Latte Sipping, YOP Gobbling Urban Planning Megathread

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So under your proposal, people who live in mid-rise and high-rise condos (that have a very small footprint per occupant) should receive a huge tax break?

In general yes. They cause less transportation policing and fire costs so they should get a tax break. Now I probably wouldn't tax only based on lot size as there are services that we receive from the city which are independent of sprawl but in general people in Condos should pay less as they use less services

[Bigtime]

I think part of the problem is the "Older communities didn't have to pay this" crowd.

Well what's in the past is in the past, time to make a clean break and move forward in a financially sustainable way, including infill and intensification of existing communities paying their appropriate costs too.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I think part of the problem is the "Older communities didn't have to pay this" crowd.

Well what's in the past is in the past, time to make a clean break and move forward in a financially sustainable way, including infill and intensification of existing communities paying their appropriate costs too.

This is exactly the stance that should be taken.

[Bigtime]

I know, so why can't the city get that message out just as clearly? Instead it has become muddled into this false perception of inner-city vs suburbs.

I hate it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by fotze

Because it is likely the Walden folks will use the same roads as the kingsland folks, where the Kingsland folks will never EVER going to go to Walden. (Also, where the fata is Walden, who picked that name).

That's what annoyed me in Sunnyside. Half of the city's population used the same 20 ft of road I used to get to work and I did not use the 25 km of roads they needed yet paid the same taxes because of the arbitrary value of your land taxing philosophy.

And we should charge new communities because they do not exist yet.

In that video it had a new community and the cost to build and the ongoing op costs, I wish the city released that for a new community. Have an example of a real community with real numbers to really demonstrate the point, because I really have no idea what the average maintenance cost is for a section of road, or alley or sewer or fire protection, etc.

i.e. Mahogany cost $1B to build all the infrastructure and costs $20MM per year to maintain and the city receives $10MM per year in new tax revenue.

Are you asserting that a current resident of Calgary has more right to be here then a future resident of Calgary? Because then what you are saying makes sense that the new people should pay for the impacts that the existing people have caused.

My general point in focusing on lot size is the fact that ithe reason these new communities are so far out is that the current communities take up too much space. So why should a new community have to pay for all of the planning mistakes.

The reason that everyone can't drive the same 20ft of roads is that you can't fit that many 50ft frontage lots into that space. So shouldn't everyone on a 50 ft frontage lot pay for the costs of sprawl for that lot? Choosing to live in the inner city is a reflection on wealth and therefore should be taxed progressively (the wealthier pay more) choosing condo, vs townhouse, vs SFH small lot vs SFH is a lifestyle choice and should be taxed based on cost.

Just because you currently live in sunnyside does not mean you don't contribute to sprawl.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I know, so why can't the city get that message out just as clearly? Instead it has become muddled into this false perception of inner-city vs suburbs.

I hate it.

Because the debate has been framed to say that the problem is sprawl, when in reality that's only part of the problem. Its been made into a latte-sippers vs. Yop-gobblers argument and in the meantime some of us enjoy both beverages!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fotze

The other thing that I don't fully understand. Each one of the new houses on the outskirts, that's not a new citizen to Calgary, its most likely someone from closer in moving out to a bigger house for cheaper. So the city isn't actually gaining new tax revenue its just swapping it for a more expensive citizen.

And to pile on the parasite communities, they have to cost the city a craptonne compared to the revenue they bring in, don't they? Has anyone done studies on that? and sorry their 'weekend shopping revenue' probably is negligible. We all weekend shop, so that's a wash.

Sure, but net new residences means a tax increase. It could also be someone who was renting before and now becomes a direct taxpayer. In the case of Walden it also can be those new businesses set-up which are clearly new taxpayers for the city.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by fotze

I wouldn't put it that way, but kinda. We draw the line now and new citizens (or existing citizens who buy cash flow negative homes) pay more.

To me this is unfair because your aren't charging existing resitdents for there impact. Essentially because we got here first and bought up the housing using up the low cost room inefficiently people in the outskirts in there more efficient use of land should pay more. To me something is wrong with that. Land that is used less efficiently needs to pay more in taxes than land that is used more efficiently regardless of where anyone lives or when they move to the city

[SeeGeeWhy]

Four thoughts come to mind so far. Keep in mind I am probably categorized as a latte sipper even though I live in a yop gobbling community. I would move if I could afford to do so, and didn't have two large dogs.

First, I think the fear of allowing new communities to be taxed at a higher rate is coupled to the fear that EVERYONE will eventually pay more tax, because that's what slimy governments do. They put in a wedge, then drive the door wide open for as much taxation as possible.

Second, I think I am a latte sipper because I geek out hard on reading about urban planning and maximizing value of a developed space. It's obvious that wisely planned and incrementally built dense spaces are also the most unique, fun and enjoyable spaces as well (as far as urban settings go). However, this focuses on minimizing up front development cost and maximizing potential unitized revenue from the space. Why aren't we scrutinizing the maintenance costs of supplying services as part of this conversation? Government obviously has to be more effective at controlling its budgets, which is a conversation that happens all the time, but it never seems to be on play when we are talking about the sustainability of our cities. Those of us who are putting pressure on development laws to optimize revenue potential of a space should also be putting as much pressure as possible on reviewing how we operate our maintenance and services to keep the future burdens as low as possible as well. But as anyone who is in business understands (especially in oil and gas) - sales hides many problems. And as anyone who might be involved with lean philosophy of business operations - waste is often accepted as a way to deny that deficiencies in our system exist... Because admitting we are wrong, and changing our ways are hard things to do. I would say we tend to live in a culture where life is viewed as linear, and not as a closed loop - this creates many problems.

Next thought is a hypothetical. What if developers were allowed to tax the residents of its communities in exchange for accepting the long term liabilities of that development? I have my own thoughts on this but unwanted to put it out there.

Last... The importance of looking at what works, and the importance of events to spur change. Expo 86 helped kick off a transformation of the false creek area in Vancouver, would an Olympic bid for Calgary help get the east village even further along? What about the pearl district in Portland? Intentional gentrification of dead or under utilized spaces, which Calgary has many... East village, eau claire, ramsay, inglewood, etc.. These spaces usually have he greatest potential for an expression of unique personality and character.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

It's one of the best terms to hit CP in years.

That would be hilarious if it caught on. I just threw the term YOP out there in the other thread because it perfectly symbolizes the locust kids that spread along with the suburban disease, and counter-balanaces the elitist, latte-sipper terminology used to describe us inner-city folk.

[BlackArcher101]

Why are roads the only infrastructure used when comparing inner city vs suburbs useage? If you solely use roads for a comparison of actual usage vs tax level, you will always arrive to an unfair advantage. The problem with that line of thinking is that roads is not the only infrastructure used by residents. You have water, wastewater (both sewage & storm), electricity, and other items. The utilities built in the inner city for the very people complaining about subsidizing the suburbs are starting to degrade and fail. Guess what? Repairs, replacements or modifications must be made but who's stuck footing the bill? All residents of Calgary. Using the roads example, then it's the suburbs who are getting screwed for paying for repairs on stuff we don't use. Flood prevention modifications to the elbow/bow river floodplains? Again, all of Calgary.

Using roads solely is short sighted and doesn't look at the big picture.

Just my beef for the day.

[Hack&Lube]

I know what a Yuppie is but what is a Yop?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

In the context of the Provincial capital outlay, the big ones are hospitals and other healthcare facilities, schools and highways (aka Deerfoot and Stoney Trail in the context of those within Calgary city limits). It's been posted a number of times in the past, but basically, Calgary's public school attendance hasn't nearly kept pace with population growth (people having less kids) and yet the geographic representation of school projects sees a ton of new schools being built on the outreaches of the city and older schools systematically being closed closer in. Now, the "but that's where the kids are" argument is more chicken-and-egg than those who would bring that up might want to admit (i.e., would you continue to live somewhere if there weren't a school about to be built there?) and is also a bit of a red herring (kids can be bused to school if need be).

Operating costs are also relevant to the discussion from the province's perspective, and I don't think it would pencil out in favour of the inner city neighbourhoods.

Royal Oak school has 529 students K-4. The building is new and energy efficient, and requires one principal and one assistant principal. If the school is underutilized as the neighbourhood ages, it was designed to expand to K-6 to keep the building full.

Hillhurst school has 296 students K-6. The building is old and energy inefficient, and requires one principal and one assistant principal.

The operating costs for Hillhurst school per student will be much higher.

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The aging (60s-90s) suburbs have all the traditional problems with suburbs. There's no variety or good opportunity to age-in-place, the layout is terrible and infuriating; sidewalks, parks, school sites are barren and windswept, walking and transit are woefully unideal situations.

The ones being built now are better in many ways that I will acknowledge and a lot closer to something I could actually see myself choosing. The built form is better, the housing type mix is better, the street hierarchy and street layout is better. The problem with the new suburbs is that they are too geographically removed from everything, being removed from the rest of the city by several rings of the older variety of suburbs. Walden's great. It's just that it's about 120 blocks too far south.

You're right about the problem, but wrong about the scale. It's not just the middle ring suburbs that aren't dense enough, its just about every neighbourhood, including many that are considered inner city. To continue my previous example, West Hillhurst has 2420 people per square km, while Royal Oak has 3130 people per square km.

The only thing that's wrong with many of the new suburbs is that a bunch of inefficient old neighbourhoods are separating them from downtown.

Maybe if we had less NIMBYism and more approved ARPs this would change, but it hasn't so far. Since density is the primary driver of operating costs, and the city says the new neighbourhoods don't pay their operating costs, the only logical conclusion is that the vast majority of the older neighbourhoods don't cover their op costs either.

On an operating cost basis Royal Oak and neighbourhoods like it are subsidizing West Hillhurst and neighbourhoods like it. (Maybe not Hillhurst specifically due to the market assessment taxation, which is a separate issue)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Why are roads the only infrastructure used when comparing inner city vs suburbs useage? If you solely use roads for a comparison of actual usage vs tax level, you will always arrive to an unfair advantage. The problem with that line of thinking is that roads is not the only infrastructure used by residents. You have water, wastewater (both sewage & storm), electricity, and other items. The utilities built in the inner city for the very people complaining about subsidizing the suburbs are starting to degrade and fail. Guess what? Repairs, replacements or modifications must be made but who's stuck footing the bill? All residents of Calgary. Using the roads example, then it's the suburbs who are getting screwed for paying for repairs on stuff we don't use. Flood prevention modifications to the elbow/bow river floodplains? Again, all of Calgary.

Using roads solely is short sighted and doesn't look at the big picture.

Just my beef for the day.

I think roads becomes the focus because outside of the $4800 current subsidy the capital costs of everything else has been paid for by new communities. Waste Water, Sewage, Electrical etc.

Although for all of these things they should be incorporated into the rate we pay for water. It is ridiculous that the capital costs of water treatment is a city capital project and not a project that is funded by the users of the water. The price of Water and Sewer per Cubic meter should include the capital operating and maitenance costs. Costs of installing pipe should be born by the new community but usage fees should cover the remainder of the costs. If you want a green lawn you should pay for all of the costs associated with it.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I know what a Yuppie is but what is a Yop?

Some disgusting yogurt "drink" from the 90's.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I think part of the problem is the "Older communities didn't have to pay this" crowd.

Well what's in the past is in the past, time to make a clean break and move forward in a financially sustainable way, including infill and intensification of existing communities paying their appropriate costs too.

Smartest thing said in this thread so far. Just because things weren't done right in the past it doesn't mean they should continue this way.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Some disgusting yogurt "drink" from the 90's.

I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but Yop is still around.

[V]

Originally Posted by GGG

The other issue with just adding costs to new construction is that it just raises the cost of a suburban home which in turn raises the value of an inner city home.

Actually, it raises the value of every single existing home, inner city or suburb. My house in the suburbs just became more valuable because people want to live in the burbs, but they don't want to pay the high new construction price. So my demand just went up. In fact, I'll bet my demand went up more than the inner city latte-sippers.

How can one justify charging Walden for its future traffic problems while kingsland gets a free pass. Its why I keep coming back to lot size as your contribution to sprawl. If you sip your latte on a 50ft frontage lot you are causing more sprawl then any new suburb and should pay for it. If we want people to pay for their impact we need to recognize that the new community isn't entirely to blame and therefore shouldn't bare all of the cost.

Who do you think is paying for the inefficiencies now? It's everyone. We're already paying for those terrible decisions. Why would we want to add to the load? Let's focus on enhancing the efficiencies where we already live, and make sure that all development, whether inner city, existing burbs or new development is done in a sustainable manner that will pay for itself.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by GGG

To me this is unfair because your aren't charging existing resitdents for there impact. Essentially because we got here first and bought up the housing using up the low cost room inefficiently people in the outskirts in there more efficient use of land should pay more. To me something is wrong with that. Land that is used less efficiently needs to pay more in taxes than land that is used more efficiently regardless of where anyone lives or when they move to the city

But us inner city dwellers are paying more taxes - property values & assesments are higher than the outskirts.

[Bigtime]

I'm getting some pushback from my suburbanite friends that don't understand that Yop-Gobbler is a badge of pride for them to wear.