[retrofiturbanism]

Many of these discussions though, you follow it down the road, and the end is result is keeping taxes low for better off owners of more expensive houses who benefit from the infrastructure they use being fully funded and maintained using property taxes while saddling extra fees up front on new housing.

I think that is wrong.

What we should do is raise property taxes, and if we don't need the money to renew infrastructure now, we should save it to renew infrastructure in the future. We could do that by booking the depreciation of assets as an expense (not really sure how the city handles this - but the city budget very much looks like a cash budget in places).

That is not the case at all. What needs to happen is that development levies and charges, as well as property taxes, should reflect marginal costs of service. The current system is regressive, where those who can afford a single detached home are subsidized by those who live in denser developments via property taxes.

 

[darwink]

While that is somewhat the case, it is also that higher value properties subsidize lower value properties. We can solve this by only approving lower value greenfield when it is super efficient for infrastructure utilization.

A system that reflects marginal cost of service would help distort things, by reducing taxes on high value properties, making them worth even more, while reducing the value of highly fee'd properties.

The end result is taxes largely on people who are less able to afford it.

And when all the sewers need to be redone in Killarney , and Hillhurst, and the Beltline because of more residents, I am glad that that cost is also shared.

 

[Mountain Man]

The initial cost, yes, The problem is in maintaining that infrastructure in perpetuity.

I want it to go beyond roads and pipes, and to include police, fire, schools and all the other things that need to get built in a new neighbourhood.

 

[darwink]

^ The report that went to council just recently includes those things, Offsite levy includes the police and fire and library iirc. Schools are the province, and given there aren't really empty schools (we are at record enrollment province wide), not in the same way there were 15, 20 years ago, it isn't the same issue. (Calgary and Edmonton are over 80% utilization iirc, and perhaps are far above)

 

[Mountain Man]

OK Thanks for the info, didn't have time to read through stuff to see what was included.

Aren't we still demolishing schools in the inner city though? I have no stats for that, just something I have heard many times.

 

[haltcatchfire]

Battistella Hillhurst (LifeSport)

https://www.engagehillhurstbaptistchurch.com

 

[Surrealplaces]

I like how there's a pic of Avi Urban in the background.

I like the look of the buildings in the middle frame. Probably conceptual only, but it's a good scale, I also like those retro style balconies.

As far as the church goes, it looks good for the most part.....still trying to decide on the psychedelic paint. On one hand it adds a good blast of brightness and color, and sticks out. It also kind of looks like it's been hit by graffiti. The small active plaza in front of the church is a nice touch.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

I like how there's a pic of Avi Urban in the background.

I like the look of the buildings in the middle frame. Probably conceptual only, but it's a good scale, I also like those retro style balconies.

As far as the church goes, it looks good for the most part.....still trying to decide on the psychedelic paint. On one hand it adds a good blast of brightness and color, and sticks out. It also kind of looks like it's been hit by graffiti. The small active plaza in front of the church is a nice touch.

I actually love the church paint, it will do wonders to attract people to whatever business or amenity opens shop in there. Really cool looking proposal overall, I'm happy with it.

 

[Cowtown]

Are those higher value properties really subsidising the lower cost properties though? A larger suburban SFH might pay more taxes than a 800 sq ft condo apartment, but it's far less efficient on sewage, road, sidewalk, etc...

Not sure what the end solution is, but I agree with the sentiment that building in the inner city is more costly (not just land, but the process of going through community engagement, etc..) and needs to be balanced somehow. Not an easy solution to figure out, but it will most likely have to be a monetary solution of some kind.

While that is somewhat the case, it is also that higher value properties subsidize lower value properties. We can solve this by only approving lower value greenfield when it is super efficient for infrastructure utilization.

A system that reflects marginal cost of service would help distort things, by reducing taxes on high value properties, making them worth even more, while reducing the value of highly fee'd properties.

The end result is taxes largely on people who are less able to afford it.

And when all the sewers need to be redone in Killarney , and Hillhurst, and the Beltline because of more residents, I am glad that that cost is also shared.

 

[darwink]

But it isn't about a downtown condo versus a large single family home, it is about how a lower value suburban 800 square foot condo would probably pay way more under a marginal cost of service model than a 800 squarefoot condo downtown, pushing the price of the suburban one down and the urban one up, even though it violates equity, where we say taxes should be roughly proportionate to the ability to pay. I don't think that makes our city better.

Going to a marginal cost model, trying to fund the new sewage treatment plant only from fees or taxes on properties tied in after the tipping point for the old infrastructure being 100% utilized would be hugely distortion-airy. Everyone tied into the old system would effectively have value transferred to them from properties tied into the new system.

 

[Cowtown]

I'm going to sound like a noob here, but what is the 'marginal cost model'? In regards to the cost of the suburban condo going down and the urban one going up, would that necessarily happen though? If there was some sort of monetary equalisation/incentive for inner city developers wouldn't it help make the inner city ones cheaper?

But it isn't about a downtown condo versus a large single family home, it is about how a lower value suburban 800 square foot condo would probably pay way more under a marginal cost of service model than a 800 squarefoot condo downtown, pushing the price of the suburban one down and the urban one up, even though it violates equity, where we say taxes should be roughly proportionate to the ability to pay. I don't think that makes our city better.

Going to a marginal cost model, trying to fund the new sewage treatment plant only from fees or taxes on properties tied in after the tipping point for the old infrastructure being 100% utilized would be hugely distortion-airy. Everyone tied into the old system would effectively have value transferred to them from properties tied into the new system.

 

[maestro]

Do service fees and tax rates really impact purchasers when buying property?

 

[Cowtown]

Do service fees and tax rates really impact purchasers when buying property?

I have no idea myself, only thinking aloud on some ideas. If say 30K from each new greenfield SFH, and say 15K from each greenfield multifamily unit went somehow toward subsidising inner city developments it might change the balance of things. IIRC correctly there are roughly 3 times as many SFH greenfield homes being built compared to inner city multifamily. The 30k levy from each new SFH x 3 would subsidise someone's inner city multifamily by 90K.

These are just numbers and ideas thrown around, I don't have stats with me.

 

[darwink]

Do service fees and tax rates really impact purchasers when buying property?

Yes. Development charges are 100% passed on to housing purchases. Taxes if they were differential would have downstream effects which could be measured for sure.

 

[maestro]

I'm not referring to development charges passed down to new home purchases but the servicing costs to existing homes. People will pay developers the higher median prices or not. It's not the same as a variable water charge determined by the distance traveled in the system, for example.