|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Mountain Man
Senior Member
I think the province is going to tighten the purse strings in the face of tariffs, and that seems like the right call to me. The city should be considering the same.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I mean tightening doesn't mean you don't spend any money... you know, jobs. I'd argue this fieldhouse would pay for itself in the economic impact it would have.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
I just think they (the province) should be more cautious given the revenue hit they may have to take with tariffs on oil. Not saying whether or not that should factor into the fieldhouse or any project specifically, just that it's likely a good time for financial prudence...
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Almost like the costs associated with funding a province shouldn't just be covered by resource extraction revenue... In the good times it is easy to get by but in the tough times, which typically coincides with lower resource revenue, would be nice to have money to pay for the basics let alone a fieldhouse.
Might also help if you didn't need to distract the population from your scandal by giving people who don't need it an extra $30 on their paycheques. That money is far more useful to the government than it is to me paying for lunch one day a week.
Last edited:
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Can't say I disagree with any of that...
Can't find the link where this is from, but the city has released a map showing the neighborhoods that have seen the most multi-family proposals approved that would have normally gone through a land use application before blanket zoning. I thought Mt Pleasant and Capitol Hill were busy, but Bowness even busier.
calgary.citynews.ca
Impact of Calgary’s citywide rezoning
Calgarians are getting a first look at the impacts of city-wide rezoning. Jillian Code reports.
calgary.citynews.ca
whatchyyc
Active Member
Can't find the link where this is from, but the city has released a map showing the neighborhoods that have seen the most multi-family proposals approved that would have normally gone through a land use application before blanket zoning. I thought Mt Pleasant and Capitol Hill were busy, but Bowness even busier.
View attachment 633532
Impact of Calgary’s citywide rezoning
Calgarians are getting a first look at the impacts of city-wide rezoning. Jillian Code reports.
outoftheice
Senior Member
Nice to see Forest Lawn getting some love. 17th Ave SE has so much potential given the Max Purple and its proximity to downtown. Also kind of helps push back on the narrative that infills only happen in gentrified neighbourhoods and create million dollar places.
With all of this extra density building happening in inner city neighborhoods, I'd like to see the city look at doing property taxes differently. Instead of simply using straight up market value, maybe a hybrid of market value + square footage of the property. People shouldn't be penalized because their inner-city homes have higher values per square foot.
Urb
Active Member
That and apartment users typical use less infrastructure (roads, etc.). I also find it discriminatory that inner city residents have to pay for street parking while suburban residents do not.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
A grand total of zero in Bonavista. Guess that meeting where all those people made a fuss scared the developers away. Or maybe market conditions still exist and these things end up where they would've always ended up and the city did nothing but cut some red tape for valuable density increases. Blanket rezoning should've been called Practical Services Zoning, or to appeal to a certain person, Common Sense Zoning.
darwink
Senior Member
I think that would shift property taxes onto the regressive side of tax spectrum, from their currently mildly progressive position.
That being said, I think certain services could be shifted to a different form of taxation, like snow clearing, some fire and police coverage, shifting towards a frontage tax—where there is a logical connection between frontage and service costs.
That works for me. By square footage, I should have mentioned I meant for the lot size, which ties into more of a frontage tax.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
It wouldn’t shift to a regressive side if we are taxing based on street frontage, etc, only shifting to a more fair tax.
I don’t see anything even mildly progressive with the current market value system.