For those interested, here's a link to CBC's story about this issue. It has raw footage of the scrums of both Charron Ungar and the Mayor. Provides the best unfiltered overview of things.
Just watched Rollin's Civic Camp video from the other day.
Pretty blatantly obvious that there's no freezing on development. Really liked some of the changes being proposed and am excited about the nextCity initiatives
An inner city renter (particularly if renting an apartment - which must be profitable, and not a condo) is paying more than his fair share of taxes (through rent), whereas someone who owns in the burbs is being subsidized. (Now please print an apology before you may return to this conversation )
This opinion is false. Apartment buildings are assessed based on net income, which invariably results in a lower tax assessment and lower taxes than an identical building which is owned as condos.
That means the owner of an apartment building (and by extension the tenants) pay less than their fare share of taxes, since residents of the same type of building use the same type of services.
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
For those interested, here's a link to CBC's story about this issue. It has raw footage of the scrums of both Charron Ungar and the Mayor. Provides the best unfiltered overview of things.
This opinion is false. Apartment buildings are assessed based on net income, which invariably results in a lower tax assessment and lower taxes than an identical building which is owned as condos.
That means the owner of an apartment building (and by extension the tenants) pay less than their fare share of taxes, since residents of the same type of building use the same type of services.
Thanks for the correction. I apologize for my misleading statement.
I will, however, point out the flaw in your logic, being that it does not necessarily from "an apartment pays less tax than a similar condo" that the apartment tenants are subsidizees... they could both be net subsidizers, as the city does not consist solely of apartments and condos.
Thanks for the correction. I apologize for my misleading statement.
I will, however, point out the flaw in your logic, being that it does not necessarily from "an apartment pays less tax than a similar condo" that the apartment tenants are subsidizees... they could both be net subsidizers, as the city does not consist solely of apartments and condos.
I was wondering if you'd apologize , since that is the theme of the thread...
You're certainly right about the potential for both types of dwellings to net subsidize dwellings in other areas.
I still haven't seen any actual evidence that inner city dwellings are more efficient on an operating basis, only that higher densities are more efficient. So it's quite possible, imo, that condos in the suburbs are subsidizing single family homes.
Also, the delivery of services isn't cheaper downtown, since most of the services (water, sewer, garbage collection) are delivered from suburban areas. The infrastructure is already there, but it's getting old. If developers pay a levy (in an amount the city gets to set) to cover the cost of new infrastructure, then I don't see an issue, as I don't think there's an operating cost subsidy urban vs suburban.
I will apologize in person the next time I hold a formal dinner.
Just watched Rollin's Civic Camp video from the other day.
Pretty blatantly obvious that there's no freezing on development. Really liked some of the changes being proposed and am excited about the nextCity initiatives
Really long video
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
The Following User Says Thank You to mykalberta For This Useful Post:
That video has a tonne of information - great for any why did I study Engineering instead of urban planning in school types.
35 year subrub recoupment cost.
The differences in taxation powers say with Calgary vs St Louis for example.
Google Rollin Stanley and St Louis and scroll down a bit a you find fantastic articles.
Hes brash and not afraid to tell people what he thinks. And he is likely getting paid 250K to manage a department of 800.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
Keep in mind that Calgary's "footprint" has about 250km2 of land yet to be developed. Calgary maintains at least a 30 year unbuilt land supply. Most other cities on this list are central municipalities (the oldest parts of a metro city) long built out - i.e. downtown and surrounding older communities. Very apples to oranges comparison.
It might not paint a complete picture, but it does paint a picture.
Overall we do have a low population density compared to other cities vs. used land.
No one has ever remotely suggested that all Calgarians must live in 600 square foot condos. This sort of hyberbolic fear mongering is totally absurd considering Calgary is probably one of the most single-family-home-dominated cities on earth.
The reason people might think that is because the industry doesn't build much other than suburban sprawl places, or 600 sq ft condos. The only other option to date is high-end duplexes (which are an abomination).
We need other options. Ever try to buy a three bedroom condo? Can't do it. They don't exist in this city.
That's the only option you would have if you wanted to buy something today, not the only option if you wanted to build something today.
The only things on the market are:
single family sprawl houses
luxury duplexes
600 sq ft condos
legacy homes/older homes
You are hard pressed to find anything else, especially anything in volume. One-offs are not going to be a part of the conversation, you need volume.
Which is why when I am going to be looking for my future house, it will be something I built, and hopefully there will be the option to build it somewhere I want to live.
We need other options. Ever try to buy a three bedroom condo? Can't do it. They don't exist in this city.
I live in one, very near downtown - it's awesome. It is rare though, yes. Developers will tell you they'd gladly build them if there was a substantial enough market. They think they can't sell it. Bucci did about 8 3 bedrooms in their Mission project. Apparently they sold, do maybe more developers will give it a shot.
I still haven't seen any actual evidence that inner city dwellings are more efficient on an operating basis, only that higher densities are more efficient. So it's quite possible, imo, that condos in the suburbs are subsidizing single family homes.
Also, the delivery of services isn't cheaper downtown, since most of the services (water, sewer, garbage collection) are delivered from suburban areas. The infrastructure is already there, but it's getting old. If developers pay a levy (in an amount the city gets to set) to cover the cost of new infrastructure, then I don't see an issue, as I don't think there's an operating cost subsidy urban vs suburban.
Pretty much all infrastructure comes with an operating cost. LRT needs drivers. Roads need maintenance and snow removal. Pipes need energy for pump stations etc. So it follows that if an area is more capital intensive, it is probably more operating-cost-intensive too.
Another factor is commute distance. It's possible for people living in the suburbs to have short commutes, but generally they don't. They are greater consumers of travel infrastructure (and the associated operating costs) because they travel larger distances.
Then of course, there's the revenue side of subsidization too. Lower property assessment equals lower taxation for the a building in the suburbs vs an identical building in the inner city.
Obviously you could charge developers a lump sump that will cover the ongoing costs, but if you're going to cover ongoing costs with ongoing revenue, then you need to change the tax model to eliminate the suburban subsidy.
Pretty much all infrastructure comes with an operating cost. LRT needs drivers. Roads need maintenance and snow removal. Pipes need energy for pump stations etc. So it follows that if an area is more capital intensive, it is probably more operating-cost-intensive too.
Another factor is commute distance. It's possible for people living in the suburbs to have short commutes, but generally they don't. They are greater consumers of travel infrastructure (and the associated operating costs) because they travel larger distances.
Then of course, there's the revenue side of subsidization too. Lower property assessment equals lower taxation for the a building in the suburbs vs an identical building in the inner city.
Obviously you could charge developers a lump sump that will cover the ongoing costs, but if you're going to cover ongoing costs with ongoing revenue, then you need to change the tax model to eliminate the suburban subsidy.
Careful what you wish for though! While its easy for "inner city" (which seems to be a moving line at the best of times) residents to say the suburbs should "pay their fair share" (whatever that means), the reality is that if you start this the city had better be prepared to offer better amenities to the suburbs.
I know that this won't be popular here, but I'm of the opinion that the suburbs don't have everything that the city should be providing; the transportation network is not up to par, transit is not great once you get away from the LRT and of course there are other amenities that the city provides such as public ice rinks, swimming pools, libraries, etc. If the city is going to take a position that people need to pay their fair share, thats fine. Once that deal is struck though, the city better have some spare change around to address all of these concerns in all of the areas of the city.
I also wanted to make a point that seems largely forgotten here. People simply don't want to raise families in multi-family dwellings. Can it be done? Of course. Some here are doing it and there is nothing wrong with that; its just that there are a lot of us who just don't want that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Obviously you could charge developers a lump sump that will cover the ongoing costs, but if you're going to cover ongoing costs with ongoing revenue, then you need to change the tax model to eliminate the suburban subsidy.
I watched the video posted above (by mykalberta) and the speaker from the city said something I found interesting around the 37 minute mark. Basically, you can back calculate from his remarks that ~20% of the total property taxes paid in the entire city come from the office buildings in the downtown commercial core. He also had a graph showing that basically the only other types of property that pays for itself tax wise is medium and high rises. Essentially high density downtown subsidizes the rest of the city, including the inner city.
I think the whole urban vs suburban thing is a red herring. Costs are mainly controlled by density, so a low density inner city neighbourhood is more costly and less sustainable than a higher density suburban neighbourhood. And much of the inner city/close in suburbs are currently R1 zoned 50 foot wide lots, which is probably the worst building form possible from a tax perspective. With the new density requirements, condos in saddleridge help pay for the rest of saddleridge.
Density in many newer communities is greater than that of many older communities. In the NW, for example, Royal Oak has a density of 3130 people/km2, while the inner city Hounsfield Heights/Briar Hill had a density of only 2460 people/km2, and West Hillhurst has only 2420 people/km2. Even perennial whipping boy of Tuscany has a density of 2756 people/km2. They should probably be complaining about the sprawl of West Hillhurst, and how the people there aren't covering the operating costs of their (now extremely old and inefficient) infrastructure, like old pipes, small neighbourhood schools, etc.
Last edited by bizaro86; 02-27-2013 at 08:39 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
I watched the video posted above (by mykalberta) and the speaker from the city said something I found interesting around the 37 minute mark. Basically, you can back calculate from his remarks that ~20% of the total property taxes paid in the entire city come from the office buildings in the downtown commercial core. He also had a graph showing that basically the only other types of property that pays for itself tax wise is medium and high rises. Essentially high density downtown subsidizes the rest of the city, including the inner city.
I think the whole urban vs suburban thing is a red herring. Costs are mainly controlled by density, so a low density inner city neighbourhood is more costly and less sustainable than a higher density suburban neighbourhood. And much of the inner city/close in suburbs are currently R1 zoned 50 foot wide lots, which is probably the worst building form possible from a tax perspective. With the new density requirements, condos in saddleridge help pay for the rest of saddleridge.
Density in many newer communities is greater than that of many older communities. In the NW, for example, Royal Oak has a density of 3130 people/km2, while the inner city Hounsfield Heights/Briar Hill had a density of only 2460 people/km2, and West Hillhurst has only 2420 people/km2. Even perennial whipping boy of Tuscany has a density of 2756 people/km2. They should probably be complaining about the sprawl of West Hillhurst, and how the people there aren't covering the operating costs of their (now extremely old and inefficient) infrastructure, like old pipes, small neighbourhood schools, etc.
That's a great point. No one complains about the sprawl of Mount Royal, yet they point to communities elsewhere and say that they are the problem. Of course, if you bought a lot on say Prospect Avenue (just to choose a random road) and built a 20 storey condo you would feel the wrath of the neighbours!
)
, since that is the theme of the thread...
