Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Bunk]

That's of course, primarily non-residential property tax and business tax because of the concentration of employment and extremely high property value in the core. Nevertheless, remember that many Calgarian's daytime home is in the downtown, and practically every person that visits the city for business or otherwise spends time in the core. It is the face of the city and its economic engine - so my point is that we should never neglect it.

^expanding to immediate surrounding residential areas wouldn't change the proportion that substantially.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Muta

Why does the city do this? That's my issue.

If they didn't subsidize the cost of infrastructure for developing communities, prices for homes out in those communities would be higher. This, in turn, would force people back towards to the inner city because it's no longer a discount to live out in the middle of nowhere (and if you're paying the same amount, you're probably going to live in a place where it takes less time to get anywhere), and the infrastructure wouldn't be needed, thus saving the city those costs.

My guess is that it leads to MOAR DEVELOPMENT! Bronco was very friendly to the developers during his reign. I've heard of Nenshi wanting to slow that down, but we owe so much money to developers now that it's scary to just flip a switch.

[V]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Design and construction contracts are two very separate things. Sole source design happens all the time...

TILMA kicks off at $75,000.00.

Virtually every design that costs more than $75,000.00 is contracted out. Before this project I wasn't aware of a single design over $75,000.00 that was ever sole sourced. I'm no bridge designer, but I'm pretty sure the design of this bridge cost more than $75,000.00.

Still, I'm happy they went for it on this project. Why not, on something as small as $25 mil?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by kermitology

The city subsidizes the cost of infrastructure to developing communities so that the cost of the housing stays cheap. That's a big problem in my opinion.

In Nenshi's negotiaions with the developers they increased the fee per hectare for new construction to cover the infastrcuture costs associated with putting in a new community. They however didn't cover increased capital costs for things like water treatment plants, dumps, etc as those are required no matter where you add the citizen.

In fact you could argue that any current resident in the city subsidizes any new residient when they come in because fees for new housing regardless of where it is located in the city does not cover the capital expansion costs of our facilities. These capital costs amount to about half of the billion dollar developer debt, the other half will be repaid through the new fees for new construction.

So unless someone has taken a recent look at the numbers post the fee increase and has taken a good look on how these fees are calculated (I haven't so would love to see some real numbers) It is much more difficult to say that the suburbs aren't contributing there fair share then it was pre-election.

Beyond that I live in the suburbs and work in the suburbs and barely venture North of Anderson road aside from flames games. So I don't want to pay for any overpasses either. So don't just tax the new comunities if you want to tax for transportation expenses you need to put GPS's in everyones cars and have density based tolls for travel during rush hour, end transit subsidies, get rid of parking restrictions downtown and let the market price transportation.

Really the current property tax system is very similar to our federal system. The rich pay more in taxes than poor so if you are okay with progressive taxation then the current system makes sense. If not we should go to a pure user fee based system.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

You want to change the current system because you deem it unfair to inner city residents. Well they bought their houses knowing exactly how the system worked or they've had ample time to move if they don't like it. Suburbanites bought their houses under the same assumptions. Can't just up and change it for the benefit of the few and ignore the many. Spock would be pissed!

Yes, but that doesn't take away from the fact that inner city residents generally re-use existing infrastructure (that a good chunk has already been paid for long ago) more than outer city residents (who require new infrastructure). I see what you're saying for sure, but that system should be changed, and not for the few, but for the many.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by fotze

Its probably their past expertise and experience working with these oddball structures that they would want to choose the 'proven' company.

Its not like they were some outfit in the back of a garage.

You probably see the same thing in these oilsands projects. The only way to ensure no fata ups in a big project is to not build it. Big company's fata up, small company's fata up. The lowest bidder screws up, the best bidder screws up.

People base their life's work and PhD's on the bidding/construction process/contractor selection and what they tell you is that all methods have deep flaws and no one has been able to think of anything better.

Like this guy:
http://schulich.ucalgary.ca/civil/GeorgeJergeas

I was on an oilsands project where we bought a containment sump from a backyard builder. They look our data sheet, cut out the drawing and returned that as their vendor drawing. Needless to say the entire thing was a disaster. Someone in purchasing must have known the owner.

My concern is that the city pushed for the spanish fabricator because they were trying to keep the cost within budget. If Graham can't recoup their rework costs from the fabricator, they might go back to the city cap in hand. It depends on who was responsible for QA/QC prior to shipping the fabricated sections.

[Bunk]

^^^ Developers pay 100% of the cost of certain on-site capital infrastructure (such as internal roadways, parks, pipes, etc). The other stuff that's common to several neighbourhoods such as transit infrastructure, fire halls, police stations, libraries, major water and sewer infrastructure, major roadways, interchanges etc that are triggered by growth is now paid for about 50% by developer levies through the new agreement. Prior to this agreement, the developer levy paid for about 25% of that cost - 75% was taken on by the general taxpayer. The previous agreement also didn't include any major water and sewer infrastructure, which is why we got into so much debt problems in that area.

That's only capital costs, the operational costs are not considered in that calculation. The problem being that if a community isn't well designed and efficiently laid out, operational costs for things like transit are ridiculously high - hence the push for greater density and better, more 'complete' communities (lowers operating costs substantially).

I've always wondered why fiscal conservatives where never pushing harder to reduce this subsidy and for better community design/ higher density.

[V]

Originally Posted by Bunk

^^^ Developers pay 100% of the cost of certain on-site capital infrastructure (such as internal roadways, parks, pipes, etc).

What do you mean by pipes? Like you said later, water and sewer are paid partially by the City.

-Edit- I thought 100% by the City.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GGG

In Nenshi's negotiaions with the developers they increased the fee per hectare for new construction to cover the infastrcuture costs associated with putting in a new community. They however didn't cover increased capital costs for things like water treatment plants, dumps, etc as those are required no matter where you add the citizen.

In fact, the Mayor does not negotiate these agreements, Administration does, but Council approves it. The Mayor did vote against the agreement on principle because he thought it didn't quite go far enough.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by V

What do you mean by pipes? Like you said later, water and sewer are paid partially by the City.

-Edit- I thought 100% by the City.

Water mains etc within the community. Stuff like water treatment plants, no.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Muta

Yes, but that doesn't take away from the fact that inner city residents generally re-use existing infrastructure (that a good chunk has already been paid for long ago) more than outer city residents (who require new infrastructure). I see what you're saying for sure, but that system should be changed, and not for the few, but for the many.

So does that change start from this point in time for every new community or house from this point in time?

What about new construction in the developed communities? How do we implement this new system on them and how their increased density in a existing community will cause further deterioration to existing infrastructure that they didn't pay for? These old houses along memorial drive being knocked down for multiplexes. Apartment buildings going up in Inglewood, condo's in Varsity etc. ?

[Bunk]

The cost of development in established areas is not free, but is far less than adding a new unit on the fringe of the city. There are infrastructure levies applied to certain existing areas with a lot of redevelopment.

Because of this fact, incentivizing redevelopment becomes attractive to municipalities.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

So does that change start from this point in time for every new community or house from this point in time?

What about new construction in the developed communities? How do we implement this new system on them and how their increased density in a existing community will cause further deterioration to existing infrastructure that they didn't pay for? These old houses along memorial drive being knocked down for multiplexes. Apartment buildings going up in Inglewood, condo's in Varsity etc. ?

C'mon man. If I had the answers to these questions readily available, I wouldn't be providing them on a public message board, I'd be charging alot of money for that information.

I'm saying the system has to be changed, that's all. Pretty unfair of you to lay the entire finaincal / accounting / urban planning landscape strategy for the next 100 years on me to sort out for you. In five minutes. For free.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

In fact, the Mayor does not negotiate these agreements, Administration does, but Council approves it. The Mayor did vote against the agreement on principle because he thought it didn't quite go far enough.

Fair enough, that does sound correct.

Anyway the old statement where people say that New Suburban Development doesn't pay for itself needs to be revisted and carefully compared with a new urban development to assess the real cost differences. It certainly isn't as substantial as it used to be if it still exists at all

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Muta

C'mon man. If I had the answers to these questions readily available, I wouldn't be providing them on a public message board, I'd be charging alot of money for that information.

I'm saying the system has to be changed, that's all. Pretty unfair of you to lay the entire finaincal / accounting / urban planning landscape strategy for the next 100 years on me to sort out for you. In five minutes. For free.

I would have been okay with "yeah, that sounds about right" or something fitting for the given sophistication of the banter in the thread thus far. I wasn't expecting some sort of detailed financial analysis. We can only go so far here...

Granted Bunk is doing a decent job above *thumbs up*

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The loudest and most vocal against this project tend to be very ignorant about it I've found.

Your post is kind of ironic because the more research I've done into how the bridge came to be the more horrified I get knowing how things can operate in city hall. Granted you will learn this wasn't the only unsavory project that was run through for personal/political gains. There's a lot of reading on it and I suggest you dig in as you could literally make a motion picture drama on this whole ordeal.

LOL I don't frequent this thread daily but has it really degenerated into a head count on people using the bridge? Honestly I hope people use it and I hope it becomes a nice landmark for the city but I believe a lot of people still don't understand where the disdain comes from and for people like me it's not the actual bridge or the cost. This bridge does not stink for the actual structure or cost, it stinks because of the unethical manner that it came to be. It's a lowpoint for Calgary City hall and represents corruption that IMO should have resulted in pink slips for numerous employees including Farrell, Bronconnier, and anyone else involved in bypassing city protocol with possible criminal charges. Then there is the sleazy back door stuff where after being shot down in the first vote Dale Hodges mysteriously doesn't vote the 2nd time (allegedly pressured not/threatended/paid off not to participate) giving the bridge it's narrow vote margin. It's pretty crazy how many rules were broken to get this bridge built which is why I am saddened when I pass it a few times a week.

[Bigtime]

Jian Ghomeshi did his opening essay on Q about the bridge this morning:

http://t.co/6PAfOBS6

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by V

TILMA kicks off at $75,000.00.

Virtually every design that costs more than $75,000.00 is contracted out. Before this project I wasn't aware of a single design over $75,000.00 that was ever sole sourced. I'm no bridge designer, but I'm pretty sure the design of this bridge cost more than $75,000.00.

Still, I'm happy they went for it on this project. Why not, on something as small as $25 mil?

I'm pretty sure TILMA didn't kick in before this project was awarded. As well, sole sourcing still happens in the private sector.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I'm pretty sure TILMA didn't kick in before this project was awarded. As well, sole sourcing still happens in the private sector.

Sole-sourcing is an easy way to get a job, for sure. Basically it comes down to who you know, and how you're qualified. It sure beats the RFP process, which is alot of work. TILMA's $75,000 limit is a great limit to have. Jobs smaller than that have to be really justified to spend the money chasing it through conventional means.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Jian Ghomeshi did his opening essay on Q about the bridge this morning:

http://t.co/6PAfOBS6

More leftist propaganda from the Communist Broadcasting Corporation. How much did Silly Hall pay this Iranian to talk nicely about Druh's bridge project?
- Rick Bell