2010 Calgary Civic Election issues ?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Seriously though. Yes, I am active politically. One thing I have learned in my time posting on CP, this is an excellent spot to get a cross-section of vews. Usually some great debate with strong points being made by either side.

I see nothing wrong with this. She's trying to be proactive. She's finding out the key issues and what concerns Calgarians. It means she's listening. Good for her and good for us Calgarians. If I were running I would do the same.

Good Luck

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Joborule

...I really only have two concerns. For a third, I'm curious to see if there is some timeframe to address the lacking of a proper E-W expressway/freeway in the northen area of the city. The south have Glenmore, but the north doesn't really have a expressway. 16th ave defiatnly isn't getting the job done with it being a urban cordoir between Crowchild and Deerfoot. McKnight/John Laurie is a bit better, but still too much of just being a major road. In the future, with expansions to the north and east of the city, it's going to be necessary.

An E-W corridor in the north? How about a proper N-S corridor in the south. N-S MacLeod is a mess compared to E-W Country Hills, John Laurie or Stoney Trail. One accident anywhere in the SW and you might as well walk to work. At least the north has options.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

An E-W corridor in the north? How about a proper N-S corridor in the south. N-S MacLeod is a mess compared to E-W Country Hills, John Laurie or Stoney Trail. One accident anywhere in the SW and you might as well walk to work. At least the north has options.

Haven't heard of Deerfoot before huh?

[puffnstuff]

I'm voting for whoever fixes northbound deerfoot, south of anderson area...the three lanes down to two and the worlds dumbest merge coming out of douglasdale/glen onto deerfoot. Anyone else drive this in the morning?...its like monkeys designed it...not even smart monkeys...dumb ones, the poop flingers. The merge consists of a lane driving beside the lane you want to merge into for half a klick with a barrier in between the lanes. There is no other place on Dfoot that does this.

[calculoso]

Love how this thread has started with all of the inner-city dwelling people hating sprawl. Typical.

While there does need to be more development in the inner city - ie: tearing down old houses and building in-fills - there is a reason why new communities are being built on the outskirts of town... PEOPLE WANT THEM! Refusing to build more will just drive people to live in Cochrane, Airdrie, Okotoks, Chestermere, etc and further the problem. In order to sustain business growth, that manpower will still be needed, but the residential taxes will no longer be collected as they aren't living in the city.

Unless this is going to turn into a new GCA (Greater Calgary Area), there are going to be lots more problems generated by these 'solutions'.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Haven't heard of Deerfoot before huh?

Haven't heard of Stoney Trail huh?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Love how this thread has started with all of the inner-city dwelling people hating sprawl. Typical.

While there does need to be more development in the inner city - ie: tearing down old houses and building in-fills - there is a reason why new communities are being built on the outskirts of town... PEOPLE WANT THEM! Refusing to build more will just drive people to live in Cochrane, Airdrie, Okotoks, Chestermere, etc and further the problem. In order to sustain business growth, that manpower will still be needed, but the residential taxes will no longer be collected as they aren't living in the city.

Unless this is going to turn into a new GCA (Greater Calgary Area), there are going to be lots more problems generated by these 'solutions'.

Agree 100%. No city council can dictate where people should live. You have to build where the demand is. If people can't get houses here then Okotoks and Airdrie it is. If there is a house shortage then that's what needs to be built.

I'm all for the East Village and think the plan looks really good but how is council going to get people to buy condo's there when there are so many vacant condo's already.

Someone said it before; it's like trying to make America skinny by just making skinny people clothes.

I'll vote for infrastructure and satisfying demand.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Love how this thread has started with all of the inner-city dwelling people hating sprawl. Typical.

While there does need to be more development in the inner city - ie: tearing down old houses and building in-fills - there is a reason why new communities are being built on the outskirts of town... PEOPLE WANT THEM! Refusing to build more will just drive people to live in Cochrane, Airdrie, Okotoks, Chestermere, etc and further the problem. In order to sustain business growth, that manpower will still be needed, but the residential taxes will no longer be collected as they aren't living in the city.

Unless this is going to turn into a new GCA (Greater Calgary Area), there are going to be lots more problems generated by these 'solutions'.

It's getting out of control though. The mentality of people in this city has to change such that you have to understand that the continued urban sprawl will see Calgary spread into Cochrane, Airdrie and Okotoks. Hell, we're almost at Okotoks already, and Airdrie is a stones throw away from the edge of Calgary. I don't think it takes an urban planner to see that supporting a city built like that is extremely difficult. We will all have to pay for that with increased taxation and when people start moving to the satellite cities something's going to give and it's not going to help anyone.

I've seen where urban sprawl leads, and the reliance on automobile transportation, and I don't like it. I don't want my city to be like that. So I'm vocal about my position on that matter.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by kermitology

It's getting out of control though. The mentality of people in this city has to change such that you have to understand that the continued urban sprawl will see Calgary spread into Cochrane, Airdrie and Okotoks. Hell, we're almost at Okotoks already, and Airdrie is a stones throw away from the edge of Calgary. I don't think it takes an urban planner to see that supporting a city built like that is extremely difficult. We will all have to pay for that with increased taxation and when people start moving to the satellite cities something's going to give and it's not going to help anyone.

I've seen where urban sprawl leads, and the reliance on automobile transportation, and I don't like it. I don't want my city to be like that. So I'm vocal about my position on that matter.

I respect your views, but I don't want to live inner city in crammed environment where because of the density the small parcel of property that I buy is hideously over priced.

I've done the downtown living, and while it was thrilling and interesting when I was young, it wore thin and I wanted to get away from it.

I bought in the sprawl because I want a decent sized backyard or my own greenspace.

I also don't think its fair that people should get tax breaks because they choose to buy and live downtown and they choose to pay the preminum both in tax and in initial purchase value by living in a concept based around density.

To me this is a question of distribution of money, not taxation. I think based on the inefficiencies of the city that the issue isn't the amount of tax dollars collected, its how its used and distributed.

If I had kids, I'd want to be as far from the core of the city that I can get. If I don't like the idea of condo living, then I'm going to go somewhere where I can buy a house with a yard.

To me the whole balance point of reduction of sprawl vs the right to buy and live where I choose within the city blanances heavily to the right to choose.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Oh I knew what you were asking, but we really shouldn't derail the thread.

Originally Posted by RedHot25

So, what ward ?

I'll take a stab to break the suspense and say ward 9. With your posts as an indication here you should have the old Al Duerr and then Joe Ceci voters locked up!!

[Bunk]

The sprawl issue is often oversimplified. It's not really about whether to build subdivisions out on the edge or not, but how to better design and build them so they are more financially and environmentally sustainable, while at the same time making investments in places within the existing built up areas to promote (not force) intensification.

[CaptainCrunch]

Don't most of the subdivisions pay for themselves?

[Antithesis]

Sprawl isn't that easy to deal with. There's more than enough land around the city that if council decided to not appropriate more land (or whatever it is ... limit sprawl) some developer will just gobble up land right on the outskirts and give people what they want. Of course, that's just my completely uneducated opinion. Look at what's happened in Winnipeg after all the land insider the Perimeter was used up: developers developed outside it.

Airport tunnel for the NE. The decision to not go ahead with it was disgusting IMO and politicians would not have gotten away with it if the proposal was for any other quadrant of the city.

Increased focus on those TOD things.

LRT improvements - fast track the transition to 4-car platforms, 8th AVE LRT tunnel, SE LRT.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I respect your views, but I don't want to live inner city in crammed environment where because of the density the small parcel of property that I buy is hideously over priced.

I've done the downtown living, and while it was thrilling and interesting when I was young, it wore thin and I wanted to get away from it.

I bought in the sprawl because I want a decent sized backyard or my own greenspace.

I also don't think its fair that people should get tax breaks because they choose to buy and live downtown and they choose to pay the preminum both in tax and in initial purchase value by living in a concept based around density.

To me this is a question of distribution of money, not taxation. I think based on the inefficiencies of the city that the issue isn't the amount of tax dollars collected, its how its used and distributed.

If I had kids, I'd want to be as far from the core of the city that I can get. If I don't like the idea of condo living, then I'm going to go somewhere where I can buy a house with a yard.

To me the whole balance point of reduction of sprawl vs the right to buy and live where I choose within the city blanances heavily to the right to choose.

I dont think anyone is disputing that - just that some of us think you should get some sort of financial incentive if you live in an area that takes up less city square foot space.

Right now other than location, there is no financial incentive for people to choose to not to live in the house with the yard. In fact if you decide to live in a more compact location (example a condo) then you pay considerably more in property tax per sq footage of land space used than a homeowner.

I think there should be a tax break for people if you live up (ie condo etc) because it saves the city a considerable amount of money in support costs. No one is saying someone from saskatchewan who is used to easy farm living and a huge house with lot cant have that, we are just saying that the financials need to be more evenly balanced because that house takes alot more resources to support than a more dense living arrangement.

I would also like to see any stats as to how a suburb supports its costs. The city likely recoups its cost from the suburb over a certain amortization period of 20 or 30 years, but there is no way that a new suburb is bought and paid for after its completed if you take in all the costs of roads, sewers, fire, police, schools etc etc.

And this is not even counting the environmental costs of water, power, heat useage per legal age person of a house compared to a condo.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Sprawl isn't that easy to deal with. There's more than enough land around the city that if council decided to not appropriate more land (or whatever it is ... limit sprawl) some developer will just gobble up land right on the outskirts and give people what they want. Of course, that's just my completely uneducated opinion. Look at what's happened in Winnipeg after all the land insider the Perimeter was used up: developers developed outside it.

Airport tunnel for the NE. The decision to not go ahead with it was disgusting IMO and politicians would not have gotten away with it if the proposal was for any other quadrant of the city.

Increased focus on those TOD things.

LRT improvements - fast track the transition to 4-car platforms, 8th AVE LRT tunnel, SE LRT.

That could be fixed with Toll roads though if that ever became a serious enough issue. My friend works with city hall in edmonton and different planning procedures have been brought up with them regarding this as its a much more severe issue up there than it is here.

[Ozy_Flame]

I like the idea of a tax break for inner city residents.

It would shut us inner-city dwellers up, which would shut up the pro-sprawlers, developers can have their cake, and our inner city gets revitalized like they should be with high-rises and dense living.

Whichever candidate can offer that, he gets my vote!

[shermanator]

Here's one that I'm surprised isn't on this list yet.

Fix Crowchild Trail from 24 Avenue NW to 17th Ave SW. Going northbound only one lane goes through! That's ridiculous!

And also to play devil's advocate on the Inner City vs Suburbs debate, it's not as if the inner city isn't getting ANY infrastructure. The WestLRT is a pretty big piece of infrastructure that benefits both inner city and suburbs. Central Memorial Park was just upgraded, the Talisman Centre is getting a new roof. Not to mention the bridge...

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by shermanator

And also to play devil's advocate on the Inner City vs Suburbs debate, it's not as if the inner city isn't getting ANY infrastructure. The WestLRT is a pretty big piece of infrastructure that benefits both inner city and suburbs. Central Memorial Park was just upgraded, the Talisman Centre is getting a new roof. Not to mention the bridge...

To be a further devil.... tax dollars are not just about infrastructure (which is often supplemented by the Prov.)
I suspect the inner city uses more than the average suburb community when it comes to emergency services.
And they certainly have the greatest benefit of the transit system.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

To be a further devil.... tax dollars are not just about infrastructure (which is often supplemented by the Prov.)
I suspect the inner city uses more than the average suburb community when it comes to emergency services.
And they certainly have the greatest benefit of the transit system.

I suspect outer communities use up more when fire stations, police stations, sewer lines, and all that stuff.

Not saying the inner city doesn't use its fair share of resources (denser communities = more chance for service use per capita), but I think grid expansion is just as, if not more of a drain on spending.

Also, what do you mean inner city has the greatest benefit of the transit system? Buses and trains run all the way to the four corners of the city.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Calgary Transit - 8th Ave Tunnel & SE LRT. Frankly, it seems we're playing major catchup with the LRT system due to lack of progression during the 90s. As a result, downtown is quite congested during peak hours with the lack of 4 car trains and both lines having to share one line in downtown. The Stephen Avenue Tunnel needs to get down asap along with 4 car train expansion getting done so this can be resolved. Right after, the SE should be getting the LRT so most areas of the city are served by a region specific line.

While on the transit topic. How about improving the system fare wise? Why can't it be more electronic? This is 2010. We should be able to have cards now that can add fare credits so then people don't have to dig for change, or always get monthly passes. And why the hell can't the ticket machines give change? Heck, why can't they shoot out month passes right there?

Make the system more modern and convenient.

System-wide 4 car capacity will be done by 2014. The downtown 7th Ave. stations will be done by 2012, WLRT will have 4 car capacity right off the bat when it opens in 2012, and all stations built since 2003 (Dalhousie, Crowfoot, Shawnessy, Somerset-Bridlewood, McKnight-Westwinds, Martindale, Saddleridge, and Tuscany) already are or will be 4 car length upon opening. There's a possibility the entire south line (busiest) will be done by as early as 2012.

Electronic fare payment systems, using some variation of a smart card are also forthcoming. Real-time arrival information using GPS/INS is also coming soon for LRT and BRT stops. Both will be done by 2014. Park N' Ride lots for the SE BRT in Mackenzie Towne and Douglasdale should be completed in the next year as well.