Ring Road To Nowhere

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'm pretty sure the Canadian government can't use emminent domain on the reserves either. Otherwise, negotiations would likely be much easier.

I think Eminent Domain is an American term but could be wrong. In Alberta land is taken under the Expropriation Act, but that law only applies on land that falls under provincial jurisdiction.
I am not really sure if the Federal government has a similar act, but don't think so as the provinces would likely raise a stink if the federal government decided to expropriate provincial land (especially since the federal government isn't required to pay property taxes).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

I wish the City or Province would provide some incentive for people to do more of a work/live scenario. Some kind of program to help people move closer to their work would be great! I would love to live closer to my work, but the thought of the 30-50k in moving expenses is definitely holding me back. Maybe a tax write off for moving expenses going from >x distance to <x distance to work?

For example, if I am > 20km from work and move to within 5km or 10km I can write off a portion (or all) of my moving expenses?

The city can start by fully eliminating the suburban development subsidies. Only fortunately they've only been willing eliminate half the subsidy rate, the other half is still there and I don't know if they've handcuffed themselves from making further reductions and if so for how long.

By eliminating the subsidies, the city would change the relative costs of urban vs. suburban living, thus creating and incentive for people to move.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I think Eminent Domain is an American term but could be wrong. In Alberta land is taken under the Expropriation Act, but that law only applies on land that falls under provincial jurisdiction.
I am not really sure if the Federal government has a similar act, but don't think so as the provinces would likely raise a stink if the federal government decided to expropriate provincial land (especially since the federal government isn't required to pay property taxes).

You could be right, if expropriation is the generic term I'll go with that instead.

My point is that the federal government (as far as I know) cannot unilaterally take reserve land from the aboriginals, say to build an air force or to transfer it to the province.

The reason the land required for the ring road can't be easily acquired is not that it's federal, it's that it's reserve. That's why the negotiations are between the province and the reserve, rather than between the province and the country.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by SebC

My point is that the federal government (as far as I know) cannot unilaterally take reserve land from the aboriginals, say to build an air force or to transfer it to the province.

because we've already taken enough land from them over the years..

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

In your opinion.

Below is an appropriate response that mentions nothing about telling someone to move, are you posting in the correct thread?

Whatever. Edited to better reflect what was said.

[Skootenbeeten]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Just a thought, but if get everywhere on foot was important for you, moving to Somerset was a rather poor decision.

I feel the whole design of suburban areas to be a mess and don't understand the need for every person to have a car. Some intelligent design and we wouldn't force every person in the city to spend a pile of cash on some obsolete piece of technology.

Originally Posted by jammies

"An extensive elevated rail system" to service suburbs like Somerset would cost an order of magnitude more than the current LRT system, which, if I recall correctly, we already can't build everywhere needed because of cost.

Somerset? Why don't we just build an elevated train to High River, with a stop at Okotoks. Do you even know where Somerset is? I hardly think pointing out that the OP is going to have a lot more luck with moving closer to the core for better public transit access than waiting for a never-will-happen train is some kind of "drive by".

I have a train station within 10minutes walk of my house. That will only take me to a very select few places in the city. Riding a bike on the streets is like a nightmare, waiting to get run down by someone with a truck that has never hauled a thing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

I feel the whole design of suburban areas to be a mess and don't understand the need for every person to have a car. Some intelligent design and we wouldn't force every person in the city to spend a pile of cash on some obsolete piece of technology.

Well, you may dislike it, but it is hardly obsolete. Serious quesiton though - Do you not feel that you are contributing to the poor design of suburban areas by living there? I agree that they are not logically thought out, but developers are pretty much giving the people what they want: quiet cul-de-sacs to live in. Even if there is only one way in or out, or if people are stupid enough to actually want to live in the flood plain below Cranston.

Given the space we have, sprawl will always be a problem, and consequently, the car will always be the best way to get anywhere. Though yes, better management of it would be nice.

[Thunderball]

Technically speaking, the Federal Government can expropriate from the First Nations, since treaty land is technically federal crown land... but it would take some positively massive to overrule their fiduciary duty to the First Nations to do it. Politically, it would be suicide unless it was something in the national interest to a sufficient magnitude that failure to do so would cost the nation significantly. Sadly, our SWRR wouldn't fall into either category.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Technically speaking, the Federal Government can expropriate from the First Nations, since treaty land is technically federal crown land... but it would take some positively massive to overrule their fiduciary duty to the First Nations to do it. Politically, it would be suicide unless it was something in the national interest to a sufficient magnitude that failure to do so would cost the nation significantly. Sadly, our SWRR wouldn't fall into either category.

They haven't been willing to do so for "nation building" type things like the Mackenzie valley pipeline either, so I can't imagine anything that would make the cut, unless we were at war or something.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by Fire

Pay for the moving expenses yourself. It's to your benefit to live closer to work. Why should the taxpayers pay for it? WRGMG: freeloaders.

Believe me, a move like this, with restrictions, would have many and more benefits outweighing the "cost" to the government. How about less traffic on already overused roads? Smaller carbon footprint, less accidents, less strain on medical and police services.

It angers me you'd throw a freeloader comment in there as well, that's ignorant and pompous! I have never in my life abused the system or asked for a handout in any way. I've never used EI or disabilty, and believe me I don't have a problem with people who NEED these services using them!

Do you consider people freeloaders who write off medical expenses? Childcare expenses?

[GP_Matt]

I don't know what the distance, but there is already a tax break for moving expenses if you move to be closer to your job.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't know what the distance, but there is already a tax break for moving expenses if you move to be closer to your job.

Yes. You have to move at least 40 km closer to your work.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/t.../menu-eng.html

[Fire]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Do you consider people freeloaders who write off medical expenses? Childcare expenses?

Essentially yes, they are freeloaders, but that's in the tax law so I don't blame them for using it. What irked me is that you wanted to add a new tax write off. I doubt society would see much if any benefit by spending thousands of dollars to help you move closer to the downtown core.

It's not like the properties near the downtown core are in low demand. By the taxpayers helping you move closer downtown you are just taking the spot of somebody else that would have moved into the same location with no outside help. Plus by leaving the suburbs you are just opening another spot for a evil car user to take, thus eliminating any supposed traffic easing that taking one car off the road would do.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by Fire

Essentially yes, they are freeloaders, but that's in the tax law so I don't blame them for using it. What irked me is that you wanted to add a new tax write off. I doubt society would see much if any benefit by spending thousands of dollars to help you move closer to the downtown core.

It's not like the properties near the downtown core are in low demand. By the taxpayers helping you move closer downtown you are just taking the spot of somebody else that would have moved into the same location with no outside help. Plus by leaving the suburbs you are just opening another spot for a evil car user to take, thus eliminating any supposed traffic easing that taking one car off the road would do.

Not sure you are getting the logic here... It's not just about the downtown core... How many people live in the NW or NE and work in the SE? It's about providing incentive to people to make the city more efficient. I am not saying I should be able to flat out remove 20k moving expenses from my taxable income. It could be similar to medical and be 15% etc or several other viable options. And stop referring to it as "Taxpayer" money already, you know what 15% of $0.00 is?!? If I don't pay taxes, it doesn't really apply to me does it? It's coming out of money I already pay year over year, and if the government can't see the value in having the population of it's cities distributed closely to their respective places of work, than we have a larger issue to discuss.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Yes. You have to move at least 40 km closer to your work.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/t.../menu-eng.html

Yep, pretty much along these lines, except expanded to consider the micro-conditions of a metropolis or large city.

I personally think the costs involved with moving can be a fairly large barrier to when having a well distributed population could do wonders for the roads. Calgary isn't bad yet compared to larger cities, it gets exponentially worse as the populations grow.

There will always be those that love where they live or are attatched to it and are willing to tolerate long commutes, and it's well within everyones rights to choose. It's just that I know a lot of people who have tremendous commutes simply because they can't afford to move, and for those scenarios it would be nice if there was a way to facilitate it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Not sure you are getting the logic here... It's not just about the downtown core... How many people live in the NW or NE and work in the SE? It's about providing incentive to people to make the city more efficient. I am not saying I should be able to flat out remove 20k moving expenses from my taxable income. It could be similar to medical and be 15% etc or several other viable options. And stop referring to it as "Taxpayer" money already, you know what 15% of $0.00 is?!? If I don't pay taxes, it doesn't really apply to me does it? It's coming out of money I already pay year over year, and if the government can't see the value in having the population of it's cities distributed closely to their respective places of work, than we have a larger issue to discuss.

People already have a pretty big incentive to live close to work, in terms of shorter commutes.

The tax code needs to become less complicated, not more.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

People already have a pretty big incentive to live close to work, in terms of shorter commutes.

The tax code needs to become less complicated, not more.

Well, I agree with you on this front, and I don't argue there is already incentive, but the costs to moving are simply a barrier for a lot of people.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Well, I agree with you on this front, and I don't argue there is already incentive, but the costs to moving are simply a barrier for a lot of people.

That's the problem though, everyone agrees in principal that the tax code is too complicated, but they don't want their specific interests removed, they want them added. So it gets more complicated every year.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by fotze

So that would apply to people living in Somerset.

Sure, if they work in Airdrie.

[comrade]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Well, I agree with you on this front, and I don't argue there is already incentive, but the costs to moving are simply a barrier for a lot of people.

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.

Besides, there is already a provision in the tax code for deducting moving expenses when moving closer to your job. You just want them changed so that they apply to you. 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?