Sound Off: How much are you willing to see property taxes increase.......

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Muta

Nope. If they found it cheaper to live in Toronto, they maybe they should have stayed there, if money is their main issue?

'Calgary: If you can't afford our to pay for Dave's every desire we don't want you"

It's catchy.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

'Calgary: If you can't afford our to pay for Dave's every desire we don't want you"

It's catchy.

Sure, however you spin it. If you don't want to pay for the cost of living here... then, don't move here.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

'Calgary: If you can't afford our to pay for Dave's every desire we don't want you"

It's catchy.

I find that extremely naive.

The markets dictate cost of living, not just City services.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I find that extremely naive.

The markets dictate cost of living, not just City services.

Hey, I'm not the one who said if they can't afford the taxes and services they should move back to toronto.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Hey, I'm not the one who said if they can't afford the taxes and services they should move back to toronto.

Cost of living is more than just city services, you know.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Hey, I'm not the one who said if they can't afford the taxes and services they should move back to toronto.

I know in the last city taxes thread we compared Calgary to Winnipeg, and how we are paying a lot less here than Winnipeg. I'd be curious to see how our taxes compare to Toronto; looking at the same size and style of house; ie what does a person who owns a 30 year old bungalow pay.

The bottom line is we had it great through the 90s for taxes because Duer refused to spend more than he had to. We now have an infastructure defecit that Bronco is taking care of. Yes, he has a background in construction and I don't doubt that some of his previous business partners make money from city contracts. But the city needed to spend.

Duer originally had the Glenmore-Elbow interchange scheduled to be done around 2018-2020. But it got done sooner; for probably less than what it would have cost 10 years from now. 100's of thousands of cars use that interchange every week; would we have been better of just leaving it?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Muta

Cost of living is more than just city services, you know.

For sure. After families pay for HD TV and premium gas there's trips to the summer home, new Bimmers for Buffy, and luxury dog walking.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I know in the last city taxes thread we compared Calgary to Winnipeg, and how we are paying a lot less here than Winnipeg. I'd be curious to see how our taxes compare to Toronto; looking at the same size and style of house; ie what does a person who owns a 30 year old bungalow pay.

The bottom line is we had it great through the 90s for taxes because Duer refused to spend more than he had to. We now have an infastructure defecit that Bronco is taking care of. Yes, he has a background in construction and I don't doubt that some of his previous business partners make money from city contracts. But the city needed to spend.

Duer originally had the Glenmore-Elbow interchange scheduled to be done around 2018-2020. But it got done sooner; for probably less than what it would have cost 10 years from now. 100's of thousands of cars use that interchange every week; would we have been better of just leaving it?

We are lower in one part then winnipeg. Maybe. Throw in all the ways you pay the city and we're higher then most.

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


I agree to some extent. the key word being needed. There's nothing in these tax hikes for overpasses and interchanges. This is all about programs. As have been the last few tax hikes. We're funding a bloated operating budget. It's seperate from capital - and despite the rhetoric plowing roads and building fire stations are not the biggest part of it.

Since Duerr city taxes have grown ..what..100%? Revenues from the province maybe 1000%? (thats where projects like the glenmore interchange come from). There's plenty of fiscal room for our needs. In fact one of my beefs is that this was entriely predictable. About 5 years ago money started pouring into the City, and Bronco spent on everythign BUT the essentials. This will be no different. Our taxes will grow another 20 or 30% over 3 years and we'll be having the dsame conversation. It will only end when people say enough or our local economy is beaten to submission. I prefer the former.



Someone said earlier maybe families should budget better to manage these tax hikes. I hold the government to the same standard, maybe even 1 better.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Muta

Let's just tax the oil and finance companies more. Their salaries need to come down, too, and then the rest of us won't have to face any tax increases ourselves. The end result is just a few less Ferraris on the road, nothing more.

Easy fella....we can tax the oil companies more, but lets leave the financial companies out of this!

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

We are lower in one part then winnipeg. Maybe. Throw in all the ways you pay the city and we're higher then most.

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

I disagree. I think that shows us as having a higher average because there are more multi-million dollar houses in Calgary, and more "slums" in Winnipeg. Compare an equal house in age, size and style and you will see Calgary comes out paying a lot less.

I looked into this in great detail when the boom was just about to peak here and it hadn't hit Winnipeg. I was looking at selling my house here, moving back to Winnipeg into a bigger house with a pool and being mortgage free. Property taxes and also salary expectations are what kept me here.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I find that extremely naive.

The markets dictate cost of living, not just City services.

True but I also think Bronco hasn't shown an ability to manage a budget - basically he has two tactics:
1. Whine for more money
2. Raise taxes.

We all know there's waste in this city. It's our elected officials jobs to find it.

Too easy to simply raise taxes every time.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I disagree. I think that shows us as having a higher average because there are more multi-million dollar houses in Calgary, and more "slums" in Winnipeg. Compare an equal house in age, size and style and you will see Calgary comes out paying a lot less.

I looked into this in great detail when the boom was just about to peak here and it hadn't hit Winnipeg. I was looking at selling my house here, moving back to Winnipeg into a bigger house with a pool and being mortgage free. Property taxes and also salary expectations are what kept me here.

The house price shouldn't matter.

They took (I think) the overall revenues/households. Not caring how those revenues were derived was kinda the point. I have seen similar graphs in the past.

Still, even if you are right (and I would take a lot of convincing on this but perhaps I am simply stubborn) it doesn't change the fact that the city has a spending problem not a revenue problem.

That we derive more of our revenues from business tax and non-residential property tax shouldn't be an excuse to dip deeper into my pocket. especially without any sense of responsibility.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

The house price shouldn't matter.

They took (I think) the overall revenues/households. Not caring how those revenues were derived was kinda the point. I have seen similar graphs in the past.

And I wasn't talking about house prices. In the last thread I compared a $450K house in Acadia, Calgary to a $220K house in Westwood, Winnipeg. Both were 1000 sq ft 30 year old bungalows.

What I was trying to say is that even with house prices being equal in both cities, Calgary has a lot more of the bigger houses; bringing the average up. If you or I moved to Winnipeg (shudder), we would likely buy a similar house to what we have now. We wouldn't be buying a mansion, and we wouldn't be buying a place beside the $5 hookers either.

Do I think we should keep spending under control? Yes. But I also see so many places where the city has cut corners that we should spend the money on upgrading while we can. Classic example again is the GE5 interchange; paid in full with "boom time" money. Get us caught up so if we end up in a ressecion, we have can afford (from an infastructure standpoint) to cut back on spending.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by ken0042

And I wasn't talking about house prices. In the last thread I compared a $450K house in Acadia, Calgary to a $220K house in Westwood, Winnipeg. Both were 1000 sq ft 30 year old bungalows.

What I was trying to say is that even with house prices being equal in both cities, Calgary has a lot more of the bigger houses; bringing the average up. If you or I moved to Winnipeg (shudder), we would likely buy a similar house to what we have now. We wouldn't be buying a mansion, and we wouldn't be buying a place beside the $5 hookers either.

Do I think we should keep spending under control? Yes. But I also see so many places where the city has cut corners that we should spend the money on upgrading while we can. Classic example again is the GE5 interchange; paid in full with "boom time" money. Get us caught up so if we end up in a ressecion, we have can afford (from an infastructure standpoint) to cut back on spending.

On the taxes I may be a bit thick today but I still don't get it. If CGY has 1000 houses and brings in (from all property sources) 10K, while Winnipeg has 800 houses and brings in 4k ( don't think the difference is that extreme, just for example), the avergaes are $100 and $50, no? CGY is taking more money? You're saying yes, but CGY has more big houses, so the average is skewed?

Spending is the more important issue anyway. On that front I don't disagree with your sentiment, but thats not where the money is headed. generally speaking, property taxes don't fund infrastructure.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well thank you, you're a very polite person even after the spat in the other thread! haha...

I cannot give you examples of how the city is reducing costs, but that's only because it's November 2 - the budget has not been released yet. I personally do not know the actual numbers, I have to wait just like everybody else. However I can tell you that there are reasons for a justified increase - not the answer you are looking for, but that once the budget is released, people upset with the numbers will get their explanations. If not from guys like me (on message boards for example) then from the Mayor, aldermen, and other City officials.

As for the release of the City survey, well....It was supposed to be out earlier in the day, but there was a slight mix-up of who was supposed to inform the media about it. I didn't even know if it had been released or not, but I did know it was already posted for the public to see.

For families and businesses they do not look at their spending "once a year" at budget time. It is an ongoing process of planning, saving and making adjustments as they go along.

The current slate of aldermen have been in for a year now. What have they done to reduce city hall spending? Are they reviewing their departments to look for cost saving measures? Are they recycling? Are they saving fuel and energy costs?

All I have heard is them telling all the citizens to tighten their belts and do all the "right" from a green perspecitve; yet there is not a whisper of initiatives within the halls of those in charge.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I hate these articles. I wonder if this family is also subscribing to HD TV? Or putting mixed-grade or premium gas in the car? Or making unnecessary home purchases on their credit cards?

Hey.. Maybe they're just spending it on beer and popcorn....

Amazing how most that said that taxes shouldn't increase have since disappeared since being effectively told that their opinions don't matter.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Hey.. Maybe they're just spending it on beer and popcorn....

Amazing how most that said that taxes shouldn't increase have since disappeared since being effectively told that their opinions don't matter.

Bizarre comment.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Bizarre comment.

Bizarre that you can't figure it out?

Beer and Popcorn - reference to your "how are they spending the money now" and to the gaff that a Liberal member made back in 2005. You're saying they're spending the money that the City wants for taxes on HDTV and other frivolous items when even the Liberals said:

"There's no doubt in my mind that parents are going to use (the money) for the benefit of their families."

"They're going to use that money in a way that I'm sure is responsible," he told the Canadian Press. "Let there be no doubt about that."

Or perhaps it is the "being told their opinions don't matter" part that you find bizarre... and yet isn't it strange that here have been no more 0% tax increase (or any feedback at all really) since they were attacked and told they're wrong instead of having their opinions understood.

It simply comes back to my comment in the last thread. The City isn't listening. If they were, they would welcome and try to understand the feedback. Instead, they try to counter it at all costs, and then wonder why they never get any feedback....

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

^^ in calgary the mayor does everything. His EA isn't called Marc the knife for nothing.

No he doesn't. The mayor has no legal authority to act outside of a council meeting and in council he has no more authority than any other council member. On occasion, council members who overstep their bounds have been removed from office.

To those who don't want any tax increases, that's unreasonable. The city's inflation rate is probably in the range of...um, well it's above the homeowner's inflation rate. Until just recently construction costs were rising at about 1% per month. As long as they're not having to play catch up, I'd say an increase of around 4% is reasonable. Much less and you're having to cut services and programs, unless there is fat in the city's organization. Most municipalities are leaner than you believe.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Until just recently construction costs were rising at about 1% per month.

Haven't we just been told, with the whole bridge thing, that construction costs come out of a Capital Budget that is not affected by this tax increase?