There are lifestyle choices people make, because it's what will make them happy. And to assume it would not be an imposition on me to live more like you is kind of funny.
Talking about funny and assumptions, some lifestyle choices are made because people will assume it will make them happy. One of the biggest misconceptions that I hear is "kids will be happier playing in a big yard". Parents heading to the suburbs often say this but it is based off their adult valuation of space rather than a child's valuation of playtime. If you actually think back to your childhood, most people would more highly value the memories of playing with other children rather just playing in a massive backyard.
In dense urban areas that accommodate families, which Calgary needs to better provide, there are communal play areas (e.g. playgrounds, courts or pitches) and they provide children with opportunities to play with others. Aside from those that are very shy, I reckon most children would prefer to play with others on a playground than by themselves, or with only their siblings, in a big yard. Look at gaming, most kids these days aren't in their big backyard but are playing against their friends online instead.
Also, maybe people assume it wouldn't be an imposition for you to live more like them as unlike you they didn't assume inner-city living only means living in 600 square feet boxes and they found a larger home that didn't cost an arm and a leg.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
There's apartment-dwelling latte sippers (often at the childless stage) but also a lot of latte sippers with kids in (decently large) inner city houses.
As for the levy. There is a new levy for redevelopment to help cover the cost of new water and wastewater treatment capacity. The new community levies have been a round for a long time, but now cover "100%" of the cost of infrastructure to service those communities. Previously, existing rate-payers and tax-payers picked up more of the tab for infrastructure that primarily benefitted specific new subvivisions. Developers already paid all on-site infrastructure costs, this is for off-sites like pipe extensions, treatment, interchanges, fire stations, rec centres and so forth. Redevelopment does pay for things like sanitary pipe upgrades, not through a levy, but through one-off payments if their development is triggering a capacity constraint. Levies are usually more on per unit basis, but are predictable, these one-offs are not predictable.
I'm gonna guess the answer here, but now that these are being covered, does that mean my water and sewage bills are going to go down?
The CRL is a good idea because it spent the tax revenue to be generated by the East Village on the things that will have made that revenue exist.
That might have been true if they hadn't gerrymandered the Bow into it. Unless you think the St Patrick's Island bridge is primarily responsible for an office building going up downtown.
If course, if they hadn't done that, it would look like the development wasn'tpaying its own way and was being subsidized by other taxpayers...
The CRL is a good idea because it spent the tax revenue to be generated by the East Village on the things that will have made that revenue exist.
And 1000 new homes don't come with tax revenue? It's completely comparable.
Also just to be clear I don't dislike the policy. I know a big goal of the city is to put the brakes on sprawl, for good reason, and that should be the real reason for this, not that the old policy was unfair
I was more scoffing at the people how are saying I could have made better lifestyle choices than living in the burbs. While I think it was a great lifestyle choice for me and my kids.
They do, but it's a question of how much revenue they generate vs. the costs the city pays to service them. How much tax revenue is important, not just whether or not revenue exists. The other side of the ledger, costs, is also important.
This is so weird. The whole election was fought over this. The yop-gobblers won a council majority. Now they've just surrendered. I was expecting a drawn out bloodbath.
Isn't this charge the same for every new build? Reading this thread and the other news articles, that's the impression I get. Everyone, whether its a new high rise condo downtown, or single family home on the edge of the city is paying this, aren't they?
I guess if you want to consider that a "sprawl subsidy", then sure, you win. If everyone, everywhere is paying the same costs I hardly see how it matters though? It's got less to do with "sprawl" and is more about new builds in general. Maybe I'm missing something here though?
Isn't this charge the same for every new build? Reading this thread and the other news articles, that's the impression I get. Everyone, whether its a new high rise condo downtown, or single family home on the edge of the city is paying this, aren't they?
I guess if you want to consider that a "sprawl subsidy", then sure, you win. If everyone, everywhere is paying the same costs I hardly see how it matters though? It's got less to do with "sprawl" and is more about new builds in general. Maybe I'm missing something here though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
Redevelopment does pay for things like sanitary pipe upgrades, not through a levy, but through one-off payments if their development is triggering a capacity constraint.
So as I understand it, redevelopment was already paying its share, but will now do so under a different system. Greenfield goes from paying 50% of its share to paying 100% of its share, so it's a leveling of the playing field.
I was more scoffing at the people how are saying I could have made better lifestyle choices than living in the burbs. While I think it was a great lifestyle choice for me and my kids.
Although it may sound like criticism of your choice, I don't think people are necessarily criticising your choice for locating in the suburbs when they challenge the assertion that the suburbs are intrinsically better suited to families. Similar to how I also proposed that children prefer being able to play with their friends, families will often prefer to be around other families. Unfortunately, our city followed the path of directing families to the suburbs and failed to accommodate them in the inner-city for decades.
Our denser and mixed-use inner-city areas were not naturally unfriendly to families but deteriorated to that point. If the suburbs were devoid of schools, playgrounds and parks, they too would be neglected by families and the community would resemble that of an apartment tower downtown in the 80's. As the City starts to eliminate the bias in its family-oriented development policies, the inner-city and the families that have returned become eager to show how the arrangement of other areas are not naturally better for families as they can thrive in the arrangements found in Central Calgary.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
allot of the latte sippers here are pretty funny. Their basic argument is, if you made more money, or different lifestyle choices, or just generally wanted to live like me, you could too be a latte sipping hippy living in a 600 sqft box for $1800/month.
I'm not saying it is wrong to choice that type of lifestyle, but I'm guessing us YOP gobblers don't chose that lifestyle because we don't find it remotely attractive. We want a big house and a quite park near by because we want space for our kids to to have toys, or a dog without going down 7 stories for every piss, or to have our large families over regularly, because we want to take our family to a small playground with a few people at it rather than a crowed pathway.
I totally agree with your life style choices.
I just think you should pay to sustain your lifestyle.
I guarantee you that my living in a 600 sq ft box means less carbon, less resources, less cost, less footprint than your lifestyle. You should be paying for that choice. This is one reason that I'm pretty excited for the carbon tax to come in - you will be paying the true (still heavily subsidized but not zero) cost for inefficiently heating your 3000 sq ft home and needing to drive 5-10km to get anything done.
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
As long as the city still drives the specification of the equipment and product being sourced by the developer, I'm okay with this. If they won't, then I'm concerned the developers will go for cheaper (and thus crappier) solutions that will eventually cost the city more when handed over.
I just think you should pay to sustain your lifestyle.
I guarantee you that my living in a 600 sq ft box means less carbon, less resources, less cost, less footprint than your lifestyle. You should be paying for that choice. This is one reason that I'm pretty excited for the carbon tax to come in - you will be paying the true (still heavily subsidized but not zero) cost for inefficiently heating your 3000 sq ft home and needing to drive 5-10km to get anything done.
Also, I live in a 700 sqft box (actually, it is a really nice corner suite), and I pay much, much, much, much less than $1800/month.
So as I understand it, redevelopment was already paying its share, but will now do so under a different system. Greenfield goes from paying 50% of its share to paying 100% of its share, so it's a leveling of the playing field.
On the news last night they had Battistella (spelling could be wrong here) on the news talking about his development downtown, or inner city, and saying that he would pay roughly $2,000 and change for every unit there. That would be the same cost for the same project say down by 210th avenue or wherever though, right? That's my understanding.
Regardless though, this cost just passes on to the consumer. The number of issues it will cause in terms of sales is likely very small though because for a $500k property we're talking at just over 1% at the high end. I can't see many people getting too excited about $6,000 when you're looking at spending $500,000.
On the news last night they had Battistella (spelling could be wrong here) on the news talking about his development downtown, or inner city, and saying that he would pay roughly $2,000 and change for every unit there. That would be the same cost for the same project say down by 210th avenue or wherever though, right? That's my understanding.
I'm not so sure. Established Areas and Greenfield Areas will pay different rates. However, I don't see a breakdown for types of developments in Greenfield Areas as I do for Established Areas on my handy sheet.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
No offense to whoever invented the latte sipper or yop gobbler terms, but man are they ever overused here, like the person(s) who came up with it need to remind everyone how clever they were to come up with the term and pat themselves on the back for it. Top 5 overused word or phrase that's jumped the shark a long time ago IMO.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to The Yen Man For This Useful Post:
So much more fun when you can do it publicly though. Maybe get some people to pile on. Send it to that mail and you get a staffer responding with some generic platitude. Also, I'm really really lazy.
I just think you should pay to sustain your lifestyle.
I guarantee you that my living in a 600 sq ft box means less carbon, less resources, less cost, less footprint than your lifestyle. You should be paying for that choice. This is one reason that I'm pretty excited for the carbon tax to come in - you will be paying the true (still heavily subsidized but not zero) cost for inefficiently heating your 3000 sq ft home and needing to drive 5-10km to get anything done.
Heheh, not to derail the thread (though it looks like it might have been anyway) but I don't get the constant whinning about those community mailboxes. They just ran another story last week..
I understand why community mailboxes are being installed. But they are a pain in the ass. Instead of reaching out my front door for the mail, I have to put on my coat and boots, cross a busy, icy road, walk a block, and then fumble around with keys in the dark. And if I'm expecting a parcel I need to check the box every day, instead of just looking out the window to see if it was left on my front step.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
Lol. Ok, now just back away from talking complete sh1t. First of all, good luck finding single family in any of those neighbourhoods for $300, except for maybe Woodbine. for a dilapidated duples for $299. But secondly, don't go assuming people are doing it for the "bells and whistles" when your mystical alternative involves the expensive maintenance that comes with 20-40 year old houses.
The point is it's all about trade-offs. Some people don't like to recognize what those trade-offs are.
Want close to downtown? Hope you have some coin and don't need a lot of space.
Want a house on a quiet street with a nice private yard and schools nearby? Expect an outdated layout and design, and to make repairs or upgrades.
Want a new house with all the trimmings? You'll have a long commute, chain restaurants, and probably have to bus your kids to school.
Choose the tradeoffs based on what you value. Just don't complain about the downside of a choice you made with open eyes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 01-13-2016 at 01:05 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
