[MichaelS]

Keep in mind that one property developing (and as a result, paying more in taxes than the previous iteration) doesn't mean the City collects more money. It just means the neighbours pay less. The amount the City collects remains the same, the burden of payment just shifts more to the more valued property. So, when the City says they want to increase taxes by X%, it means the overall amount they collect goes up by X%, but the distribution could vary wildly depending on how much a certain property value has changed compared to others year over year.

Also, most of the capital costs of new communities are paid by developers. For the portions of infrastructure that are not their responsibility to build, they contribute to it with offsite levies. I don't know if the City does the growth business cases process anymore (this current Council got rid of it, didn't like the "beauty pageant" aspect of it) so I am not sure if we will be able to see any updated analysis on the costs / payback period of these new communities.

I guess I just get frustrated / fed-up when I hear Councilor's pat themselvs on the back of how good of a job they did because they held tax increases at "inflation plus growth", a refrain we have heard for a long time. If that is the case, we can expect ever higher taxes as we continue to grow.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I think if its infilled with rowhouses, you'd get far more of a tax lift than 2x. I agree with most of what you're saying and I feel the city's narrative changes depending on the time of year. When it comes to rezoning (which I broadly support), we should be for that because that would decrease property taxes because higher density = less taxes. And now comes budget time, more people = more taxes. Not to mention they are already getting more taxes with the increase in total housing units. Increasing the rate beyond the 2023 imposed cap of 3.6% (which is above the current annual inflation rate), means we're either a) getting better services or b) the services are provided less efficiently.

That's correct. In theory adding density should benefit everyone. This is why it always surprises me that people are so against infills, etc.

 

[trtcttc]

Keep in mind that one property developing (and as a result, paying more in taxes than the previous iteration) doesn't mean the City collects more money. It just means the neighbours pay less. The amount the City collects remains the same, the burden of payment just shifts more to the more valued property. So, when the City says they want to increase taxes by X%, it means the overall amount they collect goes up by X%, but the distribution could vary wildly depending on how much a certain property value has changed compared to others year over year.

Also, most of the capital costs of new communities are paid by developers. For the portions of infrastructure that are not their responsibility to build, they contribute to it with offsite levies. I don't know if the City does the growth business cases process anymore (this current Council got rid of it, didn't like the "beauty pageant" aspect of it) so I am not sure if we will be able to see any updated analysis on the costs / payback period of these new communities.

I guess I just get frustrated / fed-up when I hear Councilor's pat themselvs on the back of how good of a job they did because they held tax increases at "inflation plus growth", a refrain we have heard for a long time. If that is the case, we can expect ever higher taxes as we continue to grow.

I know that tax burden shifts, but what is happening now is that we are getting new infills AND the neighbours are asked to pay even more! The city is not saying that the budget will need to go up by more than 3.6%, but rather that the median household will need to pay more than 3.6% extra next year. The infills/densification/new housing is all baked in before the 3.6% increase.

And if they held it at "inflation + growth" great, but they are not even doing that. The "Growth" part is included in the property taxes paid by new households with the increased population. Any increase in the taxes paid above inflation by existing household, is beyond "inflation + growth".

That's correct. In theory adding density should benefit everyone. This is why it always surprises me that people are so against infills, etc.

The reality is that is not the case, as we see with another increase despite new infills/ passing R-CG zoning. If council paired zoning reform with property tax rates being frozen, I think more people will be for it. But too often zoning reform "promises" lower tax rates that then never materialize.

 

[Surrealplaces]

The reality is that is not the case, as we see with another increase despite new infills/ passing R-CG zoning. If council paired zoning reform with property tax rates being frozen, I think more people will be for it. But too often zoning reform "promises" lower tax rates that then never materialize.

The problem is we have a tax rate based on market value, and with inner city properties often increasing at higher rates, the tax decreases often don't materialize for people in those areas - which is I think what you're pointing out. I've always wished the tax rate was a mixture of factors instead of mainly market value. It's not really a fair system.

 

[Cowtown]

The tax system needs tweaking for sure. I mean, I am all for density, but I kind of see people’s point when it comes to taxes. We’re building infills all around the inner city in order to keep taxes low for single-family home owners out in the burbs.