I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[V]

Originally Posted by 4X4

You latte sippers need to realize this. Not everyone works downtown. In fact, most people don't. And it's funny that you complain in the other thread about development on your inner city street tearing up the road. So it's a pain in the ass to densify the inner city, and it's evil to build on the outskirts. Jesus, is there anywhere that we're allowed to build to accommodate all the people that are buying houses in this city?

I'm a Yop-gobbler, but I just want any new development that's built to be able to pay for the life cycle of the development. I don't see why that's so unreasonable. You're right, not everyone works downtown, but it isn't that hard to understand the average impact on the transportation system when a new development is built. The life cycle cost of the utilities going in the ground are pretty easy to estimate as well. There really isn't anything you can't approximate. So take that approximation, calculate the tax income over time, and make sure the development pays for itself. Easy peasy.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by V

I'm a Yop-gobbler, but I just want any new development that's built to be able to pay for the life cycle of the development. I don't see why that's so unreasonable. You're right, not everyone works downtown, but it isn't that hard to understand the average impact on the transportation system when a new development is built. The life cycle cost of the utilities going in the ground are pretty easy to estimate as well. There really isn't anything you can't approximate. So take that approximation, calculate the tax income over time, and make sure the development pays for itself. Easy peasy.

You're saying this as though I disagree. We've already covered the subsidy. It's been talked about plenty of times. We all agree. WE AGREE!!

Now that that's clear, what else is so bad about continuing to build houses for people that want them?

[Ozy_Flame]

I would expect any inner city development that is a larger strain on resources (water, electricity, roads) to be reflected in the property taxes accordingly. I am incredibly pro-inner city living but if neighbourhoods/communities are self-sustaining environments, then the inner city should be just as responsible as the outlying neighbourhoods.

The grey area is things like road usage. There will be far more users of inner city roads than the outlying ones simply because of our downtown core / centrally located services and shops.

[V]

Originally Posted by 4X4

You're saying this as though I disagree. We've already covered the subsidy. It's been talked about plenty of times. We all agree. WE AGREE!!

Now that that's clear, what else is so bad about continuing to build houses for people that want them?

I guess maybe I don't understand who said they have an issue with housing development if it isn't a net drag on the City's funds. I would agree with you that that would be a ridiculous position to take.

Link?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Are we talking about the subsidy again, because I'm pretty sure we all agree on that. Or are you talking about how in another 50 years, we're going to need much bigger roads, and that the people living along those roads should pay for them, rather than the people that live elsewhere in the city?

I'm talking not only about the subsidy, but the cost of inner-city re-development, the expansion of the LRT system, the ring road - everything. Is it possible to quantify how much, exactly, it costs to add a new subdivision, or a condo block infill, or a shopping mall? I don't know, but I'd rather the administration at least tried and then came up with a way to fairly offload those expected costs than just kept on the way we're going, which essentially is "raise taxes whenever we need money using a craptastic regressive tax, and/or ask the province for money like a kid looking for a bigger allowance."

[4X4]

Well, I got a bit defensive there. Your second post is clearer (to me), and I mostly agree with it. I just have no idea how they would quantify such a thing. That'd be harder than guessing real estate prices in five years.

[Fusebox]

Long term, how sustainable is it to keep building houses thirty or forty kilometres away from downtown? If the price of gasoline were to every shoot up to $2.50+/litre, those houses are going to be worth a whole lot less than they are today.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 4X4

We have. The only thing left to build is the ctrain. It's not like the ring road takes people downtown. So... What are you getting at? Just trying to be an ass?

My point is that your argument (namely, that commutes aren't impacted by sprawl because "not everyone works downtown") is both logically fallacious and directly contradicted by observable evidence. Note that I did not attack you personally, so if you're offended, that's on you. By the way, the Glenmore squeeze debottleneck and whatever results from the new Crowchild trail study aren't C-train projects, and I'm sure there are and will be others.

[KelVarnsen]

Poor Bunk, his thread got taken over.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GGG

Also eliminate zoning restrictions for basement suites, high rises, and multiplexes that will increase density. Look at the towers they built in brentwood. They were supposed to be taller but community associations protested and eventually were given into. Decisions like these force sprawl. To me it is hypocritical whenever soemone in the inner city complains about projects that increase density at the same time as complaining about buidling overpasses for the burbs.

Not true. The whole site had an as of right density of 13 storeys. What the plan did (which I wrote in 2008 as a planning consultant) was to redistribute that density by increasing the height close to the station (to the height they are built to now in reality) but then lower the height closer the community to provide a transition. There were some strongly opposed to the whole thing, but the Community Association actually supported it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by V

I'm a Yop-gobbler, but I just want any new development that's built to be able to pay for the life cycle of the development. I don't see why that's so unreasonable. You're right, not everyone works downtown, but it isn't that hard to understand the average impact on the transportation system when a new development is built. The life cycle cost of the utilities going in the ground are pretty easy to estimate as well. There really isn't anything you can't approximate. So take that approximation, calculate the tax income over time, and make sure the development pays for itself. Easy peasy.

But why should an individual in a new community pay for the impact of roads they dont use or need. If you want to charge new communities for their impact to roads you need to charge all comunities for their imoact to roads. This means tolls based on usasge and time of use.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GGG

And a question related to the thread itself. Do you know which alderman voted for and agianst the police budget in 2010 or 2011 when Nenshi was trying to cut the police budget and everyone caved and increased it instead? and is there any desire with the new coucil to pursue greater efficiencies in the Police department.

Don't recall off hand, but there are good archives.

The budget meeting were at the end of November - should be able to find it in the minutes:

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Not true. The whole site had an as of right density of 13 storeys. What the plan did (which I wrote in 2008 as a planning consultant) was to redistribute that density by increasing the height close to the station (to the height they are built to now in reality) but then lower the height closer the community to provide a transition. There were some strongly opposed to the whole thing, but the Community Association actually supported it.

Thanks for the correction, all I remember were towers being lowered and people in the community whining about traffic and how they didnt live in Brentwood to be near Condos. My point in general still stands that it is very hypocritical of people to oppose density increasing policies while at the same time being opposed to sprawl.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

Poor Bunk, his thread got taken over.

Yeah, time to move on with this issue. Let's make development better in new areas and established areas and make sure how all of it's paid for is fair and equitable. How about that?

/end

[frinkprof]

Hmm. Going to move this one to the newly-created thread.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by SebC

My point is that your argument (namely, that commutes aren't impacted by sprawl because "not everyone works downtown") is both logically fallacious and directly contradicted by observable evidence. Note that I did not attack you personally, so if you're offended, that's on you. By the way, the Glenmore squeeze debottleneck and whatever results from the new Crowchild trail study aren't C-train projects, and I'm sure there are and will be others.

"My Argument" was not that commutes are/aren't impacted by sprawl. My argument is that most of the people that live in the suburbs DO NOT work downtown, therefore, the ones that hold inner city living in such high regard can stop demonizing the people living outside that "special" perimeter, since most of them aren't even entering your sphere.

I don't know what will ever please you. The subsidy thing clearly isn't enough. Maybe Calgary needs to become two cities. Inner Calgary and Outer Calgary. We can pay to enter, and you can pay to exit. Sounds fair.

[malcolmk14]

Hey Bunk,

Just watched the Calgary Transit episode of Undercover Boss, pretty fascinating stuff. Just wondering where that idea came from and is Calgary gonna do more stuff like that in the future?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Hey Bunk,

Just watched the Calgary Transit episode of Undercover Boss, pretty fascinating stuff. Just wondering where that idea came from and is Calgary gonna do more stuff like that in the future?

I believe the show's producers approached the City. I think they may have actually asked the Mayor to do it, but didn't seem like him going undercover could work. So they approached Transit. Doug's a new Director and it's a huge City business unit. In Toronto, they had the chair of the Toronto Transit Commission Karen Stintz (she's a City Councillor) do the same thing there.

[KelVarnsen]

Is there somewhere online where I can watch that episode?

[Bunk]

By the way, I got a promotion.