2013 Calgary Municipal Election Thread

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

The site that's streaming the CivicCamp mayoral forum is under at DDOS attack. It will be interesting if they can figure out where it's coming from.

Why would anyone even do that? It was the best comedy I've watched in a long time.

I was able to watch the last 2/3 of it and viewers topped out around 90'ish.

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Transitcampyyc sent a survey to all candidates

Joe Connelly didn't respond? I am shocked, shocked!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

Really? @civicCamp only suggests it crashed under load.

They only had about 100 people watching the stream but the livestreamcalgary webmaster said in the comments they were getting 1000 page requests per second (to the admin page).

[KelVarnsen]

Also, I like the reply from Joe Magliocca.

[Resolute 14]

My first thought this morning: I wonder what would happen if we all voted for the Christian lunatic, just for sh*ts and giggles.

My second thought this morning: That might actually be his plan.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

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.

I think that is what I was trying to say. I perfer a congestion tax over a per km tax, or a direct toll as driving on a road when it is not busy does not create a burdan on the system. It is only when alot of cars need to get to the same place that interchanges and additional lanes are required. If you could chop of the peak usage you could significantly reduce road requirements as the other 18hours a day don't need nearly as much road.

However if any candidate ever campaigned on a density toll they would lose immediately even if it was going to be matched with a property tax reduction so it really is a non-starter. And that assumes they could get that tax authority from the province.

A more palatable option would be to charge a huge parking tax. Right now private lots make large profits based on the cities limitations on the number of parking spots permitted downtown. If the city is creating this demand they should reap the profits from it. So adding 50% parking tax would allow the city to make up some of the costs in providing roads to downtown. This wouldn't increase parking rates as demand / supply sets the price and not the cost to provide the service.

Again probably a political non-starter but we need innovative ways of charging the people who cost the city more a portion of that increased cost.

[CaptainYooh]

Good opinion article in Herald today dissecting the "subsidy" argument.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...268/story.html

...Here’s a troubling scenario. Council agrees with the mayor’s push to “eliminate the subsidy” on utility levies, adding roughly another $4,041 per house to city coffers. The development industry says “fine, we’re not going to pay the community and recreation levy anymore” — that’s $4,370 less per house. City council could try withholding an agreement under such terms, but if the industry is agreeing to pay 100 per cent of those things they are legally obligated to, a court may see things differently.

Determining who pays for growth, how and when, is not an exact science — there is no magic formula. Claiming a “sprawl subsidy” during an election might be good politics, but at some point, mayor and council will need to tone down the rhetoric, and use persuasion and a more respectful approach with the industry they’re asking to pay the bills...

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

My first thought this morning: I wonder what would happen if we all voted for the Christian lunatic, just for sh*ts and giggles.

My second thought this morning: That might actually be his plan.

Last Friday at lunch we were walking up to a corner and say this guy holding a sign:

MILAN
FOR
MAYORCA

I said "What does Milan Italy and Mayorca Spain have yo do with each other?" As we got to the corner the vert tiny period on his sign was visible:

MILAN
FOR
MAYOR.CA

Very tempted to give him a vote just for the hell of it. He has the most eye catching sign of anyone.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Good opinion article in Herald today dissecting the "subsidy" argument.


"...Here’s a troubling scenario. Council agrees with the mayor’s push to “eliminate the subsidy” on utility levies, adding roughly another $4,041 per house to city coffers. The development industry says “fine, we’re not going to pay the community and recreation levy anymore” — that’s $4,370 less per house. City council could try withholding an agreement under such terms, but if the industry is agreeing to pay 100 per cent of those things they are legally obligated to, a court may see things differently."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...268/story.html

Sounds like a good reason to get the city charter, and to get it before the development agreement gets renewed. There's really no good reason why Calgary and Edmonton shouldn't be able to dictate the terms of their charters, as they hold 2/3rds of Alberta's population.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Good opinion article in Herald today dissecting the "subsidy" argument.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...268/story.html

Ive always wondered if a new high rise condo pays extra since it will be using considerably more resources than likely what was there previously for water, power, and sewer.

If you goal is to try to be "fair" it would seem to make sense to go after new condos, commercial developments and infills in existing areas as well in the same manner.

If your goal is to be decisive and pitt those in established communities against new communities and attack a group who people already have a general dislike for (developers) then this seems like the logical thing to do. Obviously if no one does any research and they live in Woodbine they are going to side with the established communities version of the argument.

[CaptainYooh]

Most people don't even have a clue that developers and builders are not the same thing for the most part, except for a handful of large national real estate conglomerates that are vertically integrated with development, building and some owned-supplier divisions (Brookfield, Qualico, Hopewell, Mattamy). Traditionally and historically, homebuilders were very apolitical in Calgary and had little or nothing to do with municipal politics. They've been forced to become more vocal due to the extreme shortage of serviced lots in the city and due to the oligopolization of the land development industry. Only the largest firms can now afford to purchase raw land in greenfield areas and withstand the enormous financial burden of taking it through 10-20 years of development through to completion. They are the ones doing most of the heaviest lobbying. Builders just want a fair and even playing field.

The divide and conquer platform nature of these elections for Nenshi, Farrel and Carra is now out of control. They are trying to appeal to their core support groups in the inner city by pitching the unfairness of growth cost sharing skewed in favour of suburbs. In reality, it is the inner-city established communities that underpay.

Recently, Town of Okotoks was challenged in court by a small developer on the fairness of the levies assessed on a new subdivision area and the Town lost. I really hope that common sense prevails and our new Council will be more aware of the risks associated with this challenge.

[MarchHare]

In reality, it is the inner-city established communities that underpay.

[Citation needed]

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Recently, Town of Okotoks was challenged in court by a small developer on the fairness of the levies assessed on a new subdivision area and the Town lost. I really hope that common sense prevails and our new Council will be more aware of the risks associated with this challenge.

Such a law suit, with the City of Calgary as a defendent, would put a lot of pressure on the province to change the MGA. If they are smart, they'll change the MGA / pass a big city charter before it gets to that point.

[Fusebox]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Most people don't even have a clue that developers and builders are not the same thing for the most part, except for a handful of large national real estate conglomerates that are vertically integrated with development, building and some owned-supplier divisions (Brookfield, Qualico, Hopewell, Mattamy). Traditionally and historically, homebuilders were very apolitical in Calgary and had little or nothing to do with municipal politics. They've been forced to become more vocal due to the extreme shortage of serviced lots in the city and due to the oligopolization of the land development industry. Only the largest firms can now afford to purchase raw land in greenfield areas and withstand the enormous financial burden of taking it through 10-20 years of development through to completion. They are the ones doing most of the heaviest lobbying. Builders just want a fair and even playing field.

The divide and conquer platform nature of these elections for Nenshi, Farrel and Carra is now out of control. They are trying to appeal to their core support groups in the inner city by pitching the unfairness of growth cost sharing skewed in favour of suburbs. In reality, it is the inner-city established communities that underpay.

Recently, Town of Okotoks was challenged in court by a small developer on the fairness of the levies assessed on a new subdivision area and the Town lost. I really hope that common sense prevails and our new Council will be more aware of the risks associated with this challenge.

Could you please expand on this? I just can't see how you can say that.

[tete]

If any CP'ers made it to the Ward 8 debate tonight, can you give a summary? I didn't realize it was on until about 5 mins prior to start and couldn't make it. Thanks!

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by tete

If any CP'ers made it to the Ward 8 debate tonight, can you give a summary? I didn't realize it was on until about 5 mins prior to start and couldn't make it. Thanks!

I didn't attend, but this guy live tweeted it:
https://twitter.com/Metro_Weisy


The recorded version should be released by CivicCamp by tomorrow.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Good opinion article in Herald today dissecting the "subsidy" argument.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...268/story.html

I loved the part when he asserted that paying the Community and Rec Levy was a "good will tax" to buy a smoother process from the City. Both absurd, and a totally offensive concept.

I was meeting with one of the large land developers today, they were extremely puzzled by this since they pay this because it's necessary infrastructure in order to build their community.

The current MGA does not allow the City to unilaterally impose a levy on things like Fire Halls, Rec Centres, Libraries, etc - like it allows for transportation and water/sewer etc. But because developers require these things in their neighbourhoods and know the City requires revenue to actually construct them they negotiate it into the overall acreage assessment agreement.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Fusebox

Could you please expand on this? I just can't see how you can say that.

A few examples are listed in the article: upgrades of the sewage and water treatment plants, upgrades to the inner-city aging utility and transportation infrastructure, rec centres, libraries etc. Most of these costs are funded through the property taxes paid by the whole city.

Not that I want to revive the Peace Bridge discussion - but that was a perfect illustration of the classic $25M inner-city subsidy: it is used primarily by inner-city residents and it is not a financial investment (there are no user fees and no expectation of returns). Proposed Central Public Library is another example. Note, I am not saying that either one of these public structures is bad for the City; but they are both used primarily by inner city residents while funded through property taxes paid by the entire city population.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

...
The current MGA does not allow the City to unilaterally impose a levy on things like Fire Halls, Rec Centres, Libraries, etc - like it allows for transportation and water/sewer etc. But because developers require these things in their neighbourhoods and know the City requires revenue to actually construct them they negotiate it into the overall acreage assessment agreement.

That was not the point he made though. Contribution to rec centres, fire halls and other social infrastructure is an example of cooperation between developers and the City reached through a negotiated settlement that has a time frame. To campaign on a perceived subsidy while ignoring this contribution which actually exceeds the utility cost differential is morally wrong.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Most people don't even have a clue that developers and builders are not the same thing for the most part, except for a handful of large national real estate conglomerates that are vertically integrated with development, building and some owned-supplier divisions (Brookfield, Qualico, Hopewell, Mattamy). Traditionally and historically, homebuilders were very apolitical in Calgary and had little or nothing to do with municipal politics. They've been forced to become more vocal due to the extreme shortage of serviced lots in the city and due to the oligopolization of the land development industry. Only the largest firms can now afford to purchase raw land in greenfield areas and withstand the enormous financial burden of taking it through 10-20 years of development through to completion. They are the ones doing most of the heaviest lobbying. Builders just want a fair and even playing field.

The divide and conquer platform nature of these elections for Nenshi, Farrel and Carra is now out of control. They are trying to appeal to their core support groups in the inner city by pitching the unfairness of growth cost sharing skewed in favour of suburbs. In reality, it is the inner-city established communities that underpay.

Recently, Town of Okotoks was challenged in court by a small developer on the fairness of the levies assessed on a new subdivision area and the Town lost. I really hope that common sense prevails and our new Council will be more aware of the risks associated with this challenge.

It is true - most people don't understand this distinction at all. And I'm not entirely sure some homebuilders understand how planned and serviced land works and who actually releases lots to them to build on.

Any shortage in serviced for particular homebuilders would be a result of the oligopoly you speak of (they get to pick and choose who they sell to) not the City. The City has at least serviced land in greenfield for another 160k people. That's well over 5 years of growth assuming 94% of it happens in greenfield (last year it was actually 67% new/33% established).

With regard to the cost of inner city growth - while there's been quite a bit of redevelopment in the last decade most communities still had a net loss in population. So is there an added burden to infrastructure in those communities over what they were designed for? This has finally started to turn around - many inner city communities are growing again, but practically all are below their peak populations. So while Bowness or Killarney might be infilling it'll take a while before they replenish the population they once had.

That said, since population growth now is finally occurring, certainly it is time to take a look at what a fair redevelopment levy should look like. It's certainly not very easy to assign costs in this context. It should be based on some kind of "added burden on infrastructure" principle - that'll be sorted in 2014 hopefully.

We must also remember that although in most communities there is no blanket levy for redevelopment (Beltline being an exception, which does have a frontage based levy) development does get off-site improvements foisted on them by the City - they are just done on a one-off basis with each project if something nearby is required. The Arriva condo project for instance had to pay for about a $1 million sewer upgrade adjacent to the project. Tell an inner city developer they don't pay - they'll tell you a different story.