News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

I’d argue that in some ways, the homeowners in expensive neighborhoods downtown such as UMR are actually subsidizing the health of citizens in neighbouring communities.
Lol. I’ve heard nimbys in the neighbourhood say that really UMR is a park, so shouldn’t have development pressure.

Anyways, it’s moot until a court throws out restrictive convenants as illegal or the province makes them either illegal or expire unless renewed.
 
Lol. I’ve heard nimbys in the neighbourhood say that really UMR is a park, so shouldn’t have development pressure.

Anyways, it’s moot until a court throws out restrictive convenants as illegal or the province makes them either illegal or expire unless renewed.
Haha, I don’t think I’d go that far! But it is a pleasant place to go for a run.

Realistically, economics should be enough of a deterrent to development pressure in UMR. Are medium and high density developers going to consolidate enough lots in one of the most expensive neighbourhoods in the country to make a development worthwhile? Probably not.

Are the homes in UMR rediculous? Yes. Do those homeowners pay their fair share of taxes to live in those ridiculous houses? Also yes - or at least the map above seems to indicate so.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with the notion that the Upper Mount Royal needs to be bulldozed for high density.
It was kind of a joke (and kind of not). But the main thrust of this discussion has been about unlocking the property tax potential of more areas of the city. From that perspective (and putting aside all other concerns like housing diversity, tree canopy, etc.), it makes way more sense to increase density in Upper Mount Royal than in the inner-suburbs. If you're going to get upset, don't focus on how Marlborough is orange/red instead of green. Focus on how suppressed the property tax revenue is from Upper Mount Royal, compared to what it could be if it was allowed to densify.
 
This discussion is ridiculous. Calgary has enough existing zoning and easy to rezone industrial land to probably accommodate hundreds of thousands of units of high density housing: ex. Sunalta, East Victoria Park (including parts of Stampede Grounds), CPR corridor, West Village, East Village, Westbrook, University District, former Chinook College, Brewery lands in Inglewood, Dominion Bridge Site. In the future, I could see the Alyth rail yard closing and the enormous surrounding heavy industrial area opening up. The housing culture wars of Toronto and Vancouver do not apply. Lack of demand for multi-unit is the bigger challenge.
 
It was kind of a joke (and kind of not). But the main thrust of this discussion has been about unlocking the property tax potential of more areas of the city. From that perspective (and putting aside all other concerns like housing diversity, tree canopy, etc.), it makes way more sense to increase density in Upper Mount Royal than in the inner-suburbs. If you're going to get upset, don't focus on how Marlborough is orange/red instead of green. Focus on how suppressed the property tax revenue is from Upper Mount Royal, compared to what it could be if it was allowed to densify.
It makes more sense to increase density in UPR, but I have no problem leaving it as it is. It’s not a huge area of the city and we still have 100’s of parking lots around huge inner city that can be developed. It’s nice for a city to have a few grand old mansion neighborhoods. The taxes paid by one of those large houses equals the same as 5 regular houses , so in a sense they already have high density from a tax perspective.
 
It was kind of a joke (and kind of not). But the main thrust of this discussion has been about unlocking the property tax potential of more areas of the city. From that perspective (and putting aside all other concerns like housing diversity, tree canopy, etc.), it makes way more sense to increase density in Upper Mount Royal than in the inner-suburbs. If you're going to get upset, don't focus on how Marlborough is orange/red instead of green. Focus on how suppressed the property tax revenue is from Upper Mount Royal, compared to what it could be if it was allowed to densify.
@adamyyc and @JWhite have a point though. Strictly relating to tax revenue efficiency UMR is already paying a decent amount of taxes. The real culprits are the mid ring neighborhoods of lower value (Marlborogh, Rundle, Ranchlands, Beddington, Queensland, etc..).

Take for example this house in Rundle, it's a single family home with yard and back alley, with annual taxes of $2,407. Then we take this house in UMR, it's also a single family home with a yard (no alleyway), and it's not even one of the larger mansions. The yearly taxes are $14,020 - 6 times the amount of the house in Rundle! yet both are not much different in terms of cost to the city. Personally, I think the houses in Mount Royal are okay from a tax perspective, and in many way are getting ripped off, but it is what it is for an exclusive rich neighborhood. When comparing it to an apartment in this building in Mission, where the taxes are $1,522 per year. The house in Mount Royal is paying almost 10 times the tax amount, so basically the same as a small 10 unit apartment building.

Marlborough and Rundle, etc.. might be less wealthy areas, but it doesn't take away from the fact they still use city services just as much as house in Mount Royal. Neighbourhoods like those, and others like Ranchlands, Beddington, etc... are easily the least efficient neighborhoods when it comes to taxes, and the real issue with our sprawl. We can't say that we want to control sprawl, and at the same time say that people who are less well off deserve a SFH and less taxes.

On a side note, I've always believed, taxes shouldn't be based straight up on market value, but a combination of market value and square foot of land. Apartments would used some kind a modified square footage formula.
 
Last edited:
Marlborough and Rundle, etc.. might be less wealthy areas, but it doesn't take away from the fact they still use city services just as much as house in Mount Royal. Neighbourhoods like those, and others like Ranchlands, Beddington, etc... are easily the least efficient neighborhoods when it comes to taxes, and the real issue with our sprawl. We can't say that we want to control sprawl, and at the same time say that people who are less well off deserve a SFH and less taxes.
This. The city says they are trying to control sprawl and encourage density, but their tax system says otherwise.
 
Take for example this house in Rundle, it's a single family home with yard and back alley, with annual taxes of $2,407. Then we take this house in UMR, it's also a single family home with a yard (no alleyway), and it's not even one of the larger mansions. The yearly taxes are $14,020 - 6 times the amount of the house in Rundle! yet both are not much different in terms of cost to the city. Personally, I think the houses in Mount Royal are okay from a tax perspective, and in many way are getting ripped off, but it is what it is for an exclusive rich neighborhood. When comparing it to an apartment in this building in Mission, where the taxes are $1,522 per year. The house in Mount Royal is paying almost 10 times the tax amount, so basically the same as a small 10 unit apartment building.
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.
 
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.
You seem to be conflating a few issues here though. If the whole point of that tax infographic is to show what part of the city is paying higher proportions of taxes, and is therefore seen as more "sustainable" (although, without the cost side of the equation, it is not possible to determine this), UMR is a win in this instance. Lots of revenue coming in from that relatively small neighbourhood. One can also assume that the lower density means less cost to operate. Yes, similar amounts of road to maintain, but fewer garbage cans to pick-up, fewer utiilty connections into lots (due to lower density) which means fewer service calls overall compared to a higher density area. And likely fewer calls for fire and CPS.

If every single family home neighbourhood paid as much taxes as UMR, we would have a very financially sustainable city. But that isn't a realistic expectation. However, that doesn't mean we should be proposing to bulldoze and upzone the one or two neighbourhoods where that is the scenario that is playing out.
 
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.

This isn’t a case of people ignoring poverty. If you take the case of the apartment in Mission and compare it to the single-family home in Rundle, it excludes the people in Mount Royal, but still shows how the problem is related to sprawl, not necessarily tied to peoples incomes.
The people living in the apartment building in Mission are getting ripped off, as they are paying half the taxes, but are probably costing the city at 10th of the services of the house in Rundle or Beddington.
Anyway, this isn’t anything to do with rich people or poor people, we are talking about Mount Royal and Elbow park, and a few other ritzy neighbourhoods that are made up of single-family homes, and yes, those single-family homes aren’t very efficient, but they are paying a lot of taxes, so they aren’t really a problem when it comes to taxation. For every mount royal, there are a dozen low density sprawl neighbourhoods from the 60s 70s and 80s.

What is a problem when it comes to taxation? All those medium income neighbourhoods like Rundle, Beddington, etc.. that don’t contribute a lot in taxes, but are the poster child of sprawl and require lot of services.
And those people aren’t in poverty, wouldn’t you agree?
 
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.
@adamyyc and @JWhite have a point though. Strictly relating to tax revenue efficiency UMR is already paying a decent amount of taxes. The real culprits are the mid ring neighborhoods of lower value (Marlborogh, Rundle, Ranchlands, Beddington, Queensland, etc..).

Take for example this house in Rundle, it's a single family home with yard and back alley, with annual taxes of $2,407. Then we take this house in UMR, it's also a single family home with a yard (no alleyway), and it's not even one of the larger mansions. The yearly taxes are $14,020 - 6 times the amount of the house in Rundle! yet both are not much different in terms of cost to the city. Personally, I think the houses in Mount Royal are okay from a tax perspective, and in many way are getting ripped off, but it is what it is for an exclusive rich neighborhood. When comparing it to an apartment in this building in Mission, where the taxes are $1,522 per year. The house in Mount Royal is paying almost 10 times the tax amount, so basically the same as a small 10 unit apartment building.

Marlborough and Rundle, etc.. might be less wealthy areas, but it doesn't take away from the fact they still use city services just as much as house in Mount Royal. Neighbourhoods like those, and others like Ranchlands, Beddington, etc... are easily the least efficient neighborhoods when it comes to taxes, and the real issue with our sprawl. We can't say that we want to control sprawl, and at the same time say that people who are less well off deserve a SFH and less taxes.

On a side note, I've always believed, taxes shouldn't be based straight up on market value, but a combination of market value and square foot of land. Apartments would used some kind a modified square footage formula.

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 tiny 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.

But okay - so what? Market forces have prevailed right? As long as they pay their taxes and can afford the house prices, who are we to say this is a bad outcome? What's the big deal?

The problem is it isn't a market force that is keeping UMR exclusive - 100 friends can't pool our money and buy one of those mansions and redevelop to a 100 unit tower to take advantage of the location, tree canopy and niceness of the neighbourhood. Us Poors cannot work together to outbid the Rich - the rich are protected entirely due to a century of government protection via land use controls. Layer of rules, heritage and setback requirements, lot sizes, and finally the restrictive covenants are all by design insolating a community from the economic forces of being walking distance to the centre of a major city. With supply of housing in a desirable, centrally located area capped by government mandate, prices then go up. In UMR, the majority of this value increase accrues to a single landowner. This process gives more value to the UMR landowners than they ever would pay in taxes.

Meanwhile, where do us 100 other people have to live? Most likely, most of us will be forced to live in less-optimal areas with longer commutes. The growth into Marda Loop is another indirect result of UMR being locked out for growth. Those less well-off would be forced to go further afield to those other suburban neighbourhoods.

So this whole issue isn't really about fairness and whose paying their fair share it taxes, it's really about how our system chooses arbitrarily who is protected (places like UMR) from the market and who benefits from government-mandated housing supply restrictions the most (places like UMR).

Speaking of fairness - then there's a whole other issue on who gets expensive traffic calming (UMR) and who doesn't (places where UMR-types commute through in cars). Perhaps another post

The irony hits it's vertical asymptote to maximum level with conversations like tree canopy and how UMR is so good for it. That tree canopy came at the expense of many times the area natural environment plowed under and covered with an ever sprawling, car-oriented mess because people can't live near things they need to go to, precisely because of the process that protects UMR. A quite literal "can't see the forest because you are looking at a tree" example.
 
Last edited:
Wow .. two pages of debate on Mount Royal, tax base and density. The covenants are one thing preventing more density. However I would also say that the collective power and wealth that exists with the population of MR and UMR will ensure there is never more density. No city council is going to take that on.
 
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.
Rich people who are living within walking distance of downtown are paying fuck ton of taxes that’s what the whole point was. The medium sized house in Mount Royal, is paying six times the amount of taxes as somebody in Rundle with the same sized lot.
The whole discussion was about tax efficiency, relating to urban sprawl. I’m not saying I wouldn’t mind seeing a bunch of multifamily high density builds in the area where Mount Royal is, but I do see that those people are paying anywhere from 5 to 10 times the tax of a regular dwelling so they are paying for their privilege.
From strictly an urban sprawl or tax efficiency purposes, we don’t have an issue with Mount Royal. It’s with the other neighborhoods.
 

Back
Top