I need your help...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I'm compiling information and suggestions for a new Master Plan/Vision for Ottawa and I would appreciate any ideas, suggestions, etc. that you guys have made in the past from things such as zoning bylaws, to tax-breaks for certain things, how to deal with urban transit, etc.

Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. :)

[p_xavier]

I'm compiling information and suggestions for a new Master Plan/Vision for Ottawa and I would appreciate any ideas, suggestions, etc. that you guys have made in the past from things such as zoning bylaws, to tax-breaks for certain things, how to deal with urban transit, etc.

Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. :)

Charge builders the real amount it costs the city to build in the suburbs.

Charge city taxes on a service cost by land ratio. A house will the have more taxes than a condo.

Charge everyone the same transit tax. People in the suburbs need to pay for their pollution.

Start charging for services like librairies. Cost recovery needs to happen.

Have 4-5% tax increase per year, as to maintain services with the inflation rate, and have a surplus for new infrastructures.

Remove height limitation.

Reduce zoning areas, as to provide a better mix of work places, residences and houses.

Ban NIMBYS.

[lrt's friend]

Charge city taxes on a service cost by land ratio. A house will the have more taxes than a condo.

And how many thousands of people are you expecting to tax out of their homes this way?

Charge everyone the same transit tax. People in the suburbs need to pay for their pollution.

Perhaps, farmers should be exempt.

Start charging for services like librairies. Cost recovery needs to happen.

No way! Public Libraries were started to encourage literacy. The poorest people are the ones who need it the most and will simply stop using the library if there were user fees, no matter how small they are.

Remove height limitation.

I am not a fan of excessively high buildings that create wind tunnels. Building heights should fit the setting.

Ban NIMBYS.

Well, we do live in a democracy. Our politicians have to stand up to special interest groups better, and the majority has to become more vocal.

[p_xavier]

And how many thousands of people are you expecting to tax out of their homes this way?

Everything can be put in place progressively.


No way! Public Libraries were started to encourage literacy. The poorest people are the ones who need it the most and will simply stop using the library if there were user fees, no matter how small they are.


You said it yourself WERE. There are much better, and cheaper means today to encourage literacy than a library. With e-books, and community internet centres, it's time to let the dinosaur go. A big library like the one in MTL should suffice.


I am not a fan of excessively high buildings that create wind tunnels. Building heights should fit the setting.

You can always build the towers to use that energy, it's just a matter of building efficently.


Well, we do live in a democracy. Our politicians have to stand up to special interest groups better, and the majority has to become more vocal.

Yes, but if it's the good of the overall population, a minority shouldn't be able to get away with it.

[Kitchissippi]

Mixing value-based and service-based tax assessment would be a nightmare and open up so many grey areas. In my street alone there are small houses on large lots that are taxed much less than newer, more efficient homes on small infill lots. The higher taxes on the newer, denser homes and condos are easily justified in the value-based assessment but falls apart in the service-based model. Living in a newer home, I would love everything to be in a service-based model as that would reduce my taxes dramatically, but I know that's not going to happen.

A 4 to 5% per year increase in taxes means that the taxes will double in 15-18 years. Add to that fact that real estate values double about every 10 years. That would mean that if your place is worth 200K are paying $2,600 in taxes today, in 15 years you'll be paying about $15,600; in 30 years you'll be paying $93,600 a year. I better re-think my retirement plan.

[p_xavier]

Mixing value-based and service-based tax assessment would be a nightmare and open up so many grey areas. In my street alone there are small houses on large lots that are taxed much less than newer, more efficient homes on small infill lots. The higher taxes on the newer, denser homes and condos are easily justified in the value-based assessment but falls apart in the service-based model. Living in a newer home, I would love everything to be in a service-based model as that would reduce my taxes dramatically, but I know that's not going to happen.

A 4 to 5% per year increase in taxes means that the taxes will double in 15-18 years. Add to that fact that real estate values double about every 10 years. That would mean that if your place is worth 200K are paying $2,600 in taxes today, in 15 years you'll be paying about $15,600; in 30 years you'll be paying $93,600 a year. I better re-think my retirement plan.


Unless there is a new tax for City infrastructures for goods and services (like the 1% GST), that's where we will be heading. Construction costs are twice as high as the inflation rate.

I don't know how you got to $96 600 a year, but a 5% increase in 30 years is 4.3 times, so basically you would pay 11 800$, nothing outrageous really. Over 30 years, if you count a 3% inflation, it would be less than double the actual taxes we pay right now (1.78)....

[clynnog]

Charge builders the real amount it costs the city to build in the suburbs.

Ban NIMBYS.

In the late 90's a local planning consultant developed a software to help municiapalities determine the true cost of land development based on difference density/land use scenarios. The former City of Nepean used it in the Barrhaven area (it didn't stop them from allowing more sprawl), but the new City of Ottawa didn't want to know about it. It is rather telling that they claim in most of their staff reports that there is no financial impact of a new development application.

Good luck in banning NIMBY's.

[Kitchissippi]

I don't know how you got to $96 600 a year, but a 5% increase in 30 years is 4.3 times, so basically you would pay 11 800$, nothing outrageous really. Over 30 years, if you count a 3% inflation, it would be less than double the actual taxes we pay right now (1.78)....

You're basing that on the fact that the property is still valued at $200k which it won't. In thirty years it will be worth more than a million and a half because values double every 10 years or so (8-fold in 30). There are houses in Kanata that were worth $50k 30 years ago and they're easily worth $400k today.

[eemy]

Why would you want to ban the one reliable form of public participation? NIMBY is such a loaded word that generally is just carelessly thrown at people who disagree with our own conception of progress. God forbid that people should be politically involved in issues that affect them in their own backyards. If you have a problem with them framing the debate (and why not, since they're the ones who would be affected), encourage greater public participation. Wanting to eliminate NIMBY's approaches the issue from entirely the wrong angle. NIMBY's are good. All those other people who don't give a rats ass are the problem.

I suppose you'd call people like Jane Jacobs a NIMBY as well, fighting against all those inner city expressways?

[clynnog]

Why would you want to ban the one reliable form of public participation? NIMBY is such a loaded word that generally is just carelessly thrown at people who disagree with our own conception of progress. God forbid that people should be politically involved in issues that affect them in their own backyards. If you have a problem with them framing the debate (and why not, since they're the ones who would be affected), encourage greater public participation. Wanting to eliminate NIMBY's approaches the issue from entirely the wrong angle. NIMBY's are good. All those other people who don't give a rats ass are the problem.

I suppose you'd call people like Jane Jacobs a NIMBY as well, fighting against all those inner city expressways?


I think the OP gets mad when people oppose his views on intensification. You are right in that the indifferent people who only complain after all the decisions have been made and ignored the opportunities for dialogue are the real problem. Human nature tells us that people resist change and feel that new development/more intensive development is something that should happen somewhere else as an individuals n'hood is 'special' 'unique' 'clogged with traffic already' etc etc.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Here's a question for you guys; what would you do to inject some life into the core area so that ours treets aren't practically deserted by 6-7p.m.?

[p_xavier]

I think the OP gets mad when people oppose his views on intensification. You are right in that the indifferent people who only complain after all the decisions have been made and ignored the opportunities for dialogue are the real problem. Human nature tells us that people resist change and feel that new development/more intensive development is something that should happen somewhere else as an individuals n'hood is 'special' 'unique' 'clogged with traffic already' etc etc.

Yes, exactly, as in the term, not in my neibhourhood, it doesn't mean no democratic participation, that would be silly. I just hate people that think they are better than others because they live in one type of neighbourhood, that's all.

[p_xavier]

You're basing that on the fact that the property is still valued at $200k which it won't. In thirty years it will be worth more than a million and a half because values double every 10 years or so (8-fold in 30). There are houses in Kanata that were worth $50k 30 years ago and they're easily worth $400k today.

I was taking about a 5% in total tax increase, not the ratio. and I even put that it included inflation in the second post! There's a limit on increasing and double tarrifing, geez. With the freeze on BOTH tax ratio, and property inflation, how can you get more money and adjust to the real costs?!

[AuxTown]

Here's a question for you guys; what would you do to inject some life into the core area so that ours treets aren't practically deserted by 6-7p.m.?

I think there's only 1 way to do that, get more people to move to the core. No matter what is downtown, there is no way that someone from Kanata is going to be wandering the streets on a worknight or even the weekend. We see areas like the market that have lots of traffic on the weekends but that is just people bar-hopping and eating at restaurants. If we want to keep people downtown, make it easier for developers to build in the central areas and force them to build in ways that make the streets more inviting for pedestrians (i.e. ground-level retail). We are already starting to do this, let's just hope the trend continues.