Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

PS in 2018 YYCCC approved 14 new communities in the suburbs. According to this article, the vote was 14-2 with Nesnhi and Farrell against, and Jones absent: https://www.thestar.com/amp/calgary/...an-growth.html Im not sure if that’s what bizaro was asking but if so, Farkas voted yes.

I was talking about the 2016 vote that massively increased offsite levies on greenfield development. Personally, I'm not opposed to new development as long as it pays its own way, and I think it probably does now, or is at least close enough to be justifiable building it.

I decided to do my own work and look it up, and it turns out that vote was unanimous, but Farkas wasn't on council then.

I was curious, because that was probably the most effective property tax reducing bill passed in the last decade, so anyone who voted against it is disqualified from running as a fiscal conservative, imo.

[bizaro86]

Something else I found while researching this that I thought was relevant:

Committee members also approved an amendment from Coun. Jeff Davison asking the city to explore the phasing out of the so-called “growth management overlay” — a key hurdle for development that requires the city to identify budget for servicing and infrastructure to a new community before it can proceed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/calgary...95729051b/amp/


While the offsite levy pays the cost of new development, there is a time lag. The water infrastructure needs to be built in advance, and the levy is paid in arrears of subdivision. If the land takes decades to get done then our budget will be out of balance until then, and interest would be material.

The GMO prevents new communities from developing if the city can't afford the servicing yet/there isn't demand. Developers don't like it, but its probably critical in slower economic times. Davison looking at scrapping it is probably good for campaign contributions but I think its bad for voters.

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Something else I found while researching this that I thought was relevant:


https://www.google.com/amp/s/calgary...95729051b/amp/


While the offsite levy pays the cost of new development, there is a time lag. The water infrastructure needs to be built in advance, and the levy is paid in arrears of subdivision. If the land takes decades to get done then our budget will be out of balance until then, and interest would be material.

The GMO prevents new communities from developing if the city can't afford the servicing yet/there isn't demand. Developers don't like it, but its probably critical in slower economic times. Davison looking at scrapping it is probably good for campaign contributions but I think its bad for voters.

Interesting, I never knew any of this. It does seem to be a rather pro-developer move, which aligns with my impression of Davison.

[The Fisher Account]

Let's talk about taxes.

Calgarians pay some of the lowest taxes in Canada.

BUT

We are in deep trouble. The proverbial tax shift (commercial vs. residential) can keeps getting kicked down the road. But it's coming, and it's going to be a huge shock to people. We can't dip into reserves forever and we've cut services to the point we either need to decide to keep them or get rid of them entirely (which is not a popular option for most Calgrians).

It's no wonder there are so many incumbents peacing out and saying no thank you. It's gonna be a bloodbath for a number of years. The pandemic certainly didn't help.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Let's talk about taxes.

Calgarians pay some of the lowest taxes in Canada.

BUT

We are in deep trouble. The proverbial tax shift (commercial vs. residential) can keeps getting kicked down the road. But it's coming, and it's going to be a huge shock to people. We can't dip into reserves forever and we've cut services to the point we either need to decide to keep them or get rid of them entirely (which is not a popular option for most Calgrians).

It's no wonder there are so many incumbents peacing out and saying no thank you. It's gonna be a bloodbath for a number of years. The pandemic certainly didn't help.

Absolutely it's coming. And everyone is in favor of cutting spending and lower taxes until it comes to something that directly affects them. Then is suddenly is an important issue.

[Wormius]

Was there anything insightful that came out of the Farkas Reddit AMA?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Was there anything insightful that came out of the Farkas Reddit AMA?

He is who we thought he was.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

S...
The GMO prevents new communities from developing if the city can't afford the servicing yet/there isn't demand. Developers don't like it, but its probably critical in slower economic times. Davison looking at scrapping it is probably good for campaign contributions but I think its bad for voters.

This is an over-simplification. Prior to early 2000's, the City would borrow capital to fund and build major infrastructure projects to service new subdivisions as they get approved. This practice has stopped, because sometimes the capital infrastructure would be built but a new community would not - resulting in wasted capital resources for something that was not needed in the first place. Bronconnier has lead the shift to a "developer-pays" model, where any major infrastructure requirements must be front-ended by developers seeking new community approvals. This was a major business shift, as all smaller land developers have been effectively pushed out of Calgary as a result. However; leaving the financial capacity aside, the decision to take a risk and develop was still up to developers. Bronconnier's infamous words: "I believe in the fundamental right of developers to lose their own money".

GMO process was implemented as an extra layer of approval added for new greenfield communities to proceed based on presenting individual "business cases" to Council and justifying the economic and social benefits of adding another new community in the suburbs. In essence, the Administration and Council wanted to veto any new development they didn't like for any reason. The process is vague, convoluted and unnecessary. It has undoubtedly contributed to the sharp increases in housing costs in Calgary, due to suppressing supply of housing from ready-to-go communities.

All three major mayoral candidates have spoken against the GMO process and promised to have it reviewed and removed, which is the right thing to do regardless of their political leanings.

[Bunk]

The growth system changed from (pre-2012) - whenever a new Area Structure Plan (about 5 communities) was created and approved, budget would follow and development proceeded. When in 2012, Keating introduced developer funded ASPs, it was so that more areas around the city would have the same planning done - and then areas within ASPs, based on servicing catchments could be evaluated like-for-like for budget to move forward. Because the “gate” had previously been the ASP, and now it was no longer, the City needed a new mechanism to be the “gate” so it could determine what areas could proceed with Land Use and Outline Plans that aligned with growth decisions on infrastructure. This is the Growth Management Overlay.

Following the 2018 growth decisions on GMO removals, we now have about 13 years worth of serviced land supply across about 40 communities based on current absorption rates. City policy was a 3-5 year range. As such, there in fact is no shortage.

You can remove the GMO mechanism and it will be 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Projects still need budget approvals.

[getbak]

This ####ing guy...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1436513700119080966

[RedHot25]

Ugh, my ward too.

Sigh.

[cam_wmh]

hahah that crook is gonna seek re-election.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...tion-in-ward-2

[81MC]

“...to keep more money in your pocket.”

You son of a bitch. Anyone who votes for that lying cheat can get bent.

[btimbit]

He's actually gonna try? The balls on this guy, wow.

Calgary loves incumbents though so sad part is, he has a chance.

All aboard the Jennifer Wyness train

[Roughneck]

Mags will have a lot of money behind him again, but Wyness did pretty good going up against an incumbent last time considering the spending disparity.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1436509709117259776

[Yoho]

He’ll make them an offer they can’t refuse.

[The Big Chill]

Jan Damery seems like she has a good platform, but I’ve hardly heard a word about her so far. Is there a reason she isn’t being talked about, or is it just lack of name recognition?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by btimbit

He's actually gonna try? The balls on this guy, wow.

Calgary loves incumbents though so sad part is, he has a chance.

All aboard the Jennifer Wyness train

Do we think Wyness is the best chance of beating him? I'm firmly on the anyone but the crook train, who I agree still has a good chance of winning.

I haven't seen any Wyness signs, and have had door knocks from the Tyers and Aranha campaigns. Basically I want to vote for whoever has the best chance of winning other than him, because I don't think it could be worse.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Do we think Wyness is the best chance of beating him? I'm firmly on the anyone but the crook train, who I agree still has a good chance of winning.

I haven't seen any Wyness signs, and have had door knocks from the Tyers and Aranha campaigns. Basically I want to vote for whoever has the best chance of winning other than him, because I don't think it could be worse.

Seems to be what most people think since she was the closest last time around, but other than that I'm not sure

[FLAME ENVY]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Do we think Wyness is the best chance of beating him? I'm firmly on the anyone but the crook train, who I agree still has a good chance of winning.

I haven't seen any Wyness signs, and have had door knocks from the Tyers and Aranha campaigns. Basically I want to vote for whoever has the best chance of winning other than him, because I don't think it could be worse.

This is a great question as we're also in Ward 2 and want to punt Magliocca. We'll also ride whatever train which is most likely to make that happen. I have predominately seen Tyers signs throughout the Ward, I can't recall seeing a single Wyness sign however.