News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

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.
 
trtcttc said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's correct. In theory adding density should benefit everyone. This is why it always surprises me that people are so against infills, etc.
 
MichaelS said:
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.
Click to expand...
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".

Surrealplaces said:
That's correct. In theory adding density should benefit everyone. This is why it always surprises me that people are so against infills, etc.
Click to expand...
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.
 
trtcttc said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
A DP is in for a 12 storey residential building for the parking lot immediately east across the lane from the Cantiro tower proposal. Cidex is developer. It's...not great, but better than a parking lot. DP2024-06698.

If this, Cantiro and La Caille's new tower all go ahead, there will be potentially a thousand new residents in that part of downtown
 
Last edited:
That’s awesome!

I’m not sure if I’ve noticed this before or it has been mentioned before, but there’s a land use redesignation (I think) sign posted for the now closed “Nainas” on 17th near MacLeod…

6F76FDCC-E71C-4C93-BEAA-C16A4551A627.jpeg
 
Albertasaurus said:
SW corner of the intersection of 5 St and 4 AV SW. Lot has been vacant forever but I think there used to be an office supply store there a number of years back.
Click to expand...
Oh okay, I forgot the empty parcel is now two separate parcels with two new DPs now (one for Cantiro's proposal, and the east portion for this new 12 storey tower)

I'm surprised that they aren't going for a bit more height given the location, but I like mid rise towers, so no complaints.
 
Surrealplaces said:
Oh okay, I forgot the empty parcel is now two separate parcels with two new DPs now (one for Cantiro's proposal, and the east portion for this new 12 storey tower)

I'm surprised that they aren't going for a bit more height given the location, but I like mid rise towers, so no complaints.
Click to expand...
It's still a big project, similar to the 30+ floor towers in terms of # of units (234 units) - but with a shorter, thicker tower (think Brooklyn) rather than a point tower. Personally I have no complaints about the overall massing but design-wise, it's not a looker. But it gets most of the important stuff right - some much needed housing in the downtown core, some CRUs at grade, decent massing and replacing another parking lot with something useful.

Mountain Man: yes, correct
 
Albertasaurus said:
It's still a big project, similar to the 30+ floor towers in terms of # of units (234 units) - but with a shorter, thicker tower (think Brooklyn) rather than a point tower. Personally I have no complaints about the overall massing but design-wise, it's not a looker. But it gets most of the important stuff right - some much needed housing in the downtown core, some CRUs at grade, decent massing and replacing another parking lot with something useful.

Mountain Man: yes, correct
Click to expand...
As long as it's better looking than the parking lot.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top