about this for 3 years, it's not just politics during an election. The current agreement is much better, but the previous two five year agreements resulted in huge amounts of debt because they didn't include any water or sewer infrastructure, we're now facing big rises in water rates as a result.
Sure, I have no issue with closing the gap at that kind of price. Seems like few do really. I guess it just seems like much ado about nothing to me. But what happens when there is no more gap here? The developers are evil....just because?
Sure, I have no issue with closing the gap at that kind of price. Seems like few do really. I guess it just seems like much ado about nothing to me. But what happens when there is no more gap here? The developers are evil....just because?
Developers are not evil - no one said they were, although some are trying to create that impression that the Mayor thinks that way. When the Mayor has criticized those in industry it's been the specific group of homebuilders (not developers - there is a big difference) with Wenzel and Westman from the video.
This issue is about the outcome, not the people. As the Mayor stated the other day, he has no issue with Guy Huntingford, UDI, the development industry at all, they just disagree on this issue. If you read UDI/CHBA election platform it is very much in line with the City's and the Mayor's goals. We have very good working relationship with many developers and homebuilders.
I guess its the continual campaign against the 'slate' that rubs me the wrong way. I think that for most voters this is basically a non-issue.
The video was about electing a group of partisan councillors that would oppose the Mayor's agenda and not work with the Mayor. Just letting that slide would be foolish.
The video was about electing a group of partisan councillors that would oppose the Mayor's agenda and not work with the Mayor. Just letting that slide would be foolish.
Sure, and yet he's willing to endorse DCU....which is even more foolish!
Personally, I would like the mayor to be, if anything, MORE vocal about which councillor candidates are willing to work with him on his agenda. As a supporter of his agenda, I'm more than happy to support it by choosing a councillor who is prepared to work with him to enact it.
As it is, I'm not that informed about just who those candidates are, which is my own fault. My current plan is to call each of the candidates in Ward 6 and ask for their promise to work with the Mayor on these issues.
Of course, Pootmans has the name thing going for him, which I'll admit is pretty compelling....
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
This is again where it becomes a 'be careful what you wish for' situation I think. Put that through and you can't complain about sprawl or needing to fund fire stations or whatever else. Its a politically motivated way to attack the so-called slate.
In a way, you're kind of right. Capital costs are just the tip of the subsidy iceberg - we really should be dealing with overall lifecycle costs, but we can't really do that under the terms of the current Municipal Government Act. We shouldn't be selling the development levy increase as a silver bullet, because it's just a small step in the right direction.
Personally, I would like the mayor to be, if anything, MORE vocal about which councillor candidates are willing to work with him on his agenda. As a supporter of his agenda, I'm more than happy to support it by choosing a councillor who is prepared to work with him to enact it.
As it is, I'm not that informed about just who those candidates are, which is my own fault. My current plan is to call each of the candidates in Ward 6 and ask for their promise to work with the Mayor on these issues.
Of course, Pootmans has the name thing going for him, which I'll admit is pretty compelling....
Yes cause that's what we need in any democratic body, is everyone on the same page rubber stamping everything that the dear leader does while bowing while he walks into chambers.
Debate and disagreement are good for democracy as long as alternate ideas come out of it and its not debate for b1tching's sake.
I personally want a fresh slate of Aldermen and woman or whatever that put some controls on the mayor especially in terms of spending and refuse to have secretive club meetings behind closed doors.
Nenshi isn't that great of a mayor that he deserves a complete lack of oversight and a overly compliant government body.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
If they are going to increase developement levies for the burbs we also need to ensure that the capital costs of things like watertreat ment and storm sewers are charged to inner city development as well.
As well the best solution for roads is not increasing taxation or levies for the burbs but density based tolls. But that is a political non-starter.
Give me a candidate that would be essentially pay per use for everything with some overall progressive reductions for lower income and I am sold. They just don't exist. People will continue to always vote and act in self interest.
Good point by CC above, in addition to political checks and balances that the opposition provides who audits the municipal government and how frequently? Is it independent?
Yes cause that's what we need in any democratic body, is everyone on the same page rubber stamping everything that the dear leader does while bowing while he walks into chambers.
Debate and disagreement are good for democracy as long as alternate ideas come out of it and its not debate for b1tching's sake.
I personally want a fresh slate of Aldermen and woman or whatever that put some controls on the mayor especially in terms of spending and refuse to have secretive club meetings behind closed doors.
Nenshi isn't that great of a mayor that he deserves a complete lack of oversight and a overly compliant government body.
I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying that as a voter I happen to support his agenda, and given that the main obstacles to it are other councillors, my desire is to vote for a councillor who agrees with me, and not one who wants (either secretly or openly) to advance an agenda that I disagree with.
I found this very interesting, wonder what my Alderman would say about this since he's named...of course he'd have to actually recognize my area is part of his ward but I digress.
If they are going to increase developement levies for the burbs we also need to ensure that the capital costs of things like watertreat ment and storm sewers are charged to inner city development as well.
As well the best solution for roads is not increasing taxation or levies for the burbs but density based tolls. But that is a political non-starter.
Give me a candidate that would be essentially pay per use for everything with some overall progressive reductions for lower income and I am sold. They just don't exist. People will continue to always vote and act in self interest.
Water and wastewater can be handled with water rates or per unit charges or a combination of both. Roads roads would be better served with an actual road toll ,a congestion charge, a tax on vehicles, and or a tax on km driven.
Transitcampyyc sent a survey to all candidates asking a few questions regarding transit issues. The results from each question will be included in an installment as part of a series of articles in Metro.
Here's the article for the first question, "How often do you use transit?" with the results for all the participants included in the link.
Quote:
Most Calgary council candidates are infrequent transit riders
Of the 49 candidates running for city councillor, 37 responded to the survey, including all incumbents.
Of those respondents, 12 said they take transit several times a week or more and four said they ride about once a week.
Of the remaining 21, five said they take transit one to three times a month, nine said they ride only on occasion, and seven responded with “rarely,” “not often” or similar answers.
