*Updated* Ongoing Bank of Canada Benchmark Rate Announcements

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I don't get to decide anything. I just vote for someone who I trust will look after my best interest, which is to keep the R-C1 zoning where I reside. I chose to invest my time and money in this community, specifically because of the zoning. If the Mayor and Council want to make changes to the zoning, I believe they should have let me know prior to asking for my vote.

As something as major as upzoning, will undoubtedly have a significant impact on people and communities, I feel the people deserve to have their say in the form of a referendum. Once the genie is let out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

I understand that things change with time, and increasing the density of the inner city is important. However, I strongly feel that it is equally important that the inner city neighborhoods have adequate representation in the decision making process. From what I have witnessed, that is not the case so far.

You can vote for someone else. I’m not sure why you would get any different sort of representation that anyone else.

If the city hears you and decides to go ahead anyway, would that be sufficient consideration to you?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by GGG

One solution would be to change a portion of our tax base to be based on lot size rather than value.

So say 50% of property tax would be on the current % of value and say 50% on % of lot size. So an older house on a 50 x 150 lot would pay 3 times as much as a lane home on a 25x100 lot and a person in a condo with 100 units in 100k sqft would pay 40% on the lane home.

Now you could tie this to the ongoing operational expenses due to sprawl rather than population to more fairly distribute the tax burdan.

Pretty much this.

I think people can love their giant backyards and private houses. But they should be paying the appropriate amount for that privilege.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by blankall

There's also inherent expectations that anyone who buys land in a growing city should have. Over time, the city is going to grow and expand. The idea that existing owners should be able to freeze a portion of the city in whatever state most suits them is absurd.

People love the increase in property values from growing cities. They would never sell their property at below market value. Yet, when a slight nuisance like upzoning comes along, they're all up in arms.

I have zero sympathy.

To me, this is the best argument to preserving the status quo and makes perfect sense.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by blankall

There's also inherent expectations that anyone who buys land in a growing city should have. Over time, the city is going to grow and expand. The idea that existing owners should be able to freeze a portion of the city in whatever state most suits them is absurd.

People love the increase in property values from growing cities. They would never sell their property at below market value. Yet, when a slight nuisance like upzoning comes along, they're all up in arms.

I have zero sympathy.

That argument makes sense for long time owners who realize those value increases but doesn’t really help out someone who is buying into a community like that assuming they are paying for the luxury of a larger yard in a quiet mature community.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

It's probably the same time measurement system that leads to "15 minutes to Airdrie".

Yup. He can't even do the things he mentioned for the majority of the calendar year.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

One solution would be to change a portion of our tax base to be based on lot size rather than value.

So say 50% of property tax would be on the current % of value and say 50% on % of lot size. So an older house on a 50 x 150 lot would pay 3 times as much as a lane home on a 25x100 lot and a person in a condo with 100 units in 100k sqft would pay 40% on the lane home.

Now you could tie this to the ongoing operational expenses due to sprawl rather than population to more fairly distribute the tax burdan.

How would replacing detached homes in mature neighbourhoods with multi-unit buildings that have bigger footprints impact the City’s goal of doubling Calgary’s tree canopy from 8 per cent to 16 per cent? My property has six trees. You might be able to keep one or two if you put a fourplex on it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How would replacing detached homes in mature neighbourhoods with multi-unit buildings that have bigger footprints impact the City’s goal of doubling Calgary’s tree canopy from 8 per cent to 16 per cent? My property has six trees. You might be able to keep one or two if you put a fourplex on it.

We can't have everything. Putting a 4plex on a large inner city lot probably replaces 3 lots worth of development at the edge if the city. They'd be smaller lots (maybe even townhouse size) but if you're worried about the environment that's absolutely a win.

[Azure]

Why can't vacant office buildings be turned into apartments and condos?

[Fuzz]

They are. My office building is going to start conversion next year. The first one in Calgary was done last year.

[chemgear]

This won't help the inflation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bc-...pact-1.6907182

The British Columbia port strike might be over, but it's expected to take weeks — even months — for supply chains and affected businesses to recover, according to experts.

The Railway Association of Canada estimates it could take three to five days for supply chains to recover for each single day the port was shuttered. Following a 13-day shutdown, that's at least 5½ weeks.

Some industry experts say it could take even longer.

"At the end of the day, all these things mean higher costs for organizations," said Johnson. "So that means that companies end up eating the higher costs, which creates other problems, in terms of their ability to spend money elsewhere."

[blankall]

Originally Posted by greyshep

That argument makes sense for long time owners who realize those value increases but doesn’t really help out someone who is buying into a community like that assuming they are paying for the luxury of a larger yard in a quiet mature community.

Anyone who buys into a central neighborhood should be aware that higher density is a risk. It's being discussed continuously at city hall meetings. If you're buying into a neighborhood and then shocked that there might be more density, you haven't done your research. The city isn't just throwing high density into random places. They are putting the density along roadways and in central areas.

Does density even decrease property values, when more density goes in, you often see investors snap up the surrounding properties, as the development companies always pay a premium for development lots, and the surrounding area is next.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How would replacing detached homes in mature neighbourhoods with multi-unit buildings that have bigger footprints impact the City’s goal of doubling Calgary’s tree canopy from 8 per cent to 16 per cent? My property has six trees. You might be able to keep one or two if you put a fourplex on it.

Is the city forcing existing owners to build trees on their own lots? Mandating that developers put X amount of trees to would be a pretty easy thing to do.

[flamesfever]

Spend some time driving around Marda Loop and adjacent communities. They are completely ignoring the parking and traffic problems.

My azz they are doing it to for the poor people. They are doing it mainly to increase the taxes per square foot of land.

I would rather see a reasonable raise in taxes to account for the sprawl, rather than ruin the older neighborhoods.

I am not against a certain amount of densification, e.g. along major streets, corner lots etc. However, people should know exactly where it is being allowed, and not throwing it open throughout the whole neighborhood.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Spend some time driving around Marda Loop and adjacent communities. They are completely ignoring the parking and traffic problems.

My azz they are doing it to for the poor people. They are doing it mainly to increase the taxes per square foot of land.

I would rather see a reasonable raise in taxes to account for the sprawl, rather than ruin the older neighborhoods.

I am not against a certain amount of densification, e.g. along major streets, corner lots etc. However, people should know exactly where it is being allowed, and not throwing it open throughout the whole neighborhood.

I don't know about that, maybe it requires more than a quick thought but with revenue neutral property taxes are they not shifting burden only? So no net benefit, just when one property pays more, the other less. I'm not totally upon how it works, so maybe someone else can comment.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Spend some time driving around Marda Loop and adjacent communities. They are completely ignoring the parking and traffic problems.

My azz they are doing it to for the poor people. They are doing it mainly to increase the taxes per square foot of land.

I would rather see a reasonable raise in taxes to account for the sprawl, rather than ruin the older neighborhoods.

I am not against a certain amount of densification, e.g. along major streets, corner lots etc. However, people should know exactly where it is being allowed, and not throwing it open throughout the whole neighborhood.

Nothing is done just for one demographic or one need (which is why your wants to justly unmet, as they are in opposition to the needs and wants of a far greater spread of demographics).

A multi-family into may go up in Marda Loop that has nothing to do with “helping poor people,” but by increasing the market supply (especially in a sought-after neighbourhood) you end up with a lot of these positive effects.

The other issue is that your version of “reasonable” is another totally subjective requirement you’re asking the city to meet. I’m sure there are many other people in your neighbourhood that would rather have a few more neighbours than pay 20-50% more to keep things just as you like it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Spend some time driving around Marda Loop and adjacent communities. They are completely ignoring the parking and traffic problems.

My azz they are doing it to for the poor people. They are doing it mainly to increase the taxes per square foot of land.

I would rather see a reasonable raise in taxes to account for the sprawl, rather than ruin the older neighborhoods.

I am not against a certain amount of densification, e.g. along major streets, corner lots etc. However, people should know exactly where it is being allowed, and not throwing it open throughout the whole neighborhood.

Wanna know why Marda Loop is having parking and traffic issues?

Answer: NIMBYs demanded every new development have parking. But it turns out that people in new builds like to park on the street instead of their laneway garage just as much as people in old builds like to park on the street instead of their laneway garage.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why can't vacant office buildings be turned into apartments and condos?

They can be. Calgary's pilot project is being looked at carefully by planners and developers around North America and the world (since we have such a disproportionate amount of office space for a city of our size, it's natural for us to be in a position to look at this first on any kind of scale).



Right now a big barrier is that it just isn't something a lot of people have experience with, which drives costs up. As more happen that aspect should at least improve but they still aren't cheap. You save on the actual bones of the building, but there's a lot of plumbing and HVAC work that goes into it to make it suitable for residential. The size of the floorplate of the building means you have undesirable floorplans (long and narrow with few windows per unit). There is a building in Calgary that had a pretty innovative way to add patios to the building, but that wasn't cheap.



So you're basically left with units that still aren't that cheap, but also aren't particularly desirable, which isn't attractive to private developers. So it's a program that requires heavy government subsidization. But with the lack of experience in the conversions, even with all that subsidization available, it still isn't in a place where it can be tackled en masse yet.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by blankall

Is the city forcing existing owners to build trees on their own lots? Mandating that developers put X amount of trees to would be a pretty easy thing to do.

Lots of places in the world have trees on top of apartment blocks.


Higher density is a way to drive property values in a neighbourhood. You generally get more amenities too. High density around the transport / supply / entertainment hubs and radiating out to lower density.

The per square metre value of land goes up when you can do more with it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

Is the city forcing existing owners to build trees on their own lots? Mandating that developers put X amount of trees to would be a pretty easy thing to do.

They do mandate builders include trees. But when you replace a home that takes up 50 per cent of a property with a building that takes up 80+ per cent, you have much less space for trees. And trees take 30 years to grow to maturity. So higher-density redevelopment of properties with detached homes will often mean tearing out three mature trees and replacing them with one sapling.

That has a cost that goes beyond aesthetics.

But trees offer more than just shade and autumn leaf-raking opportunities. They sequester air pollution and help fight climate change. They significantly reduce the “heat island” effect of large cities, thereby reducing the amount of energy used to regulate building temperatures. Trees mitigate the destructive effects of stormwater, provide wildlife habitats and serve as noise buffers in the cacophonous urban landscape. Research has demonstrated the positive effects of trees on psychological well-being and general health. They are also tools for urban design, increasing walkability and decreasing traffic speeds.

Trees are vital but underappreciated parts of any city, our living infrastructure.

A 2014 TD Economics study in Toronto found that every dollar invested in an urban forest sees a return of $1.35 to $3.25 in benefits and cost-savings, everything from stormwater management, air quality, energy savings and carbon sequestration. Think about that for a moment: not only are trees something everyone loves, they are a net fiscal gain.

https://www.avenuecalgary.com/city-l...-urban-forest/

[Aarongavey]

Inflation numbers come out this week. I expect that inflation outside of mortgage costs will be at 2% or lower so the only driver of inflation above target will be the Bank of Canada’s interest rates.