Global reveals developer’s plan to control CGY city council

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

@nenshi: .@sunrickbell I truly love that you yourself set up the "smoking gun" and now are sad there isn't one. One way of telling a story.

Why does our mayor feel the need to take pot shots through twitter. Can't he resist the temptation and look more professional? It's not like the entire city doesn't already know that Rick Bell is a clown.

[RedMileDJ]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Why does our mayor feel the need to take pot shots through twitter. Can't he resist the temptation and look more professional? It's not like the entire city doesn't already know that Rick Bell is a clown.

This is one of my biggest issues with him. He probably thinks he looks interactive and "in touch" with Calgarians, but honestly I think it makes him look childish.

Not the way I would think an elected politician should be using Twitter.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Why does our mayor feel the need to take pot shots through twitter. Can't he resist the temptation and look more professional? It's not like the entire city doesn't already know that Rick Bell is a clown.

Going out on a limb here:

1) You think Nenshi is being unprofessional, and it bothers you

2) You loved Ralph Klein

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it applies to a lot of others I've seen with the same complaint.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Going out on a limb here:

1) You think Nenshi is being unprofessional, and it bothers you

2) You loved Ralph Klein

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it applies to a lot of others I've seen with the same complaint.

1) Duh?
2) Compared to those that followed and his predecessor he was overall good for Alberta, but did plenty of wrong in his time. (Blowing up a hospital, Ralph bucks, chucking coins at a homeless person, etc)

Your point?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

...

Portland is a trendsetting and resounding success for its city-type (small North-American city not located in the northeast, i.e. has done most of its growing in the post-war automobile-dominated era).

Wow, a lot of rhetoric. Portland is high up in municipal debt, at $5,200 per capita. Calgary debt is at half that amount. Assuming 2.5 to 3 people per average household, this translates to $12,500 - $15,000 municipal debt per household for Portland. Most of this debt has been incurred doing ambitious urban renewal projects that were not supported by corresponding population growth. Instead, they went the tax hike route and reduction in general service level (which is where Calgary is headed now). Plus, they have stopped outside growth through a political decision, thus inflating inner city real estate prices artificially and forcing out those who couldn't afford a home to the bedroom communities (which is where Calgary is headed now as well). If that is "trendsetting and resounding success" for you, then we have different understanding of success.

Portland's saving grace is its attractive location and climate. Calgary does not have those luxuries.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Wow, a lot of rhetoric. Portland is high up in municipal debt, at $5,200 per capita. Calgary debt is at half that amount. Assuming 2.5 to 3 people per average household, this translates to $12,500 - $15,000 municipal debt per household for Portland. Most of this debt has been incurred doing ambitious urban renewal projects that were not supported by corresponding population growth. Instead, they went the tax hike route and reduction in general service level (which is where Calgary is headed now). Plus, they have stopped outside growth through a political decision, thus inflating inner city real estate prices artificially and forcing out those who couldn't afford a home to the bedroom communities (which is where Calgary is headed now as well).

I can't comment on the reasons for Portland's debt, but Calgary's debt is directly caused by subsidizing sprawl.

Don't want tax hikes and/or reduction in services? Then you need appropriate user fees (which is where Calgary is headed, if Nenshi gets his way) or to start legislating an urban form that better lends itself to getting bang for your buck.

A growth perimeter does artificially increase inner city prices, but subsidizing sprawl also decreases inner city affordability (through artificially high taxes). I don't know of any serious push to implement a growth boundary for Calgary. What has been suggested is merely to stop artificially lowering costs of new homes on the periphery, and thus make the rest of the city (which is more desireable) more affordable.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by SebC

...
A growth perimeter does artificially increase inner city prices, but subsidizing sprawl also decreases inner city affordability (through artificially high taxes). I don't know of any serious push to implement a growth boundary for Calgary. What has been suggested is merely to stop artificially lowering costs of new homes on the periphery, and thus make the rest of the city (which is more desireable) more affordable.

Detroit suburbs at 3-4 upa with a water tower sticking up every few miles – that's sprawl. At 10-12 upa, Calgary is not sprawling, it's just been growing fast to keep up with the people that want to live and work here. The argument of the rest of the city subsidizing growth is old but holds little merit. Woodbine and Varsity used to be suburbs too. Did Mount Royal and Inglewood residents subsidize their growth?

Sensible intensification of the inner-city is great, as it makes the city more interesting. But so is sensible suburban growth, as it makes the city more affordable. Nenshi and a few aldermen (Farrell, Pinchott) have been pushing the former over the latter as an ultimate growth policy through the PlanIt Calgary document. This is where the problem is. Developers don't like it because they could loose some business over it. Guess what, they will refocus and start building more highrises eventually. But the real issue here is, will Calgary remain an attractive city to live doing so? I doubt it.

[puckluck2]

I Chuckled.

Daniel ‏@kermitology 7h
.@sunrickbell do you have any journalistic integrity, or is it just about sensationalism with you?


rick bell ‏@sunrickbell 5h
@kermitology I just don't like to go to unnecessary press conferences. #yyc #yyccc

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Detroit suburbs at 3-4 upa with a water tower sticking up every few miles – that's sprawl. At 10-12 upa, Calgary is not sprawling, it's just been growing fast to keep up with the people that want to live and work here. The argument of the rest of the city subsidizing growth is old but holds little merit. Woodbine and Varsity used to be suburbs too. Did Mount Royal and Inglewood residents subsidize their growth?

Sensible intensification of the inner-city is great, as it makes the city more interesting. But so is sensible suburban growth, as it makes the city more affordable. Nenshi and a few aldermen (Farrell, Pinchott) have been pushing the former over the latter as an ultimate growth policy through the PlanIt Calgary document. This is where the problem is. Developers don't like it because they could loose some business over it. Guess what, they will refocus and start building more highrises eventually. But the real issue here is, will Calgary remain an attractive city to live doing so? I doubt it.

Calgary may be less sprawly than Detroit, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have sprawl, as it certainly does.

Suburban growth is only sensible if it's fiscally sustainable. The way Calgary is growing now is not. That is why taxes are going up faster than inflation.

And I happen to think that not only will Calgary remain attractive, but if we stop subsidizing sprawl it will become more attractive than if we don't. That is what motivates me to care about this issue. Yeah, I hate the sprawl subsidy as a matter of principle, but in the short run it's not a huge amount of money. But if we change it, then we get a city where commute times stay shorter, where you might be able to get home from the bar without waiting half an hour for a cab, where you can walk to the amenities you need and spend less time in a car, and where higher population densities lead to increased street life and denser services. And those are the things that would make a far greater difference in my life than, say, $100 a year less in taxes.

I want the residential tower accross the street from me to get built, because it will add people to my neighborhood and those people will support the local businesses. Then, with more businesses and/or existing businesses keeping longer hours, my quality of improves.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

I Chuckled.

Daniel ‏@kermitology 7h
.@sunrickbell do you have any journalistic integrity, or is it just about sensationalism with you?


rick bell ‏@sunrickbell 5h
@kermitology I just don't like to go to unnecessary press conferences. #yyc #yyccc

You're welcome

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Guess what, they will refocus and start building more highrises eventually. But the real issue here is, will Calgary remain an attractive city to live doing so? I doubt it.

It won't remain as attractive, it will become even more attractive. That is what offering more options does to a City.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

But if we change it, then we get a city where commute times stay shorter, where you might be able to get home from the bar without waiting half an hour for a cab,

This doesn't require more people in Calgary, it requires more taxi licenses. There are lots of people who want to drive a cab who aren't allowed to right now. The city is choosing this problem in exchange for donations from taxi brokers.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This doesn't require more people in Calgary, it requires more taxi licenses. There are lots of people who want to drive a cab who aren't allowed to right now. The city is choosing this problem in exchange for donations from taxi brokers.

More cabs are one solution (and I do agree with you that we don't have enough), but extended transit service (which requires density) is another solution that could also work.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Addick

It won't remain as attractive, it will become even more attractive. That is what offering more options does to a City.

See, this is where you are so wrong. There will be less options in Calgary. New homebuyers, especially young families, will be choosing between a studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom, if they wish to remain in the City. Affordable new single-family homes will only be available outside at some point.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

See, this is where you are so wrong. There will be less options in Calgary. New homebuyers, especially young families, will be choosing between a studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom, if they wish to remain in the City. Affordable new single-family homes will only be available outside at some point.

Nonsense.

Up until recently, more than 100% of Calgary's growth was in new communities. Meaning that the inner city was (and may still be) losing families. The current economics, where the new communities are subsidized, takes away locations closer to downtown as a viable option for young families within a certain income range.

You have the cart before the horse. Young families choosing new communities isn't a reason to subsidize new communities, but rather a result (partially) of those subsidies. This result then costs the city money, because whereas families in the inner city can make use of the parks, schools, libraries, and rec centres that the city already has, families in the new communities require new infrastructure to be built. And then overall affordability goes down further.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

See, this is where you are so wrong. There will be less options in Calgary. New homebuyers, especially young families, will be choosing between a studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom, if they wish to remain in the City. Affordable new single-family homes will only be available outside at some point.

You're making the assumption that everyone, especially young people, wants to live in a single-family home. I happen to be a young person, and I want to live in a condo in a dense urban neighbourhood that has almost every amenity within walking distance. When my wife and I bought our home, we had to pay about a $100k premium for a place in that kind of area; that is, a comparable home in the suburbs would have cost us $100k less or we could have purchased a much larger/nicer home in a less desirable (by our criteria) suburban neighbourhood for the same price.

Demand for housing in walkable communities near the core greatly exceeds supply, which has driven up prices significantly. Nobody is saying that suburban development has to stop completely, but there needs to be a much better balance than what is currently being offered. The price premium of urban living was worth it for us, but I can see why the economics of that decision would drive many people to the suburbs even if they'd prefer to live in a denser community.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

See, this is where you are so wrong. There will be less options in Calgary. New homebuyers, especially young families, will be choosing between a studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom, if they wish to remain in the City. Affordable new single-family homes will only be available outside at some point.

You keep repeating this - while claiming to be unbiased and well-informed - so how about producing a link to support your wild claims?

Anything?

Didn't think so.

[CaptainYooh]

You've got to stop saying "subsidizing". Nobody is subsidizing new communities. $300M came to the City budget from developers in 2012 in various fees, levies and transfers; check the numbers published in Herald yesterday. Infrastructure is owned by the City once it's built. We are fortunate that people want to live here. There are so many cities where nobody wants to move to and nobody wants to develop anything. Those cities actually paying all of their development costs themselves (100% taxpayer-funded), just to get something going.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

See, this is where you are so wrong. There will be less options in Calgary. New homebuyers, especially young families, will be choosing between a studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom, if they wish to remain in the City. Affordable new single-family homes will only be available outside at some point.

If development continues to follow the status quo, by the time the situation you describes takes place the fringes of the city where these detached single family homes would be built would be the same places you currently designate as being outside of the city. Also, it is going to take a fair bit of time before the supply of detached-SFH will be outpaced by demand. However, the demand for detached-SFH will not necessarily continue to be the same but could realistically decline.

[Bunk]

^^ Acreage assessments cover about 50% of the total "off-site" infrastructure costs to support new growth. This was a well established fact in the Standard Development Agreement.