MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[GGG]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

How do you incentivize developers that are sitting on epic amounts of land, along with the city sitting on loads of vacant or underused land, to get projects underway that would bring tens of thousands of units, perhaps even a hundred thousand units online within a few years? Interest rates, appear to the main impediment right now, with concrete construction costs second.

You tax unused property based on its developed value to make holding developable land very expensive driving the value of said land down which makes the economics of development much more attractive. You could do this with a slowly increasing tax burden the longer land sits undeveloped.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

How do you incentivize developers that are sitting on epic amounts of land, along with the city sitting on loads of vacant or underused land, to get projects underway that would bring tens of thousands of units, perhaps even a hundred thousand units online within a few years? Interest rates, appear to the main impediment right now, with concrete construction costs second.

Some of that is surely waiting on the City to approve new communities? Despite the City saying there's already enough new development in the pipeline for the next couple of decades, I'd fully expect if the City loosened some density requirements in exchange for more starter detached single family homes to be built, extra communities would sell out given the high demand and lack of new supply of that housing type.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Some of that is surely waiting on the City to approve new communities? Despite the City saying there's already enough new development in the pipeline for the next couple of decades, I'd fully expect if the City loosened some density requirements in exchange for more starter detached single family homes to be built, extra communities would sell out given the high demand and lack of new supply of that housing type.

Existing land within the current city area, not new communities.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by GGG

You tax unused property based on its developed value to make holding developable land very expensive driving the value of said land down which makes the economics of development much more attractive. You could do this with a slowly increasing tax burden the longer land sits undeveloped.

I'm curious if there are any real world examples of this getting the wanted result? This is not my area of expertise, but I ask as I generally don't see increasing taxes, or forced timelines, being an incentive to do business in the long-term. To me it seems like it would be just another added cost and risk factor for a developer to consider, that is either pushed down on to the end-purchaser anyway, result in some really crappy "placeholder" development to appease the rules, or if costly enough, something that prevents developers from wanting to do business in the first place.

[getbak]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1783000042665857158

Nice bit of racism from McLean at the end of the clip there.

[Johnny Makarov]

Dan Maclean sounds like a drunk simpleton. Losers actually voted him in?? lol

Maclean and Chu voters all deserve a hard kick to the junk.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Dan Maclean sounds like a drunk simpleton. Losers actually voted him in?? lol

Maclean and Chu voters all deserve a hard kick to the junk.

We can’t be certain but it’s possible many of his electorate are drunken simpletons. What ward is he?

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Dan Maclean sounds like a drunk simpleton. Losers actually voted him in?? lol

Ward 13'ers:

He have blue sign. Me like blue color. Blue color mean he like me. I vote blue man.

[Wormius]

I have been listening to this for background noise. I am surprised actually by how many have been articulate. They sort of outnumber the crazies.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I have been listening to this for background noise. I am surprised actually by how many have been articulate. They sort of outnumber the crazies.

I just want to know if my tax dollars went to all the stickers on what I assume are city property laptops. Silly Hall waste!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'm curious if there are any real world examples of this getting the wanted result? This is not my area of expertise, but I ask as I generally don't see increasing taxes, or forced timelines, being an incentive to do business in the long-term. To me it seems like it would be just another added cost and risk factor for a developer to consider, that is either pushed down on to the end-purchaser anyway, result in some really crappy "placeholder" development to appease the rules, or if costly enough, something that prevents developers from wanting to do business in the first place.

It’s used in oil sands leases where timelines of increasing costs and potentially losing rights factor into development plans.

I think it would do a few things. It would decrease the value of undeveloped land which in turn reduces the hurdle for the final sale price to turn a profit. This would cause losses for the existing land holders.

I disagree that the cost is pushed to the end user. The price of housing is set by demand right now and people’s ability to pay mortgages.

I think you are correct it could lead to poor developments that barely meet whatever thresholds were created.

In BC they have a Best Use property tax. It causes some interesting (some would say negative) consequences on single family home ownership after rezoning.

https://www.canadianjusticereviewboa...t-and-best-use

As a result you further incentivize densification and reduce the capital cost of an SFH by increasing the holding costs of an SFH.

I think it’s an area requiring further study but in general increasing taxation on under utilized areas while holding total tax revenue constant will reduce taxation on well utilized areas. Essentially it’s the same principle as a carbon tax.