Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can you explain to me why occupying 3500 square feet of land at the edge of the city is more impactful on the total distance commuted by Calgarians then 3500 square feet in the inner city. The answer is clearly it doesn’t matter the total distance commuted would be the same.

You are mostly correct. However, low density in the inner city is actually far worse than low density at the periphery. At the very edge of the city, an acreage doesn't lengthen any commutes. In the inner city, almost everyone commuting to downtown from a given direction would have to drive past it. The section of road that services and passes the low density area would be far wider.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GGG

Location does not matter, square footage of city used does.

It does, but there are probably better ways to account for that.

For example, people who live very far from work use a lot more city services in that transportation infrastructure must be built and maintained to handle this load.

Gas tax works a bit. Until you have electric cars. Toll roads work, but are expensive to implement and maintain.


Building transit to a low density community, far from services, and employment centres is way more expensive. You could charge more for transit, but now you're punishing low income people who have fallen victim to bad planning practices that leave all the affordable housing on the fringes of the city, which are notoriously underserved by transit (see: challenges providing transit to low density, far flung communities). Now you have low income people paying too much for transit, and also spending less time with their children, and putting them at an immediate disadvantage.

Where people live matters a lot, and the current property tax model, combined with urban planning practices, doubles down on forcing people to the edges of the city because of its artificial affordability.

[Fuzz]

I'm not even sure a lot of it is 'artificial affordability'. There are loads of houses around the "inner city"(I'm thinking within 10km of DT) area that cost the same(400-500k) as those in the new communities. It's just that they are older, and people choose to live in a small lot with a new house vs a big lot with an old house. I find it baffling, but I'm fine with fixing things, and value a short commute and a yard for gardening over a granite countertop.

[CliffFletcher]

Yeah, I don’t buy the notion that communities closer to the centre are unaffordable. You get a lot less house in size and modern materials if you’re closer to the centre. But there are all sorts of older houses for under $400k in neighbourhoods like Kingsland, Fairview, Glamorgan, etc. People don’t necessarily move to the outer burbs for a cheaper house; they move for a bigger and newer house.

And it’s not clear to me that a retired couple who bought in a 1200 sq ft bungalow on a large lot in Southwood 30 years ago should be on the hook for a higher tax bill than a family of four with three cars who live in a 2300 sq ft house on a small lot in Auburn Bay.

[timun]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can you explain to me why occupying 3500 square feet of land at the edge of the city is more impactful on the total distance commuted by Calgarians then 3500 square feet in the inner city. The answer is clearly it doesn’t matter the total distance commuted would be the same.

No, someone at the edge of the city proportionally costs much more than someone in the inner city. It's patent non-sense to believe otherwise. "Total distance commuted by Calgarians" is very heavily skewed up by the suburbanites who drive—who have to drive—much farther to go to work, the grocery store, etc.

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Gas tax works a bit. Until you have electric cars. Toll roads work, but are expensive to implement and maintain.


Building transit to a low density community, far from services, and employment centres is way more expensive. You could charge more for transit, but now you're punishing low income people who have fallen victim to bad planning practices that leave all the affordable housing on the fringes of the city, which are notoriously underserved by transit (see: challenges providing transit to low density, far flung communities). Now you have low income people paying too much for transit, and also spending less time with their children, and putting them at an immediate disadvantage.

Gas taxes are probably the most equitable way of dividing the "load" on our roads system, but unfortunately the level of government that pays for most of it doesn't collect any gas taxes.

We're in a pickle with transit. We build it out to the fringes of the city nominally so we can get cars off the roads and thereby get away with spending less on roads. But, the travel times involved in taking transit from the fringes to... anywhere, really, are so much longer than simply jumping in the car and driving that people won't take transit. And if they won't take transit they're clogging up the roads, and city council gets bombarded with complaints about traffic being crappy and we need more roads, which we build, which makes driving easier and steers more people away from taking transit, and the cycle repeats itself.

With respect to the LRT, I think the best thing we could do is: 1) get rid of the honour system, put up turnstiles at every station, and 2) initiate zone pricing. If you commute downtown from the end of the line, taking up a spot on the train the entire way in, you pay more than someone hopping on at Sunnyside or Bridgeland or Erlton.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Too bad we listened to her on bridges and that library.

Right, cause the thousands of people that use each of those every day don't get any value out of them.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Yoho

[/S]

Jealousy doesn’t look good on you.

Davidson, get back to work.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, I don’t buy the notion that communities closer to the centre are unaffordable. You get a lot less house in size and modern materials if you’re closer to the centre. But there are all sorts of older houses for under $400k in neighbourhoods like Kingsland, Fairview, Glamorgan, etc. People don’t necessarily move to the outer burbs for a cheaper house; they move for a bigger and newer house.

And it’s not clear to me that a retired couple who bought in a 1200 sq ft bungalow on a large lot in Southwood 30 years ago should be on the hook for a higher tax bill than a family of four with three cars who live in a 2300 sq ft house on a small lot in Auburn Bay.

Builders are doing a damn fine job of making sure that the supply of reasonably affordable housing ‘inner city’ gets eaten up. I call it a travesty, but apparently some people call it progress. Buy up a single family home for $400k, tear it down and build 3 story duplex/‘townhomes’ and sell them for 600-700k.

[Flames0910]

Builders are doing a damn fine job of making sure that the supply of reasonably affordable housing ‘inner city’ gets eaten up. I call it a travesty, but apparently some people call it progress. Buy up a single family home for $400k, tear it down and build 3 story duplex/‘townhomes’ and sell them for 600-700k.

Definitely clear that more needs to be done to address the missing middle. Many of those $400k single family homes need serious renovations, which puts the real price higher. Much of the inner city housing supply is in desperate need of a refresh, but it seems developers can only make a profit on a) 20+ story apartments, and b) expensive infills. Lack of affordability definitely helps push people (families especially) to the outskirts of the city.

The Sprawl had an interesting write-up about it the other day.
https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/calgar...rbs-affordable

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

Definitely clear that more needs to be done to address the missing middle. Many of those $400k single family homes need serious renovations, which puts the real price higher. Much of the inner city housing supply is in desperate need of a refresh, but it seems developers can only make a profit on a) 20+ story apartments, and b) expensive infills. Lack of affordability definitely helps push people (families especially) to the outskirts of the city.

The Sprawl had an interesting write-up about it the other day.
https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/calgar...rbs-affordable

I'd even increase that number to $500k. Even at that price level, some things just can't be fixed like all those old houses with basement ceiling heights that aren't up to code.

Developers can make a profit without building terribly constructed infills, but why make $5 when you can make $50?

New York has a program through their Housing Development Fund Corporation that makes inner city apartments affordable by capping the incomes of prospective buyers to keep the prices lower. It would be interesting to see our City Council explore a similar type of program for single family homes... but there is no chance they'd do that and risk p1551ng off the inner city developers

[powderjunkie]

The fact that we failed to properly assess costs to ‘old suburbs’ doesn’t mean we should give up on assessing them to new ones.

Trying to retroactively fix the portion the ‘old burbs’ pay will only exacerbate the problem by tipping the scales further in favour of buying new.


I’m no expert on zoning, but I think we should be making some big changes with a long runway right now. In 2040, ‘old burbs’ are eligible for more densification (ie. multi-unit on those big lots in Oakridge), as well as newer burbs within a certain distance of LRT.

It gives lots of time for everyone to plan accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roughneck]

Just go with the land value tax, Henry George forever!

[Parallex]

Bit lost in the shuffle but some folk are putting their names in for Counsel seats...

Ward 8: Anna Murphy: https://livewirecalgary.com/2020/09/...er-councillor/

Ward 2: Kim Tyers: https://livewirecalgary.com/2020/09/...ce-for-ward-2/

Ward 11: Kourtney Branagan: https://livewirecalgary.com/2020/09/...te-in-ward-11/

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Bit lost in the shuffle but some folk are putting their names in for Counsel seats...

Ward 8: Anna Murphy: https://livewirecalgary.com/2020/09/...er-councillor/

Ward 2: Kim Tyers: https://livewirecalgary.com/2020/09/...ce-for-ward-2/

Ward 11: Kourtney Branagan: https://livewirecalgary.com/2020/09/...te-in-ward-11/

Great to see candidates beginning to be announced. Very happy to see these women running for office as well - more diverse candidates are always welcome.

That said, if I didn't know any better, I'd say Kim Tyers is the second "slate" candidate to be running. She currently works for Michelle Rempel and looks to be along the same political lines as Farkas.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That said, if I didn't know any better, I'd say Kim Tyers is the second "slate" candidate to be running.

... do you know better?

Regardless, I take it as more of a sign that any local conservative political machine are dropping Magliocca like a hot potato. They're obviously both juiced in and I wager if he was still in good graces then a senior staffer to another local pol wouldn't be throwing her hat in.

[Ozy_Flame]

Slate candidates will not cannibalize each other in the same ward. I don't think a fiscal hawk/conservative (in the Rempel mold no less) announcing publicly that she's running will have another conservative challenge - it eats votes. Magliocca is done and everyone knows it. Plus it's probably the UCP playbook to be supporting young and motivated professionals as their new image.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Great to see candidates beginning to be announced. Very happy to see these women running for office as well - more diverse candidates are always welcome.

That said, if I didn't know any better, I'd say Kim Tyers is the second "slate" candidate to be running. She currently works for Michelle Rempel and looks to be along the same political lines as Farkas.

Who is the first slate candidate?

[Ozy_Flame]

Farkas himself.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Farkas himself.

Oh, so this is an unofficial slate?

I don’t know if Farkas will have no other conservative challenger for mayor. If Nenshi doesn’t run, you have to expect about 12-15 candidates. I would expect another conservative or maybe two to enter that field.

[Ozy_Flame]

An older article, but the formations of a slate:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...unicipal-slate

Then this summer, the municipal election changes made by the UCP are setting up the elections to allow better financing for slates to be introduced (among a dearth of other questionable election changes):

How Alberta Welcomed Big Money Into City Elections

Then you have the not-so-subtle municipal election candidate preferences from the UCP's Municipal Affairs Minister Kaycee Madu (at the time) when he was explaining his passing of Bill 29, tweeting quotes from both Farkas and Jon Dziadyk in Edmonton support of the Bill (Dziadyk is Farkas in Edmonton with glasses).

https://twitter.com/user/status/1287146541002571777

https://twitter.com/user/status/1287146550850760704

There's a slate coming in cities and it's not exactly going under the radar.