Calgary Tax System

[DizzyEdge]

I'm not too knowledgeable in this area, but I alway here the lament that the inner city pays for the burbs, old folks have to move out of their homes cause they can't afford the high taxes, etc etc etc.
Is the system broken? Is there a better way to change the ratio? Should the burbs pay more? How much?

[1ajs]

I'm not too knowledgeable in this area, but I alway here the lament that the inner city pays for the burbs, old folks have to move out of their homes cause they can't afford the high taxes, etc etc etc.
Is the system broken? Is there a better way to change the ratio? Should the burbs pay more? How much?

i know in winnipeg the burbs subsidize the core
in calgary i think is flat. basicaly its based on what your home is worth and how close you are to lrt ect

[DizzyEdge]

It typically is flat here, however the argument usually goes that there's so much infrastructure cost for a new communinity, so taxes overall go up, and due to high property values in the inner city, those owners pay more of the bill. I'm wondering if you should pay more based on how much your land costs to service, vs the value of the lot?

[1ajs]

It typically is flat here, however the argument usually goes that there's so much infrastructure cost for a new communinity, so taxes overall go up, and due to high property values in the inner city, those owners pay more of the bill. I'm wondering if you should pay more based on how much your land costs to service, vs the value of the lot?

f your land is worth more then you should pay taxs on that fair market value simple as that...

and new construction thats what all the levy's are for....

i'm going of memory from a conversation in calgary construction from 2006.... lol

[Boris2k7]

f your land is worth more then you should pay taxs on that fair market value simple as that...

and new construction thats what all the levy's are for....

i'm going of memory from a conversation in calgary construction from 2006.... lol


No, no, no, that's not the way to do it. That's what we have right now. It sucks because all the core areas of the city are uber-expensive

Taxes need to be based on land usage, not property value. A person living in a 700sqft condo on top of a 20 story building should be paying way, way less than a person in a 2000sqft home in the burbs. It would also protect existing landowners from rapid increases in their taxes, which could really help with our aging population.

[chenmau]

What about paying based on lot size?

[DizzyEdge]

That's generally the idea I like, the only thing that might complicate it is when you demo a house in the inner city and build a condo, you likely need upgraded services to the site, or does the developer pay the city for that?

[freeweed]

Taxes need to be based on land usage, not property value.

Bingo. Not land value, this makes far-flung houses on crappy land attractive. Not lot size, this mucks with the true cost of servicing high-rise buildings.

Base the damn thing on what it actually COSTS to service it. Roads, water, hydro, sewer, you name it. Work out some sort of approximate cost based on lot size and usage combined.

Of course, basing taxes off of what a person actually USES in return is contrary to most of our existing tax system - else unhealthy people would pay a lot more for healthcare, and frequently unemployed people would pay far more in UI premiums. Imagine non-smokers getting an income tax break. Or childless couples paying nearly nothing in education tax.

The rest of the world would disagree with me, but I'm all for a user-fee driven (or at least weighted) system. And property taxes are the FIRST thing we should run this way.

[DizzyEdge]

You brought up 3 interesting cases:
Land Use - Property taxes
Non smokers - Health Care premiums
Childless couples - Education tax

I would say go more user fee for the first 2, but not the last, why? Because it's in society's interest to make better use of land, and have people not smoke, but it's not in society's interest for couples to have less kids (well perhaps that's up for debate :)

I like the idea of bonuses for people who do right

So it's not that people in the burbs would get a penalty, it's that they wouldn't be able to take advantages of bonuses for being efficient with the land use.. although in a way it's all kinda the same thing.

[freeweed]

it's not in society's interest for couples to have less kids (well perhaps that's up for debate :)

It's very much up for debate. One of the biggest generators of sprawl is the fact that our population keeps growing and growing and growing. Just as it's valid to say our cities cannot sustainably grow outwards forever, our population cannot also sustainably increase forever. It could be argued that we're at the point where we should be aiming for zero population growth. Of course, what this does to the economy is another matter, especially when you look at the demographic shift such as the Boomer retirement about to happen.

Personally, as a childless person I'm all for paying education taxes - it is definitely in society's best interest to keep these kids educated, and it's not like people will stop breeding simply because school costs more. They'll just have the kids, and we'll end up with a huge uneducated society. Not good for anyone, really.

There's a big difference between trying to modify people's behaviour through government policy (tax breaks for non-smokers), and using government policy to improve society as a whole (forcing everyone to pay education tax). I'm generally for the latter and not much of a fan of the former. Distinguishing between the two is a lifelong philosophical game, however. ;)

[yads]

Taxing people based on user fees is virtually impossible. How do you determine how many city services a resident actually uses? Are we saying that every inner city resident uses less city resources than every suburban dweller?

[dubiousmike]

Taxing people based on user fees is virtually impossible. How do you determine how many city services a resident actually uses? Are we saying that every inner city resident uses less city resources than every suburban dweller?

Gas meters, electrical meters, water meters, traffic counters.

edit: Also, we should take into account the capital costs of building infrastructure into suburban communities.

And yes, suburbanities are a far greater strain on infrastructure (per capita) than urbanites. I feel pretty comfortable saying that, but it's nevertheless anecdotal. I'm hoping someone out there has hard data.

Someone?


edit: I should have been clearer. You're right, a user-pay system would be impossible to administer, but there are far better ways to calculate property taxes based on actual infrastructure use.

[DizzyEdge]

It's very much up for debate. One of the biggest generators of sprawl is the fact that our population keeps growing and growing and growing. Just as it's valid to say our cities cannot sustainably grow outwards forever, our population cannot also sustainably increase forever. It could be argued that we're at the point where we should be aiming for zero population growth. Of course, what this does to the economy is another matter, especially when you look at the demographic shift such as the Boomer retirement about to happen.


Unfortunately with so many companies owned by shareholders that demand growth and expansion, tidy profits not being enough, a shrinkage in population will stifle it as you mentioned.

[DizzyEdge]

Taxing people based on user fees is virtually impossible. How do you determine how many city services a resident actually uses? Are we saying that every inner city resident uses less city resources than every suburban dweller?

I believe the idea was infrastructure, not services per se.

[jawagord]

You have restarted an old debate. But a short version is the tax system in Calgary was overhauled 4-5 years ago to install fairness into the system so I do not see them changing it again anytime soon.

[Boris2k7]

You have restarted an old debate. But a short version is the tax system in Calgary was overhauled 4-5 years ago to install fairness into the system so I do not see them changing it again anytime soon.

You can hardly call the current system fair...

[freeweed]

Taxing people based on user fees is virtually impossible. How do you determine how many city services a resident actually uses?

I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't mean a user fee in the sense that you get an itemized bill for JUST YOU at the end of the year.

I was thinking more in the aggregate sense - ie: if you live in an area well-serviced by transit, you'd pay more. If you live way out in the boons, and therefore rely on a larger road infrastructure, you pay more. That sort of thing.

Not that I am necessarily advocating this, mind you. It's one way to treat things fairly - and boy, would I pay comparatively nothing in taxes if we actually ran all of society like this. :tup:

[DizzyEdge]

I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't mean a user fee in the sense that you get an itemized bill for JUST YOU at the end of the year.

I was thinking more in the aggregate sense - ie: if you live in an area well-serviced by transit, you'd pay more. If you live way out in the boons, and therefore rely on a larger road infrastructure, you pay more. That sort of thing.

Not that I am necessarily advocating this, mind you. It's one way to treat things fairly - and boy, would I pay comparatively nothing in taxes if we actually ran all of society like this. :tup:

I think it's a great idea, but imagine the commotion of the whole tax system was overhauled in this manner! It would probably need to be something where slowly the city does the process gradually over a decade or something.

[lubicon]

While I agree with the present market value tax assement regime we have, perhaps the City could look at ways to minimize the impact of rapidly rising property values on fixed income earners (eg the elderly). Why not cap the yearly rise at some fixed value (say the inflation rate for instance) and then defer the remainder until the home is sold at which time the city would recoup the rest. It would help out the ficed income earners, the city would not really be out that much $$$ on a yearly basis, they would get their money eventually, and when a prpoerty is sold the new owners would start paying the current rate.

[Bassic Lab]

I'm not really sure if a change would really be for the better. As it is developers typically pay for the initial infrastructure in both new single family neighborhoods and high sensity infill projects, so it isn't like the inner city is really subsidizing sprawl, which very much was the case twenty years ago. As is can you imagine the effects of a lot size tax on older working class and lower class communities. People in Forest Lawn would never be able to pay a rate comparable to Mount Royal, especially if the rate increased to cover reduced taxes on multifamily developments. Property values would crumble in Forest Lawn and we'd end up with permanent ghettos in formerly working class communities. A tax on property value on the other hand is atleast fair on an ability to pay basis.

On the other hand I could agree with some form of lifestyle tax to influence people away from larger lots and towards a more sustainable manner of living. It just would have to be done in a manner that doesn't hammer the poor.

[freeweed]

On the other hand I could agree with some form of lifestyle tax to influence people away from larger lots and towards a more sustainable manner of living. It just would have to be done in a manner that doesn't hammer the poor.

To be fair, we already have that - land values have skyrocketed here in the past few years. $100,000 barely gets you what $20,000 would have gotten you 10 years ago. The market has really encouraged people to live on smaller lots in new developments. Of course, the new developments themselves can be questioned, but if we're going on the basis of "financial disincentive to build on a huge lot", well, we already have that in spades. Property taxes are a drop in the bucket compared to land values these days. I assume the city is making some of this money - it's not just developers raking in the extra dough, is it?

Someone with enough money can just buy 2 or 3 lots and build themselves a "McMansion" anyway. I know the city put in a levy last year on new construction - is this based on lot size at all? Seems that would be the way to go - if you build on a big lot, you pay extra. If you're in a property already on a large lot, you don't. This at least to a small degree would discourage the most visible parts of sprawl (quarter-acerage suburb lots) while not pounding established areas - which as you point out are often inhabited by less well off folks.

[yads]

I was thinking more in the aggregate sense - ie: if you live in an area well-serviced by transit, you'd pay more. If you live way out in the boons, and therefore rely on a larger road infrastructure, you pay more. That sort of thing.


I'm going to assume you meant that living in an area well-serviced by transit that you'd pay less. What are some of the other factors that would contribute to higher/lower property taxes. It can't just be transit vs roads.
What about the scenario of somebody living out in Bridlewood. They're living in the boons and probably driving everywhere, but they have an LRT stop, does that mean they are better serviced by transit and hence should be taxed less than somebody who lives in Parkdale, close to the core and only has 1 non rush hour bus?

We could possibly look at taxing people based on lot size, but in effect this basically is what we have now.

[freeweed]

I'm going to assume you meant that living in an area well-serviced by transit that you'd pay less. What are some of the other factors that would contribute to higher/lower property taxes. It can't just be transit vs roads.

Actually I did mean more. The original debate was how to fairly levy taxes based on what services people use. I neglected to list every possible service, so of course roads are a part of it too. You live in the far-flung boonies, you (on average) use more roads, so you pay proportionally more. You live downtown, you (on average) use fewer roads, so you pay less. Transit is the inverse of this, and theorectially there would be a balance somewhere - live somewhere waaaay out with no transit, pay for the huge roads required but not for transit. Get transit to your area, and pay for both. Live somewhere far out with smaller roads but great transit, and pay less for roads and more for transit.

In theory this stops people that live "responsibly" from subsidizing the suburbs (assuming roads are in fact more expensive than transit), but it essentially boils down to a user-pay system - and as I've already pointed out, we don't run ANY of our taxation like this.

Regardless, it gets pretty silly anyway. I know people who live downtown who drive far more than I do - my commute, long as it may be, is 100% transit. Most of my driving in the city amounts to short trips to local stores/malls. Friends of mine downtown drive vast distances just to get to a decent shopping area. They *could* take transit but choose not to - how do you account for this in a taxation scheme? It could be argued that all roads ultimately service downtown residents the most - pretty bizarre, but if you're going strictly based on the "what does this citizen cost"...

Gasoline taxes and vehicle registrations were supposed to take care of this whole issue anyway. Unfortunately, that money goes into a large general pot so the true cost of roads is never accounted for.

[DizzyEdge]

I was thinking something more simple, hopefully I can relay it clearly:
First, make tax based on lot size, for all communities.

Then calculate how much it costs to build the infrastructure of a new community (create roads, traffic lights, road signs, if new police stations are required, if new hospitals are required, if new schools are required, etc etc etc).

Then figure out which is already covered by developers, then see what you have left and calculate how long that infrastructure lasts before needing to be redone (even downtown roads need repaving), divide by however many number of years for each, and tack that onto the new community base tax until those years are up, then it reverts to just lot size like everyone else.

The basis is that a) people moving to new communities pay for the infrastructure that needed to be created for the community to exist, which in turn b) influences someone to live in an established community as they pay a bit less, honestly doesn't matter if it's downtown or one made 10 yrs ago, the key is to move them into a community already built instead of building a new one and creating sprawl. Also, if it's based on lot size, residents of a 40 unit building will pay 1/40 of the tax of someone in a single family house on the same lot size, encouraging higher density in all communities.

As in the past you'd likely want different rates for residential vs commercial land.

Very much open to comments and critique, as I'm sure there's something I'm forgetting about :)

[Bassic Lab]

I was thinking something more simple, hopefully I can relay it clearly:
First, make tax based on lot size, for all communities.

Then calculate how much it costs to build the infrastructure of a new community (create roads, traffic lights, road signs, if new police stations are required, if new hospitals are required, if new schools are required, etc etc etc).

Then figure out which is already covered by developers, then see what you have left and calculate how long that infrastructure lasts before needing to be redone (even downtown roads need repaving), divide by however many number of years for each, and tack that onto the new community base tax until those years are up, then it reverts to just lot size like everyone else.

The basis is that a) people moving to new communities pay for the infrastructure that needed to be created for the community to exist, which in turn b) influences someone to live in an established community as they pay a bit less, honestly doesn't matter if it's downtown or one made 10 yrs ago, the key is to move them into a community already built instead of building a new one and creating sprawl. Also, if it's based on lot size, residents of a 40 unit building will pay 1/40 of the tax of someone in a single family house on the same lot size, encouraging higher density in all communities.

As in the past you'd likely want different rates for residential vs commercial land.

Very much open to comments and critique, as I'm sure there's something I'm forgetting about :)

Again, is it really fair to hit up some one in a two hundred thousand dollar wreck in Forest Lawn to the same extent as some one in a multimillion dollar home in Mount Royal? For some one with a four thousand square foot penthouse on the 45th floor to be paying less than some one with a five hundred square foot studio in a four storey walk up?

Your system would destroy property values in working class communities, he would buy a house in Forest Lawn if they'll be paying the same taxes as every one else with a lot that size. You'll just be fucking over the poor.

[Boris2k7]

Well, you could also phase it in so existing homeowners wouldn't be affected. You could also make the lot usage only part of the tax (like 1/3). Even phase it in over 20 years if you want.

But we could alway play around with different example. Is it fair to charge someone in a 600sqft apartment in Bankview twice as much as a person in a 2500sqft home in Midnapore? As it is, the system rewards those who want bigger homes further out. This clearly isn't sustainable.

[freeweed]

Is it fair to charge someone in a 600sqft apartment in Bankview twice as much as a person in a 2500sqft home in Midnapore? As it is, the system rewards those who want bigger homes further out. This clearly isn't sustainable.

Not necessarily - but would those property values seriously be 200% different? That 600 sq ft apartment in Bankview would be worth over a million and a half dollars!

"Fair" is an interesting term here. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if the Bankview apartment owner earned twice the salary as the Midnapore homeowner, most folks on this forum would consider it "fair" for him/her to pay twice the income tax. As it is, the system rewards those who want to work less hard and earn less. That clearly isn't sustainable in the long run either, yet we somehow make it work.

I guess what I'm getting to in my sarcastic way is that most people aren't about to make huge decisions about investments costing hundreds of thousands of dollars just to save a few bucks a year. Much like how people don't actually ask for a pay cut to save a few bucks in income tax. All things being equal, yes - but I'd love to know who on this planet considers only the property tax bill when choosing between a 2500 sq ft house and a 600 sq ft apartment. Hell, I'd love to meet someone who even thinks about it at all. Maybe if we implemented a $75,000 "you don't live the lifestyle I think you should live" tax it might make a difference...

Other than that, about all you can argue for is a usage tax (ie: you pay in proportion to what the "system" actually pays out to sustain your lifestyle choice). And like I said before, arguing for taxation on a usage basis is a very tricky thing. I could just as easily argue that high wage earners should pay far less UI premiums as they tend to be employed and off of pogey more. Or that breeding couples should pay far more in tax as their lifestyle (ie: population growth) is ultimately what drives sprawl in the first place. Cuts both ways, doesn't it? ;)

Someone let me know when we've implemented our fully proportional usage-based tax system, please. I'm still looking forward to that 90% tax reduction next year. :tup:

[Bassic Lab]

Not necessarily - but would those property values seriously be 200% different? That 600 sq ft apartment in Bankview would be worth over a million and a half dollars!

"Fair" is an interesting term here. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if the Bankview apartment owner earned twice the salary as the Midnapore homeowner, most folks on this forum would consider it "fair" for him/her to pay twice the income tax. As it is, the system rewards those who want to work less hard and earn less. That clearly isn't sustainable in the long run either, yet we somehow make it work.

I guess what I'm getting to in my sarcastic way is that most people aren't about to make huge decisions about investments costing hundreds of thousands of dollars just to save a few bucks a year. Much like how people don't actually ask for a pay cut to save a few bucks in income tax. All things being equal, yes - but I'd love to know who on this planet considers only the property tax bill when choosing between a 2500 sq ft house and a 600 sq ft apartment. Hell, I'd love to meet someone who even thinks about it at all. Maybe if we implemented a $75,000 "you don't live the lifestyle I think you should live" tax it might make a difference...

Other than that, about all you can argue for is a usage tax (ie: you pay in proportion to what the "system" actually pays out to sustain your lifestyle choice). And like I said before, arguing for taxation on a usage basis is a very tricky thing. I could just as easily argue that high wage earners should pay far less UI premiums as they tend to be employed and off of pogey more. Or that breeding couples should pay far more in tax as their lifestyle (ie: population growth) is ultimately what drives sprawl in the first place. Cuts both ways, doesn't it? ;)

Someone let me know when we've implemented our fully proportional usage-based tax system, please. I'm still looking forward to that 90% tax reduction next year. :tup:

You have a commonly held misconception about income taxes. No one ends up with less after tax income due to a move into a higher tax bracket. The only income that is taxed at the higher rate is the amount that is over the threshold. People are never punished for making more money.

Boris, if you can find a 600 square foot apartment in Bankview for half the price of a house in Midnapore then you're statement would be valid. That situation simply does not exist.

A system based solely off of lot size, as some here are advocating, would require a large raise in the average amount paid by single family home owners. This would be required to pay for the reduction in taxes received from all multifamily units (especially very dense ones, as they would be paying a fraction each for the lot). Then there would be an additional increase to the taxes paid in working class neighbourhoods to match the level paid by those in upscale communities with similiar sized lots. A cheap house in Forest Lawn would see a massive tax increase while condos and houses in Roxbore would see tax cuts.

I would favour the addition of a lifestyle tax based on lot size or street frontage, but it could not be extreme, particularly not to the point of replacing a property tax based on value. I agree that property taxes are in general flawed but they are the most equitable way for cities to raise money in the current legal framework.

[Boris2k7]

I'm not proposing anything that is particularly extreme. Let me just have a quick go at this, taking into account that I'm no economics major...

So, the premise of the "land use" tax is that the city wants to try different methods to control sprawl. As the city grows larger, more roads and infrastructure need to be built. Although this is originally done by developers, for the most part, the city eventually has to maintain and perform upgrades on such services.

The basic restructuring is as follows: You property tax, instead of being 100% value based, would now be both value and use based. Pick an arbitrary number for now. Let's say 2/3 value, 1/3 use based.

So let's choose 2 properties, I'm going to avoid number-crunching but let's just go ahead and do it...

http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?vd=&SearchURL=%3fMode%3d0%26Page%3d1%26vs%3d1%26rlt%3d%26cp%3d%26pt%3d0%26mp%3d0-0-0%26mrt%3d-1-0-0%26Beds%3d0-0%26Baths%3d0-0%26f%3d%26ft%3dall%26o%3dA%26of%3d1%26ps%3d10%26ptgid%3d1%26aid%3d4805%26MapURL%3d%253fAreaID%253d6401&Mode=0&PropertyID=5544101
^ This unit in Bankview is $255 000 for 526sqft ($485/sqft). There are maybe 12 units in this building?

http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?vd=&SearchURL=%3fMode%3d0%26Page%3d1%26vs%3d1%26rlt%3d%26cp%3d%26pt%3d0%26mp%3d0-0-0%26mrt%3d-1-0-0%26Beds%3d0-0%26Baths%3d0-0%26f%3d%26ft%3dall%26o%3dA%26of%3d1%26ps%3d10%26ptgid%3d1%26aid%3d4887%26MapURL%3d%253fAreaID%253d6402&Mode=0&PropertyID=5514536
^ This house in Midnapore is $699 900 for 2512sqft ($279/sqft). Only 1 unit for the whole thing, right?

Okay, now back to the tax. So the way I might have this conceptually work is as follows...

1) You figure out what percentage of the total parcel that the structure covers.
2) You then find out how many units are in the building, how many total sqft of space are within the building, and the amount of space per unit.
3) Charge ($/sqft/unit/totalsqft/% of total land used) or something to that effect

You could go further than that to try and tax based on the number of people per unit, and the number of income earners as well. Rental units, affordable housing, and senior's housing could be kept out of the equation. All fixed income earners would be exempt from paying this part of the tax. Hell, if a building has mixed uses you could throw in another tax break.

Phasing would be necessary to prevent shocks in the system. The average community lifespan right now is around 15 years before it starts going into decline. You could perhaps time it in 15 years for new communities and 20 years for older communities.

This is just a suggestion of course. I'd rather have a system that both considers the ability to pay and the responsibility to take into account the effects of our land use.

[DizzyEdge]

I think the problem is that there's two issues (perceived unfairness and prevention of sprawl) we're trying to solve here with one method (property tax).

Perceived unfairness being:
-Is it fair if some of a inner city person's taxes pays for new subur binfrastructure? No, but changing the structure to be more 'fair' in that respect probably wouldn't really make much difference to any individual person's tax bill. -Is it fair for fixed earners to have rising tax bills? No, but that's a big minority of the population, maybe have the delayed increase until sale for these cases?

The other issue is sprawl, and sadly I'm not sure how much messing with the tax system would really affect it.

It's true what has been said, having a 2500 sq ft Mt Royal house's tax bill go down while a 2500 sq ft Forest Lawn house's tax bill goes up ( to equal the same) does seem pretty unfair. However, if current housing's tax method was frozen, but only new developments tax bills were more geared for 'sprawl = bad' then perhaps it would work, there's no point penalizing someone who already lives in an established community.

[Bassic Lab]

This is just a suggestion of course. I'd rather have a system that both considers the ability to pay and the responsibility to take into account the effects of our land use.

That was pretty much what I was saying, my responses were directed at those who seem to be advocating a system of taxation based solely off of lot size. Which just seems to be part of a growing trend in enviromentalism, whereby the wealthy are allowed to buy their way out of sustainable practices and the burden falls on the poor, who apparently shouldn't have sfd, or automobiles, or anything else that is reserved for the rich.

[freeweed]

You have a commonly held misconception about income taxes. No one ends up with less after tax income due to a move into a higher tax bracket. The only income that is taxed at the higher rate is the amount that is over the threshold. People are never punished for making more money.

Not at all; in fact just the opposite. I've spent the past couple of decades fighting this particular myth myself.

I was using it as an example as to why people don't much care about property tax when it comes to buying property. Yes, your $750,000 house will cost you more in overall property taxes than a $300,000 house. But no one seriously thinks "oh man, I don't want to pay those extra property taxes, I'll just buy the smaller house instead". If you can afford the extra $450,000 in house cost in the first place, that extra couple of thousand is chump change. Much like how you'd have to be an idiot to refuse a raise simply because your overall income tax payout would then be higher.

Make sense now?

[DizzyEdge]

Makes perfect sense. Perhaps the way to go about is use the tax system to fix the minor 'unfairness', and simply make developers pay for all the new infrastructure in it's entirety and tack it onto the cost of new housing as a way to limit sprawl, but charge *that* tarrif based on lot size.

[dubiousmike]

It's true what has been said, having a 2500 sq ft Mt Royal house's tax bill go down while a 2500 sq ft Forest Lawn house's tax bill goes up

I didn't know they had houses that small in Mt. Royal, or that large in Forest Lawn.

Sorry, just jive talkin' :)

You've got yourself a good point though regarding equity for all strata of economic priviledge. I just get chafed, as in an inner city condo owner, when I think about my property taxes subsidizing the extension of roads and gas lines and power lines and water lines further and further and further into the abyssal boonies.

[chenmau]

You've got yourself a good point though regarding equity for all strata of economic priviledge. I just get chafed, as in an inner city condo owner, when I think about my property taxes subsidizing the extension of roads and gas lines and power lines and water lines further and further and further into the abyssal boonies.

I feel the same way. There's got to be a better formula.

[toddburns]

I'm not really sure if a change would really be for the better. As it is developers typically pay for the initial infrastructure in both new single family neighborhoods and high sensity infill projects, so it isn't like the inner city is really subsidizing sprawl, which very much was the case twenty years ago. As is can you imagine the effects of a lot size tax on older working class and lower class communities. People in Forest Lawn would never be able to pay a rate comparable to Mount Royal, especially if the rate increased to cover reduced taxes on multifamily developments. Property values would crumble in Forest Lawn and we'd end up with permanent ghettos in formerly working class communities. A tax on property value on the other hand is atleast fair on an ability to pay basis.

On the other hand I could agree with some form of lifestyle tax to influence people away from larger lots and towards a more sustainable manner of living. It just would have to be done in a manner that doesn't hammer the poor.

i live in albert park/raddison which many of you hear consider it forest lawn
city asssed my home at 550,000 i get a downtow view, skyline view and mountain view, how is that ghetto? my home and view is just as good or if not better then crescent hill, i even was accepte at western canada high school not becasue of my marks, because where i lived, i like everythign about forest lawn but that high school they really neglect it by putting in bozo teachers, no IB program nothing.

just like the public library in forest lawn, its the busiest per capita in calgary but yet it was pretty much neglected last to get "renovated" and still pretty small considering theres tons of land the goverment could of purchased. go ot the nw communities even the older ones and they huge librarys with everything in them.

[KrisYYC]

I didn't know they had houses that small in Mt. Royal

They do, in fact I was dating a girl for a while that lived in a small house on Durham Ave. It was about 900 sq/ft I'd say. Her mom was a total socialite too, which was funny because at the time I was just a punk 18 year old living in low income townhouse in a single parent home heh. I guess opposites attract sometime :haha:

Kris