2013 Calgary Municipal Election Thread

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

A few examples are listed in the article: upgrades of the sewage and water treatment plants, upgrades to the inner-city aging utility and transportation infrastructure, rec centres, libraries etc. Most of these costs are funded through the property taxes paid by the whole city.

Not that I want to revive the Peace Bridge discussion - but that was a perfect illustration of the classic $25M inner-city subsidy: it is used primarily by inner-city residents and it is not a financial investment (there are no user fees and no expectation of returns). Proposed Central Public Library is another example. Note, I am not saying that either one of these public structures is bad for the City; but they are both used primarily by inner city residents while funded through property taxes paid by the entire city population.

Would seem to me that a major counter-argument is that inner city roads, infrastructure, and even pedestrian bridges and libraries are also largely used by the enormous number of people who commute to work downtown from the suburbs (and also use the inner-city for recreational/commercial/whatever activities).

However, there is slight chance that inner-city residents will ever use most of the new roads and infrastructure in far-flung suburbs. The stream of people overwhelmingly goes one way only.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

...The City has at least serviced land in greenfield for another 160k people. That's well over 5 years of growth assuming 94% of it happens in greenfield (last year it was actually 67% new/33% established). ...

This is what Geo-Demographics wants to tell Council and it is not accurate for couple of reasons. There are lands within approved Regional Study Areas and some even with approved ASP's which are counted towards serviced land supply. But as you know, there is a huge distance between ASP and land use/outline plan/subdivision plan. Another reason: some of the larger high-density pockets were approved within outlying communities that are not being developed nearly as fast as both the developers and the city were hoping. They still just sitting empty but count towards serviced land/units. It the current shortage of serviced residential single-family lots that is severe and alarming.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

That was not the point he made though. Contribution to rec centres, fire halls and other social infrastructure is an example of cooperation between developers and the City reached through a negotiated settlement that has a time frame. To campaign on a perceived subsidy while ignoring this contribution which actually exceeds the utility cost differential is morally wrong.

It doesn't ignore this part of the agreement at all. It's far less relevant whether our antiquated MGA allows us to unilaterally impose a levy on a category of infrastructure or not than if it is a category of infrastructure that's necessary to develop a complete community.

Even if the City had the ability to simply unilaterally impose all infrastructure it wouldn't do that in any event - it would still cooperatively negotiate largely because everyone needs to agree on the base assumptions. The issue is an infrastructure gap.

UDI does not dispute this gap exists, they simply argued that it was not inappropriate because "a year of taxes" of a new home would make up that gap. Well, the average home pays $1400 in taxes to the City, so it would actually take 3 1/2 years to make up that gap, not one. And even so, taxes are supposed to pay for operating! If they are to be considered to be paying for capital, who is paying for those 3 1/2 years of costs to deliver services to that home?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

... The Arriva condo project for instance had to pay for about a $1 million sewer upgrade adjacent to the project. Tell an inner city developer they don't pay - they'll tell you a different story.

John Torode went bankrupt developing Arriva, partly because of the market crash and partly because of the unanticipated infrastructure upgrade costs. Excellent example of what an inner-city condo should really sell for after all costs are taken into account.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

... taxes are supposed to pay for operating! If they are to be considered to be paying for capital, who is paying for those 3 1/2 years of costs to deliver services to that home?

Interesting. So, how is the capital project budget funded then? Unless I am missing something, it is funded from capital borrowing, grants and, yes, property taxes.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is what Geo-Demographics wants to tell Council and it is not accurate for couple of reasons. There are lands within approved Regional Study Areas and some even with approved ASP's which are counted towards serviced land supply. But as you know, there is a huge distance between ASP and land use/outline plan/subdivision plan. Another reason: some of the larger high-density pockets were approved within outlying communities that are not being developed nearly as fast as both the developers and the city were hoping. They still just sitting empty but count towards serviced land/units. It the current shortage of serviced residential single-family lots that is severe and alarming.

ASPs, land use ou outline plan in place has nothing to do whether land is serviced. Serviced is if water and sewer pipes are in the ground, roads connect, fire is available (ASPs are in place, Outline Plans come as developers submit and get approval). Including the 400 hectares coming online next year in Mohogany there will be 2400 hectares unbuilt serviced land.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Docum...ic-2013-06.pdf

In any event, we're working very closely with Administration to make sure that there isn't a serviced land crunch and that the lag time of land use/outline plan approvals, following the completion of growth management, is reduced through concurrent processes. Was chatting with Amie Blanchette the other day about this. Had conversations a couple months ago with Guy Huntingford and Mike Flynn to address this concern.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Interesting. So, how is the capital project budget funded then? Unless I am missing something, it is funded from capital borrowing, grants and, yes, property taxes.

The vast, vast majority of the capital budget is through grants from the federal and provincial governments. Acreage assessment revenues make up a portion and property taxes ('pay as you go' as it's called) is a small fraction.

That said, because of the absence of new grants, and the pull back of existing grants, the infamous Tax Room, which is property tax has been taken over the past three years for capital - used for Community Investment Fund (central library, 3 new library branches, 4 new rec centres, recreation facility lifecycle), some transit, some roads, sidewalks, and flood recovery this year.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

...Including the 400 hectares coming online next year in Mohogany there will be 2400 hectares unbuilt serviced land...

OK. Let's say Mahogany has 400 ha.
Where is the remaining 2000? If you list them, I will comment on the real supply situation in each one.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The vast, vast majority of the capital budget is through grants from the federal and provincial governments. Acreage assessment revenues make up a portion and property taxes ('pay as you go' as it's called) is a small fraction.

We have to catch up with our post responses. It looks weird.

So, the REAL problem is in the insufficient funding from the higher levels of the Government, correct? Same tune as Bronconnier was singing all along. Why make the utility cost differential a campaign issue then? You've got to agree with me, Bunk. You know, I am right on this one.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

John Torode went bankrupt developing Arriva, partly because of the market crash and partly because of the unanticipated infrastructure upgrade costs. Excellent example of what an inner-city condo should really sell for after all costs are taken into account.

Arriva sold just fine (even though it was a risk to go for a high-end project in that location back then), his problem was he overpaid for land and way too much of it all over the Beltline - right before the crash). Now his former partners control those lands (New Urban) and are developing projects like the Marriott Club Sport and Curtis Block.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

We have to catch up with our post responses. It looks weird.

So, the REAL problem is in the insufficient funding from the higher levels of the Government, correct? Same tune as Bronconnier was singing all along. Why make the utility cost differential a campaign issue then? You've got to agree with me, Bunk. You know, I am right on this one.

Ha ha. I enjoy the debate. The levy issue and cost of growth certainly is important. Of course, that's only a subset of all our infrastructure. Levies are really about the initial capital outlay (and I think rightly should be attributed to development - as the Manning Centre agreed with in its report. Redevelopment also needs to contribute to costs of growth as it becomes more a factor in our growth.)

It's other sources that address (and should) lifecycle and other large and extremely expensive infrastructure endeavours like LRT construction. You'll certainly not hear the Mayor stop talking about that either! We need a new long term, predictable funding arrangement with the Province and partnership from the feds. The current system of ad-hoc, short term grants at the whim of a government of the day is no way to facilitate the success of cities. On that, I'm sure we can agree.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Arriva sold just fine (even though it was a risk to go for a high-end project in that location back then), his problem was he overpaid for land and way to much of it all over the Beltline - right before the crash). ...

Again, not to belabour this particular point, but many other new condo buildings in the Beltline survived the crash and sold out. Keynote was selling above Arriva's price levels and did very well. All Cove Properties, Procura and Qualex-Landmark condos sold well too and they did not contribute much to infrastructure upgrade costs to my knowledge despite adding thousands of new residents to the inner-city. Torode got into all sorts of financial trouble with Arriva, because his costs went way above what his condos could sell for. Infrastructure upgrade contributions (sewer and 4 St interchange) were a big part of it.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Again, not to belabour this particular point, but many other new condo buildings in the Beltline survived the crash and sold out. Keynote was selling above Arriva's price levels and did very well. All Cove Properties, Procura and Qualex-Landmark condos sold well too and they did not contribute much to infrastructure upgrade costs to my knowledge despite adding thousands of new residents to the inner-city. Torode got into all sorts of financial trouble with Arriva, because his costs went way above what his condos could sell for. Infrastructure upgrade contributions (sewer and 4 St interchange) were a big part of it.

Beltline development pays a levy calculated on street frontage for necessary community infrastructure upgrades. There's also a density bonusing system, including cash components for off-site infrastructure improvements through the Beltline Community Investment Fund.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Beltline development pays a levy calculated on street frontage for necessary community infrastructure upgrades. There's also a density bonusing system, including cash components for off-site infrastructure improvements through the Beltline Community Investment Fund.

Density bonus is a quid pro quo. You give something extra, you get something extra. In most cases it doesn't work for residential anyway due to the extremely high cost of underground parkade construction below the second level. Oh yeah, Druh likes relaxing parking requirements, so that all of those cars can spill over to neighboring streets and parking areas.

Beltline frontage levy is collected, yes, but how is it spent and how it is accounted for is a complete mystery to most.

P.S. It's late and I'm tired. Thanks, I enjoyed the debate too. Tell your boss he should forgo this silliness and campaign on the real issues instead of this bogey man stuff that drives SebC and other hotheads crazy. He can do better than this.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Density bonus is a quid pro quo. You give something extra, you get something extra. In most cases it doesn't work for residential anyway due to the extremely high cost of underground parkade construction below the second level. Oh yeah, Druh likes relaxing parking requirements, so that all of those cars can spill over to neighboring streets and parking areas.

Beltline frontage levy is collected, yes, but how is it spent and how it is accounted for is a complete mystery to most.

Agree. For Beltline I think a flat levy on sq footage would be better than a density bonus system and frontage levy. Beltline already has a very high as of right density before you need to touch the bonusing. But office for instance uses it - that new Centron project on tenth going to CPC Thursday is paying like $3.5 million if I recall correctly.

[Freeway]

Who's voting tomorrow?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Not that I want to revive the Peace Bridge discussion - but that was a perfect illustration of the classic $25M inner-city subsidy: it is used primarily by inner-city residents and it is not a financial investment (there are no user fees and no expectation of returns). Proposed Central Public Library is another example. Note, I am not saying that either one of these public structures is bad for the City; but they are both used primarily by inner city residents while funded through property taxes paid by the entire city population.

The only subsidies that matter are net subsidies. 'Taxpayer-funded' and 'subsidized' are different things. You can't use the terms interchangeably.

[stevinder]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Who's voting tomorrow?

I'll be voting at MRU on Saturday sometime.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Who's voting tomorrow?

I likely will be.

[Bunk]

My mom got a flyer in Silver Springs (Ward 1) claiming that Chris Harper (and the Mayor) supports development and therefore wants to pave over a particular park in the community with housing. And that Ward Sutherland opposes this development. Pretty disgusting tactic.