2010 civic election wpg

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

...our TIPP went from $169 to $221," said Ken Thoroski, who lives in St. Vital.

Problem is their tax bill was too low before, and now it's been adjusted to current market values. They had plenty of time to appeal their assessment up to now. My TIPP is going up slightly out here in Westdale, but not nearly as much since it was already a lot higher than theirs, and it will still be lower than when we bought our house here 4 years ago.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

i am sold on the helicoper idea.... after spending the last 9 months listening to the online scanner the ampunt of times they have lost people is in the 100's least once a day if not more someone gets away with somthing cause the cops have to abort

You should use that scanner to personally respond to calls just like Chuck Bronson did in Death Wish 2.

How cool would that be if you arrived at the scene of a crime in that Volkswagan of yours, fully equipped with black balaclava and tire iron, and then proceeded to deal out justice?

[Jets4Life]

I plan on voting on anyone besides Katz. Hopefully someone with vision for our city will step to the plate and defeat him.

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I plan on voting on anyone besides Katz. Hopefully someone with vision for our city will step to the plate and defeat him.

Yup. I'd say a lack of vision is one of Katz's biggest shortcomings. Well, maybe I'm a bit off there... he has lots of vision for the suburbs. I thought it quite telling of Sammy's leanings that Waverly West is getting $50M + in the 2010 capital budget. Goofy priorities.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

Yup. I'd say a lack of vision is one of Katz's biggest shortcomings. Well, maybe I'm a bit off there... he has lots of vision for the suburbs. I thought it quite telling of Sammy's leanings that Waverly West is getting $50M + in the 2010 capital budget. Goofy priorities.

So it surprises you that Waverly West will have roads? I figure since those new homes will be paying $6000+ in property taxes they deserve roads.

It was Glen Murray's great vision which has lead us to Waverley West, or did you forget that little point. Glen Murray will go down as Mr. Suburban Sprawl.

[DowntownWpg]

I don't see Murray's name anywhere on the 2010 capital budget. Which is a minor point, however, as Katz has had ample opportunity to reverse or scale back Waverly West. It is on him now, and has been for quite some time.

Being Mayor means making hard choices sometimes. Certainly don't have to continue a process started by the one in the chair before you, which includes WW. Beware the politician that can't take responsibility for his decisions (or lack of decisions).

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

I don't see Murray's name anywhere on the 2010 capital budget. Which is a minor point, however, as Katz has had ample opportunity to reverse or scale back Waverly West. It is on him now, and has been for quite some time.

Being Mayor means making hard choices sometimes. Certainly don't have to continue a process started by the one in the chair before you, which includes WW. Beware the politician that can't take responsibility for his decisions (or lack of decisions).

This is not kindergarden. Waverly West was signed off by Murray and the NDP. The developers had every legal right to develop that land at that point and the city is obligated to build infrastructure. Not sure if you respect contracts, but trying to back out after the fact would have only damaged the city's image in the eyes of developers. It would have also done little to change things as the province was/is still very much in favour of the development and the city can't unilaterally change anything. Every move the city makes needs to be signed off by the province. The city had its chance and Murray signed this development into being.

15 years from now there will be something like 25,000 people living in Glen Murray Village and you'll probibly still be looking for someone else to blame. Typical.
All I can say is Toronto get ready for a whole bunch of nothing.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Not sure if you respect contracts, but trying to back out after the fact would have only damaged the city's image in the eyes of developers.

You mean like when Katz cancelled rapid transit...?

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Bdog

You mean like when Katz cancelled rapid transit...?

There was no contracts, because there was nothing cancelled, Murray didn't get anywhere... it was just some fantasy created by Murray, not based on facts. Errr yeah I mean, yuppers Katz cancelled the 50 million dollar magic bus, no plan, no contract, no facts, no corridor, no arrangement for rail land, no purchase of needed private land, no design .. just tons of vague concepts and meaningless promises, by a guy who couldn't deliver anything. Just imagine how magical it would have been ... hell we'd all be floating in the air on the magic dream world of Glen Murray if it weren't for Katz and ohhhh yeah a really big case of REALITY.
Get off the pipe there bud .. this dillusional state is unhealthy.

Come back to reality ... the first phase of the REAL rapid transit system cost in excess of 330 million. OVER 6 Times as much as Clown Shoes Murray said it would cost to build.

FYI .. the following year Katz invested over 60M in Winnipeg Transit.. new air conditioned busses, new bus stops and GPS tracking system for the whole city, which includes digital displays at various stops. There will be many new digital displays added this year, including a few more downtown.

[DowntownWpg]

I would imagine though, that the prov wouldn't force such a thing on the city if the city wants to get out of it. Doing so would be unusual, and would no doubt would be a mess as it plays out in public. It is a given, just like how the Governor General will prorogue parliament at the "request" of the PM. And, ss Trueviking wrote recently on another thread, no way the city makes money from WW, so sprawl aside, seems like a reasonable and fiscally responsible decision to make - backing out of WW, or at least scaling it back so no party is left totally screwed.

Newflyer, as for some of your references to Murray (and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting) but let me be clear that I was not a Murray supporter either. There were some aspects of the Murray administration that I thought was better than Katz's administration, and vice versa. I never voted for either of them, however.

[1ajs]

i worked for murrys campain maniger(former owner of borelis books) and murry sure burnt alot of bridges when he left alot of people were left scraching their heads why he also left some debts...... towards the end he went all silly and stupid it was so weird.... but befor all that crap with main st being riped up he was a good mayor

[vid]

Originally Posted by newflyer

So it surprises you that Waverly West will have roads? I figure since those new homes will be paying $6000+ in property taxes they deserve roads.

It was Glen Murray's great vision which has lead us to Waverley West, or did you forget that little point. Glen Murray will go down as Mr. Suburban Sprawl.

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.

[SHOFEAR]

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.

You should learn who typically pays for what when it comes to developing neighbourhoods.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by vid

Let the developers build the roads with their own money if they're so excited about contributing to urban sprawl.

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

[Bdog]

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.

I agree with Vid...Why shouldn't developers be required to pay some of the upfront costs of infrastructure? In cities like Toronto (which doesn't have near the level of sprawl as other similar sized north american cities), development charges in new areas help pay for a variety capital costs including roads, recreation facitilities, police/fire facilities, and other infrastructure....

http://www.toronto.ca/finance/dev_charges.htm

Many other cities use DCs as well, in order to limit sprawl, increase density, and help pass on the true costs of sprawl to residents who live there (ie: DCs will be passed on to the consumer, in the form of higher housing prices - If the developer cannot pass on these costs and thus not make a profit, they will not develop the land, simple as that)...

Does anyone know if there are DCs in Manitoba?

[rrskylar]

Have any of the promises been followed through with WW? geothermal- NO, improved roadways- NO, green homes-NO, land sale dollars to fund redevelopment elsewhere-NO.....

[grumpy old man]

Originally Posted by Riverman

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

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.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by Riverman

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

As long as there's population growth there will always be a home building industry.

The real problem here is good public policy, or lack thereof.

Things like legislating an urban green belt, the removal of rent controls, and the creation of government sponsored financial incentives for home owners to live in older established neighbourhoods are all things that will work to create a more diverse, vibrant, and sustainable Winnipeg.

Then there's things like creating a fully functioning rapid transit network, and breaking up the Unicity/Duffy's duopoly on travelling by cab in this town and you might be surprised at how easy it is to function without an automobile.

Most Winnipeggers don't know it yet, but they secretly crave higher density living. Rising home prices in areas like Osborne/Corydon and Wolseley are all indicators to me at least that there is strong demand for a more pedestrian friendly city.

Home builders have just never given us the choice.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by grumpy old man

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.

Well not really. The developers can shell out the money to have the infrastructure built but they won't eat the cost, it will be added to the price of the house. Much easier to buy a house and pay for the infrastructure on the taxes than to lay all the money out up front. That is most likely why it is the way it is.

[grumpy old man]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Well not really. The developers can shell out the money to have the infrastructure built but they won't eat the cost, it will be added to the price of the house. Much easier to buy a house and pay for the infrastructure on the taxes than to lay all the money out up front. That is most likely why it is the way it is.

Well, yes really. It's the cost of doing business. And of course the cost is passed on to the home buyer. All costs tend to get passed on to the buyer...

It's likely done the way it is because the city has not changed it's practices. Maybe due to a misplaced fear that developers will pass on Winnipeg. Probably because of too many years of stagnant growth.