City tax hikes -- kiss goodbye to your fancy ped bridges

[pepper24]

Living in the suburbs I am not sure why folks in the downtown core are helping to pay for my new subdivision and the roads I drive on daily to get to work downtonwn.

I am not complaining though.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Living in the suburbs I am not sure why folks in the downtown core are helping to pay for my new subdivision and the roads I drive on daily to get to work downtonwn.

I am not complaining though.

Finally, someone with some common sense

Give that man/woman a red/blue square (whichever is better).

[Bunk]

A one time capital expenditure of $25 million on the bridges (basically 1% of the city's operating budget each year) is insignificant.

On Nov 3rd, McIver is putting forward a notice of motion 'to reconsider' the pededstrian bridges. In order for council to reconsider a previous vote, 2/3 of council has to vote for such a motion. That means 10/15 people on council. 7 on council supported the bridges. 7-6 vote with 2 absent - with one of the absent, Gord Lowe ,saying he supports the bridges contingent on them being selected by a jury rather than having Calatrava automatically selected, which I hear is the approach the City is now proposing (Calatrava is out) which means he will likely support.

It means that at least 3 (4 if you now include Low) of the original alderman/mayor who supported the bridges would have to switch their vote.

I don't see that happening.

As far as taxes and the budget - the real culprit is the taxation system itself. Property taxes are always needing to be hiked in Canadian muncipalities - and it is a regressive tax. Really, the City should be allowed to collect from income, sales taxes and user fees primarily. Notice how the province and federal government never needs to raise tax rates? Their revenues automatically keep up with growth. Property taxes do not.

Operational costs are what are really driving up expenses - for all those services, police, transit, road maintainance, new parks, etc that people demand, all cost a lot.

Calgary right now, has some of the LOWEST property taxes of any large Canadian municipality, and also some of the lowest level of municipal services (for example we are the last municipality to have curb-side recycling). Now that people DEMAND these services - they have to be paid for!

That's not to say that in some areas spending is out of control (zero-based budgeting is an idea I support) but there is a reason why taxes need to go up!

The bridges are just a red-herring.

Besides, the Bridges will provide far more value for Calgary in the long term than their price tag.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Right but if you compare the two homes, yours and your parents which is nicer? I know that a 500K house in Calgary is nice but not upper middle class nice, simply middle class nice where as I am thinking a 500K home in Winnipeg would be upper middle class nice. I am thinking that in Winnipeg or Acadia that is considered an upper level home where in Calgary that is a starter brick/morter home or middle class home.

But that's just it- my parents don't live in a $500K house in Winnipeg; they live in a $220K house.

It isn't fair to compare their 35 year old house to my 4 year old one, so that's why I threw Acadia into the mix; similar age and style of houses; similar quality of neighbourhoods.

If they lived in a $500K house in Winnipeg then yes, they would be upper middle class, and also paying $7000 in taxes as opposed to $3500.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by josh white

Besides, the Bridges will provide far more value for Calgary in the long term than their price tag.

Quoted for truth.

By the way, great post josh.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Living in the suburbs I am not sure why folks in the downtown core are helping to pay for my new subdivision and the roads I drive on daily to get to work downtonwn.

I am not complaining though.

Trust me, it doesn't go unnoticed.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

To me, just because Calgary has an arbitrarily high cost of living, are they using that to compare other cities property taxes. Does anyone have numbers as the the city tax revenue amount Calgary brings in compared to other cities. I am thinking its relativelty the same per citizen which is what should matter.

http://www.fcpp.org/images/publicati...eWithTitle.pdf

Dunno if that'll come through

In 07 were collected the 9th highest amount among the top 30 cities based on revenue/households.

By next year we'll be higher I would guess. Possibly much higher.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Living in the suburbs I am not sure why folks in the downtown core are helping to pay for my new subdivision and the roads I drive on daily to get to work downtonwn.

I am not complaining though.

They don't, any more then you help pay for their extra police.

These kinds of myths are handy for the mayor to trot out at tax timne though.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

http://www.fcpp.org/images/publicati...eWithTitle.pdf

Dunno if that'll come through

In 07 were collected the 9th highest amount among the top 30 cities based on revenue/households.

By next year we'll be higher I would guess. Possibly much higher.

What does "own source revenue" on the second graph mean? According to the first we are close to the front in price already, ahead of Vancouver, Edmonton, and Montreal.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

They don't, any more then you help pay for their extra police.

These kinds of myths are handy for the mayor to trot out at tax timne though.

Not sure I understand where you're coming from on this one...

It would be interesting to be able to see what CPS resources get used by the "inner city" vs "suburbs", for sure. I somewhat doubt that the difference is that big (at least on a per capita basis).

However, I would like to see the total annual operating budget of the police force vs the capital expentidures required to construct the new infrastructure used by the suburbs, as well as the operating expenses required to maintain that same infrastrucutre.

I haven't seen the numbers before, so I can't say for sure, but I find it hard to believe that the costs of building X kms of roads and utilities and multiple overpasses are comparable to a few extra police resources (assuming the difference between inner city vs suburbs is significant).

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Kinda splitting hairs, no? Taxpayers are financing the east villiage TIF in hopes it will be paid back by future property taxes.

I can buy a car tomorrow and say it's my future job I hope to get that is going to pay for it, but it's still me making the payments and on the hook for the cost.

No, like I said, the city probobly already has the money due to Encana's new place being added to the TIF area.

I doubt CMLC would borrow from the general city funds to build the infrastructure, I'm sure they have some private loan for that.

Either way, Taxpayers aren't paying for the bridge. At the most, buying things from the companies that set up in the eat village in the future is the only way that "taxpayers" will pay for the second bridge.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Not sure I understand where you're coming from on this one...

Just that creating divisions is handy for the mayor.

I wouldn't suggest the costs are equal. Only that our taxes aren't related to the services we recieve as individuals. The 'I pay for X that you use' game can go on forever. Everybody pays for something they don't get the direct benefit of.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Muta

Aren't you a politician yourself? Or course you're going to have a biased opinion of another polictican that doesn't agree completely with what you believe in.

Also, linking to a personal blog isn't really credible. It's just some right-wing conservative spewing off their own opinions (like millions of other blogs around the world), and they happen to not like Pincott. You happen to agree with this. But not everybody does. Perhaps a more established link of some sort that provides accurate performance review of Mr. Pincott would be better suited.

Here's a better link as to what Pincott believes, straight from his mouth:

http://www.bettercalgary.ca/assets/surveys/Pincott.pdf

Brian Pincott is far from perfect; just like everybody other politician. But atleast the link above outlines his priorities, some of which make alot of sense given today's issues. I'm not a Pincott advocate, but I don't think some of the man's ideas are silly either.

I started to respond to you, then realized I would completely derail the thread.

So I blogged about it instead.

Thanks, I was long over due for a new entry.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

What does "own source revenue" on the second graph mean? According to the first we are close to the front in price already, ahead of Vancouver, Edmonton, and Montreal.

Property taxes as a % of the revenue the city collects from their own sources. So not including provincial grants etc.

The first graph shows whether households pay a little or a lot. The second whether that is mostly made of property taxes or other kids of taxes and fees.

[rubecube]

Well, I don't live in Calgary anymore, but LMAO at all the clowns who re-elected Bronco. I voted against him in the last election for these very reasons.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I started to respond to you, then realized I would completely derail the thread.

So I blogged about it instead.

Thanks, I was long over due for a new entry.

Wow, sorry, but your 'blog' is a complete joke. Way to twist the context of what I said into your own sad, delusional argument. Did you even ask me to explain what I meant when you decided to take what I said out of context and 'blog' it? ....No? Okay, then. Just letting the entire world know that you didn't do that. Top notch journalism right there, yup.

Also, you're quoting your significant other's blog? Laugh. Try to get a more unbiased, neutral observation of how you perceive Pincott's views. Your credibility goes down the drain right there when you not only quote blogs, but family members. Even you can figure that out. I would've expected more from you.

Oh yeah, the living wage thing: I doubt yuo even know what exactly he means by that, and if it is what you think it is, we already have a very popular version of it: it's called welfare.

Furthermore, the rest of your argument is pure speculation and delusional crap without any real facts to back any of it up. Not only is it funny because you 'quote' your own husband's blog as being solid fact, but you mention how Pincott "has covered" things since being office. Then, you go on to list Pincott's opinions and values, instead of documented actions, as the supporting evidence for your claims. This, in itself, is completely laughable.

I NEVER said I advocated everything Brian Pincott supports; the fact that you blindly ignore this leaves little, if any, credibility to the tripe you claim to pass off as substance on your 'blog'.

You conveniently forget to mention Pincott's views on urban sprawl, public transportation, inner city beautification, homelesness, arts funding, a zero waste policy... and on and on and on. How convenient it is that you choose to attack his other (and in scope, minor) platforms that pale in comparison to the ones that you conveniently missed. What a joke.

Perhaps you should have done a little more investigation into the context of the argument first before getting headstrong through your keyboard trigger-happiness. It is amazing you were once a 'politician'; seems you're better fit for a career writing in the Columns section of the Calgary Sun.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

The 'I pay for X that you use' game can go on forever. Everybody pays for something they don't get the direct benefit of.

In the case of the typical Post-WWII suburb versus inner-city/Smart Growth communities, the game can go on for quite some time but at the end the latter end up paying a lot much, which is very unfair. It is beyond the acceptable amount of subsidization for the public good and equates to subsidization of an impractical lifestyle and unsustainable patterns of development.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Muta

Wow, sorry, but your 'blog' is a complete joke. Way to twist the context of what I said into your own sad, delusional argument. Did you even ask me to explain what I meant when you decided to take what I said out of context and 'blog' it? ....No? Okay, then. Just letting the entire world know that you didn't do that. Top notch journalism right there, yup.

Also, you're quoting your significant other's blog? Laugh. Try to get a more unbiased, neutral observation of how you perceive Pincott's views. Your credibility goes down the drain right there when you not only quote blogs, but family members. Even you can figure that out. I would've expected more from you.

Oh yeah, the living wage thing: I doubt yuo even know what exactly he means by that, and if it is what you think it is, we already have a very popular version of it: it's called welfare.

Furthermore, the rest of your argument is pure speculation and delusional crap without any real facts to back any of it up. Not only is it funny because you 'quote' your own husband's blog as being solid fact, but you mention how Pincott "has covered" things since being office. Then, you go on to list Pincott's opinions and values, instead of documented actions, as the supporting evidence for your claims. This, in itself, is completely laughable.

I NEVER said I advocated everything Brian Pincott supports; the fact that you blindly ignore this leaves little, if any, credibility to the tripe you claim to pass off as substance on your 'blog'.

You conveniently forget to mention Pincott's views on urban sprawl, public transportation, inner city beautification, homelesness, arts funding, a zero waste policy... and on and on and on. How convenient it is that you choose to attack his other (and in scope, minor) platforms that pale in comparison to the ones that you conveniently missed. What a joke.

Perhaps you should have done a little more investigation into the context of the argument first before getting headstrong through your keyboard trigger-happiness. It is amazing you were once a 'politician'; seems you're better fit for a career writing in the Columns section of the Calgary Sun.

For someone who claims not to care or support Pincott, you sure spend a great deal of time defending his ideas and trying to belittle those who question his agenda.

Thanks for commenting on my blog.... published in full, nothing taken "out of context".

[Muta]

Originally Posted by First Lady

For someone who claims not to care or support Pincott, you sure spend a great deal of time defending his ideas and trying to belittle those who question his agenda.

Thanks for commenting on my blog.... published in full, nothing taken "out of context".

Wow.

You just... don't... get it.

Have you bothered asking me about whether I support the specific Pincott policies that you so voraciously attack in your blog? No? Perhaps you should do that. You might actually learn something.

As well, perhaps it may shock you to know that I do live in Calgary... with a handful of connections working at the City of Calgary on all levels, ranging right up to the top guy. That might surprise you too.

Yet, you quote political powerhouses such as Rick 'the Dinger' Bell, one of the most notoriously right-wing contributors to the Star - I mean, the Sun, to support your argument. Nice.

I'm done with you. You still just don't get it. If you want to find out about my opinion on Pincott's policies, perhaps you should just.... ask. Even someone like you can comprehend that.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Muta

Wow.

You just... don't... get it.

Have you bothered asking me about whether I support the specific Pincott policies that you so voraciously attack in your blog? No? Perhaps you should do that. You might actually learn something.

Perhaps you should just explain yourself, instead of attacking me.

As well, perhaps it may shock you to know that I do live in Calgary... with a handful of connections working at the City of Calgary on all levels, ranging right up to the top guy. That might surprise you too.

It does not shock me you are in Calgary. Your IP address already told me that.
Very little surprises me.
Nor does this impress me; which is what you are really trying to do.

Yet, you quote political powerhouses such as Rick 'the Dinger' Bell, one of the most notoriously right-wing contributors to the Star - I mean, the Sun, to support your argument. Nice.

Historically he has been left leaning. His commentary on Pincott only makes him appear right wing.

Aside from which, you asked for news sources and I provided them.

I'm done with you. You still just don't get it. If you want to find out about my opinion on Pincott's policies, perhaps you should just.... ask. Even someone like you can comprehend that.

You have had several opportunities here and on my blog to express your opinion, yet you choose to attack me.

I would rather here Pincott's ideas directly from him. Perhaps he can recycle some beer cans and get his website renewal paid up.

www.brianpincott.ca