2010 civic election wpg

[vid]

Originally Posted by Riverman

There would then be no home building industry. What would that solve?

Urban sprawl.

Realistically speaking, it would just mean the end of building more houses on previously-undeveloped land. It would lead to intensification of the city. The cost of running the city per house would decrease.

Divide the city's budget by the number of tax paying properties and see what you get. I bet Toronto's cost is lower than Winnipeg's, which is most likely lower than Thunder Bay's.

When you factor in the true cost of paving roads, installing water and sewer lines, providing transit service, building and operating schools, upgrading arteries, building new fire stations and EMS dispatches to reach new subdivisions (Thunder Bay is spending over 50 million over three years to upgrade a road and build an EMS station on it in the developing NW subdivisions, when they could have simply added a dispatch onto a nearby fire station for about $3 million), and so on, the cost of new suburbs far exceeds the tax dollars they bring into the city. The bulk of the city's revenue comes from the cores and the business and industrial areas, all of which are located some distance from the suburbs. The established city is basically subsidizing the new subdivisions, while the city receives no real monetary benefit from these suburbs. Considering not only the amount of vacant and for sale houses in the established city but also the amount of vacant lots and potential for brownfield developments (such as this, which could accommodate all of the houses built in Parkdale last year) in areas already serviced, there is no real reason subdivisions have to be built, other than "a company can make money". (And they could make money in the city as well, but it is easier to sell a house in a new subdivision, even though crime is basically the same and the schools aren't much better).

Think of it as living in a large Victorian house. Instead of maintaining its size and fixing it when necessary, we're building additions to this house all over the place and neglecting what was originally there. Who does this benefit?

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by grumpy old man

Not quite. There is a demand for new housing development in Winnipeg. Developers will pay for the infrastructure if that is the only way they can get their hands on right-sized tracts of land. As has been mentioned it happens in many municipalities today.

If they won't pay they'll find alternate solutions including infill (maybe raze an area of the city). This might be more desirable. They will also look outside the perimeter. That would be hugely problematic and might require extraordinary measures by the province to discourage.

Now I'm getting mad, once again I agree with grumpy (second time this month)

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by vid

Is $6000 per house for even 10 years enough to offset the cost of building up that area? Let the developers build the roads with their own money if they're so excited about contributing to urban sprawl. The $6,000 can go to maintenance.

Glen Murray might be responsible for WW but Sam Katz did nothing to stop it.

Wow ... $6000 for maintainence per home. How about subsidize the poor inner city. Thats were the majority of the taxes collected in new suburbs go.

Glen wanted WW area built to help offset the economically weak and infrastructurally decaying innercity. Please don't tell you think PD has the ability to pay for the new Disraili.

Nope brought to you by the highly taxed people of Waverly West.

Of course many would suggest large scale redevelopment of the inner city would be a much more eficient alternative to house the growing population and wealth of our city and I would tend to agree. I think creating an innercity occupied by the middle and upper middle income people would allow those areas to generate the nessesary tax revenue to maintain its crumbling infrastructure as well as lower other city service costs such as emergency services.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Please don't tell you think PD has the ability to pay for the new Disraili.

Right.... Because it's the people of Point Douglas that use the Disraeli. I'm sure that they were stoked when they found out that a freeway would be bisecting their community..

[vid]

in Thunder Bay, in 2009:
An industrial property worth $100,000 (x .06450888) pays  $6,450.89 in taxes
A business property worth    $100,000 (x .05375766) pays  $5,375.77 in taxes
A detached house worth       $250,000 (x .01980760) pays  $4,951.90 in taxes
An apartment block worth     $250,000 (x .04988804) pays $12,472.01 in taxes

Downtown Fort William is just under 2 square kilometres in size, has about 1,000 people, and contributes 13.7% of the city's tax base. Westfort Ward has about 17,500 people, covers about 25 square kilometres, and produces 24.6% of the city's tax base. At 17.5 times the population, and about 13 times the size, Westfort (a suburb) is producing only 1.8 times the tax revenue. And Westfort is the location of our largest employer (Bowater), largest ratepayer (Ontario Power Generation) and is dominated by the railway! You would expect it to be producing far more revenue than that.

Originally Posted by newflyer

Wow ... $6000 for maintainence per home. How about subsidize the poor inner city. Thats were the majority of the taxes collected in new suburbs go.

Glen wanted WW area built to help offset the economically weak and infrastructurally decaying innercity. Please don't tell you think PD has the ability to pay for the new Disraili.

Nope brought to you by the highly taxed people of Waverly West.

And the "highly taxed" people of Island Lakes, and the "highly taxed" people of Mandalay West, and the "highly taxed" people of Garden Grove, and the "highly taxed" people of south St. Vital, and the "highly taxed" people of Whyte Ridge, and the "highly taxed" people of.......

To suggest that a subdivision that barely exists is able to pay for a large highway is laughable. Aside from that, the Disraeli is going to serve people from the suburbs more than people in Point Douglas so yes, people in the suburbs should pay for it. It is being built to make their commutes easier.

Taxes collected in the new suburbs here are barely a third of the taxes many people and businesses downtown pay, and downtown dwellers in single detached homes are paying the same rates as those in the suburbs. But even though the average tax rate for a property in new suburbs is less than a third of the inner city (little to no mixed use zone properties), the city has to spend about $3,000,000 per year (that's 605 houses valued at $250,000) installing water and sewer lines, paving and repaving roads, installing sidewalks, curbs, street lighting, providing transit, building schools, amending zoning laws, providing emergency response, and so on, these suburbs aren't really turning a profit, are they? When completed, the privately owned portion of our waterfront development will provide almost $1,000,000 in additional revenue. That is 200 houses worth of tax money. That is 75 houses more than we build each year! And that is infill.

Originally Posted by newflyer

Of course many would suggest large scale redevelopment of the inner city would be a much more eficient alternative to house the growing population and wealth of our city and I would tend to agree. I think creating an innercity occupied by the middle and upper middle income people would allow those areas to generate the nessesary tax revenue to maintain its crumbling infrastructure as well as lower other city service costs such as emergency services.

It doesn't have much to do with income of the people living there, it has to do with the value of the properties. Taken as a whole, the properties in the two square kilometres of downtown Fort William are more valuable than the properties (including a power plant and one of North America's largest paper mills) in the 25 square kilometres of Westfort!

The solution to crumbling infrastructure is not to build more and extensive infrastructure to subsidize revenue to subsidize crumbing infrastructure!

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by vid

[CODE]

And the "highly taxed" people of Island Lakes, and the "highly taxed" people of Mandalay West, and the "highly taxed" people of Garden Grove, and the "highly taxed" people of south St. Vital, and the "highly taxed" people of Whyte Ridge, and the "highly taxed" people of.......

I should have said paid for by areas like WW (including Island Lakes and the like). Adding a massive high tax suburb as a means to subsidize inner city decaying roads, watermains, schools, other public facilities and very high levels of city services such as police, fire, EMS and transit.

... and yes the high valued properties in the suburbs so carry the lions share, whether you like it or not. PERIOD. Inner city communities which are desparate for subsidized funding to keep them running realize huge benefits from areas like WW. Infact was the major factor which lead to the unicty act. Winnipeg's drive to gain the wealthy suburban tax base, not the other way around.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject is obvious.

As I have mentioned before .. if it weren't for the unicity act, which brought in huge tax benefit to the city of Winnipeg, inner city would be forced to change instead of the status quo. I often wonder how dramatically different Greater Winnipeg would be if it were't for the suburban subsidization of the inner city.

The management of certain parts of the inner city needs to change. The status quo is no longer acceptable. Taxes in the inner city should reflect the level of city services.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Right.... Because it's the people of Point Douglas that use the Disraeli. I'm sure that they were stoked when they found out that a freeway would be bisecting their community..

it was a hudge fight back in the day and theres still some people that go off when that subject is brought up i have had some interesting discusions with them. i use that bridge least once a month......

and the bridge didn't devide the niebrhood much sept for south point douglas were it obliterated a huge swath... prity much it was throug beside a industrial gasification plant thats now centra gas's main facility for training and maintenance

[vid]

Originally Posted by newflyer

a massive high tax suburb

It isn't highly taxed. The houses (which in Thunder Bay are the second-lowest taxed, after farms) are simply worth more. The industrial and commercial properties downtown bring in more money per square kilometre. The suburbs have to be built to extremely large sizes before they bring in enough revenue to cover their operating costs and subsidize the inner city.

Originally Posted by newflyer

... and yes the high valued properties in the suburbs so carry the lions share, whether you like it or not. PERIOD.

I just explained how that isn't the case. We have a suburb that produces far less revenue per capita than the inner city. Its even true for the exurbs. South Neebing has 1,000 dwellings. All of them are either single detached homes or trailers. (And all of the trailers are in a trailer park beside the reserve.) The average value of a house there is $225,000. The tax revenue from all those houses therefore is about 5 million. (Considering that some houses are worth as much as $1,000,000 and they don't pay many taxes people in the city pay, like transit and sidewalk fees.) There is almost no industry in this area, and maybe 6 or 7 businesses, plus the jail.

Out of that 5 million dollars, how much goes to plowing roads every winter? (The average road is plowed 15 times a year and there are over 100kms of them in that area.) How much goes to providing police, fire and EMS services to them? (They depend on another neighbourhoods firestation, so travel costs for the equipment is very high. Fire hydrants were recently installed throughout the area.) Water infrastructure recently received millions of dollars in capital investment in that area to stretch our water servicing area into that neighbourhood. This including about 20 kilometres of water and sewer mains, an underground reservoir, and improvements to the city's water treatment plant so that it is powerful enough to get water out that far. (It would have only needed 75% of its current capacity if we didn't stretch the water service area.) We had to build a water treatment plant that could more than easily handle the demands of a city the size of Victoria!

And how many people use this neighbourhood? It's just a bedroom community. No one goes there, they just drive through on the provincial highway (not a city responsibility). Downtown on the other hand hosts more than 2,500 people from around the city, which supports local businesses. Because so many people use it, spending money to make it look attractive is something to which everyone should contribute. Beautifying a street in South Neebing, on the other hand, only benefits the people living on that street. Few people from outside of the neighbourhood see it.

Originally Posted by newflyer

Inner city communities which are desparate for subsidized funding to keep them running realize huge benefits from areas like WW. Infact was the major factor which lead to the unicty act. Winnipeg's drive to gain the wealthy suburban tax base, not the other way around.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject is obvious.

If we didn't spend so much money spreading out the road, water, sewer, transit, police, fire, EMS, education, and other networks, we could have invested that money on the parts of the city that exist. Instead, we are "paying for future revenue" that doesn't quite deliver. At the very least, the private companies building all these suburbs could pay for the capital costs to build this infrastructure out of their own pockets instead of taking it out of ours. If the city isn't the one subdividing this land and selling the lots and hiring contractors to build the houses, it shouldn't be the one paying the capital costs for the utilities and services going to them. Their tax dollars can maintain them, but their tax dollars can't pay for their construction. (Unless we charge back taxes for years before the house was built.) In that respect, suburbs are probably subsidizing nearby suburbs as well. The people in Sherwood Estates Phase 4 no doubt paid for the city to install utilities along the dirt roads that will later this year become Sherwood Estates Phase 5. The residents of phase 5 couldn't have done it themselves--they haven't moved in yet!

Originally Posted by newflyer

As I have mentioned before .. if it weren't for the unicity act, which brought in huge tax benefit to the city of Winnipeg, inner city would be forced to change instead of the status quo. I often wonder how dramatically different Greater Winnipeg would be if it were't for the suburban subsidization of the inner city.

Thunder Bay's suburbs were forced on it. Surrounding communities built houses at a high density without providing services, and as a result we had neighbourhoods with ditches full of human waste lining the streets. The city has spent millions every year bringing these areas up to standards. The 30 million dollars to be spent on improving Golf Links Road next year will wipe out any tax revenue from the River Terrace subdivisions along that route. The part of the street in 55 year old Port Arthur subdivisions will allow additional high density developments in an already medium-high density neighbourhood. That stretch will pay for itself within a couple years. It will take at least 4 years for River Terrace to pay for its part of the road.

Regardless of amalgamation, suburbs shouldn't have been built. We should have focused on the cities we had, not the "cities" we could build around the cities we had.

Originally Posted by newflyer

The management of certain parts of the inner city needs to change. The status quo is no longer acceptable. Taxes in the inner city should reflect the level of city services.

The bus goes by my apartment every 30 minutes. That bus has an average of 35 people per run in mid day.

The bus goes by the western edge of town every 30 minutes. That bus has an average of 5 people per run in mid day.

Who should be doing what now? The inner city bus routes subsidize the suburban ones. Route 3 Memorial actually generates income! It recovers its costs! (7 Hudson loses it.)

[newflyer]

Obviously Thunder Bay and Winnipeg are not the same. I do not know enough about Thunder Bay to comment, but I can assure you the number of emergency calls to the Winnipeg innercity if FAR beyond the equivalent population in south suburbia. The levels of road repair in the inner city is FAR beyond those in suburbia. The government money used to promote the inner city is FAR beyond the inner city. The level of bus service in the inner city is FAR beyond that of suburbia.

Stange thing though is the level of residential taxes in the suburbia is FAR beyond in the innercity.

With that said I am still a huge believer and supporter of the inner city. I lived in downtown Winnipeg for 6 years and did much of my shopping in the downtown area. I embrace the revival of the inner city, but I am not blind to reality. You only have to go to the city tax assessment site to see the level of taxes paid of properties. You only have to goto the city crime site to see the levels of crime in various areas. You only need to goto Winnipeg Transit to see the various city bus routes. You only need to goto the city road constrction site to witness the level of required maintainance in various areas. You can't BS me and you are really just wasting your time if you think otherwise.

You might think those homes in decaying areas which pay 500 to 800 in taxes are somehow are subsidizing those areas paying 10X as much but you would be dead wrong. I understand it is important to your belief in some urban falacy that things were different, but if you do your homework you'll find out the reaility. Sorry.

[newflyer]

If you do the math .... when WW is finished it will contain ~20,000 homes.

If those homes pay an conservative average of $5000 per home that comes out to 100 Million a year. This does not include the planned commercial and midrise residential, which will also pay a pretty penny to be in the high value suburb.

Thats $100,000,000, each and every year. Not including school board taxes.

Waverly West will contribute 100 MILLION DOLLARS + likely adjustments for inflation and increasing property values over time. At that rate it should have brand new new roads every few years, no? In ten years that comes to over a BILLION DOLLARS. It is no wonder why this area will be serviced with a new 30 million dollar interchange.

Sorry to blow up your incredibly ridiculous assumptions, but it just needed to be pointed out.

Wow.. when I put real numbers to it makes me pause in awe. I wonder how dissatisfied residents of that area would be if they only knew the truth. If WW were an independant town/city it would overflowing with cash.

[1ajs]

newflyer is't 5k a year tax what they would pay intotal with school and city tax?

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

newflyer is't 5k a year tax what they would pay intotal with school and city tax?

Well these properties haven't been assessed yet to my knowledge, but other half million dollar homes in Winnipeg pay well over 5000 in city taxes, before school board taxes.

[1ajs]

wha?
jesus!

u ould pay me to live in those houses though i'd rather fix up a 100yr old home first

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

wha?
jesus!

u ould pay me to live in those houses though i'd rather fix up a 100yr old home first

Oh sure, but could you make an arguement for gold plated bus stops?

Hmmm, well that probibly wouldn't be the best idea. Stripped down bus stops might not be estetically unappealing. Let us have alluminum.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by newflyer

If you do the math .... when WW is finished it will contain ~20,000 homes.

If those homes pay an conservative average of $5000 per home that comes out to 100 Million a year. This does not include the planned commercial and midrise residential, which will also pay a pretty penny to be in the high value suburb.

Thats $100,000,000, each and every year. Not including school board taxes.

Waverly West will contribute 100 MILLION DOLLARS + likely adjustments for inflation and increasing property values over time. At that rate it should have brand new new roads every few years, no? In ten years that comes to over a BILLION DOLLARS. It is no wonder why this area will be serviced with a new 30 million dollar interchange.

Sorry to blow up your incredibly ridiculous assumptions, but it just needed to be pointed out.

Wow.. when I put real numbers to it makes me pause in awe. I wonder how dissatisfied residents of that area would be if they only knew the truth. If WW were an independant town/city it would overflowing with cash.

So, right off the bat, Waverly West upon completion is going to have close to 12000 homes, not 20000...

As for these numbers that you seemingly pulled out of thin air, why don't you take a look at the Waverly West Financial Analysis provided by the City. By the city's own estimation (and obviously they are going to try and paint a rosy picture in order to justify the development), Waverly West's costs will outstrip its revenues in 40 years. If the City's own report shows that this suburb will eventually lose money, then what do you think will actually happen?

http://www.winnipeg.ca/interhom/Wave...alAnalysis.pdf

By the looks of this report, the city stands to make little or no long term revenue from Waverly West. A far cry from the 100 million a year that you were proposing.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Oh sure, but could you make an arguement for gold plated bus stops?

Hmmm, well that probibly wouldn't be the best idea. Stripped down bus stops might not be estetically unappealing. Let us have alluminum.

what does that have to do with not wanting to live in a house built from chipboard

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Bdog

So, right off the bat, Waverly West upon completion is going to have close to 12000 homes, not 20000...

As for these numbers that you seemingly pulled out of thin air, why don't you take a look at the Waverly West Financial Analysis provided by the City. By the city's own estimation (and obviously they are going to try and paint a rosy picture in order to justify the development), Waverly West's costs will outstrip its revenues in 40 years. If the City's own report shows that this suburb will eventually lose money, then what do you think will actually happen?

http://www.winnipeg.ca/interhom/Wave...alAnalysis.pdf

By the looks of this report, the city stands to make little or no long term revenue from Waverly West. A far cry from the 100 million a year that you were proposing.

Thanks for providing the report. Based on this 2004 study you have provided WW will only have 7500 single family homes. Plus 4000 multi-family dwellings.

It is obvious you don't know the first thing about accounting, so allow me to enlighten, there is a massive difference between revenue and income. With that said I did assume the number of single family homes is much higher, but my revenue per home still seems to be very reasonable compared to the report. I am not pretending to be an expert on WW, just made the simple calculation on a round number.

Using the 7500 homes in the report the numbers would be about a third of the ammount, adjusted for 6 years of inflation. This is not the point. The point is homes which genrate 5000 or 6000 a year add much more than those which generate 500 or 600. Especially when those low tax homes strain city services due to decaying infrastructure and high crime.

This report also makes many incorrect assumptions, such as the city would fund major roadway extensions alone, which is not the case at all. Infact the province and the feds will be funding the majority of the Bishop Grandin and Rte 90 extensions and enhancements, which was announced last summer. Its hard to take a estimate report serious without finalized plans.

Alas as someone who reads similar financial reports for a living, I can assure you they rarely hold water beyond a year or two. Surprised by this? I can assure you the city has updated these numbers since 2004 at least 2, maybe 3 times with updated numbers and more realistic assumptions. What was on the table in 2004 is not what is on the table today.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

what does that have to do with not wanting to live in a house built from chipboard

LOL ... I was not being serious, only making a joke. As if someone would perfer to live in an area with rediculous taxes because they could have gold plated bus stops, only to find them stripped down by theives.

[grumpy old man]

Originally Posted by Bdog

So, right off the bat, Waverly West upon completion is going to have close to 12000 homes, not 20000...

As for these numbers that you seemingly pulled out of thin air, why don't you take a look at the Waverly West Financial Analysis provided by the City. By the city's own estimation (and obviously they are going to try and paint a rosy picture in order to justify the development), Waverly West's costs will outstrip its revenues in 40 years. If the City's own report shows that this suburb will eventually lose money, then what do you think will actually happen?

http://www.winnipeg.ca/interhom/Wave...alAnalysis.pdf

By the looks of this report, the city stands to make little or no long term revenue from Waverly West. A far cry from the 100 million a year that you were proposing.

You are looking at such numbers in a vacuum. No matter where houses are built there is a real cost to the city. WW is no different. Then there is the long term cost of infrastructure deterioration. The costs of every neighborhood will rise as the infrastructure ages.

Indeed the older areas of the city today are facing those problems. There are dozens and dozens of posts in this space attesting to just that.

[grumpy old man]

@ Vid. You ever spent any time in Winnipeg? Come spend some time here and research the subject. Winnipeg is not Thunder Bay. For perspective, the population of Winnipeg 100 years ago is roughly the same as Thunder Bay today...