MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[GGG]

Originally Posted by accord1999

New developments pay significant offsite levies to pay for the capital costs to connect to city roads and utilities.


Let's do it as long as it applies to everyone. New communities with low crime and no transit shouldn't have to pay much for those services and people never planning to go to the East Village or Rivers District don't have to pay for their development. It would suck to live near an underground Green Line station though, you'll probably need to take out a second mortgage.

Really, most inner city residents are coat-tailing on corporate offices, high-end retailers and the really rich paying $15K-$30K in property taxes on their mansions (and needing little services). Those are the taxpayers that have been subsidizing the City.

It isn’t about location it’s about square footage. The crime problem of the inner city isn’t the inner cities problem it’s a problem of living in the inner city. A 3500 square foot lot anywhere in the city contributes more to sprawl than a Multi family unit that occupy 1000 sqft of space.

The current system just as the standard progressive taxation if want people to pay the impact of their choices there needs to be a cost associated with that linked to the amount of sprawl.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

A 3500 square foot lot anywhere in the city contributes more to sprawl than a Multi family unit that occupy 1000 sqft of space.

The current system just as the standard progressive taxation if want people to pay the impact of their choices there needs to be a cost associated with that linked to the amount of sprawl.

What's the formula for determining the cost of sprawl? In the same neighborhood, a 3500 sq ft house will already pay much more property taxes than a 1000 sq ft one townhouse (and paid much more development levies). But when comparing significantly different areas, the city services used and needed are going to be different. Roads are only the #4 operating budget item cost, well behind policing, transit and fire. And capital budgets are dominated by the Green Line and the Rivers District.

If a new community has to pay more for the services that it uses more of, it should also pay less for the services that it uses less of.

[GGG]

You keep looking at this from a location standpoint.

The cost of sprawl is caused just as much by a house in crescent heights as it is by a house in seton. So the question is a person is buying a dwelling for a given value how does their choice affect sprawl. If they buy a Comdo with that money they likely live closer to the inner city then if they buy a house. So the comparison isn’t between a townhouse and a house in the same community. It’s homes of equal dollar value.

Does it make sense that a 1 mm dollar condo pays the same tax as a 1 mm house when one increases the operating budget for the city more than the other.

As for setting the rates. You would analyze the operating costs of each service to determine the cost of sprawl for that service. Most of fire departments costs are in keeping response time low so most of fire should be sprawl based, most of roads, the pumping costs for water is affected by length but a lot is just cost of treatment so you’d split that up when determining the water fees. Essentially to the extent the cost of a service is increased by distance that cost should get associated with the square footage of your lot regardless of location in the city.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by timun

When the populists are so blatantly ####ing wrong, as UCB asked earlier: how do you otherwise combat it? Give them the direct democracy they want, and watch them make stupid uninformed decisions? What happens when it turns out that they're not on the majority side of an issue, and get voted down?

If they’re not in the majority and get voted own, then that’s democracy at work. And if Gondek and supporters of the re-zoning pass their measures, and then get turfed by angry voters next election, that’s democracy at work too.

The point I’m trying to make is that there’s a difference between:

* I don’t like the policies that politician/party brought in so I’m going to vote against them next election.

And

* Not only that politcian/party, but our institutions, bureaucracy, and apparatus of state are all operating contrary to popular will. So I’m going to vote someone in who will burn the whole thing down.

I interpret the polls showing declining trust in government to mean that the latter sentiment is growing in Canada. And well-meaning, smart people are throwing gas on the fire when they come out and say the public is too ignorant to be trusted with having a say in policy. You can win a lot of battles over public policy while gradually losing the war over government legitimacy.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by accord1999

New developments pay significant offsite levies to pay for the capital costs to connect to city roads and utilities.


Let's do it as long as it applies to everyone. New communities with low crime and no transit shouldn't have to pay much for those services and people never planning to go to the East Village or Rivers District don't have to pay for their development. It would suck to live near an underground Green Line station though, you'll probably need to take out a second mortgage.

Really, most inner city residents are coat-tailing on corporate offices, high-end retailers and the really rich paying $15K-$30K in property taxes on their mansions (and needing little services). Those are the taxpayers that have been subsidizing the City.

I live innercity in a condo with 180 units. The average property tax rate is probably $3,000 per unit. The building sits on a lot that is likely 2-4 average SFH lots in Calgary. I walk to work - no need for transit.

But, yeah, lets talk about riding coattails.

[kermitology]

New communities are the tax parasite, not inner city. When you do an in-fill development, you are on the hook for the upgrades to all services at the development location, it's just built into the financing costs for the end buyer (or your mortgage if you build to live in it, like I did).

[GGG]

Originally Posted by kermitology

New communities are the tax parasite, not inner city. When you do an in-fill development, you are on the hook for the upgrades to all services at the development location, it's just built into the financing costs for the end buyer (or your mortgage if you build to live in it, like I did).

Do you pay for capital costs of say water treatment plans as part of your permits?

[timun]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If they’re not in the majority and get voted own, then that’s democracy at work. And if Gondek and supporters of the re-zoning pass their measures, and then get turfed by angry voters next election, that’s democracy at work too.

The point I’m trying to make is that there’s a difference between:

* I don’t like the policies that politician/party brought in so I’m going to vote against them next election.

And

* Not only that politcian/party, but our institutions, bureaucracy, and apparatus of state are all operating contrary to popular will. So I’m going to vote someone in who will burn the whole thing down.

I interpret the polls showing declining trust in government to mean that the latter sentiment is growing in Canada. And well-meaning, smart people are throwing gas on the fire when they come out and say the public is too ignorant to be trusted with having a say in policy. You can win a lot of battles over public policy while gradually losing the war over government legitimacy.

Yeah yeah yeah, you keep saying it's a problem and nobody's argued otherwise. You keep avoiding answering my/UCB's question: what do you do to combat it?

If you have a group of voters who believe that "popular will"—their will—is not being followed... then what? You keep saying "well-meaning smart people shouldn't say that these populists are ignorant because it'll just alienate them more", so... what should they do, then?

As I see it, there are two options:

1) let them have their way, or,
2) don't let them have their way

You're saying 2) is a problem, so... 1) it is? Lest those populists get so mad they tear the democratic system down? Frankly, as I see it, if you let them have their way you're already letting them tear down the democratic system. You know what that's called, when populists overthrow democracy? Fascism.

So as far I'm concerned: #### 'em.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you pay for capital costs of say water treatment plans as part of your permits?

Through your taxes, sure. But localized upgrades (at the service node) are the responsibility of the developer.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

As for setting the rates. You would analyze the operating costs of each service to determine the cost of sprawl for that service. Most of fire departments costs are in keeping response time low so most of fire should be sprawl based, most of roads, the pumping costs for water is affected by length but a lot is just cost of treatment so you’d split that up when determining the water fees.

And in order to keep response times lower in dense, more congested areas they need a higher density of stations because travel speeds are slower.

https://calgarymapped.com/index.html...=fire-stations


And also because (like incidents requiring police), the fire department is called in for more incidents in the inner core.


https://maps.calgary.ca/Fire/


So the cost of services isn't merely distance, but also actual usage and need.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by kermitology

New communities are the tax parasite, not inner city. When you do an in-fill development, you are on the hook for the upgrades to all services at the development location, it's just built into the financing costs for the end buyer (or your mortgage if you build to live in it, like I did).

Just like a new community:


https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...March-2024.pdf

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Just like a new community:


https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...March-2024.pdf

Those are just developer levies for within the community. If services need to be extended to those communities, that is on the city. You can actually thank Nenshi for those levies. Previously it was entirely on the city.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Those are just developer levies for within the community. If services need to be extended to those communities, that is on the city. You can actually thank Nenshi for those levies. Previously it was entirely on the city.

The levy is used to pay for services outside of the new community that needed to be built up.

The City and developers each pay for a portion of off-site infrastructure in new communities. This helps pay for new infrastructure needed to build complete communities and provides the developer with the necessary infrastructure to move forward with constructing a community. Developers contribute to the Off-site Levy for off-site infrastructure. These charges pay for the portion of off-site infrastructure that benefits new development or growth. The City pays for the portion of off-site infrastructure that benefits existing residents and the region.

https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...ite%20Levy.pdf

[getbak]

Has anyone actually read what is being proposed?

https://www.calgary.ca/planning/proj...r-housing.html

What does rezoning mean?

If Council approves the proposed initiative, rezoning will mean:

• It will be easier, and legal, to build various types of homes in our communities. This includes single-detached, semi-detached, row houses, and townhouses.
  
  
• Properties that currently only allow single or semi-detached homes will be rezoned to R-CG, R-G or H-GO.
  
  
• Proposed (re)developments will still need to go through the development permit and approval process. This is where all aspects of the development will be reviewed in detail.

What does rezoning not mean?

Rezoning does not mean:

• Property owners will be prevented from replacing existing homes with new, single-detached homes. Existing single-detached homes will also not be removed.
  
  
• Removing single-family homes or only supporting row house developments. Rezoning will increase housing options. It intends to meet the demand from Calgarians for homes with front doors at ground level (not apartments).
  
  
• Removing the development permit process. The landowner will need to apply for (re)development and building permits. This is to ensure the proposed new home(s) remain compatible with the surrounding community.
  
  
• That apartment buildings can be built on parcels where single-detached homes are today.
  
  
• The proposed rezoning to R-CG, R-G, and H-GO will include existing parks or green spaces. While parks are being proposed for rezoning (i.e. shifting from R-C1 to R-CG), this does not mean they are being proposed for development. They will remain park spaces even if they are rezoned.

It's not like row houses are going to be popping up everywhere. They still have to go through the development approval process and would still need to make sense in context.

This seems like it's more about red tape reduction than anything because property owners won't need to go through the extra step of getting their property rezoned prior to applying for the redevelopment.

There's an old house near me (post-war bungalow on a huge lot) that sold last year. The new owners first had to apply to get it rezoned (which -- like almost all such applications -- was approved) and now they have another application to build a row house on the land. With blanket rezoning, they could have skipped the first step and gone straight to the development permit.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The levy is used to pay for services outside of the new community that needed to be built up.

https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...ite%20Levy.pdf

No, this is paying for the infrastructure (roads, water and sewer) within the new community, not connection to existing infrastructure. It's for the portions of land that are not subdivided for individual ownership. It also only covers the initial costs and the tax base of the new communities is not enough (because the home values are lower) to cover the operating costs for that infrastructure.

I think you're misunderstanding what off-site means here. Greenfield development is parasitic to tax bases versus brownfield. There is also an existing communities levy for redevelopment projects.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I think you're misunderstanding what off-site means here. Greenfield development is parasitic to tax bases versus brownfield. There is also an existing communities levy for redevelopment projects.

The developer already pays for the infrastructure within the new community. The off-site levy is for paying for the new "off-site" infrastructure needed for the extra people.

New communities have impacts on infrastructure outside of the community. This can include more pressure on major roads or the sewage treatment system. Developers pay off-site levies to help share the costs of the off-site impacts from growth.

https://www.calgary.ca/planning/land...site-levy.html

[GGG]

Originally Posted by kermitology

No, this is paying for the infrastructure (roads, water and sewer) within the new community, not connection to existing infrastructure. It's for the portions of land that are not subdivided for individual ownership. It also only covers the initial costs and the tax base of the new communities is not enough (because the home values are lower) to cover the operating costs for that infrastructure.

I think you're misunderstanding what off-site means here. Greenfield development is parasitic to tax bases versus brownfield. There is also an existing communities levy for redevelopment projects.

In terms of taxation you need to think of the value of a new community’s property value as its own internal property value plus the incremental increase in property value of each home caused by the population increase which increases the demand for the most desirable homes. Saying the inner city home is valuable due to its own intrinsic value is not correct. The inner city home is valuable because of all the surrounding homes it’s better than.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by getbak

Has anyone actually read what is being proposed?

https://www.calgary.ca/planning/proj...r-housing.html

Quote:
What does rezoning mean?

If Council approves the proposed initiative, rezoning will mean:
It will be easier, and legal, to build various types of homes in our communities. This includes single-detached, semi-detached, row houses, and townhouses.

Properties that currently only allow single or semi-detached homes will be rezoned to R-CG, R-G or H-GO.

Proposed (re)developments will still need to go through the development permit and approval process. This is where all aspects of the development will be reviewed in detail.



What does rezoning not mean?

Rezoning does not mean:
Property owners will be prevented from replacing existing homes with new, single-detached homes. Existing single-detached homes will also not be removed.

Removing single-family homes or only supporting row house developments. Rezoning will increase housing options. It intends to meet the demand from Calgarians for homes with front doors at ground level (not apartments).

Removing the development permit process. The landowner will need to apply for (re)development and building permits. This is to ensure the proposed new home(s) remain compatible with the surrounding community.

That apartment buildings can be built on parcels where single-detached homes are today.

The proposed rezoning to R-CG, R-G, and H-GO will include existing parks or green spaces. While parks are being proposed for rezoning (i.e. shifting from R-C1 to R-CG), this does not mean they are being proposed for development. They will remain park spaces even if they are rezoned.





It's not like row houses are going to be popping up everywhere. They still have to go through the development approval process and would still need to make sense in context.

This seems like it's more about red tape reduction than anything because property owners won't need to go through the extra step of getting their property rezoned prior to applying for the redevelopment.

There's an old house near me (post-war bungalow on a huge lot) that sold last year. The new owners first had to apply to get it rezoned (which -- like almost all such applications -- was approved) and now they have another application to build a row house on the land. With blanket rezoning, they could have skipped the first step and gone straight to the development permit.

The bolded is subjective, and without clearly defining where a row house or townhouse is allowed to be built, then theoretically a developer could build one wherever he could pick up a relatively cheap bungalow.

Blanket Rezoning (BZ) is a gift to developers. It allows them to acquire properties in desirable areas, and build a wide range of properties, where they were formerly restricted because of the zoning. They are the ones that are going to benefit the most from BZ.

As I see it, BZ is too abrupt of a change for most of the Calgary homeowners to accept willingly, even with the rapid pace of change in society, and the world. I believe a wiser and smarter way to go about it, would have been to rezone partial areas that are more acceptable to communities, leaving most of the RC1 areas intact, giving assurance to most homeowners that their living environment could not be suddenly disrupted at the stroke of a pen. From what I have learned, that would have been more than enough to satisfy the density requirements. It would also minimize a lot of the negative things that have come with the densification of the older inner core over the past decade.

just my humble opinion

[Cecil Terwilliger]

There are literally no negative things that have come out of densification of the old inner core over the last decade. Nothing about infills is disruptive to anyone’s living environment except the construction itself. But that has nothing to do with zoning.

This is nimbyism at its finest. MFHs are not a threat to the sanctity of neighborhoods in any way, shape or form.

[timun]

Originally Posted by getbak

Rezoning does not mean:
Property owners will be prevented from replacing existing homes with new, single-detached homes. Existing single-detached homes will also not be removed.

Removing single-family homes or only supporting row house developments. Rezoning will increase housing options. It intends to meet the demand from Calgarians for homes with front doors at ground level (not apartments).

Removing the development permit process. The landowner will need to apply for (re)development and building permits. This is to ensure the proposed new home(s) remain compatible with the surrounding community.

It's not like row houses are going to be popping up everywhere. They still have to go through the development approval process and would still need to make sense in context.

This seems like it's more about red tape reduction than anything because property owners won't need to go through the extra step of getting their property rezoned prior to applying for the redevelopment.

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The bolded is subjective, and without clearly defining where a row house or townhouse is allowed to be built, then theoretically a developer could build one wherever he could pick up a relatively cheap bungalow.

WTF are you talking about??!? Of course it's clearly defined: it's in the ####ing Land Use Bylaw!

https://www.calgary.ca/planning/land...?part=5&div=11