04-24-2024, 12:37 PM
|
#3321
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
04-24-2024, 01:36 PM
|
#3322
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
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.
Last edited by accord1999; 04-24-2024 at 01:43 PM.
|
|
|
04-24-2024, 02:05 PM
|
#3323
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hyperbole Chamber
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
04-24-2024, 02:55 PM
|
#3324
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYYC
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
04-24-2024, 05:41 PM
|
#3325
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
https://twitter.com/user/status/1783000042665857158
Nice bit of racism from McLean at the end of the clip there.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-24-2024, 06:57 PM
|
#3326
|
Franchise Player
|
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.
__________________
Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Johnny Makarov For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-24-2024, 07:05 PM
|
#3327
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hyperbole Chamber
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
|
04-25-2024, 09:03 AM
|
#3328
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to The Fisher Account For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-25-2024, 11:38 AM
|
#3329
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-25-2024, 11:45 AM
|
#3330
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hyperbole Chamber
|
Quote:
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!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to topfiverecords For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-25-2024, 12:41 PM
|
#3331
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:06 AM.
|
|