Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

View Poll Results: When will the ring road be completed?
1-3 years 8 3.85%
4-7 years 91 43.75%
7-10 years 65 31.25%
10-20 years 20 9.62%
Never 24 11.54%
Voters: 208. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-28-2012, 12:44 PM   #961
ranchlandsselling
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Exp:
Default

The tax savings would likely be dumped back into the economy. So it's not like a net loss to Canada. Also depends if the money is better used by the person moving or the government.
ranchlandsselling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 12:59 PM   #962
TheGrimm
Scoring Winger
 
TheGrimm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: In a van down by the river
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by comrade View Post
Are there really "a lot" of people in this situation? This seems like the kind of statement that requires some evidence to support it. It would be a shame to spend politicians time and complicate the tax code only to find that "a lot" of people isn't all that many.
You raise some good points, "a lot" is of course based on my personal perspective and not a general rule. It is an assumption expand that out to the general public, however I am sure it's something that could be done. I am not sure I can stress enough that this isn't some well hashed out plan of mine but merely a thought I had while reading an off-topic discussion. There may be merit to it, may not be, that's the point of discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by comrade View Post
If the distance were reduced to 15km or something like that (based on your post) would it really even have a huge effect on people living close to work? Would it be worth the lost tax revenue?
As to the second issue of whether the distance being reduced to a smaller number would have the desired impact, again, it's theoretical OF COURSE. It might well be the case that there isn't a significant difference overall and it would surely be hard data to capture and correlate. It's not quite as simple as lost revenue from taxpayers, there are more factors which would need to be accounted for. I could argue that less vehicles on the road isn't in the governments best interest as it would cut into their oil and gas revenues however I would hope this wouldn't be a factor.

Our city is already one of the worst with regard to urban sprawl, and with a fast growing population and infrastructure that is starting to lag behind that growing population the city needs to do something or we will have serious issues moving forward.
TheGrimm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 03:06 PM   #963
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrimm View Post
Our city is already one of the worst with regard to urban sprawl, and with a fast growing population and infrastructure that is starting to lag behind that growing population the city needs to do something or we will have serious issues moving forward.
That solution is to eliminate the development subsidies and make the suburbs pay for themselves. Tuscany residents should be paying for Tuscany's LRT station, as they are the only ones who will use it.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:03 PM   #964
calculoso
Franchise Player
 
calculoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
That solution is to eliminate the development subsidies and make the suburbs pay for themselves.
We heard you the first time...
calculoso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:19 PM   #965
GP_Matt
First Line Centre
 
GP_Matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Edmonton
Exp:
Default

These development subsidies that you speak of, are they direct subsidies as in the city gives the developers cash, indirect as in the city builds the roads going to the subdivision or more abstract as in, once the area hits a certain population the city will build a train station?

If they are fully upfront then you may have an argument, but anything done after the land is sold to homeowners would be much more difficult to quantify and execute. As far as I know the Municipal Government Act lays out the rules for property taxes and each zone. I suppose a special levy could be added for any project, but I am not sure if that would require a vote.
What would happen if they wanted to build a new art gallery in the core? Would the taxes be adjusted so that those who are closer to it pay more? Clearly someone who can walk there will benefit more than someone who lives in the suburbs.
GP_Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:19 PM   #966
Kavvy
Self Imposed Exile
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
That solution is to eliminate the development subsidies and make the suburbs pay for themselves. Tuscany residents should be paying for Tuscany's LRT station, as they are the only ones who will use it.
100% disagree, and I live on 17th.The city needs people to live in the outskirts and therefore needs to develop infrastructure for them. Maybe less people should live there, but that's not the argument here.

Should Tuscany and surrounding communities pay for police and fire stations now as well? How about hospitals, aside from the ER in the foothills, should the southeast foot the bill for the new south east hospital? Can we have different levels of care for what part of the city you in?

How about a United states Way of looking at this, your money only goes only to your school district. Now our youth are really limited by there parents income as inner city school will start to crumble.

Your method would create a city with even more so classes split by geography - only the rich gets good infrastructure. It's insane.

Last edited by Kavvy; 06-28-2012 at 04:21 PM.
Kavvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 05:12 PM   #967
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calculoso View Post
We heard you the first time...
Apparently not the person I was replying to.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 10:37 PM   #968
4X4
One of the Nine
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
That solution is to eliminate the development subsidies and make the suburbs pay for themselves. Tuscany residents should be paying for Tuscany's LRT station, as they are the only ones who will use it.
Great idea.
Just to make it fair, Tuscany residents can charge all non-Tuscans a toll for disembarking at their station?

Seb, you're becoming a broken record. We all know how much you hate the suburbs and urban sprawl, and how you think that you're subsidizing the burbs, and that the city would be a much better place if it's borders were glenmore, sarcee, john laurie, and maybe barlow. You've posted your thoughts dozens of times, in dozens of threads. Congratulations on still not figuring out that Calgary is not going to stop growing. Congratulations on still not realizing that without outer areas, the inner areas wouldn't be worth what they're worth. Congratulations on not acknowledging that if the City does not annex and develop land, that the surrounding counties will, and they'll take the tax money that gets paid either way.
4X4 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-29-2012, 12:10 AM   #969
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_Matt View Post
These development subsidies that you speak of, are they direct subsidies as in the city gives the developers cash, indirect as in the city builds the roads going to the subdivision or more abstract as in, once the area hits a certain population the city will build a train station?

If they are fully upfront then you may have an argument, but anything done after the land is sold to homeowners would be much more difficult to quantify and execute. As far as I know the Municipal Government Act lays out the rules for property taxes and each zone. I suppose a special levy could be added for any project, but I am not sure if that would require a vote.
What would happen if they wanted to build a new art gallery in the core? Would the taxes be adjusted so that those who are closer to it pay more? Clearly someone who can walk there will benefit more than someone who lives in the suburbs.
Typically when we're talking about subsidies in this context, what we're talking about is insufficient developer fees. This oldish article from FFWD explains the issue pretty well. When a new community is built, the developer builds the road, but the city pays for the water and sewer infrastructure. The fees the developer pays the city don't cover the water and sewer portion of the development, so it ends up coming out of the city's general revenue. Then, when you consider the time value of money and the upkeep costs of these areas, the debt the city incurs to develop these communities is never repaid through taxes. It's an indirect subsidies that creates demand for other services (LRT, intersections) that are also never paid back by the areas they serve. Since that article was written, the city signed a new framework with developers where the subsidies are about half of what they were previously. Which is still too much, as they should be zero or negative ("should" based on optimizing net social benefit - zero if not considering sprawl a negative externaility, negative - i.e core get subsidized - if we do consider it a negative externality, which is almost certainly is).

===============

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavy View Post
100% disagree, and I live on 17th.The city needs people to live in the outskirts and therefore needs to develop infrastructure for them. Maybe less people should live there, but that's not the argument here.
More people live there than "should" (again, speaking strictly in an economic sense - optimizing net social benefit) precisely because they are are subsidized to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavy
Should Tuscany and surrounding communities pay for police and fire stations now as well? How about hospitals, aside from the ER in the foothills, should the southeast foot the bill for the new south east hospital? Can we have different levels of care for what part of the city you in?

How about a United states Way of looking at this, your money only goes only to your school district. Now our youth are really limited by there parents income as inner city school will start to crumble.

Your method would create a city with even more so classes split by geography - only the rich gets good infrastructure. It's insane.
Take a look at the map on page 33 of this document (it shows median household incomes in 2005 by community). Whilst there are pockets of wealth in the inner city, for the most part moving outwards actually puts you into wealthier territorities. Making the periphery pay for itself would actually free up money to help the people who really need it, which I am fine with. Subsidizing new communities (which are full of people who can buy their homes, have more cars, drive more kms, and pay the least tax - at least on a square foot basis) is actually regressive. Subsidizing the periphery is subsidizing a lifestyle choice - not subsidizing people who need it.

The problem with inner city schools right now is that there aren't enough students for them without making students travel long distances... shifting the incentives so that more families can live in the inner city would benefit these schools.

The East Village is paying for itself through a community revitalization levy. The infrastructure the city is building there will be paid for through the increased taxes the development of the area will generate. Tuscany can't do that, because it's a less efficient community - doesn't generate as much tax for the infrastructure it needs. But if it had a higher tax rate or higher development fees, it could pay for itself the same way the East Village will.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 01:30 AM   #970
Cowboy89
Franchise Player
 
Cowboy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toledo OH
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
Since that article was written, the city signed a new framework with developers where the subsidies are about half of what they were previously. Which is still too much, as they should be zero or negative ("should" based on optimizing net social benefit - zero if not considering sprawl a negative externaility, negative - i.e core get subsidized - if we do consider it a negative externality, which is almost certainly is).
Totally F that noise. If everyone who wants to live in a detached single family home pays the full economic cost of doing so then there's nothing further to talk about. It's a lifestyle choice and if everyone, both suburban and urban, are paying their economic way, there isn't a further role to play by the city planning department vis-a-vis social engineering.

I'm all for my taxes fully paying the full brunt of my living choices, but I refuse to be okay with paying extra for what city planners think is more 'socially virtuous.'
Cowboy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-29-2012, 02:46 AM   #971
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89 View Post
Totally F that noise. If everyone who wants to live in a detached single family home pays the full economic cost of doing so then there's nothing further to talk about. It's a lifestyle choice and if everyone, both suburban and urban, are paying their economic way, there isn't a further role to play by the city planning department vis-a-vis social engineering.

I'm all for my taxes fully paying the full brunt of my living choices, but I refuse to be okay with paying extra for what city planners think is more 'socially virtuous.'
Net social benefit is optimized by doing exactly what I've bolded (i.e. the only subsidies/rebate are to account for externalities). I'm not advocating social engineering, I'm advocating creating an efficient market. Subsidizing lifestyle choices reduces net social benefit, we optimize it by eliminating such subsidies.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 08:15 AM   #972
ranchlandsselling
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Exp:
Default

So, Rings Roads to Nowhere?
ranchlandsselling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 12:44 PM   #973
Mazrim
CP Gamemaster
 
Mazrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Gary
Exp:
Default

Ring Road to Parasite Communities, obviously.
Mazrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 01:47 PM   #974
KelVarnsen
Franchise Player
 
KelVarnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Apartment 5A
Exp:
Default

What the hell happened here?
KelVarnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 02:16 PM   #975
ken0042
Playboy Mansion Poolboy
 
ken0042's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Default

I let the arguement continue. As much as it just seemed to go in circles, it seemed somewhat fitting in the "Ring Road" thread.

I think they are done; so let's keep this about news and questions about the Ring Road projects.
ken0042 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 03:26 PM   #976
Bill Bumface
My face is a bum!
 
Bill Bumface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Exp:
Default

At least you can make a full loop reading this argument.....
Bill Bumface is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
Old 06-29-2012, 06:24 PM   #977
Joborule
Franchise Player
 
Joborule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

The Alberta government has expressed an commitment in having two freeways entering the city from the east in the long term. Those two freeways will be Highway 1 and Highway 22X.

The reason I acknowledge this is because although the government hasn't said anything about it, there may be hints that they are looking at creating a new official Trans Canada Highway Calgary bypass route. So then commuters that was to drive past Calgary don't have to deal with the lights on 16th ave or take a very long loop around the north half of the city.

In documents overlooking Highway 1 alignment & network planning, there's been concepts in having Highway 1 and Highway 22X connect. The pdf below (59MB) showed a plan of this:

Open House #2

However after open house #3 last year, this link has been removed and an incomplete Highway 22X plan: Recommended Plan (Highway 22X Plan west of Highway 901)

If the province is considering having Highway 22X connect with Highway 1 east of Calgary, this may be an opportunity to make a bypass route making use of the SW ring road. Highway 22X would connect with Highway 1 in someway; probably by twinning Highway 901 through the Siksika native reserve. From there the route would travel west on 22X all the way until it reaches the SW ring road via Sarcee Trail. Then head up north on that road until Glenmore where it'll bend west. It'll then bend back north when it reaches Stoney, and will continue up that until it reaches the TCH interchange.

It would look something like this.



If this is something the province is considering, it makes it even more important to get the route through the reserve. The road is projected to carry a lot of traffic volume, so ultimately it's suppose to be 16 lanes of traffic, featuring express lanes. I imagine this is because this leg of the ring road would be for both the inner and outer ring road to avoid attempt of putting another freeway through the reserve. But it also should have no problem carrying bypass traffic as well.

I think this gives even more reason in why the reserve route is the only good option.
Joborule is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
Old 06-29-2012, 08:02 PM   #978
stampsx2
First Line Centre
 
stampsx2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

^^^ and all the businesses on 16th ave would be in an uproar.

Also need to take into consideration that the long term plan is to connect the se and sw lrt lines along 22x. So the number one highway would run beside that? Wierd.
stampsx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 08:29 PM   #979
frinkprof
First Line Centre
 
frinkprof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2 View Post
^^^ and all the businesses on 16th ave would be in an uproar.

Also need to take into consideration that the long term plan is to connect the se and sw lrt lines along 22x. So the number one highway would run beside that? Wierd.
False.
frinkprof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 08:29 PM   #980
MrMastodonFarm
Lifetime Suspension
 
MrMastodonFarm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2 View Post
^^^ and all the businesses on 16th ave would be in an uproar.
.
16th will still be a major East-West connector for Calgary citizens. The fact that people driving on TransCanada can't get through or around Calgary without driving 45 minutes-an hour on 16th has always been a little silly.
MrMastodonFarm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021