Best direction for the Green line at this point?

  • Go ahead with the current option of Eau Claire to Lynbrook and phase in extensions.

    Votes: 42 60.0%

  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 22 31.4%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 6 8.6%
  • Total voters
    70
darwink said:
Elevated was taken off the table by adjacent land owners, who expressed that the 'tax shift' from downtown businesses to other businesses would be quite bad if their buildings were devalued further by adjacent elevated rail. This was in the 2016-17 context where that was a huge concern for the City. It is not a technical issue.
Click to expand...
I've seen estimates of property value declines of up to $160M.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1836860669049639010

But as this twitter poster notes, given the likely difference in cost today between tunnel and elevated, it would probably be much cheaper just to pay off the property owners for that "loss". And to make up for it, charge an extra Green Line improvement fee on those areas where the property values are supposed to go up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1836891986072326439
 
^ You also don't have to pay for the loss. That would be a choice. Unless the property is injured by injurious affection. Which usually is lost of road access, or impacts on structural integrity (or lets say they have a current lease that requires no vibration and the train somehow causes vibration), injurious affection wouldn't apply.

Also if the province is doing the construction, the province isn't subject to the same rule.

Anyways, like you state, the cost is likely so low it would be worth paying it if there was a ruling against the city. Which the odds are low. Not zero. Case law, ingenious lawyers and what not could make it possible
 
Last edited:
lemongrab said:
I believe that was originally planned for 5th but changed to 6th...but the change was likely based on Green Line and/or arena assumptions at the time, which very well may have changed. Actually it's probably because the arena scope killed 5th St out to 5A St, so 6th makes more sense for the road and wouldn't really work for the train.
Click to expand...
It was because the City doesn't own the land for 5th Street, Remington does, and they (Remington) were not willing to part with it.
 
This is all hypothetical too. Wouldn't proximity to a major transit line be a benefit? Especially if your building integrates with the line via a +15. Even loss in tax revenue kind of washes out with the money saved plus increased tax revenue from the properties that would benefit from the line... Underground is obviously better but not so much better that you cannot go elevated and save the money. Also, once over the CP tracks you only need to be high enough to clear 7th Ave and then you can be back at grade. In reality you need to be over 6th, 5th and 4th Aves too but no reason you can't cut off 3rd Ave. Whether you use 1st Street SE, Centre, 1st Street SW, 2nd Street SW.
 
Seems like a fair trade off. The alignment were it would be elevated would have very minimal impact to any established business. 2 Street SW is a dead zone with nothing at all except at Stephen Avenue. And even then, it's only Barbarella/National on one corner. For 10th Ave, only business that would be effected I'd say is Bottlescrew Bill's. But as a bar, and on a developing main street, I think they would be able to adapt. Especially if a train station is next door east of 1 Street.

Truman's soon to be constructed Gallery may not be to fond, but Sunalta Heights is even closer to the causeway, and in this housing market, people aren't going to care as much.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Is it not building value that determines how much property tax you pay?
Click to expand...
It doesn't change tax revenue raised by the city. Which is a different thing. A property being higher valued lowers tax paid by others, and a property being lower in value raises tax paid by others. But the revenue to the city is the same.
 
darwink said:
It doesn't change tax revenue raised by the city. Which is a different thing. A property being higher valued lowers tax paid by others, and a property being lower in value raises tax paid by others. But the revenue to the city is the same.
Click to expand...
Yes, I guess what I was saying was that to the city it is a wash. Same thing, but maybe not well said by me.
 
Its not dead yet...
1726870770232.png

1726870776312.png

1726870781220.png
 
Joborule said:
2 Street SW is a dead zone with nothing at all except at Stephen Avenue.
Click to expand...
I don't see how this could be true for any part of 2 St, except for the 1.5 blocks south of 9 Ave? And I guess the northernmost part of it at Eau Claire.

That said, I am cool with elevated tracks along 2 St. I just don't see what you mean by "dead zone".
 
MichaelS said:
It was because the City doesn't own the land for 5th Street, Remington does, and they (Remington) were not willing to part with it.
Click to expand...
Neither did the Eau Claire condo owners...

I would have thought that parcel was contiguous right up to the bus barns. It appears to be that way on the property tax map, but showing a ROW for 6th (though I suspect that was recently negotiated...)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top