[soupcrate]

I don't use schools or hospitals in Medicine Hat or Grande Prairie and never will. Why should my provincial taxes go towards paying for facilities that benefit communities where I don't live? Let the people in those cities pay all their own costs.

Why should someone who has no kids pay education taxes? They're funding a service they'll never use again. Make the family with five kids cover the true cost of educating all those brats. The parents were the ones who made the choice to have so much sex.

Why don't we follow the American model and move health care costs onto the sickest people? They're the ones actually using the services and clogging up beds and emergency wards. Give people who never or rarely use the system a discount (this will give them a financial incentive to ignore symptoms until it's too late) and ramp up the costs on people with poor health. Make them pull their weight in society, financially if not in other ways.

See where this leads us?

That's because universal education and healthcare is something we've all decided is fundamentally important enough to subsidize. It benefits society in countless ways that are readily apparent.

Have we all come to the same conclusion about car dependent suburbia? Is that housing preference so important that we should let people who choose it pay lower taxes and have funding shortfalls made up for by denser and typically poorer neighborhoods?

Maybe there was some tacit agreement in the past, but I think going forward we should expect suburbs not to be tax leeches.

 

[CplKlinger]

The problem with pushing density on a community and criticizing suburban neighbourhoods as "sprawl" is that it necessarily involves imposing one person's set of values on another: "I think density is good for X, Y, Z reasons, therefore YOU should want it as well. The fact that you don't is bad, very bad."

The reason that outlying neighbourhoods get built--with all their deficiencies, such as car dependence, longer commutes and higher costs of servicing--is because residents WANT what they have to offer. Not everyone wants to live in a high rise, an infill row house or a redevelopment that sees three houses jammed onto a single lot in the city core. Many people WANT bigger backyards, more distance from their neighbours, a feeling of space.

That can go the other way too. Some people try to push low-density lifestyles on others by arguing that any other than single detached housing would ruin the character of their neighbourhood, or bring "undesirables" into the community. "I think big houses and bigger lawns are good for X, Y, Z reasons, therefore YOU should want it as well. The fact that you don't is bad, very bad, and must mean you're either poor or belong in 'downtown big city'."

And that leads to the second point: Nobody here is saying that single detached homes should never be built. The issue here is that until recently, we've been very bad at encouraging a variety of options. Not everyone wants a big house or a big lawn (that's a lot of upkeep to undertake and space to fill), just like not everyone wants an apartment or condo unit. By building neighborhoods that offer choices, we can achieve a higher density than we get by packing single detached houses closer together, and we can make sure that everyone has something that suits their needs and preferences. This doesn't need to be an either-or situation here. In fact, the best-off communities are those where the options - low and high density alike - are blended together instead of being segregated.

 

[TravellingChris]

^ There's a difference between funding healthcare and subsidizing lifestyle choices. You might get a lung transplant, but we don't buy your cigarettes!

I should hope not.

But smokers would argue that they pay more than their fair share of health care costs through high tobacco taxes, which can add up to quite a lot over the lifetime of the individual. And smokers also have a reply for the situations in which a smoker dies early of tobacco-related illness: that society actually SAVED money because the person died and never required all the health care associated with aging.

I'm not a smoker myself, these are just positions I've heard smokers take in conversation. Many feel that they are being punished--both by taxes and public anger--for making a choice which is, at the end of the day, perfectly legal.

 

[TravellingChris]

That's because universal education and healthcare is something we've all decided is fundamentally important enough to subsidize. It benefits society in countless ways that are readily apparent.

Have we all come to the same conclusion about car dependent suburbia? Is that housing preference so important that we should let people who choose it pay lower taxes and have funding shortfalls made up for by denser and typically poorer neighborhoods?

Maybe there was some tacit agreement in the past, but I think going forward we should expect suburbs not to be tax leeches.

Are we sure there's universal agreement? There are plenty of Canadians who seem to want to "opt out" of both the public education and health systems. We've even seen court cases fought in recent years in which Canadians claimed that by refusing to allow them to pay for private treatment--and in essence, leaving them stuck in the public queue--that government was depriving them of their Charter rights.

 

[thommyjo]

I don't use schools or hospitals in Medicine Hat or Grande Prairie and never will. Why should my provincial taxes go towards paying for facilities that benefit communities where I don't live? Let the people in those cities pay all their own costs.

Why should someone who has no kids pay education taxes? They're funding a service they'll never use again. Make the family with five kids cover the true cost of educating all those brats. The parents were the ones who made the choice to have so much sex.

Why don't we follow the American model and move health care costs onto the sickest people? They're the ones actually using the services and clogging up beds and emergency wards. Give people who never or rarely use the system a discount (this will give them a financial incentive to ignore symptoms until it's too late) and ramp up the costs on people with poor health. Make them pull their weight in society, financially if not in other ways.

See where this leads us?

The societal benefits of education benefit all of us. You want to live in a society with poor education? That means more crime, lower GDP, etc. same with why we prioritize things like transit over roads, they both benefit us all, but the costs of roads are significantly higher and the negative societal impacts are clear.

And I’m not sure we can always assume people choose what they will most enjoy. Many people work with what they have. Sure, lots of people like suburban lifestyles, but it doesn’t mean they would like other kinds of they were available. Lots of people sure seem to like many European cities, and the depression/happiness/health/education/child safety/etc stats of many European cities compared to America and seems to suggest they’re doing some stuff that’s working. I think it’s fair to see some of that being city design.

Equity is hard to find, but I think fiscally the reality is clear that what we are doing has us on a dangerous path towards bankruptcy, congestion, poorer health and increased environmental damage.

I think one of the best solutions is mileage and weight taxes for vehicles, paired with big investments in transit and cheaper fares for everyone, especially families/kids. The burden of car ownership in suburbia is hurting a lot of people in our city. I’ve helped do tax drop in clinics and it’s crazy how many people are 2-4K away from being in a good spot and now screwed. They’re spending 15-30% of income of transportation sometimes. So sad.

 

[Oilers99]

I have mentioned this a few times before. The erosion of affordability is already occurring, if we further restrict suburban development, house prices will go up everywhere (including the beloved infill). Secondly, the second Edmonton restricts suburban development, the void will be picked up by Fort Sask, Sherwood Park, Leduc, Spruce Grove, St. Albert, etc. We have a competing municipality issue here where Edmonton must approve a certain amount of ASPs or will quickly lose to the surrounding communities.

 

[TAS]

I don't use schools or hospitals in Medicine Hat or Grande Prairie and never will. Why should my provincial taxes go towards paying for facilities that benefit communities where I don't live? Let the people in those cities pay all their own costs.

Why should someone who has no kids pay education taxes? They're funding a service they'll never use again. Make the family with five kids cover the true cost of educating all those brats. The parents were the ones who made the choice to have so much sex.

Why don't we follow the American model and move health care costs onto the sickest people? They're the ones actually using the services and clogging up beds and emergency wards. Give people who never or rarely use the system a discount (this will give them a financial incentive to ignore symptoms until it's too late) and ramp up the costs on people with poor health. Make them pull their weight in society, financially if not in other ways.

See where this leads us?

I just think that sprawl and a high volume of low density leads to more roads, which means more snow clearing and other services and ongoing maintenance, which is not a cost efficient, sustainable way to build a city.

There is also a huge environmental cost to more roads (not just for driving but to build and maintain them) and as a winter city not so wise because those costs escalate even more. Edmonton has the lowest population per sq kilometre of any major Canadian city and as a result, the highest costs per person for our services not to mention the highest CO2 emissions per capita in Canada a third of which are from vehicles (was just Earth Day so had to include that in). That's a big concern for me.

 

[TravellingChris]

I just think that sprawl and a high volume of low density leads to more roads, which means more snow clearing and other services and ongoing maintenance, which is not a cost efficient, sustainable way to build a city.

There is also a huge environmental cost to more roads (not just for driving but to build and maintain them) and as a winter city not so wise because those costs escalate even more. Edmonton has the lowest population per sq kilometre of any major Canadian city and as a result, the highest costs per person for our services not to mention the highest CO2 emissions per capita in Canada a third of which are from vehicles (was just Earth Day so had to include that in). That's a big concern for me.

Fair points. But as others have pointed out, the moment Edmonton tries to limit "sprawl" or cap developments in outlying areas, the surrounding communities will simply pick up the slack. And then you're still dealing with commutes and demands on the road network and congestion--but now the people using the network aren't even Edmonton taxpayers. They're residents of St. Albert or Spruce Grove or wherever but the City of Edmonton gets none of their taxes towards the maintenance of Edmonton roads, or snow clearing of Mark Messier Trail, etc.

This is a significant problem that has no easy resolution. In the past, a number of Edmonton councillors with more ideas than brains proposed cutesy "solutions" like placing toll booths at the entrances to the city. This went over like a lead balloon, with suburban municipal governments across the capital region telling Edmonton: "Try it and you'll never get our cooperation on anything ever again."

The other issue is the spiraling cost of housing. This is not just a Canadian crisis, it's a problem in countries like the UK. But economists and civic planners have pointed out that in the UK one of the biggest obstacles to increasing the housing supply to meet demand is the morass of planning restrictions, local prohibitions on building in certain areas and other red tape. A lot of these restrictions started out with good intentions--preserve open spaces, increase density, etc.--but ended up simply making it harder for people to even get on the ladder toward owning their own home. Restricting new development in outlying areas in Edmonton will only succeed in driving up the cost of housing and reducing availability in areas where development IS allowed.

 

[TAS]

I have mentioned this a few times before. The erosion of affordability is already occurring, if we further restrict suburban development, house prices will go up everywhere (including the beloved infill). Secondly, the second Edmonton restricts suburban development, the void will be picked up by Fort Sask, Sherwood Park, Leduc, Spruce Grove, St. Albert, etc. We have a competing municipality issue here where Edmonton must approve a certain amount of ASPs or will quickly lose to the surrounding communities.

Just to understand, is one of your primary solutions to the issue of affordability to continue to build out further and have Edmonton try to expand it's borders when the time comes to keep housing costs down?

In terms of affordability, the average home in St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan and Spruce Grove are higher than Edmonton - in fact our two closest neighbours are $60k-$65k more expensive on average.

 

[Oilers99]

Just to understand, is one of your primary solutions to the issue of affordability to continue to build out further and have Edmonton try to expand it's borders when the time comes to keep housing costs down?

In terms of affordability, the average home in St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan and Spruce Grove are higher than Edmonton - in fact our two closest neighbours are $60k-$65k more expensive on average.

View attachment 395359

St. Albert until recently required 50% of lots to be 50' or wider. This specifically was done to have larger homes. They have now approved zero lot line housing, they will become more competitive.

Sherwood Park has zeroes but has been mired in their own issues with approvals but in the next few years you will see major projects launched will lead to being another competitor. Spruce Grove and Fort Sask are around the same price as Edmonton, but if you continue to restrict supply it will drive up housing costs further. A prime example of what a green belt leads to is what has happened in Toronto. People now consider Ajax to be part of the 'GTA'.

 

[soupcrate]

St. Albert until recently required 50% of lots to be 50' or wider. This specifically was done to have larger homes. They have now approved zero lot line housing, they will become more competitive.

Sherwood Park has zeroes but has been mired in their own issues with approvals but in the next few years you will see major projects launched will lead to being another competitor. Spruce Grove and Fort Sask are around the same price as Edmonton, but if you continue to restrict supply it will drive up housing costs further. A prime example of what a green belt leads to is what has happened in Toronto. People now consider Ajax to be part of the 'GTA'.

Meh, no greenbelt is necessary imo. Either differentiate property taxes or just set developer charges high enough that DevCharges + NPV of the neighborhood = 0.

The first option would be very unpopular politically, the second you could definitely sneak through.

Also, the city should definitely keep annexing land along highways as that is prime industrial land.

 

[occidentalcapital]

.... Edmonton has the lowest population per sq kilometre of any major Canadian city..

Only when you include farmland in the City's borders (e.g. northeast lands) and the river valley. When looking at built up areas, I do not believe this is true.

 

[CplKlinger]

Fair points. But as others have pointed out, the moment Edmonton tries to limit "sprawl" or cap developments in outlying areas, the surrounding communities will simply pick up the slack. And then you're still dealing with commutes and demands on the road network and congestion--but now the people using the network aren't even Edmonton taxpayers. They're residents of St. Albert or Spruce Grove or wherever but the City of Edmonton gets none of their taxes towards the maintenance of Edmonton roads, or snow clearing of Mark Messier Trail, etc.

This is a significant problem that has no easy resolution. In the past, a number of Edmonton councillors with more ideas than brains proposed cutesy "solutions" like placing toll booths at the entrances to the city. This went over like a lead balloon, with suburban municipal governments across the capital region telling Edmonton: "Try it and you'll never get our cooperation on anything ever again."

The other issue is the spiraling cost of housing. This is not just a Canadian crisis, it's a problem in countries like the UK. But economists and civic planners have pointed out that in the UK one of the biggest obstacles to increasing the housing supply to meet demand is the morass of planning restrictions, local prohibitions on building in certain areas and other red tape. A lot of these restrictions started out with good intentions--preserve open spaces, increase density, etc.--but ended up simply making it harder for people to even get on the ladder toward owning their own home. Restricting new development in outlying areas in Edmonton will only succeed in driving up the cost of housing and reducing availability in areas where development IS allowed.

The Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board mandates a minimum density requirement across the board. Granted, it's scaled to reflect the size of municipalities, but it's still a big step. For instance, Strathcona County and Fort Saskatchewan both need to make their new developments denser than anything they've done in the past, and Fort Sask is even planning to increase the density of its mature neighborhoods by a fair bit; its municipal development plan is surprisingly similar to Edmonton's City Plan.

And Edmonton has a lot of land to work with, including all that farmland to the north. Council recently voted to retain ownership of the Enterprise Land Commons, the city-owned greenfield developer, because they understand that greenfield development will still make up half of Edmonton's growth to 2 million people, and they want Edmonton to financially benefit a bit over time rather than taking the one-off payment by selling it. I think that it's better to say that density goals are about sustainably expanding and fixing the mistakes of the past, rather than stopping outward growth altogether.

 

[Oilers99]

The Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board mandates a minimum density requirement across the board. Granted, it's scaled to reflect the size of municipalities, but it's still a big step. For instance, Strathcona County and Fort Saskatchewan both need to make their new developments denser than anything they've done in the past, and Fort Sask is even planning to increase the density of its mature neighborhoods by a fair bit; its municipal development plan is surprisingly similar to Edmonton's City Plan.

And Edmonton has a lot of land to work with, including all that farmland to the north. Council recently voted to retain ownership of the Enterprise Land Commons, the city-owned greenfield developer, because they understand that greenfield development will still make up half of Edmonton's growth to 2 million people, and they want Edmonton to financially benefit a bit over time rather than taking the one-off payment by selling it. I think that it's better to say that density goals are about doing sustainably expanding and fixing the mistakes of the past, rather than stopping outward growth altogether.

View attachment 395368

People seem not to believe that 40-45 du/nrha are very dense neighborhoods and new neighborhoods are actually getting to the point where people are starting to say they dislike them due to the density. Most inner city neighborhoods wouldn't come close to achieving 45 du/nrha even with the zoning bylaw renewal.

 

[occidentalcapital]

Yup, a lot of old mentality here saying that all new suburbs are sparsely populated. Simply not the case in 2022.