Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by GGG

Shouldn't all redevelopment / development just pay for its own infrastructure costs? An incentive to re-develop the inner city will just increase the value of the property by a corresponding amount as the profit margin for the risk of redevelopment should stay roughly the same as the market sets that.

So a subsidy should have little effect on the number of houses being redeveloped in the inner city.

What's that sucking noise? Sounds like some sort of parasite. . . Maybe a leech?

I keed, I keeed

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Shouldn't all redevelopment / development just pay for its own infrastructure costs?

Generally yes, but subsidies can be justified if the redevelopment/development produces positive externalities.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I'd love to have an incentive to redevelop Renfrew other than simply loving my location. We've had to jump through a number of hoops and red tape that are standard process with the city. I feel bad for areas like Inglewood or Bridgeland where the sewer is so old you have to replace the whole thing when you do your hookup, my part of Renfrew isn't old enough to have that problem.

BUT we did get screwed by the city taking a 3mx3m corner off of our property so that waste and recycling could turn down our alley.. that they can't turn out of.

I'm also in the middle of a build in Renfrew. In our case the development permit process was fairly smooth but the 25k it took to hook up the water/sewer last week felt like a kick in the junk.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

But it seems the majority of people working in the strong CBD want to live in the suburbs.

If you asked a random sample of people "would you prefer to live closer or further from the CBD?" I'm guessing most would say closer. That's why property values generally increase as you approach the city centre.

Indeed, the subsidies do make it seem like people prefer the suburbs because it artifically lowers the cost of living in the suburbs. But if the subsidies were eliminated, some of those people would be able to afford living closer to work... which is not only desirable for the individuals, but also for the city as it reduces their infrastructure requirements.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

You start forcing them to live elsewhere we'll end up with a different problem. Make housing more expensive than it already is and we'll have bigger labour shortage issues. Or we'll have people living in the "even worse parasite communities" like Okotoks, Airdrie, Cochrane, Chestermere, etc and commuting to the CBD.

First off all, I'm not suggesting we "force" anything. All I want is to eliminate the artifical pressure on people to live further from the core rather than closer to it. And not all housing would become more expensive. Only the inefficient housing far from the CBD, but inner city properties would have a lowered overall cost (sticker price would actually go up, but the effect of taxes going down would be greater). Note that not all the inner city properties are expensive, nor are all suburban properties cheap - so it's not taking from the poor to give to the rich.

As for the "even worse parasite communties", I'm not sure that they are in fact worse. No, they don't contribute anything and they use our roads, LRT and such. But they do fully pay for their own fire halls and such (at least as far as Calgary is concerned), which the "parasite communties" within the city limits do not.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

You also haven't suggested anything for the City dwellers that work out of the CBD or the suburbanites that don't work in the CBD. What about the ones that work out of town? What about the suburbanites living in large condo buildings or other high density living styles? Or someone who builds a house in the suburbs that is more self sustaining than some rowhouse in Inglewood.

Well, transit infrastructure is only part of the cost of servicing new communities. The fire halls, libraries, rec centres and stuff need to be built for new communities regardless of where the residents in the area work. But I would not be opposed to a toll road system that breaks down usage to an individual level, if it were feasible to implement.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Really? Renfrew and Inglewood paid for all the infrastructure that was built for them? I don't buy that... But I wouldn't be shocked to be wrong. I'd just wager the city subsidized development somehow vs. they didn't "if you build it they will come" (what's with these movies popping into my brain).

To be fair, I haven't researched this specifically. But logically, a subsidy has to come from somewhere. Without an existing tax base, the city can't offer subsidies. Now perhaps these communities were subsidized by other levels of governments. But someone, somewhere, paid for themselves. Everyone can't get a net subsidy - it's a mathematical impossibility. And there's an equivalency between money now, money before and money later. Even if Renfrew and Inglewood have been subsidized in the past, they have more than paid back those subsidies now. Will the new communities do that? Not necessarily. With operating costs and the time value of money (money today is worth more than money tomorrow), it is quite possible that they will never pay back their subsidies. Meanwhile, the inner city has overpaid.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

I don't know that you can prove or I can disprove what actually is a net benefit or loss to society with respect to what we're discussing. I'm sure we could get much deeper into it this and start looking at it more but that goes beyond the realm of the time I want to spend on CP.

Actually you can. Subsidies produce a net loss unless they create positive externalities (externalities are effects on third parties, basically) the same size as the subsidies. That's fundamental economics. Inner city development produces better externalaties than suburban development (e.g. less polution), yet suburban development receives the subsidies at the expense of the inner city. This is completely backwards from what it should be if you don't account for externalities, or you can account for externalities and say that net public benefit is optimized when neither subsudized the other. (By the way, when I say that new developments should pay for themselves, I mean including externalities and over time - doesn't matter if the cost is paid through higher sticker price on the intial sale or higher taxes after.)

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

I'm wondering if the suburbs create more jobs than some dense inner city living utopia. Or that a greater tax on the suburbs might decrease the spending power of a greater number of individuals than would be saved in the future. That said I do believe that waste and energy are two of the biggest concerns we'll have as a society going forward and the sprawl we have may very well be a huge issue in the future or maybe it is now more than I know. I'm not against different ideas to address some issues or different taxation structures etc.

Suburban development does create jobs. But so does paying someone to move a pile of rocks back and forth. And in subsidizing these activities, we displace labour from more productive activities. And yeah, more spending power to the residents of the suburbs is a good thing. But what about the corresponding decreased spending power of inner city residents? There are a ton of relationships in the economy, but you don't need to figure them all out or quantify them all to determine that the net effect of subsidizing one form of development at the expense of the other will be a net loss to society (called "deadweight loss", if you want to learn more). This would be true as well if the suburbs were overtaxed (relative to their costs to the city) to support central development.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Additionally I don't think I've heard any civic official speak that's inspired me enough to believe they know how to address any of the issues. Maybe I'll run for mayor one day. . . . I'm going to clean up this town, Mayor Ranchlandsselling, I like the sound of that!

Well, many civic officials have received campaign funding from the developers who receive the subsidies (the benefit of the subsidies gets split between developers and the people who buy the homes - the costs go to inner city developers and residents), and many people also benefit from the suburban subsidies (or believe that they benefit from them). So it's not an easy thing for a politician to speak about. Nevertheless, there are some who do understand the issue and wish to take it on, such as Calgary's current mayor.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by SebC

If you asked a random sample of people "would you prefer to live closer or further from the CBD?" I'm guessing most would say closer. That's why property values generally increase as you approach the city centre.

Indeed, the subsidies do make it seem like people prefer the suburbs because it artifically lowers the cost of living in the suburbs. But if the subsidies were eliminated, some of those people would be able to afford living closer to work... which is not only desirable for the individuals, but also for the city as it reduces their infrastructure requirements.

First off all, I'm not suggesting we "force" anything. All I want is to eliminate the artifical pressure on people to live further from the core rather than closer to it. And not all housing would become more expensive. Only the inefficient housing far from the CBD, but inner city properties would have a lowered overall cost (sticker price would actually go up, but the effect of taxes going down would be greater). Note that not all the inner city properties are expensive, nor are all suburban properties cheap - so it's not taking from the poor to give to the rich.

As for the "even worse parasite communties", I'm not sure that they are in fact worse. No, they don't contribute anything and they use our roads, LRT and such. But they do fully pay for their own fire halls and such (at least as far as Calgary is concerned), which the "parasite communties" within the city limits do not.

Well, transit infrastructure is only part of the cost of servicing new communities. The fire halls, libraries, rec centres and stuff need to be built for new communities regardless of where the residents in the area work. But I would not be opposed to a toll road system that breaks down usage to an individual level, if it were feasible to implement.

To be fair, I haven't researched this specifically. But logically, a subsidy has to come from somewhere. Without an existing tax base, the city can't offer subsidies. Now perhaps these communities were subsidized by other levels of governments. But someone, somewhere, paid for themselves. Everyone can't get a net subsidy - it's a mathematical impossibility. And there's an equivalency between money now, money before and money later. Even if Renfrew and Inglewood have been subsidized in the past, they have more than paid back those subsidies now. Will the new communities do that? Not necessarily. With operating costs and the time value of money (money today is worth more than money tomorrow), it is quite possible that they will never pay back their subsidies. Meanwhile, the inner city has overpaid.

Actually you can. Subsidies produce a net loss unless they create positive externalities (externalities are effects on third parties, basically) the same size as the subsidies. That's fundamental economics. Inner city development produces better externalaties than suburban development (e.g. less polution), yet suburban development receives the subsidies at the expense of the inner city. This is completely backwards from what it should be if you don't account for externalities, or you can account for externalities and say that net public benefit is optimized when neither subsudized the other. (By the way, when I say that new developments should pay for themselves, I mean including externalities and over time - doesn't matter if the cost is paid through higher sticker price on the intial sale or higher taxes after.)

Suburban development does create jobs. But so does paying someone to move a pile of rocks back and forth. And in subsidizing these activities, we displace labour from more productive activities. And yeah, more spending power to the residents of the suburbs is a good thing. But what about the corresponding decreased spending power of inner city residents? There are a ton of relationships in the economy, but you don't need to figure them all out or quantify them all to determine that the net effect of subsidizing one form of development at the expense of the other will be a net loss to society (called "deadweight loss", if you want to learn more). This would be true as well if the suburbs were overtaxed (relative to their costs to the city) to support central development.

Well, many civic officials have received campaign funding from the developers who receive the subsidies (the benefit of the subsidies gets split between developers and the people who buy the homes - the costs go to inner city developers and residents), and many people also benefit from the suburban subsidies (or believe that they benefit from them). So it's not an easy thing for a politician to speak about. Nevertheless, there are some who do understand the issue and wish to take it on, such as Calgary's current mayor.

Nice. Think you've made all very good points and clearly have a greater understanding of the topic than I. About the only thing I'm 100% positive on that I was right and you were wrong - UofC MRU and AU all don't cover anything remotely close to what you just summed up earlier in Econ 101.

Regarding the politicians, yeah, something I'm very well aware of. I started a bit on that but decided my post was becoming too long winded and I thought I was nearing the point that no one was going to reply to me regardless so I deleted it out. Regarding Nenshi.... He seems like it, but something about him just seems odd to me. I can't place it and it very well could be the fact he's just not like the others. Which could on its own be a good thing.

[GGG]

Living in the suburbs isn't necessarily more expensive to the city. People living far away from their place of work is very expensive to the city.

As for real capital costs the city and the developers were arguing over 160k a hectare which has I believe between 8 and 16 houses depending on lot size. So the initial subsidy on a house is only 10 to 20k. Not really enough for people to move over. Beyond that any significant change in taxation would essentially be a wealth transfer from the suburbs to the inner city as current pricing reflects current demand based on the current tax structure.

The more interesting question is what would happen if you got rid of all transportation subsidies and charged density based tolls on roads and trains. I think the biggest thing that would happen is that the core would decentralize. If charged the true cost of transportation businesses would likely move to the suburbs to reduce costs to their employees. You already see this happening with large EPC being located south of downtown due to costs and employee preference.

Lastly subsidies never produce positive externalities. They just correct for things that aren't priced into the current market or just transfer wealth from one sector to another. So getting rid of ALL subsidies is far better than creating new subsidies to balance out the market.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Living in the suburbs isn't necessarily more expensive to the city. People living far away from their place of work is very expensive to the city.

Density is a factor as well. As well as "start-up" costs for new communities. Low density is more costly than high density, adding communities costs more than densifying existing communities.

Originally Posted by GGG

As for real capital costs the city and the developers were arguing over 160k a hectare which has I believe between 8 and 16 houses depending on lot size. So the initial subsidy on a house is only 10 to 20k. Not really enough for people to move over. Beyond that any significant change in taxation would essentially be a wealth transfer from the suburbs to the inner city as current pricing reflects current demand based on the current tax structure.

The total cost of the subsidies that's being talked about is $1 billion. That would make a major difference to the city if it were invested in, say, LRT up Centre Street. (I'm picking on the SE LRT because the user base is further out.)

Originally Posted by GGG

The more interesting question is what would happen if you got rid of all transportation subsidies and charged density based tolls on roads and trains. I think the biggest thing that would happen is that the core would decentralize. If charged the true cost of transportation businesses would likely move to the suburbs to reduce costs to their employees. You already see this happening with large EPC being located south of downtown due to costs and employee preference.

Either commercial density would shift away from the CBD or residential density would shift towards it, or most likely, a mix of the two.

Originally Posted by GGG

Lastly subsidies never produce positive externalities. They just correct for things that aren't priced into the current market or just transfer wealth from one sector to another. So getting rid of ALL subsidies is far better than creating new subsidies to balance out the market.

Subsidies don't "produce externalities", but you optimize net public benefit where net subsidies / sin taxes match net positive / negative externalities. I think we're just into semantics... correct me if I'm wrong.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

Density is a factor as well. As well as "start-up" costs for new communities. Low density is more costly than high density, adding communities costs more than densifying existing communities.

The total cost of the subsidies that's being talked about is $1 billion. That would make a major difference to the city if it were invested in, say, LRT up Centre Street. (I'm picking on the SE LRT because the user base is further out.).

I realilize that in the total some of the amount it is a lot to the city. But for an individual moving into the city 10 to 20k might only get you one neighbourhood closer to the center. So eliminating all capital cost subsidies on the burbs would make less of a difference in peoples choices then many think.

Originally Posted by SebC

Either commercial density would shift away from the CBD or residential density would shift towards it, or most likely, a mix of the two.

Subsidies don't "produce externalities", but you optimize net public benefit where net subsidies / sin taxes match net positive / negative externalities. I think we're just into semantics... correct me if I'm wrong.

Is a dense downtown a good thing for a city or would a city be better served by mulitple pockets of fairly high density. (kinda like the TOD models being put forward). Because if you could cut out half of the traffic going downtown and put that into shorter comutes near communities you definately reduce transportation costs.

The only real way to change this is to density price roads. If you make it expensive for people to cause gridlock and you make them pay everyday so they are aware of the cost and you will change behaviours.

Originally Posted by SebC

Subsidies don't "produce externalities", but you optimize net public benefit where net subsidies / sin taxes match net positive / negative externalities. I think we're just into semantics... correct me if I'm wrong.

I think we are just discussing semantics but I just much perfer to think of eliminating a subsidy to chage behaviour back to being market driven rather than saying we should add another subsidy to balance out the orignal subsidy to push the behaviour back into being market driven. The reason I think the thought difference is important is that you eliminate spending, lower average taxation and push costs back on the individuals rather than increase spending and taxation and take costs away from a second group.

[calculoso]

Reading through the "parasite communities" / "Suburban sprawl" portions of this thread, the main thing that keeps popping into my mind is that any "solution" involves increase the cost to people and to families. Road tolls, increased housing prices, increased taxes, increased increased increased...

Why can't something ever be lowered? Creating artificial inflation should never be the automatic solution to any problem.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Reading through the "parasite communities" / "Suburban sprawl" portions of this thread, the main thing that keeps popping into my mind is that any "solution" involves increase the cost to people and to families. Road tolls, increased housing prices, increased taxes, increased increased increased...

Why can't something ever be lowered? Creating artificial inflation should never be the automatic solution to any problem.

Costs to the city are rising because subsidized suburbia creates them. That is the problem with parasite communities: they create a city that becomes more and more costly to keep running. But take away that effect for a moment (or assume that it is only a weak effect), eliminating subsidies for new development should lower the inner-city cost of living. But if we lower inner-city taxes without a corresponding increase in the suburbs, then we'll be broke. Suburban living is under-costed right now, so it has to go up.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Reading through the "parasite communities" / "Suburban sprawl" portions of this thread, the main thing that keeps popping into my mind is that any "solution" involves increase the cost to people and to families. Road tolls, increased housing prices, increased taxes, increased increased increased...

Why can't something ever be lowered? Creating artificial inflation should never be the automatic solution to any problem.

With any kind of congestion based road toll you would expect a corresponding reduction in Civic, provinicial and federal taxes. So for people who drive an average amount in average congestion there should be no change in your total fees. You would just be much more aware of the cost and have control over the cost therefore there would be incentive to reduce that cost. Any changes should be revenue neutral.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

Costs to the city are rising because subsidized suburbia creates them. That is the problem with parasite communities: they create a city that becomes more and more costly to keep running. But take away that effect for a moment (or assume that it is only a weak effect), eliminating subsidies for new development should lower the inner-city cost of living. But if we lower inner-city taxes without a corresponding increase in the suburbs, then we'll be broke. Suburban living is under-costed right now, so it has to go up.

One thought I had is that your taxes should be based partly on the amount of land you take up. A 50 foot x 100ft lot anywhere in the city theoretically should have the same cost impact to the city. Just because one is in the burbs and one is inner city doesn't change the impact. Because to add a citizen who wants a 50 x 100 ft lot you need that amount of space. And that inner city house on a 50 x100 ft lot causes the entire city to sparwl by that amount. So you should at least have a portion of your tax based on the cost of sprawl you contribute to.

The key point in the above is that it isn't where you live that determines if you are part of sprawl or not. It is the amount of room you take up. So a Condo in the burbs is better for the city long term than a house in the inner city. And the 35 x 100 foot lots that make up a good potion of the new burbs are better for the city than existing 50 x 100 foot lots that people refuse to sub divide.

Does that make sense? The amount of land you occupy is your contribution to sprawl regardless of where you live in the city and should be taxed accordingly.

[SeoulFire]

So how about that bridge?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by GGG

With any kind of congestion based road toll you would expect a corresponding reduction in Civic, provinicial and federal taxes. So for people who drive an average amount in average congestion there should be no change in your total fees. You would just be much more aware of the cost and have control over the cost therefore there would be incentive to reduce that cost. Any changes should be revenue neutral.

Moving beyond tolls/congestion prices in the transportation realm, for people to experience a "revenue neutral" effect of any of the package of solutions being put forward, people/families will have to make other changes, which is partly the point. In many ways, the "suburb subsidy" can often be viewed as a "lifestyle subsidy." It won't result in people moving from 2 storey single-family houses in Evanston to 1-bedroom 500 sf. apartments in Eau Claire, but it may mean that people who otherwise would have lived in this in Silverado:



would end up living in (and actually have some options in terms of availibility) this:



Possibly still in Silverado

or this:



In a redeveloped community that is located somewhere more sensible.

Either way, it should result in people not living where they ought not to have been living (in terms of either size/type of housing, where that housing is located in the urban geography, or both). Unless of course they are willing to pay for that otherwise unnecessary lifestyle that could be classified as a want-to-have.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

One thought I had is that your taxes should be based partly on the amount of land you take up. A 50 foot x 100ft lot anywhere in the city theoretically should have the same cost impact to the city. Just because one is in the burbs and one is inner city doesn't change the impact. Because to add a citizen who wants a 50 x 100 ft lot you need that amount of space. And that inner city house on a 50 x100 ft lot causes the entire city to sparwl by that amount. So you should at least have a portion of your tax based on the cost of sprawl you contribute to.

The key point in the above is that it isn't where you live that determines if you are part of sprawl or not. It is the amount of room you take up. So a Condo in the burbs is better for the city long term than a house in the inner city. And the 35 x 100 foot lots that make up a good potion of the new burbs are better for the city than existing 50 x 100 foot lots that people refuse to sub divide.

Does that make sense? The amount of land you occupy is your contribution to sprawl regardless of where you live in the city and should be taxed accordingly.

Well, looking at lot size as a single factor (since, obviously, a condo building that's one city block will cost a lot more to service than an acreage that's one city block), there is a lot of sense in what you've said.

In fact, you could go even further and say that an oversized lot in the inner city is more costly than one at the periphery, because at the edge of the city you aren't pushing anyone away from the core, whereas in the middle of the city you increasing the commutes of everyone further out (assuming they work downtown).

Of course, flipping that around you see that condos near the city centre and larger homes further out is preferable to a low-density core surrounded by dense suburbs (). Of course, that's assuming you're not accounting for transportation costs any other way.

Again, assuming you're not accounting for transportation costs by another method and employment is centered in the CBD, then it is also clear that development further out has a bigger effect on transport infrastructure than inner-city development. Someone close to the core adds traffic to a small length of road (or LRT). Someone further out adds traffic to a much longer length.

I also want to keep the distinction between new developments and existing ones. New development should not be subsidized. If the developers pay the full cost of front then there's not need for a "new development surtax", but if you're only going to change the tax structure (and not development fees), then there needs to be mechanism to recover the initial subsidy from its beneficiaries.

The main point I want to make (and not to you specifically) is this: yes, it is very difficult (or even impossible) to come up with a perfect system. But it's also very easy to make improvements from what we have now.

[Barnes]

You should stop guys. All this great discussion is making SSP jealous.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Barnes

You should stop guys. All this great discussion is making SSP jealous.

Wouldn't posting on SSP be like preaching to the converted?

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would love to live in something like this....

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by SebC

Wouldn't posting on SSP be like preaching to the converted?

Actually it wouldn't be, we have a pretty good mix over there with some differing opinions on how the city should best grow.

[Bigtime]

Peace bridge users choosing to cross Memorial at the unmarked intersection at 8th street making motorists mad (note that it is perfectly legal to cross there):

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...649/story.html

I think the city will need to address this, I'm all in favour of the lights at 7th street going and have them moved to this location instead.