[Chinook Arch]

On this whole tax v. cost thing, an important nuance is that because we don't densify everywhere, growth goes elsewhere. UMR itself is a bit player, but an illustrative example. Places like UMR existing as-is are an indirect reason why places like the Rundles, Hawkwoods and Glamorgans exist is precisely because we didn't add more homes in places like UMR the past century. UMR cost per house/per person to service are both likely far higher than any of the other suburban examples, which in turn are all far higher cost per resident to service than higher density areas like Mission examples.
.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that. Rich people will always have their houses somewhere and middle-class neighbourhoods like Glamorgan or Rundle will always exist as well.
Calgary‘s problem is they haven’t been taxing some of those inefficient middle class neighbourhoods well enough in my opinion.
I guess the city could also tax neighbourhoods like Mount Royal a little more, but they are already taxing them 10 times as much as other middle class neighbourhoods so I don’t see it as being a problem. And let’s face it, we only have a few of those neighbourhoods around, but we have dozens upon dozens of suburban sprawl middle-class neighborhoods, that aren’t paying their proportionate share.

 

[Tarsus]

I think we should take the topic of poverty out of this conversation. I agree wholeheartedly, that there is an issue with poverty, and should easily be a whole other thread discussion . For this particular discussion about taxation and density, it’s about what parts of the city are the most efficient tax generators.
I’m 100% in agreement that the biggest problem facing in Calgary taxation and sprawl is these older neighbourhoods from the 70s and 80s etc.
If a single family home anywhere in Calgary with a reasonably size lot and an alleyway to boot is only paying $200 a month, that’s a problem.
I can’t think of a city anywhere other than maybe Edmonton where you could have a single-family home with an alley, and only be paying $200 a month for tax.

 

[Tarsus]

I will add my two cents on the whole ‘Mount Royal’ conversation. Well, I agree, and enclave close to downtown full of large single family homes is not very efficient, and would definitely be a good spot for multi family development, I am OK with it as long as it’s only a few neighbourhoods.
A large mansion in Mount Royal is paying the taxes of a small apartment building, so money wise it’s covered. It’s true that it does force development of apartment buildings to be further from the core, but we still have shit loads of space where multi family can be developed nearby the core.

I’d rather see the city put their effort into changing the tax system to better reward inner-city development and densification. As time goes, maybe the taxes for Mount Royal can be increased.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I think we should take the topic of poverty out of this conversation. I agree wholeheartedly, that there is an issue with poverty, and should easily be a whole other thread discussion . For this particular discussion about taxation and density, it’s about what parts of the city are the most efficient tax generators.
I’m 100% in agreement that the biggest problem facing in Calgary taxation and sprawl is these older neighbourhoods from the 70s and 80s etc.
If a single family home anywhere in Calgary with a reasonably size lot and an alleyway to boot is only paying $200 a month, that’s a problem.
I can’t think of a city anywhere other than maybe Edmonton where you could have a single-family home with an alley, and only be paying $200 a month for tax.

Just talking to my cousin the other day and he was griping about his recent assessment. He lives in a SFH, and pays $230.00 a month tax. I don't think a lot of people in Calgary are aware of what taxes are in other cities.

I have some friends in Ottawa that pay $7K/year for their single family home. It's a decent sized place, but not a mansion, and not in a Mount royal type neighborhood. Also another friend who pay's $1.1K per year for her condo. I don't know if that's typical for Ottawa, but it seems to be more advantageous for people in multi-family.

 

[Zoom]

Yeah, property tax for cities in Ontario and Quebec tend to be higher, and in some cases a lot higher.
Whenever I hear people griping about property tax in Calgary, I chuckle.

Personally, I wouldn’t have any problem, paying more property tax, if it was the same across the board and it meant better services.

 

[artvandelay]

I will add my two cents on the whole ‘Mount Royal’ conversation. Well, I agree, and enclave close to downtown full of large single family homes is not very efficient, and would definitely be a good spot for multi family development, I am OK with it as long as it’s only a few neighbourhoods.
A large mansion in Mount Royal is paying the taxes of a small apartment building, so money wise it’s covered. It’s true that it does force development of apartment buildings to be further from the core, but we still have shit loads of space where multi family can be developed nearby the core.

I’d rather see the city put their effort into changing the tax system to better reward inner-city development and densification. As time goes, maybe the taxes for Mount Royal can be increased.

I dunno I think it's actually probably the least suitable inner city SFH area for more intensive development (along with Scarboro). Irregular street grid, undulating topography, nonuniform lot shapes - all of these present functional challenges to intensification. If they ever redevelop the area I think you'd likely see a lot of "tower-in-a-park" style developments.

I live in the poor man's Mount Royal (Bankview ) and I usually like to go for a run through MR as it's such a pleasant, green neighbourhood. Selfishly, I hope it stays as-is because there is a ton of beautiful architecture there!

 

[BKha]

Rich people pay higher taxes than poor people! I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here. Why is everyone on this thread ignoring or dismissing the issue of poverty? If you want to own a mansion within walking distance of City Hall, you should be paying a fuck ton of property taxes. If you want to pay really low property taxes, you are free to move into the most impoverished areas of the city. Working class people in Rundle are not ripping off the multi-millionaires in Mount Royal because the pay less taxes.

I don't think people here are ignoring the poverty issue, it's more of a discussion about which areas have better tax efficiency. Right now it's the middle aged subdivision in between inner city and the more recent suburbs. Those neighborhoofd aren't exactly poverty stricken neighborhoods. If you can afford a SFH with a yard and a garage, poverty isn't your biggest issue. The working class people in Rundle (and other neighborhoods like it) aren't necessary ripping other people directly, but those neighborhoods are the poster child of sprawl being an issue, and it's an issue for the city as a whole, and are helping cause issue for people who are actually in poverty. There's no way a single family home with a yard and a back alley should be paying as little as $200.00\month tax. And to make matters worse there are way too many Rundles in Calgary.