Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

This may be the best #yyccc burn I've heard in a long time:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1318377773077991424

But neither does Magliocca. He just states they went so he can write off a $300 lunch. Bam!

[getbak]

Isn't the threat of developers leaving Calgary for other cities similar to Trump's threat to leave the US if he loses?

Would anyone really miss them if they went?

[Fuzz]

Developing for the sake of preserving an industry, despite their being a reduced need seems like poor policy.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by getbak

Isn't the threat of developers leaving Calgary for other cities similar to Trump's threat to leave the US if he loses?

Would anyone really miss them if they went?

Developers can threaten all day long. Calgary has a huge land mass, rebuild, and densification needs. Developers choosing to leave would simply be those only wanting to build net-new suburbs.

Which is to say, perhaps a subset may scale back operations in Calgary, but good developers interested in doing sustainable projects will definitely stay.

And as an extra thought, if Calgary decides to limit their investments in new communities and focus on existing land with sustainability, good design and densification in mind, new developers may actually come to the city as well.

[TorqueDog]

Maybe we don't need new communities / suburbs.

Actually let me say that a different way: we don't need new communities or suburbs. What we need is inner city densification and time to allow the damn infrastructure to catch up.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Maybe we don't need new communities / suburbs.

Actually let me say that a different way: we don't need new communities or suburbs. What we need is inner city densification and time to allow the damn infrastructure to catch up.

In 2018, Calgary's council voted on 14 new suburban developments. The professional city planners recommended to council that only six be approved. A majority of pro-developer councillors voted to approve all 14. Yesterday, developers bought an additional 11 new communities to council for approval. This time, the professional city planners recommended that none of them be approved. The final vote in council is scheduled for next week.

If you're concerned about your property taxes going up, opposing unchecked urban sprawl is one of -- if not the -- biggest things you can do to keep City spending under control. Contact your councillor before next week's vote and let them know you're opposed to these new communities.

https://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/c...and-wards.html

[kermitology]

Developers are looking elsewhere, but a lot of these developers are pretty big. Like, Genstar and Brookfield are pretty big orgs and they do work in many cities around the world or across Canada. They'll just de-prioritize Calgary. That being said, it just doesn't make sense to continue to develop outward.

I was talking about this with my wife this morning, she used to be a development consultant and put forward the business case for 2 of the maligned 14 new communities from last year. One argument she put forward is that these communities aren't being built out at once, it's over a 25 year time period. But city administration and city services (like fire, police, CBE) are pushing for service infrastructure to be available at the onset of the community. Like how you need a fire-station in a new community area to ensure response times, except that it's not needed until someone is actually living there. Similarly, some of these are build outs that compliment existing development commitments. Just to provide some other side of the fence arguments.

The reality is that Calgary needs to shift the property tax burden from denser existing communities to the new communities, except that smashes the subsidy of the reduced upfront costs of buying a brand new home in these new communities. If we were to properly price things out those $400k homes would go for $700k like they do in inner city redevelopments.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Developers are looking elsewhere, but a lot of these developers are pretty big. Like, Genstar and Brookfield are pretty big orgs and they do work in many cities around the world or across Canada. They'll just de-prioritize Calgary. That being said, it just doesn't make sense to continue to develop outward.

I was talking about this with my wife this morning, she used to be a development consultant and put forward the business case for 2 of the maligned 14 new communities from last year. One argument she put forward is that these communities aren't being built out at once, it's over a 25 year time period. But city administration and city services (like fire, police, CBE) are pushing for service infrastructure to be available at the onset of the community. Like how you need a fire-station in a new community area to ensure response times, except that it's not needed until someone is actually living there. Similarly, some of these are build outs that compliment existing development commitments. Just to provide some other side of the fence arguments.

The reality is that Calgary needs to shift the property tax burden from denser existing communities to the new communities, except that smashes the subsidy of the reduced upfront costs of buying a brand new home in these new communities. If we were to properly price things out those $400k homes would go for $700k like they do in inner city redevelopments.

While I don't disagree with the point you make about new communities pay the share of the burden that is commiserate. Do you actually mean that the innercity homes go for $700k because of cost of to the city? Or do you mean in a different way?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Developers are looking elsewhere, but a lot of these developers are pretty big. Like, Genstar and Brookfield are pretty big orgs and they do work in many cities around the world or across Canada. They'll just de-prioritize Calgary. That being said, it just doesn't make sense to continue to develop outward.

I was talking about this with my wife this morning, she used to be a development consultant and put forward the business case for 2 of the maligned 14 new communities from last year. One argument she put forward is that these communities aren't being built out at once, it's over a 25 year time period. But city administration and city services (like fire, police, CBE) are pushing for service infrastructure to be available at the onset of the community. Like how you need a fire-station in a new community area to ensure response times, except that it's not needed until someone is actually living there. Similarly, some of these are build outs that compliment existing development commitments. Just to provide some other side of the fence arguments.

The reality is that Calgary needs to shift the property tax burden from denser existing communities to the new communities, except that smashes the subsidy of the reduced upfront costs of buying a brand new home in these new communities. If we were to properly price things out those $400k homes would go for $700k like they do in inner city redevelopments.

So given that each community requires large costs on the city side, would it not make more sense to build out a community in 5 years, then move on to the next one? Why do we need so many on the go at once. Random number of 5 at a time makes a lot more sense.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Weitz

While I don't disagree with the point you make about new communities pay the share of the burden that is commiserate. Do you actually mean that the innercity homes go for $700k because of cost of to the city? Or do you mean in a different way?

No, inner-city homes go for $700k because that's more their market value. I built my house in 2012 in Inglewood and it was about $500k for land and construction. I would list it for somewhere between $700k and $800k (which I will next summer).

The cost of a new build in a new community is artificially lower because they're not paying for their share of infrastructure. The idea is that the new properties will bring in enough tax revenue over their lifetime to offset the capital investment that the city puts into those new communities, as well as the operational costs. But they don't.

Developers front some of those costs (more than they used it until Nenshi), but not all of it. The developer pays for the infrastructure within the community, but the city is responsible for getting that infrastructure connected to the rest of the system. If the city shifted more of that burden onto the consumer by pushing more of it onto the developer, then the cost of the homes would go up a lot more.

These new communities also have lower density than a lot of brownfield communities, so they're cost burden to the city is higher. But increasing the prices of those homes makes them less attractive and evaporates the market for them. It's a bad situation to be in because the city is so far behind.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So given that each community requires large costs on the city side, would it not make more sense to build out a community in 5 years, then move on to the next one? Why do we need so many on the go at once. Random number of 5 at a time makes a lot more sense.

That's a good question. In the case of the 14 communities, some of them are separated in a city administration context, but from a developer point of view there might be 4 of them that are all part of the same context. I'll ask my wife later.

The more poingiant question in my mind is whether or not the market will still exist for these homes in 25 years. Unless there is an economic shift soon I'd be pretty worried that this plan will see empty communities as people move away from Calgary without the promise of a way to make a living.

[TorqueDog]

I wrote to my councillor (Wooley) imploring him to vote NO, and quoted him saying back in 2019 that the budget shortfall will result in service cuts to established communities where Calgarians actually live while we have to build out infrastructure to these new communities.

I'm already poised to vote against him with his support of the idiotic speed limit drop instead of using the money to improve pedestrian crossing signage and other safety initiatves that would make a difference. But how he votes this time will be a much bigger factor.

[getbak]

Speaking of Chu...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1318604064339324928


Come on, Ward 4, get your #### together this time.

[Fuzz]

goddammit.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

That is a pretty good burn, not gonna lie.

Not going to lie that it's funny in a casual setting but this is the kind of stuff that's never made me warm up to Nenshi. I just don't find that overly professional but as someone brought up before this is what happens when councilors spend too many years together in the same room

[delayedreflex]

Originally Posted by kermitology

No, inner-city homes go for $700k because that's more their market value. I built my house in 2012 in Inglewood and it was about $500k for land and construction. I would list it for somewhere between $700k and $800k (which I will next summer).

The cost of a new build in a new community is artificially lower because they're not paying for their share of infrastructure. The idea is that the new properties will bring in enough tax revenue over their lifetime to offset the capital investment that the city puts into those new communities, as well as the operational costs. But they don't.

Developers front some of those costs (more than they used it until Nenshi), but not all of it. The developer pays for the infrastructure within the community, but the city is responsible for getting that infrastructure connected to the rest of the system. If the city shifted more of that burden onto the consumer by pushing more of it onto the developer, then the cost of the homes would go up a lot more.

These new communities also have lower density than a lot of brownfield communities, so they're cost burden to the city is higher. But increasing the prices of those homes makes them less attractive and evaporates the market for them. It's a bad situation to be in because the city is so far behind.

I wonder if there are any jurisdictions where property taxes are based on the actual burden to the city, as opposed to being just a % of the property value? On one hand, I do appreciate that making it a % of property value is a progressive tax in a way, insofar as people with higher-value homes probably are more well off and can afford to pay more tax. On the other hand, such a scheme suffers from sprawl - really it's a double-whammy, as homes on the fringes of the city are both lower value (hence pay less tax) and tend to be less dense (hence, more expensive services per household) than inner city homes, as you mentioned. At least if property taxes were based on burden as opposed to based on property value, adding to the sprawl wouldn't necessarily be a financial detriment to the city, though it may depress the price of sprawl homes to an even greater extent and likely would erode the business case for some fringe communities. The main downside I see to burden-based taxation would be the transition to it - ie. lower income people might have bought into suburban communities because that is all they could afford, and if their property taxes go up a lot they may no longer be able to afford living there.

[Ozy_Flame]

With the new political donation/campaign financing rules, it will be interesting to see who votes in favor of these new communities on Nov. 2. Combined with the introduction of slate candidates and the "support private business" proponents, I see this vote being relatively split (give or take a couple of votes). There is little doubt developers will be lining the campaign pockets of some of these candidates, especially without having to worry about voters finding out until after the election.

Municipal democracy will be tested on many fronts in 2021.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Magliocca?! How can any serious organization endorse him and his expense scandal?

If you think Magliocca is the most embarrassing name on that list, you don't know Craig Chandler. But then, it's not like PGIB wouldn't endorse him, since PGIB is his organization.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by delayedreflex

I wonder if there are any jurisdictions where property taxes are based on the actual burden to the city, as opposed to being just a % of the property value? On one hand, I do appreciate that making it a % of property value is a progressive tax in a way, insofar as people with higher-value homes probably are more well off and can afford to pay more tax. On the other hand, such a scheme suffers from sprawl - really it's a double-whammy, as homes on the fringes of the city are both lower value (hence pay less tax) and tend to be less dense (hence, more expensive services per household) than inner city homes, as you mentioned. At least if property taxes were based on burden as opposed to based on property value, adding to the sprawl wouldn't necessarily be a financial detriment to the city, though it may depress the price of sprawl homes to an even greater extent and likely would erode the business case for some fringe communities. The main downside I see to burden-based taxation would be the transition to it - ie. lower income people might have bought into suburban communities because that is all they could afford, and if their property taxes go up a lot they may no longer be able to afford living there.

Does the new home get credit for increasing the inner cities homes value? Each time the furthest away house is built each house closer goes up in value. The idea that a below average prices house could ever pay for its infrastructure just doesn’t make sense. The progressive nature of the system prevents that from happening. Any analysis would need to include the incremental value to all homes as the city grows.

Also the modern burb has greater density then many communities in Calgary. It’s the donut from about Chinook to lake Bonnivista that has horrible densities. The thing to remember about sprawl is that it’s lot size and not location that is driving it. So any change to taxation should be based on the square footage of lot you occupy not the location.

You incentivize the inner city by making homes cheaper. The way to do that is to decrease zoning restrictions and increase supply. You have residents (Not necessarily people here) of the inner city both actively working against resining and actively complaining about sprawl you don’t get both.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If there is a vacancy on Council less than a year from the next election, the seat remains unfilled. The next municipal election is October 18, 2021: exactly one year to the day from yesterday.

I believe Jones has missed a lot of council meetings this year due to health.

The timing of this announcement appears to be intentional then, so that a byelection is avoided. Ray had already mostly retired due to health earlier this year.