I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[Bill Bumface]

If we're looking at messed up wards, 9 has to take the cake. Not sure how someone can represent Bridgeland and Inglewood as well as Riverbend and Acadia...

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Congrats to Nenshi and your team Bunk. I hope you guys can keep up the great work you are doing for our city. I look forward to four more years of progressive thinking.

Thanks, much appreciated. Looking forward to getting to work on the agenda for the next 4 years.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

If we're looking at messed up wards, 9 has to take the cake. Not sure how someone can represent Bridgeland and Inglewood as well as Riverbend and Acadia...

Arguably, there is an upside to diverse Wards, but you're right, 9 is a Frankenstein.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I had pretty much this exact same conversation with my wife last night. The developers (and their media friends in the Sun and conservative talk radio) framed the subsidy debate as being inner-city vs. suburbs, but it's really not. The only people who should support the subsidy are those who are planning to buy a brand new home on the outskirts of the city. Whether you live in a condo in Sunnyside, an apartment in the Beltline, or a single family home in MacKenzie Towne, the sprawl subsidy does nothing to benefit you.

Yes, it has nothing to do whatsoever with inner city vs. suburbs, nor is it a value judgement on suburbs themselves. Some tried to twist it that way. ALL taxpayers and ratepayers, no matter where they live urban or newer suburban make up this gap to pay for new growth.

[Bigtime]

I spend a lot of time talking with friends and colleagues about how it was not inner-city versus suburban and instead all of us in established communities will bear that cost. I think I may have changed a few votes in those final hours yesterday.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Flambé

Why is Silverado in Ward 14, when being in Ward 13 makes way more sense?

Maybe it's time for a Ward 15. When does this stuff even get looked at and do changes even happen all that often?

Originally Posted by Bunk

It's reviewed every election. With geographic barriers and fast shifting populations, it's a real challenge for the elections office to create a perfect geographically harmonious wards and a balanced population across wards.

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

If we're looking at messed up wards, 9 has to take the cake. Not sure how someone can represent Bridgeland and Inglewood as well as Riverbend and Acadia...

Originally Posted by Bunk

Arguably, there is an upside to diverse Wards, but you're right, 9 is a Frankenstein.

I may be in the minority, but I like Frankenwards. To me it's not about being representative of a certain kind of citizen, but rather responsible to many different kinds of citizen. Inner City aldermen vote on subjects that affect the suburbs, and vice versa.

Gerrymandering wards to always ensure a certain type of alderman is elected is NOT the appropriately democratic way of doing things. Before Carra was elected in our ward, Connoley (sp?) was the alderman, and he arguably represented more the NE, poor end of town, but was still responsible to Acadia, and Inglewood as well in his election. The alderman for ward 9 is going to end up voting on issues that affect rich and poor, inner city and suburb, downtown office worker and industrial park worker, why not also be beholden to these people on election day as well?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

It's reviewed every election. With geographic barriers and fast shifting populations, it's a real challenge for the elections office to create a perfect geographically harmonious wards and a balanced population across wards.

So it will be reviewed now and then any changes would come in for 2017? Is there a set timeline for that process?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's directly applicable to Calgary. Calgary is basically the story of that city at the beginning of the video. Paying for existing liabilities with development fees and new taxes from new developments, which will have even bigger liabilities in the future. That system simply cannot continue. Nenshi understands that, the for profit development industry caring only about yearly returns could give a fig.

I get that, what I meant when I said that was that it would be interesting to see what Calgary would look like if we adopted a 'chaotic but smart' approach.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I get that, what I meant when I said that was that it would be interesting to see what Calgary would look like if we adopted a 'chaotic but smart' approach.

That's the thing that's so disruptive about "chaotic but smart" is that you lose control of what things end up looking like in the end. What the guy in the video would say is that we're intuitively good community builders and that if left to community residents to design their communities they'll likely do a good job of it. I think the challenge is making sure it all works together between communities.

I think though that if people were to actually design communities that they wanted it would be a return to a grid-like land use pattern highly promoting walking and cycling with smaller community shops located of high traffic areas.

For existing communities I think you'd see some of the major boulevards running through a suburb scaled down. Lanes taken back, speeds reduced significantly, bike lanes.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

So it will be reviewed now and then any changes would come in for 2017? Is there a set timeline for that process?

Yes, but I don't know timelines. I know they look at long term population and growth patterns and try and plan a few moves ahead.

[Fusebox]

What was the deal with the new soccer pitches that were not funded? I remember reading a few years ago that they feds were going to kick in 12.5m if the city were to match that amount. Is this true?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Paying for existing liabilities with development fees and new taxes from new developments, which will have even bigger liabilities in the future.

In a Ponzi scheme, the "investment" paid by new investors provides "return on investment" to prior investors. In Calgary, the inner-city communities NEVER get return on investment. Development subsidies are a scam, but it's not a Ponzi scheme. It shares traits with a Ponzi scheme in that money is taken from one set of customers to pay another set without the overall organisation having positivie ROI, but the money is going in the opposite direction. The money is flowing from the city's older customers to it's newer ones. A correct analogy would be a scheme where ROI to new investors is delivered by charging "management fees" to old investors and draining their accounts. Would that be a "reverse Ponzi"?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by fotze

Especially when I have yet to meet a friend, colleague, co-worker who hasn't been burnt by a developer/house builder. They know that the second that house is delivered they are outta there (as much as possible), they know their economic outlook of builders is 6 months to 1 years tops, why they go into receivership daily. You know they aren't looking beyond a few years.

I don't fault the developers for this though, this is the set of rules and they play within them, they answer to their shareholders/themselves, the city answers to the voters who assumes they are entering deals to gain control of a new development that is cash flow positive (beyond the first 5 years when everything is brand new).

The folks in Tuscany are in the same boat as Sunnyside, the genie is out of the bottle. The reason that the guy in Douglasdale and Mackenzie have a brutal commute now is because they built new brighton and copperfield, and Cranston and auburn bay and seton and I'm probably missing 14 neighborhoods I don't know about and are in the works.

Can people not see that if that brutality continues the operating cost to maintain the triple decker highway, along with the roads and sewers and new plants that will be insane?

Why are people opposed to this? How many people are considering moving further out, less than 1% of people? Fata them? and $3000, that's not going to do anything, should be $100k and we put it in trust.

Where do you put the people?? What % should be infill growth. Also the new communities aren't the cause of sprawl. LOT SIZE is the cause of sprawl. the Suburbs are far denser then the communities of the 60's,70's,80's and 90's if you want to tax the operating costs of sprawl tax based on the square footage of land you occupy.

Also eliminate zoning restrictions for basement suites, high rises, and multiplexes that will increase density. Look at the towers they built in brentwood. They were supposed to be taller but community associations protested and eventually were given into. Decisions like these force sprawl. To me it is hypocritical whenever soemone in the inner city complains about projects that increase density at the same time as complaining about buidling overpasses for the burbs.

Also plenty of people in the burbs work where they live and don't commute. These people should not be penalized just because they chose to live and work in a suburb. There costs are likely similar to inner city costs. If you really want to price the transportation costs we need to bring in density based tolls, eliminate transit subsidies and significantly reduce property taxes. This way the externalities of the decisions are passed on to the user.

[4X4]

GGG pretty much said what I was going to say. Not everyone drives downtown, so your argument about commute is moot. So what is the problem here? Do you want Calgary to stop building? Set a border, and then instead let the bedroom communities build up to the borders of Calgary? I just don't get what is so evil about wanting to live in the City of Calgary, but not want to live downtown. Especially if you work way in the south or in the north.

You latte sippers need to realize this. Not everyone works downtown. In fact, most people don't. And it's funny that you complain in the other thread about development on your inner city street tearing up the road. So it's a pain in the ass to densify the inner city, and it's evil to build on the outskirts. Jesus, is there anywhere that we're allowed to build to accommodate all the people that are buying houses in this city?

[GGG]

And a question related to the thread itself. Do you know which alderman voted for and agianst the police budget in 2010 or 2011 when Nenshi was trying to cut the police budget and everyone caved and increased it instead? and is there any desire with the new coucil to pursue greater efficiencies in the Police department.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Not everyone drives downtown, so your argument about commute is moot. [...] You latte sippers need to realize this. Not everyone works downtown. In fact, most people don't.

I guess we can stop building infrastructure to get residents of new suburbs to downtown then, because not everyone works there.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by SebC

I guess we can stop building infrastructure to get residents of new suburbs to downtown then, because not everyone works there.

We have. The only thing left to build is the ctrain. It's not like the ring road takes people downtown. So... What are you getting at? Just trying to be an ass?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Jesus, is there anywhere that we're allowed to build to accommodate all the people that are buying houses in this city?

I just want that, wherever new housing or commercial/industrial is built, the costs are paid by the developers and eventual residents/tenants of that housing and not by current homeowners and businesses. And not in the 50 year term, or whatever, but within a short time (5 years?) so that if the projected revenue doesn't materialize in the long term, the city doesn't end up bankrupt or underfunded.

If that's wild-eyed social engineering (not that I'm saying you're claiming this), then put me down as a radical.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by SebC

I guess we can stop building infrastructure to get residents of new suburbs to downtown then, because not everyone works there.

Yes, SebC, that's what we will do. Nailed it.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by jammies

I just want that, wherever new housing or commercial/industrial is built, the costs are paid by the developers and eventual residents/tenants of that housing and not by current homeowners and businesses. And not in the 50 year term, or whatever, but within a short time (5 years?) so that if the projected revenue doesn't materialize in the long term, the city doesn't end up bankrupt or underfunded.

If that's wild-eyed social engineering (not that I'm saying you're claiming this), then put me down as a radical.

Are we talking about the subsidy again, because I'm pretty sure we all agree on that. Or are you talking about how in another 50 years, we're going to need much bigger roads, and that the people living along those roads should pay for them, rather than the people that live elsewhere in the city?