The Official Moncton, NB Project Thread [Archive] - Page 100

michael_d40

Feb 4, 2012, 3:10 PM

Well, I said that moving into the East Main Street Zellers location would be the simplest solution, not the most ideal solution. I have absolutely no inside knowledge as to what is actually going on here.

- the Northwest Centre Zellers is going to be converted to a Target.
- the fate of the East Main Street Zellers at the Superstore Mall is uncertain. While some Zellers locations may stay open as is, the fate of the chain is pretty much sealed and the only Zellers that won't be converted to Target or shuttered will probably be in small town markets. I therefore have no confidence that the East Main Street store will stay open in any event.
- The Bay has to vacate Highfield Square by the end of September because their lease was terminated. They apparently now want to remain in the Moncton market, but there are very few options for them in terms of relocation. The only "real" mall left in the city is Champlain Place and there is no suitable space available in the mall for them to move into. The Wal-Mart or Sobeys spaces at the mall might be a consideration, but this would entail displacing a long term tenant (that may not want to move) and major renovations.

It would seem the only readily available space would be the East Main Street Zellers. I absolutely agree that this is not ideal, both in terms of square footage and location, but perhaps the Bay would consider moving here as an intermediate term temporary solution (several years), while the retail situation in the metro area sorts itself out.

Key questions:
- will Wal-Mart vacate Champlain for a new Supercentre location (unlikely).
- will Sobeys vacate Champlain in favour of a new neighbourhood grocery store in the Uptown Dieppe/Harrisville area. (in either of these two scenarios, the Bay could renovate and then occupy the Wal-Mart or Sobeys spaces).
- could a new downtown development including an events centre incorporate enough space for a new standalone Bay department store in the core.
- would the Bay consider investing money in the East Main Street Zellers location to make the site a permanent home for the Bay.

The next few years will be quite interesting on the retail front.

HBC's Home Outfitters would be a nice fit for the Zellers location at Superstore Mall. Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised they aren't in the Moncton market yet.

mmmatt

Feb 4, 2012, 5:17 PM

HBC's Home Outfitters would be a nice fit for the Zellers location at Superstore Mall. Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised they aren't in the Moncton market yet.

Home Outfitters is very similar to Sears Home which we have had for years...Linen Chest which just opened recently and Bed Bath & Beyond which is rumoured for this summer...I think they may be scared of over saturation of the market at this point, but I could see them here in 10 years.

pierremoncton

Feb 5, 2012, 2:22 AM

The fact that the NB Gov is actually paying attention and are discussing possibly adopting a system similar to NS' incentive program = good news for the IT Sector (after hearing about call centers starting to shut down all over the province).
[/I][/COLOR]

As a web developer, I also realize that there are challenges at the moment, but that's probably mostly from competing cheap labour abroad and from the fragile US economy. Personally, I disagree with these incentives. All it does is put the burden onto other taxpayers. It's not right. Tax dollars should go to essentials: health care, education, law & roads. Nobody should be subsidizing my salary in the private industry, and my opinion wouldn't change even if I were at risk of losing my job. Realistically, a 30-40% rebate would be useless anyway when you're competing with Indian wages, and it also wouldn't fix the American economy (no demand = no work). There are already subsidies through R&D and other kinds of claims, some of which I think are bogus as well. Loopholes are abused. Loans and limited grants: sure. But if an industry needs to be propped up, we should let it die instead -- and that's especially true for call centres, which are hell holes: soul-sucking work, adults being treated like objects, and low wages from which little income tax is paid.

riverviewer

Feb 5, 2012, 2:25 PM

Not all Call Centers are hell-holes. Though I suspect you can find examples of horrid employers in any industry.

Some call centers, like the 911 center, or Tele-nurse, provide essential services. Many "contact centers" in Moncton also support administrative work. This is quite different than the "beep in your ear - how may I be yelled at" experience you may be imagining. Many good call center with hard calls are staffed appropriately to allow time between those calls for some heavenly moments with co-workers.

The work might be stressful at times due to ignorant customers, but the job itself can be rewarding for those that choose the work.

Call centers were the back-bone of the "Moncton Miracle" "so I think they deserve a little respect on our development forum.

RaginRonic

Feb 5, 2012, 6:43 PM

(This thread is for both Moncton and Saint John, so it is cross-posted)

For a long time, I've been thinking about a comparison between Moncton and Saint John, and now it's time for me to share my thoughts on the 2 cities.

Saint John used to, at one time, be the economic heart of N.B., with Moncton being an also ran. However, that has changed completely.

Why has it changed? Well, it's a few things, really.

1. Saint John placed all it's chips into heavy industry too much, and is now paying for it, with a shrinking population base and declining tax base. Moncton adapted with the times, threw it's chips into various industries, and is staying afloat pretty good.

2. Saint John is only now beginning to deal with it's pollution situation, many years too late to be relevant on the grander scale of things like coastal cleanliness and breathability. Moncton always has dealt with it's pollution issues, and is a pretty clean city.

And 3. Social attitudes in the City of Saint John tend to be way, WAY too pessimistic. It includes things like a severely fractured population, who allowed the more negative people to take control of the city, which include, sadly, the 5 'priority' neighborhoods, where the negatives in those areas figure that things are fine the way they are, because they say so. That attitude can, and has, cost some families dearly, through mental abuse and property loss.

And it has also led to too much drug use in them, with those people trying to run off cops from those neighborhoods, and the negative residents behaving like vigilantes illegally, where they use that bully stance to keep the status quo, which is really hurting the city.

Moncton is a city where people have a more pleasant outlook on life, and that has translated into the greatest advances that any city it's size can attest to. Moncton had both a water filtration plant and sewage treatment system in place, has more relevant construction happening in that city as well. The positivity has also resulted in Moncton gaining, over time, a full outdoor waterpark and indoor amusement park, as well as a greater flexibility in retail stores that is more spread out than in Saint John.

The people of Moncton, largely, seem like they also are busier with their time than those in the Port City are, with more money flowing around Moncton, and people in the Hub City not falling into so much despair.

Frankly, Saint John needs to break out of it's funk. I'm sorry to say that, if it does not, Saint John's economy may collapse within the next 20 years. And the claim that things aren't that bad in Saint John, is deceptive.

And if it means that the negative people have to be thrown out of Saint John, and start their lives elsewhere, so be it.

While the Saint John Sea Dogs did win the Maritimes' 1st ever QMJHL Presidents' and CHL Memorial Cups last year, and broke the Maritime 'glass ceiling' with those leagues, and is to be congratulated for that, I'm sorry to say that, eventually, that will just have been a litmus test to have Moncton become the hockey power in N.B., with the Sea Dogs likely fading from impactful relevancy in the QMJHL and CHL. Moncton will eventually take the torch from Saint John, especially when Moncton gets it's new arena.

In closing, Saint John needs to take a real hard look at itself in the mirror, cut the sad-sack mentality that is hiding behind a really seedy underbelly there, pull itself up, and maybe ask for help from Moncton on how to heal itself. Otherwise, Moncton may be the last man standing in the competition between the 2 cities, with Saint John becoming an unliveable city.

Thanks for reading this.

Sushi Guy

Feb 6, 2012, 5:17 PM

:previous:

Why are you being so hard on yourself RaginRonic? Moncton and Saint John are two very different cities (IMO). They both have their Pros & Cons. Yes, Moncton is a vibrant city that grew a lot in the past 20 years. However, I don’t totally agree on the way that Moncton is growing…too much sprawling, focusing on a “car culture” life-style with an awful transit system. Don’t get me wrong, I like that Moncton is getting more and more outside businesses, improving in diversification and multiculturalism.

Nonetheless, I still think that we have a long way to got to have “a real Downtown” with a downtown atmosphere!! (I’m still optimistic:)). At least Saint John has a downtown with life, historical buildings, nice market connected to a downtown shopping center. Being a Port City, you receive flocks of tourist with all those cruise ships docking downtown; major development is on the way for the waterfront.

On the environmental side, you said that Moncton is better – Did you heard about the Peticodiac River? That causeway fiasco labelled our river as one of the worst one in Canada. Also did you know that half of downtown Moncton is built on old landfills? That’s one of the reasons why we can’t build big structures in some area; digging too much would reveal all the contaminated junk that is under there…Let’s just cover everything with asphalt and make parking lots or baseball fields!!!!

BlackYear

Feb 6, 2012, 6:46 PM

Also did you know that half of downtown Moncton is built on old landfills? That’s one of the reasons why we can’t build big structures in some area; digging too much would reveal all the contaminated junk that is under there…Let’s just cover everything with asphalt and make parking lots or baseball fields!!!!

Sorry Sushi, you're way off on that one. The old Moncton landfill is between West Main traffic circle and Vaughn-Harvey blvd. and south of the rail tracks a long the river.

The only development on top of this landfill is a walking trail.

None of downtown Moncton or Moncton in general is built on any landfill. The historic photos will confirm this.

Sushi Guy

Feb 6, 2012, 7:42 PM

Sorry Sushi, you're way off on that one. The old Moncton landfill is between West Main traffic circle and Vaughn-Harvey blvd. and south of the rail tracks a long the river.

The only development on top of this landfill is a walking trail.

None of downtown Moncton or Moncton in general is built on any landfill. The historic photos will confirm this.

Yeah! maybe I'm wrong about the old lanfill location....:shrug:

jimmyboy67

Feb 6, 2012, 8:03 PM

I just did a quick prescreen interview for UPS for a driver position. The starting wage is $13/hr, but your training for 7 days is paid at minimum wage. After 3 years, your wage is at regular rate of $27/hr.

MonctonRad

Feb 6, 2012, 8:05 PM

None of downtown Moncton or Moncton in general is built on any landfill. The historic photos will confirm this.

True, but it is also true that the vast majority of the lands south of Main Street used to be used for industrial/warehousing purposes back in the days when Moncton had an actual waterfront (complete with docks). There also used to be a railway spur that went all along the riverfront between Main and Assomption.

As such, there is no telling what type of toxic brew is down there waiting to be dug up. This could certainly be a barrier to development. Another problem would be that the closer you get to the river, the greater the concern would be for soil stability. This would limit the ability to build tall and to put in underground parking.

Don't get me wrong, it can be done (Blue Cross is pretty close to the river and is nine stories tall with a large underground garage), but this might increase the cost of any development.

MonctonRad

Feb 7, 2012, 3:39 AM

A few screen captures I took tonight from the TV broadcast of Moncton City Council deliberations showing the plans for the north section of Royal Oaks (to the north of the golf course), showing where the new high school will be located.

http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z411/MonctonRad/Snapbucket/Moncton%20Construction%202011/2486482d.jpg

http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z411/MonctonRad/Snapbucket/Moncton%20Construction%202011/425adf8d.jpg

http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z411/MonctonRad/Snapbucket/Moncton%20Construction%202011/fafb0407.jpg

The light coloured block of land in the centre of the development will be the site of the new high school. In the first image, there is a green coloured strip of land bounding the east part of the high school property. This will apparently be part of the city's trail network and will connect to the Irishtown Nature Park. The developer plans to have an "academic gateway" to the nature park leading directly off the school property.

NBNYer

Feb 7, 2012, 4:01 AM

:previous:

As if this development isn't far enough removed from the city, they're building even further north! They should have pushed west and connect to McLaughlin, as they originally planned.

There is a substantial amount of road to be built to actually get to the planned location for the school. This seams unnecessarily expensive, especially since phase one of Royal Oaks is not even completely built yet!

This is the kind of development that council should be trying to stop, definitely not encourage, as is the case here.

MonctonRad

Feb 7, 2012, 4:32 AM

:previous:

Absolutely, this is an example of the worst type of sprawl, without even the barest nod towards the concept of "infill". What is being proposed here is essentially a new "satellite community", completely discontiguous with the remainder of the city!! :hell:

I also am appalled that there will be no connection through to MacLaughlin Road. This means that the entire traffic burden from this new community will be born by Elmwood Drive. :koko:

RyeJay

Feb 7, 2012, 4:58 AM

I've read the basic details regarding the location and development of this school. Others have expressed frustration over what this will cost the city now, and even more so for maintenance costs in the future.

My question is about the location: Who is benefiting from the placement of this school here? Please, let's not go into any hypotheticals about child pyschological benefits due to the students not being in an urban setting...while they sit in class. I want to know, money wise, who is benefiting from this development? Is it a method for encouraging more low-density residential?

First off, I am very doubtly of the existing demand in the housing market to develop more suburbia outside of Moncton.

Secondly, why are the municipal and provincial governments investing in more sprawl when the city cannot handle its current wide, low-density landscape? Why is this being done considering today's economics? Surely members of the government, and people living in Moncton, fully realise that the city cannot control gas prices -- anymore than the prices of building materials or even the prices of everything else.

mylesmalley

Feb 7, 2012, 5:00 AM

On the bright side, our nefarious plans to take over Irishtown are one step closer to fruition.

But man...next they're going to be demanding a police station, elementary school and firehall up there because of how 'completely unfair it is that all that stuff is so far away!'.

Hell, if you're going to build it that far, you might as well go all the way to Cocagne so the high school can have an ocean view!

MonctonRad

Feb 7, 2012, 2:39 PM

:previous:

I imagine that you are right about an elementary school. As far as "neighbouhood" schools are concerned, I would think most parents would be more concerned about living near a K-8 school than a high school. If this development takes off and 4-5,000 people end up living out there, I'm sure a K-8 school will surely follow within the next 10-15 years.

The city is already planning to relocate the McLaughlin Road fire station to Elmwood near the TCH anyway. This actually makes sense though in terms of ease of access and proximity to the Caledonia Industrial Park.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ths most offensive thing about this entire project as far as I'm concerned is that, in the immortal words of Councillor Pierre Boudreau, this has been presented to the city as a fait accompli and there is absolutely nothing the city can do about it! :hell:

The province has already signed the agreement with Romspen to build the school. This is a legally binding contract. The site has already been chosen. The city is powerless to change this. The province can override any zoning restrictions that the city may want to institute at will. We forget that municipalities are "creatures" of the province and therefore only exist at the pleasure of the province.

An implicit threat has been made by the province that the city is expected to go along with this decision. In return for civic cooperation, the province will help out with infrastructure improvements to aid in this development. If the city fails to cooperate, then the province has apparently suggested that it in turn might not be so forthcoming with support for projects that the city is interested in.

This might explain why the province has suddenly withheld the $1M contribution to the Transportation Discovery Centre at the Moncton Museum. Certainly civic disobedience wojld imperil the downtown events centre as well. I imagine that city council is aware of the importance of these issues and is equally aware of their impotence in making any changes to the agreement between the province and Romspen.

The decision has already been made.....

mylesmalley

Feb 7, 2012, 3:42 PM

I've never actually been through the golf course component of Royal Oaks, so hopefully someone can enlighten me. What's up with the forest in the middle of the course? It doesn't seem to matter what time of year a photo is taken; the place always looks dead.

Also a bit inexplicable...why is there no connection to MacLaughlin Road? It would be barely a kilometre further back from the fastest end of that new monstrosity but would take a hell of a lot of pressure off of Elmwood.

NBNYer

Feb 7, 2012, 3:56 PM

Also a bit inexplicable...why is there no connection to MacLaughlin Road? It would be barely a kilometre further back from the fastest end of that new monstrosity but would take a hell of a lot of pressure off of Elmwood.

Who knows?! traffic on Elmwood as well as other planing issues are obviously the least of concerns.

I would guess it is a land ownership/right-of-way issue.

MonctonRad

Feb 7, 2012, 5:07 PM

I've never actually been through the golf course component of Royal Oaks, so hopefully someone can enlighten me. What's up with the forest in the middle of the course? It doesn't seem to matter what time of year a photo is taken; the place always looks dead.

I believe the area that you are referring to is a bog. That explains why it always looks dead and brown in any aerial photos. It's because it is in fact dead and brown......

gehrhardt

Feb 7, 2012, 5:42 PM

I was reading on the CBC news site that Wal-Mart is planning on a $750M expansion in Canada this year. I wonder if that bodes well for the rumoured distribution centre in Scoudouc?

From the CBC News Website:

"Wal-Mart Canada will spend $750 million to add 4.6 million square feet of retail space and 14,000 jobs in Canada this year, a release said Tuesday.

The world's largest retailer plans to complete 73 expansion or renovation projects across Canada this year, which would make it Wal-Mart's busiest year on record in this country."

David_99

Feb 7, 2012, 6:45 PM

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3313/62523256.jpg

The red line on the left is McLaughlin, right? Are the two streets circled below that just dead ends?

MonctonRad

Feb 7, 2012, 9:09 PM

The red line on the left is McLaughlin, right? Are the two streets circled below that just dead ends?

Yep, your red line would indeed be McLaughlin. I doubt that the two circled streets would be dead ends, and probably are "stubs" that you often see in subdivisions for future interconnections to other developments.

Neither of these two streets however appear to be collector streets and thus would not be very efficient at moving traffic to McLaughlin.

There appears to be a similar "stub" projecting towards the west in the new northern part of the Royal Oaks subdivision too, but this likewise doesn't appear to be a collector street.

Dmajackson

Feb 7, 2012, 9:16 PM

David_99

Feb 7, 2012, 10:12 PM

The developer plans to have an "academic gateway" to the nature park leading directly off the school property.

Great. I can't wait to see the cans of pop, chip bags and "cigarette" butts in my future walks through Irishtown Park...

pierremoncton

Feb 8, 2012, 1:33 PM

2011 Census numbers are out.

Moncton: 69,074 (+7.7%)
Riverview: 19,128 (+7.3%)
Dieppe: 23,310 (+25.6%)
CMA: 138,644 (+9.7%)
NB: 751,171 (+2.9%)

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

mylesmalley

Feb 8, 2012, 1:38 PM

The Moncton CMA was the fastest growing CMA east of Saskatoon.

pierremoncton

Feb 8, 2012, 1:54 PM

The Moncton CMA was the fastest growing CMA east of Saskatoon.

And a couple more interesting notes (then back to work):

The CMA was the 5th-fastest growing overall (but is still in 29th place where it was in 2006):

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=205&SR=1&S=5&O=D&RPP=33

Saint John's population (70,063; +3.0%) is still higher than Moncton's.

JHikka

Feb 8, 2012, 2:11 PM

Saint John's population (70,063; +3.0%) is still higher than Moncton's.

Moncton's CMA is higher.

Moncton -> 138,664
Saint John -> 127,761

Nashe

Feb 8, 2012, 2:11 PM

That IS very impressive! 5th fastest growth overall.

Calgary: +12.6
Edmonton: +12.1
Saskatoon: +11.4
Kelowna: +10.8%
Moncton: +9.7%

MonctonRad

Feb 8, 2012, 2:17 PM

That IS very impressive! 5th fastest growth overall.

Calgary: +12.6
Edmonton: +12.1
Saskatoon: +11.4
Kelowna: +10.8%
Moncton: +9.7%

That is the sort of information that is very revealing to developers (Aquilini's) and retailers (Best Buy) looking for communities to invest in..... :tup:

ErickMontreal

Feb 8, 2012, 2:19 PM

Wow, I'm quite impressed how fast Moncton is growing and changing, especially Dieppe!

It seems that the Acadian peninsula is moving south !:)

Nashe

Feb 8, 2012, 2:21 PM

Wow, I'm quite impressed how fast Moncton is growing and changing, especially Dieppe!
It seems that Acadian peninsula is moving south !:)To a degree, I agree, but it seems NB isn't doing TOO bad overall either... though a lot of that might reflect Moncton CMA's climb...

Taeolas

Feb 8, 2012, 2:26 PM

NB's Big 3, and the southern part of the province in general seemed to see growth.

But I looked at the numbers for the rest of the Saint John River Valley (Woodstock and area in particular) and at best you could say they are stagnant. Woodstock region alone went from 13315 to 13761 (I added in the parishes around Woodstock, since they all feed into the town), which isn't really much growth at all. Then again, that number was hurt by the Richmond parish shrinking by 4%. (Strange; my parents live there and the part close to Woodstock is doing great. Debec must be evacuating with the school closure though). The overall Woodstock to Edmundston corridor seems pretty stagnant.

I don't have time to look at the Acadian/North East part of the province, but I suspect we'd see similar numbers.

mylesmalley

Feb 8, 2012, 2:30 PM

Technically correct is the worst kind of correct.

Technically, Mississauga is larger than Winnipeg AND Vancouver!

MonctonRad

Feb 8, 2012, 2:41 PM

Atlantic Canadian CMA's

Halifax - 390,328 (4.7% growth rate)
St. John's - 196,966 (8.8% growth rate)
Moncton - 138,644 (9.7% growth rate)
Saint John - 127,761 (4.4% growth rate)

Interesting that Halifax's growth rate is so similar to that of Saint John..... :)

Atlantic Canadian CA's

CBRM (Sydney) - 101,619 (-4.1% growth rate)
Fredericton - 94,268 (9.3% growth rate)
Charlottetown - 64,487 (8.7% growth rate)
Truro - 45,888 (1.8% growth rate)
New Glasgow - 35,809 (-1.3% growth rate)
Bathurst - 33,484 (-1.8% growth rate)
Miramichi - 28,115 (-2.3% growth rate)
Corner Brook - 27,202 (0.0% growth rate)
Kentville - 26,359 (1.5% growth rate)
Edmundston - 21,903 (-2.5% growth rate)
Campbellton - 17,842 (-0.2% growth rate)
Summerside - 16,488 (2.1% growth rate)
Grand Falls-Windsor - 13,725 (1.2% growth rate)
Bay Roberts - 10,871 (3.5% growth rate)

Top Five Fastest Growth Rates in the East

1- 9.7% (Moncton)
2- 9.3% (Fredericton)
3- 8.8% (St.John's)
4- 8.7% (Charlottetown)
5- 4.7% (Halifax)

mylesmalley

Feb 8, 2012, 2:54 PM

I'm actually really surprised by Halifax. I thought the general consensus was that they'd break 400k this census.

mylesmalley

Feb 8, 2012, 2:58 PM

If the growth trends continue as is at the next census:

Halifax: 408,673
Moncton: 152,092
Saint John: 133,382
St John's: 214,190

JHikka

Feb 8, 2012, 2:58 PM

I'm actually really surprised by Halifax. I thought the general consensus was that they'd break 400k this census.

The 2010 Census estimates over-rated everyone it seems. Halifax's big growth is going to occur for the 2016 and 2021 census', respectively. We're talking like 10% and higher growth.

MonctonRad

Feb 8, 2012, 3:44 PM

mmmatt

Feb 8, 2012, 4:48 PM

Atlantic Canada Population by Economic Region (Top 10):

Halifax (HRM) - 390,328
Avalon (St. John's) - 262,410
Moncton/Richibucto - 203,837
Saint John/St. Stephen - 172,764
Campbellton/Miramichi - 158,741
North Shore (NS) - 155,696
Prince Edward Island - 140,204
Cape Breton - 135,974
Fredericton/Oromocto - 135,467
Annapolis Valley - 123,649

this will make mmmatt's day, he was hoping to see the Moncton ER blow past the 200k barrier. :)

It does indeed!! Census day is always one of my favorites :)

To me the ER and Urban Area (now called population center) figures are the most important to a "city" and my idea of a city does not take into account the small creek between the new cibc on main, and the swiss chalet on champlain.

ER shows the greater area picture, those are the people who commute in to the city for work, play, shopping, and medical service.

POPCTR shows the urban built up area of a "city". The "core" if you will.

In 2011 we saw our ER pass 200,000 and our POPCTR fly past 100,000. Hopefully this will continue into the future!

I've updated my signature already...and while I had held a hope to place a little "1st" on all of those numbers (although I figured I wouldnt)...I can take solace in the fact that the census subdivision of Moncton now has a population density of 489.3 / sqkm in comparison to Saint Johns density of 221.8 / sqkm. :P

MonctonRad

Feb 8, 2012, 6:25 PM

:previous:

I knew that you would be happy mmmatt :haha:

I just updated Wikipedia with all the Moncton stats. :tup:

mylesmalley

Feb 8, 2012, 6:43 PM

Be curious to see what this does to the federal riding boundaries. Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe is 31% higher than the average population of a riding. My understanding is that you have to adjust boundaries if the number is +/- 10% of average. However both neighbouring ridings are right on target. Moncton needs to shed 16,000 people into Fundy Royal and Beausejour, but that would put both of those ridings into the over 10% category too.

mylesmalley

Feb 8, 2012, 9:04 PM

Also worth noting. In the last census, Nova Scotia's population was right around 25% higher than NB's. As of 2011, we've narrowed the gap to just over 22%.

I doubt it's realistic, but if we achieved the Population Growth Secretariat's goal of increasing our population to 850,000 by 2021, we'd be less than 10% apart. That'd be huge of the economy and for government coffers.

someone123

Feb 8, 2012, 9:23 PM

I'm actually really surprised by Halifax. I thought the general consensus was that they'd break 400k this census.

These are uncorrected raw census totals and are usually around 3% off (or more). The population estimates are probably more accurate for total counts but they don't come along with all the other data.

Not sure when they will release corrected data for 2011, but if you are interested in population counts you're better off just following the estimates year to year. Despite this fact I of course expect a steady stream of T&T articles pronouncing Moncton as the undisputed economic champion of Eastern Canada. :)

q12

Feb 8, 2012, 9:29 PM

Just need to clarify a few things regarding Halifax.I'm actually really surprised by Halifax. I thought the general consensus was that they'd break 400k this census.
Our population estimate is over 403K and is atleast 410k today.

If the growth trends continue as is at the next census:

Halifax: 408,673
Moncton: 152,092
Saint John: 133,382
St John's: 214,190

Halifax's growth trend will not be the same in the next census.

ER shows the greater area picture, those are the people who commute in to the city for work, play, shopping, and medical service.

If this is what ER is supose to show Halifax's ER would remove the far east of HRM and add in parts of Hants county and Lunenburg County. This would likely have our ER close to 450,000.

Also worth noting. In the last census, Nova Scotia's population was right around 25% higher than NB's. As of 2011, we've narrowed the gap to just over 22%.

I doubt it's realistic, but if we achieved the Population Growth Secretariat's goal of increasing our population to 850,000 by 2021, we'd be less than 10% apart. That'd be huge of the economy and for government coffers.

This is not going happen.

riverviewer

Feb 8, 2012, 9:38 PM

Love when Moncton gets positive headlines. And New Brunswick too!

"New Brunswick population growth jumps, census says" - National Post

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/08/new-brunswick-population-growth-jumps-census-says/

Jstaleness

Feb 8, 2012, 10:41 PM

Global National News decided to just cover the top 4 tonight. Would have been nice to have seen a top 5 which would have included Moncton.

MonctonRad

Feb 8, 2012, 10:44 PM

Just need to clarify a few things regarding Halifax.
Our population estimate is over 403K and is atleast 410k today.

Halifax's growth trend will not be the same in the next census.

If this is what ER is supose to show Halifax's ER would remove the far east of HRM and add in parts of Hants county and Lunenburg County. This would likely have our ER close to 450,000.

This is not going happen.

Nice to see some of the apologists from the Halifax forum dropping by. (I don't consider you an apologist JStaleness) :)

Yes, these are raw stats that may be revised in the upcoming months, but keep in mind that it would be highly unlikely that Halifax's population would be revised upwards by 20,000 people to 410k. I could see maybe 4-5k, but not 20k.

If the Halifax stats get revised, then so will the Moncton stats. There are estimates out there that Moncton is already past 140k. I can believe that.

In any event, StatsCan says that Halifax's growth rate is 4.7%. The Moncton growth rate is more than double this at 9.7%. To find a municipality with a growth rate higher than ours, you would have to travel as far west as Saskatoon. :D

Sorry q12.

mylesmalley

Feb 8, 2012, 10:44 PM

Global National News decided to just cover the top 4 tonight. Would have been nice to have seen a top 5 which would have included Moncton.

They probably just found it too hard to find a way to cram a fisherman or EI recipient into a news story about population growth in the East Coast.

Haliguy

Feb 8, 2012, 10:54 PM

Nice to see some of the apologists from the Halifax forum dropping by. (I don't mean you JStaleness) :)

Yes, these are raw stats that may be revised in the upcoming months, but keep in mind that it would be highly unlikely that Halifax's population would be revised upwards by 20,000 people to 410k. I could see maybe 4-5k, but not 20k.

If the Halifax stats get revised, then so will the Moncton stats. There are estimates out there that Moncton is already past 140k. I can believe that.

In any event, StatsCan says that Halifax's growth rate is 4.7%. The Moncton growth rate is more than double this at 9.7%. To find a municipality with a growth rate higher than ours, you would have to travel as far west as Saskatoon. :D

Sorry q12.

Congrats Moncton on your amazing growth rate. However it won't be the same next time as the migration of the Acadian population into Moncton slows down and as the Ship yard contract and offshore exploration picks up... Halifax is in for a major growth spurt. Oh yes and we will have a new mayor hopefully...haha

MonctonRad

Feb 8, 2012, 11:05 PM

Congrats Moncton on your amazing growth rate. However it won't be the same next time as the migration of the Acadian population into Moncton slows down and as the Ship yard contract and offshore exploration picks up... Halifax is in for a major growth spurt. Oh yes and we will have a new mayor hopefully...haha

No question that Halifax is primed for good times for the next 15-20 years, and that your growth rate will accelerate accordingly. I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't at 500k by 2025. :tup:

But don't underestimate Moncton. The growth in our community isn't just due to the Acadian exodus from the north. There was a study about 4-5 years ago showing that only 40% of the city's growth was attributable to this. People also move to the city from other places in southern NB as well as NS and PEI. I think about 15% of new arrivals to the city are from Ontario. In addition, we process about 500 immigrants from other countries at The Moncton Hospital each year for immigration chest x-rays.

By 2025, I predict Moncton will be about 165-170,000. :tup:

someone123

Feb 8, 2012, 11:17 PM

Yes, these are raw stats that may be revised in the upcoming months, but keep in mind that it would be highly unlikely that Halifax's population would be revised upwards by 20,000 people to 410k. I could see maybe 4-5k, but not 20k.

If the Halifax stats get revised, then so will the Moncton stats. There are estimates out there that Moncton is already past 140k. I can believe that.

The raw census numbers are way off the estimates for Halifax but are above what was expected for Moncton, and it's not necessarily a given that both cities will be corrected upward by the same amount.

Last census the average error between the corrected census figures and the population estimates for CMAs was only 0.51%. I don't know what the corrected numbers will be but it is not far-fetched to say that they will be similar to the estimates.

According to the estimates including what they showed for January 2011-January 2012 for the labour force characteristics, Moncton's growth rate has been right around 1.6% for several years and Halifax's growth rate has been around 1.3%.

PS - should I call you an "apologist" too the next time you post in the Halifax section? :rolleyes:

mylesmalley

Feb 8, 2012, 11:21 PM

Come on, people... why so touchy? I know this forum is usually like lighting up a cigarette in a fireworks factory, but lately it's just gotten ridiculous.

MonctonRad

Feb 8, 2012, 11:22 PM

:previous:

The 2011 census numbers are based on completed census forms. As such, I can't imagine the population numbers being revised downwards. Overcounting can't be a significant factor. Undercounting could occur of course, which is why census figures could be revised upwards.

Halifax very well could be close to 400k. Moncton very well could be over 140k.

I retract the "apologist" remark. I sometimes forget that attempts at dry humour (wit) can sometimes get lost in a text driven medium. :)

NBNYer

Feb 9, 2012, 12:14 AM

Impressive numbers for Moncton! :yes:

If the growth trends continue as is at the next census:

Halifax: 408,673
Moncton: 152,092
Saint John: 133,382
St John's: 214,190

It sure is fun to make predictions. So many unknown factors will affect these numbers, a few other factors we know. Like many others mentioned before, Halifax will likely skyrocket past this number once the shipbuilding contract kicks into high gear and its economic effects are felt.

Another issue is the Moncton CMA boundary. The 06 census reported that 48% of the Shediac workforce worked outside of their census division. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of these people work within the Moncton CMA. This means that Shediac may soon clinch the 50% commuter threshold for a community to be included in a neighboring CMA.

Shediac hit 6000 this census and really is part of the Moncton metro area for all intents and purposes and should be included in the CMA. As crazy as this sounds, if the same growth rate is sustained and Shediac is added, the CMA could actually be pushing 160 000 in the next round.

brod3211

Feb 9, 2012, 12:50 AM

I think we should all just be happy that the maritimes as a whole has grown and is moving forward... We no longer have to take the back burner to other parts of the country. As separate cities we are strong, imagine us working together.

q12

Feb 9, 2012, 1:30 AM

Nice to see some of the apologists from the Halifax forum dropping by. (I don't consider you an apologist JStaleness) :)

Yes, these are raw stats that may be revised in the upcoming months, but keep in mind that it would be highly unlikely that Halifax's population would be revised upwards by 20,000 people to 410k. I could see maybe 4-5k, but not 20k.

If the Halifax stats get revised, then so will the Moncton stats. There are estimates out there that Moncton is already past 140k. I can believe that.

In any event, StatsCan says that Halifax's growth rate is 4.7%. The Moncton growth rate is more than double this at 9.7%. To find a municipality with a growth rate higher than ours, you would have to travel as far west as Saskatoon. :D

Sorry q12.

Just to be clear I didn't have any issues with Moncton's numbers and congrats on your current growth.

It's really pointless for cities in Atlantic Canada to bicker over population figures. I think the one figure we should all be interested in growing is Atlantic Canada's overall population compared to the rest of Canada. We are at risk of becoming less and less relevant to the rest of country.

MonctonRad

Feb 9, 2012, 1:54 AM

It's really pointless for cities in Atlantic Canada to bicker over population figures. I think the one figure we should all be interested in growing is Atlantic Canada's overall population compared to the rest of Canada. We are at risk of becoming less and less relevant to the rest of country.

Amen to that q12.

This has actually been a very good census for all of Atlantic Canada with all four provinces showing reasonably good population growth. Rural areas may be dwindling in terms of population, but at least urban growth has more than made up for it.

There are about a half dozen "winner" communities in the region. This is a good thing which augers well for the future.

With the shipbuilding contract in Halifax, offshore oil in NS and NF, and natural gas and potash in NB, there may be enough economic activity in the region to propel us into the future. :tup:

someone123

Feb 9, 2012, 1:55 AM

It's really pointless for cities in Atlantic Canada to bicker over population figures. I think the one figure we should all be interested in growing is Atlantic Canada's overall population compared to the rest of Canada. We are at risk of becoming less and less relevant to the rest of country.

A lot of this stuff is seriously overblown. There are articles out there pronouncing Ontario's impending doom because its annual population growth rate was down 0.2% or something compared to 2001-2006. In another 5 years when Ontario does well they will announce that Alberta is dying. It is ridiculous.

What matters most for Atlantic Canada is that it have a good quality of life, not that it have a large population. Many parts of the planet have large populations and are miserable. Many corners of Canada and the US have large populations and are totally forgettable -- most population growth in Canadian cities is going into uninteresting, unsustainable cookie cutter subdivisions. I think if Toronto's growth rate dropped by 50% it would actually be better off, because they're not building enough infrastructure to handle the new people.

RyeJay

Feb 9, 2012, 3:30 AM

:previous:

Indeed.

And some Canadian cities are composed nearly entirely of these unsustainable cookie cutter subdivisions: with more to come.

I used my credit card today too, but I did not congratulate myself.

ErickMontreal

Feb 9, 2012, 1:24 PM

I came across this, I thought you would be interested :

:: 1278 Mountain Road Plan site ::

http://www.plaza.ca/portfolio/New_Brunswick/Moncton/1278%20Mountain%20Road%20site%20plan%20rev%20E%20Jan%2016%202012.pdf

Source : http://www.plaza.ca/properties-portfolio.php

gehrhardt

Feb 9, 2012, 1:54 PM

Um guys,

Isn't there some sort of limit to the number of pages a thread can have (or posts)?

We're approaching 500 pages and 10k posts.

monctonian

Feb 9, 2012, 2:00 PM

Note: Private dwellings occupied by usual residents up 13% from 2006 (population up 9.7%)
This reflects a high rate of residential construction in the Moncton CMA

Footnote: City of Dieppe - Private dwellings occupied by usual residents up 29.8% from 2006 (population up 25.6%)

mylesmalley

Feb 9, 2012, 3:01 PM

Um guys,

Isn't there some sort of limit to the number of pages a thread can have (or posts)?

We're approaching 500 pages and 10k posts.

Once you hit roughly 10k posts, they archive the thread and start a new one.

Calgary has a half-dozen archived threads now.

mylesmalley

Feb 9, 2012, 3:04 PM

MonctonRad

Feb 9, 2012, 4:00 PM

That would put it right in front of the community college, wouldn't it?

Yep, that's where that grundgy old strip mall used to be before they tore it down last year, right next to DQ.

Plaza Corp also owns the Northwest Centre, and it appears that they are planning a driveway connection between this strip and the Northwest Centre parking lot.

It also should be noted that Plaza Corp has also purchased the old Irving service station lot on the other side of the Northwest Centre too. No indication what would go in there, but it would be a high visibility site, right next to the Wheeler Blvd off ramp. I think it would be a good location for a restaurant chain franchise of some form.

------------------------------------------------------------------

re: the 10k post limit on the thread - is this something we have to bring to the mods attention or will this occur automatically.....

Nashe

Feb 9, 2012, 4:39 PM

mylesmalley

Feb 9, 2012, 6:13 PM

MonctonRad

Feb 9, 2012, 6:52 PM

The counties of NB with pop changes between 2006-2011 (2001-2006 in brackets)

Northern NB (North of Moncton, for argument's sake)

Kent -616 (+66)
Northumberland -1359 (-1949)
Gloucester -1156 (-3981)
Restigouche -1240 (-2300)
Carleton +387 (-552)
Madawaska -349 (-1540)
Victoria -398 (-853)

Total Change in the North: -4731 (-11175)

Southern NB
York +7212 (+3660)
Sunbury +1601 (-234)
Kings +3481 (+1616)
Queens -622 (-154)
Westmorland +11309 (+8161)
Saint John +1929 (-1786)
Albert +1284 (+814)
Charlotte -349 (-468)

Total Change in the South: +25845 (+11591)

There's no question that the north is still losing people by and large. Every county except Carleton is shrinking (and I expect Carleton's growth is thanks to Fredericton). However, the drop in population has slowed considerably in the last five years. It's hard to say what the cause is. I doubt we'll know until the next batch of data comes out.

I think it's totally unfair to attribute all of Moncton's growth to draining from the North Shore. In fact, based on those numbers, I think it's probably fair to say that less than a quarter of the pop growth here was a result of migrants from the North. We can't forget that Moncton isn't the only draw. A lot of people have gone west and to the other urban areas in the province.

I also have to reject the notion that the spigot is somehow going to get turned off. It's pretty clear we still have another 125k worth of people to poach from up north :haha:

Spot on Myles :tup:

If you look at the population gains in Westmorland and Albert Counties, which for all intents and purposes is metro Moncton and environs, it totals 12,593 which is three times the population loss in northern NB.

Even if every single person who decamped the north in the last five years moved to Moncton (which we all know is not credible), that would only account for 1/3 of the population growth in the Moncton region.

I would generously estimate that northern migration accounts for 25% of the population growth in southeastern NB. Perhaps 10% of the population growth is natural (births). By my estimate there have been 2,000-2,500 international immigrants to the region in the last five years. This would be perhaps another 20%. The rest of the population growth (about 45-50%) therefore arises from elsewhere in NB or from other provinces.

As such, even if northern migration stopped completely tomorrow, if everything else remained stable, the metro growth rate would only drop from 9.7% to 7.2%. This would hardly be a catastophe. :)

It's also interesting to note that this 7.2% figure is very close to the actual growth rate in Moncton and Riverview. This would go along with the presumption that anglophones (generally) settle in these two communities while francophones (generally) settle in Dieppe.

Also. I don't' doubt for a second that the shipbuilding contract is going to be great for Halifax, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Once the construction job peak levels off, the city is going to end up with a couple thousand extra jobs including spinoffs. Obviously that's fantastic, but it won't represent more than a 2 or 3% increase in employment in the city. To suggest that a bump like that is going to usher in a golden age of in-migration is a bit naive.

Also very true Myles. I have heard that the shipbuilding contract will only double the workforce at the Irving Shipyard. This will be about 2,500-3,000 additional employees. You can multiply this by typical family size and also use a multiplier for additional jobs created due to increased economic activity, but it would still be difficult to imagine Halifax's population increasing by more than 25-30,000 as a result of this contract.

This is still excellent news for the Halifax economy and should not be discounted, but will only mean an increase in the population base for the metro Halifax area of about 7-8% (on top of whatever increase would have occurred in any event).

Assuming a 6% base population increase over the next five years with an additional 8% increase due to the shipbuilding contract, Halifax's population could increase to 450,000 by 2016.

I will assume that Moncton's population increase over the next five years won't be quite as high as in the last five, but will still be higher than the base 7.2% growth rate if northern migration were factored out. I will therefore assume a growth rate of 8.5% which will give a Moncton CMA population in 2016 of 150,270. :)

mmmatt

Feb 9, 2012, 8:30 PM

Not surprisingly 7 of the top 10 CSDs in NB now reside in the south of the province. Funny that Riverview (town) now has about the same population as Bathurst (city) and Campbellton (city) put together :haha:

Top 10 CSD population:

Saint John---70,063
Moncton-----69,074
Fredericton--56,224
Dieppe-------23,310
Riverview----19,128
Quispamsis---17,886
Miramichi-----17,811
Edmundston--16,032
Bathurst-----12,275
Rothesay-----11,947

And not too far off is Moncton Parish (area directly surrounding Moncton).

Moncton-------9,421

If current growth rates continue ( Rothesay @ 2.7, Moncton Parish @ 6.3) Moncton Parish would be a top 10 CSD by 2021!

Riverview remains the most densely populated of the big 10.

Population density of top 10 CSDs:

Riverview----564.6
Moncton-----489.3
Dieppe-------430.8
Fredericton--427.0
Rothesay----343.6
Quispamsis---313.5
Saint John----221.8
Edmundston--149.8
Bathurst-----133.6
Miramichi-----99.0

mmmatt

Feb 9, 2012, 8:40 PM

While the Moncton CMA didnt go up any spots this time around nationally...our urban area (now population centre) did jump from 30 to 27! Passing Sudbury,
Chicoutimi and Thunder Bay :)

Also it is now considered a "Large" population center after passing the 100,000 mark :D

q12

Feb 9, 2012, 8:56 PM

Also. I don't' doubt for a second that the shipbuilding contract is going to be great for Halifax, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Once the construction job peak levels off, the city is going to end up with a couple thousand extra jobs including spinoffs. Obviously that's fantastic, but it won't represent more than a 2 or 3% increase in employment in the city. To suggest that a bump like that is going to usher in a golden age of in-migration is a bit naive.

Also very true Myles. I have heard that the shipbuilding contract will only double the workforce at the Irving Shipyard. This will be about 2,500-3,000 additional employees. You can multiply this by typical family size and also use a multiplier for additional jobs created due to increased economic activity, but it would still be difficult to imagine Halifax's population increasing by more than 25-30,000 as a result of this contract.

This is still excellent news for the Halifax economy and should not be discounted, but will only mean an increase in the population base for the metro Halifax area of about 7-8% (on top of whatever increase would have occurred in any event).

Assuming a 6% base population increase over the next five years with an additional 8% increase due to the shipbuilding contract, Halifax's population could increase to 450,000 by 2016.

I will assume that Moncton's population increase over the next five years won't be quite as high as in the last five, but will still be higher than the base 7.2% growth rate if northern migration were factored out. I will therefore assume a growth rate of 8.5% which will give a Moncton CMA population in 2016 of 150,270. :)

Fenwick posted this in the Halifax census thread:http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5584255#post5584255

Here is a link to the undercount estimates for 2006 - http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...01_2_2-eng.cfm . It seems to vary quite a bit from city to city.

If the net undercount of 2.84% for Halifax in 2006 was applied to the 2011 census numbers then the HRM population would be about 390K x 1.0284 = 401K at the time of the 2011 census.

Since our population growth is likely higher than what the latest census numbers show, your guesstimates on Halifax's future growth are going to be off.

The $25 Billion shipbuilding contract is not just about the shipyard, there will be many spin-offs in all sectors of Halifax's economy. Halifax is also going to benefit from Shells $1 Billion off shore exploration. I would expect in the next decade that Halifax's growth rate will likely be the highest in Atlantic Canada and one of the highest in Canada.

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/8973/hfxship.jpg
Source (http://shipsstarthere.ca/cont/Impact.pdf)

:previous:
This is only showing the number of Jobs, population figures would be higher due to family members (and that's before the Shell announcement).

I wouldn't be surprised if you see a lot more New Brunswickers (including Monctonians) headed for Halifax for work in the coming decade.

And it's a little naive to think that Moncton will maintain a high rate of growth.

Not trying to bicker but if you guys keep bringing up Halifax... :)

mmmatt

Feb 9, 2012, 9:02 PM

THE BIG 3

Census Subdivision

http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/6474/graphn.jpg

CMA/CA

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/4872/graph1k.jpg

MonctonRad

Feb 9, 2012, 9:23 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if you see a lot more New Brunswickers (including Monctonians) headed for Halifax for work in the coming decade.

And it's a little naive to think that Moncton will maintain a high rate of growth.

Not trying to bicker but if you guys keep bringing up Halifax... :)

I also think it's a little naive to assume that the only community in Atlantic Canada that will benefit from the shipbuilding contract will be Halifax.

I fully expect Saint John to see significant benefit with their industrial base. Moncton has a strong base in transportation and logistics as well as metal fabrication shops and other potential suppliers as well.

Moncton will continue to do very well q12. But thanks for your concern in any event. :)

mylesmalley

Feb 9, 2012, 11:00 PM

Fenwick posted this in the Halifax census thread:http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5584255#post5584255

Since our population growth is likely higher than what the latest census numbers show, your guesstimates on Halifax's future growth are going to be off.

The $25 Billion shipbuilding contract is not just about the shipyard, there will be many spin-offs in all sectors of Halifax's economy. Halifax is also going to benefit from Shells $1 Billion off shore exploration. I would expect in the next decade that Halifax's growth rate will likely be the highest in Atlantic Canada and one of the highest in Canada.

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/8973/hfxship.jpg
Source (http://shipsstarthere.ca/cont/Impact.pdf)

:previous:
This is only showing the number of Jobs, population figures would be higher due to family members (and that's before the Shell announcement).

I wouldn't be surprised if you see a lot more New Brunswickers (including Monctonians) headed for Halifax for work in the coming decade.

And it's a little naive to think that Moncton will maintain a high rate of growth.

Not trying to bicker but if you guys keep bringing up Halifax... :)

A billion isn't as much as you think it is :haha:

And again, I'm not arguing that it will be big for Halifax. It isn't going to change the world though.

Indulge my assumptions. These are all hilariously rough estimates.

Let's say for arguments sake that every cent of that 25bn gets spent on jobs in Halifax. If you take an hourly rate of 75 (which is realistic considering overhead expenses, skills shortages driving up wars, and assuming the unions get involved). If you assume those wages stay constant with inflation, those wages will essentially double over the life of the contract. So, average it all out at 100$ an hour. 25bn, divided by 2000 hours per year, divided by 100 dollars per hour, times 25 years averages out to 5000 jobs for 25 years.

5,000 is a lot of jobs! If you double it because of spinoffs, you're left with 10k. Toss in families, etc, and you'll definitely see a big bump in population.

BUT... A very large component of that 25bn is going to be raw materials, equipment, and components. I'm not going to guess what percentage that is, however in manufacturing it isn't unrealistic for that to come in at more than 50% of your total cost. Now included in that is the significant components that will be coming from away, including raw materials. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any sizeable steel foundries in Atlantic Canada, so your raw steel is going to have to come from away. Raw materials component production certainly produces direct and spinoff jobs, but there's no net benefit to Halifax if it happens to be done anywhere else.

Then of course are the hundreds if not thousands of sub-contractors who do everything from soup to nuts. Sure, a lot will be from Halifax, but that work is going to be spread all over Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. Work being done by a fab shop in New Glasgow is great for the province, but won't contribute whatsoever to jobs or population growth in Halifax.

So at the of the day, all you can do is take the most jobs possible, and subtract away. Every penny that isn't spent in Halifax is one that's helping create jobs away.

So there. Pick it apart if you want. I know it isn't air tight. But an awful lot of this type of contract is hyping it up. I can't state this enough that this type of work coming to the east coast is huge. But by no means is it a guarantee that we'll be dug out of the economic hole we've been in for decades. If anything, this should be the thing that kickstarts Maritime ambition and encourages going after even more big contracts like this.

MonctonRad

Feb 10, 2012, 2:14 AM

Turner Drake & Partners Ltd

Market Survey :: December 2011

:: Office Vacancy Rate ::

We also included all the major centres in Atlantic Canada. The overall vacancy rate by location is as follows: Greater Fredericton 6.43%; Greater Saint John 10.73%; Greater Moncton 6.69%; Greater St. John’s 3.53%; Halifax Regional Municipality 7.89%; Greater Charlottetown 12.95%.

:: Warehouse Vacancy Rate ::

Our survey includes all the major centres in Atlantic Canada. The overall vacancy rate by location is as follows: Greater Fredericton 8.92%; Greater Saint John 1.42%; Greater Moncton 5.82%; Greater St. John’s 3.32%; Halifax Regional Municipality 7.81%; Greater Charlottetown 22.09%.

Source : https://www.turnerdrake.com/survey/attachments/103.pdf

Erick posted this on the Saint John thread. Note that the office vacancy rate in Moncton is currently a respectable 6.7%, similar to Fredericton and less than SJ, Charlottetown and Halifax.

If the rate falls a little bit more, this could give impetus to some new office construction in the downtown. :)

curious

Feb 10, 2012, 12:33 PM

Does anyone know what is "store" is going up on mountain road. It looks like some kind of coffee store? It is up by the petro Canada?

Any new news on stores opening up downtown? I wonder what will happen to Passages, Betty Rubin, Olivier, and Samuel & Co.? Maybe they will open up downtown?

David_99

Feb 10, 2012, 12:47 PM

Moncton's free parking deal could cost $42M

A controversial parking deal signed with a Toronto developer is coming back to haunt Moncton and could cost the city as much as $42 million.

The contract, which was supposed to expire next month, was signed 10 years ago to provide free parking for the Roger's call centre. The call centre is located on some prime downtown real estate in the city.

In 2002, the city offered 385 free parking spots where the developer built the call centre. The contract has the potential to increase that number of free parking spots to 490.

Coun. Brian Hicks said the contract with Rogers was supposed to be for 10 years, but he was furious when he saw the deal's fine print.

Hick said he does not remember being warned about clauses that allow the developer to extend the life of the contract.

“When you read it carefully, you could come up with a scenario, others have, that this is a 50-year parking deal and not a 10-year parking deal,” he said.

Hicks has been trying ever since to find out how that happened to the contract.

Hicks said the contract goes on to say, if the developer puts a building on the parking lot, the city still has to come up with the free parking spots.

The implications of a 50-year free parking contract could be significant, according to the city councillor.

Hicks said 50 years of lost parking revenue on prime real estate adds up to $42 million.

CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/02/10/nb-moncton-free-parking-653.html

riverviewer

Feb 10, 2012, 12:51 PM

I hate to inflame the community but this needs to be shared :hell::hell:

As reported on CBC.CA - ROGERS EYESORE PARKING for 50 YEARS :koko:

In 2002, the city offered 385 free parking spots where the developer built the call centre. The contract has the potential to increase that number of free parking spots to 490.

Coun. Brian Hicks said the contract with Rogers was supposed to be for 10 years, but he was furious when he saw the deal's fine print.

Hick said he does not remember being warned about clauses that allow the developer to extend the life of the contract.

“When you read it carefully, you could come up with a scenario, others have, that this is a 50-year parking deal and not a 10-year parking deal,” he said.

Hicks has been trying ever since to find out how that happened to the contract.

Hicks said the contract goes on to say, if the developer puts a building on the parking lot, the city still has to come up with the free parking spots.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/02/10/nb-moncton-free-parking-653.html

Who signed a contract without reading it?:hell:

MonctonRad

Feb 10, 2012, 1:48 PM

:previous:

The ghost of Verdiroc will haunt this city for 50 years.......

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2012/02/10/li-nb-rogers-parking-620.jpg

The only bright spot is there is still a lot of other undeveloped land south of Main Street to keep city coucil busy with for the next several decades.......

A potential tax revenue loss of $42M is still huge though, even if amortized over 50 years. If an alternate use for this land could be found, perhaps it would simply be cheaper for the city to encourage Rogers to move their call centre up to the Emmerson Park region.

If for example a $100M development were proposed for this land, it might be in the city's best interest to chip in relocation costs for Rogers, just to get them out of the downtown. The building that they currently use is eminently disposable and easily replaced.

That would be the easiest way for the city to escape this fiasco - just get Rogers to move..........

That building doesn't belong downtown anyway.

macas539

Feb 10, 2012, 1:48 PM

I hate to inflame the community but this needs to be shared :hell::hell:

As reported on CBC.CA - ROGERS EYESORE PARKING for 50 YEARS :koko:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/02/10/nb-moncton-free-parking-653.html

Who signed a contract without reading it?:hell:

Why does something as ludicrous as this not surprise me? Moncton should advertise to all developers: here, come to Moncton, we'll sell the city's soul to let a developer have free reign and do whatever they want no matter what it is! Rompsen being another example of this with MHS and "royal hoax".

mctnguy

Feb 10, 2012, 1:50 PM

My question is this: Doesn't the city have lawyers that read these contracts before they are signed? WTF?

riverviewer

Feb 10, 2012, 2:02 PM

Perhaps in 50 years -
when the Rogers center is crumbling -
There will be rejoicing that prime development land is finally freeing up in the then thriving downtown.

Sadly I probably won't be alive to see it.

mylesmalley

Feb 10, 2012, 2:05 PM

MonctonRad

Feb 10, 2012, 2:08 PM

Why does something as ludicrous as this not surprise me? Moncton should advertise to all developers: here, come to Moncton, we'll sell the city's soul to let a developer have free reign and do whatever they want no matter what it is! Rompsen being another example of this with MHS and "royal hoax".

Speaking of "Royal Hoax", the newspaper that shall not be named continues to actively and quite vigourously promote this development. There is both a front section article and an editorial on this subject in the paper today lobbying for city council cooperation on this issue.

I'm not sure exactly what the motive of the paper is in this affair, but they certainly are not unbiased. I'm guessing the T&T has been warned that the provincial government (who have already decided where the high school will be built) would punish a recalcitrant city council for non co-operation.

If city council actions displeased the province, this could put the kibosh to the Transportation Discovery Centre and would likely imperil the downtown events centre. Everthing is interconnected.

As much as I hate the idea of relocating MHS to Royal Oaks, the decision has already been made by the province, a legally binding contract has been signed with the developer, and the city has nothing to gain by failing to co-operate.

In essence, if you know that you are going to be screwed, you only have two choices. You can choose to fight and face the violent consequences or you can bend over peacefully and be rewarded with a small tube of lubricant to make the situation a tad less traumatic.

The city should choose the latter course in this regard.

mylesmalley

Feb 10, 2012, 2:20 PM

I bet they won't even call afterward.

MonctonRad

Feb 10, 2012, 4:34 PM

Absolute Population Change by CMA (2006-2011)

1- Toronto (469,915)
2- Vancouver (196,747)
3- Montreal (188,665)
4- Calgary (135,526
5- Edmonton (124,924)
6- Ottawa (102,691)
7- Quebec City (46,553)
8- Winnipeg (35,350)
9- Hamilton (28,142)
10- Saskatoon (26,677)
---------------------------------------------------
11- Kitchener (25,925)
12- Oshawa (25,583)
13- Kelowna (17,563)
14- Halifax (17,470)
15- London (17,066)
16- St. John's (15,853)
17- Regina (15,585)
18- Victoria (14,574)
19- Moncton (12,220)
20- Abbotsford (11,171)
-----------------------------------------------------
21- Brantford (10,874)
22- Sherbrooke (10,480)
23- Barrie (9,952)
24- Guelph (7,399)
25- Kingston (7,203)
26- Trois Rivieres (7,060)
27- Saint John (5,372)
28- Sudbury (2,512)
29- Peterborough (2,405)
30- St. Catherines (1,867)
31- Saguenay (1,485)
32- Thunder Bay (-1,311)
33- Windsor (-4,019)

I also posted this in the Canada section. Moncton may still only be the 29th largest CMA in the country, but we rank #19 in terms of absolute growth, giving us the 5th highest relative growth rate in the country. :tup:

RyeJay

Feb 10, 2012, 9:25 PM

Speaking of "Royal Hoax", the newspaper that shall not be named continues to actively and quite vigourously promote this development. There is both a front section article and an editorial on this subject in the paper today lobbying for city council cooperation on this issue.

I'm not sure exactly what the motive of the paper is in this affair, but they certainly are not unbiased. I'm guessing the T&T has been warned that the provincial government (who have already decided where the high school will be built) would punish a recalcitrant city council for non co-operation.

The Royal Oaks project is money for Irving. The T&T will not suggest anything other than driving all the children to school, which is built and maintained with Irving products -- just like the creation of this new subdivision.

If city council actions displeased the province, this could put the kibosh to the Transportation Discovery Centre and would likely imperil the downtown events centre. Everthing is interconnected.

As much as I hate the idea of relocating MHS to Royal Oaks, the decision has already been made by the province, a legally binding contract has been signed with the developer, and the city has nothing to gain by failing to co-operate.

In essence, if you know that you are going to be screwed, you only have two choices. You can choose to fight and face the violent consequences or you can bend over peacefully and be rewarded with a small tube of lubricant to make the situation a tad less traumatic.

The city should choose the latter course in this regard.

As traumatic as Moncton's rising debt.
I want to be happy with Monctonians with the release of this census; after all, measuring 5th place in the country for economic growth is cause for celebration.

The census, however, is not good for showing us how this economic growth is paid for. Fortunately, Moncton's annual budgets are not a secret (you can read them online); therefore, it should abolsutely not be a surprise to any Monctonian to see the numbers and to understand that the economic 'growth' is not paid for.

Moncton is effectively growing its debt and subsequently deminishing its ability to pay in the future. Moncton's problem of deliberate, unsustainable growth is a problem that is not going away and will only become larger.

Due to the decline of most municipalities in New Brunswick I am extremely concerned for the province when one of its only economic engines can't at least move toward sustainability.

mylesmalley

Feb 10, 2012, 11:55 PM

NBNYer

Feb 11, 2012, 12:48 AM

:previous:

The ghost of Verdiroc will haunt this city for 50 years.......

That would be the easiest way for the city to escape this fiasco - just get Rogers to move..........

That building doesn't belong downtown anyway.

Is it all this company does to think of ways to screw over downtown development in Moncton? :sly: What the hell.

MonctonRad

Feb 11, 2012, 1:41 AM

The Royal Oaks project is money for Irving. The T&T will not suggest anything other than driving all the children to school, which is built and maintained with Irving products -- just like the creation of this new subdivision.

Wow, to suggest that the real reason that the T&T supports the Royal Oaks project is so that Irving can sell more gas to commuters borders on delusional paranoia. :sly:

I have no doubt that the paper has an agenda, but I think that it is much more straight forward an agenda; namely they don't want to see the city getting into a damaging fight with the province - a fight that they cannot possibly win.

As traumatic as Moncton's rising debt.
I want to be happy with Monctonians with the release of this census; after all, measuring 5th place in the country for economic growth is cause for celebration.

The census, however, is not good for showing us how this economic growth is paid for. Fortunately, Moncton's annual budgets are not a secret (you can read them online); therefore, it should abolsutely not be a surprise to any Monctonian to see the numbers and to understand that the economic 'growth' is not paid for.

Moncton is effectively growing its debt and subsequently deminishing its ability to pay in the future. Moncton's problem of deliberate, unsustainable growth is a problem that is not going away and will only become larger.

Due to the decline of most municipalities in New Brunswick I am extremely concerned for the province when one of its only economic engines can't at least move toward sustainability.

Reading your posts on other threads, especially the Halifax forum where your main body of work resides, I know that you are passionately and vehemently opposed to sprawl in any form and that you feel that all forms of non sustainable development are evil. While this viewpoint has some merit, it does not reflect the opinion of all people and you should be a little bit more temperate in your comments.

There is a place for a suburban lifestyle and there is a place for suburban office parks, shopping malls and industrial parks. Not everyone can live in the core, bicycle to work and buy their grocieries in the neighbourhood market. Some industries don't belong downtown. Some people want to raise their children where they can have a backyard. Some people like to garden. As such, while sprawl should be discouraged, it can't be trammelled out of existence.

Moncton is growing. Sprawl is occurring, but not all sprawl is bad. Rural Estates on the western fringe of the city is bad. The lots are so large that municipal services cannot be delivered. Royal Oaks is bad because this development is discontinuous with the existing urban fringe. The Mountain Woods subdivision however is good, because it is a continuation of the existing urban border of the city and it has good density.

The nature of Moncton makes suburban sprawl easy. Moncton is not Halifax. Sprawl should be appropriately managed so that it doesn't get out of control but it shouldn't be outlawed. At some point in the near future, the inherent problems of sprawl (such as commuting times) will begin to make people think twice about living outside the core. When that occurs, core densification in Moncton will accelerate. Market forces should be allowed to play out.

Free enterprise (with appropriate governance) should be allowed to bloom. This is what Moncton excels at. This is why Moncton is growing the way it is. If this doesn't conform to your narrow interpretation of urbanism then so be it.

Halifax Hillbilly

Feb 11, 2012, 2:12 PM

There is a place for a suburban lifestyle and there is a place for suburban office parks, shopping malls and industrial parks. Not everyone can live in the core, bicycle to work and buy their grocieries in the neighbourhood market. Some industries don't belong downtown. Some people want to raise their children where they can have a backyard. Some people like to garden. As such, while sprawl should be discouraged, it can't be trammelled out of existence.

Moncton is growing. Sprawl is occurring, but not all sprawl is bad. Rural Estates on the western fringe of the city is bad. The lots are so large that municipal services cannot be delivered. Royal Oaks is bad because this development is discontinuous with the existing urban fringe. The Mountain Woods subdivision however is good, because it is a continuation of the existing urban border of the city and it has good density.

There is a place for suburban development, definitely. The fiscal sustainability question that Moncton, and many other cities, should be asking is this: will these developments generate enough tax revenue to pay for the cost of maintaining their infrastructure and providing services over the next five decades? Often times for suburban development the answer is no, although it's impossible to put a general rule in place to say when a development is too 'sprawly' to pay for itself. It's a different answer for every type of development, and for every municipality.

Good is obviously quite subjective in this case. Are the good subdivisions you mention dense enough to support decent transit service, and layed out properly to allow useful routes? Are they layed out in a manner that supports reasonably direct walking routes? Do they have any uses other than residential? Were any wetlands plowed under for these developments? How is stormwater dealt with?

My point is that almost every municipality I've dealt with (many in NB and a handful in NS, including HRM), has exceptionally low standards for development, especially suburban development. These developments often impose costs - real monetary costs or externalities - that the resident's property taxes simply don't pay for. This is where my beef with suburban develompent comes from. People should be able to chose their lifestyle and where they live, but not if it means passing the buck onto others, or relying on future development income (which is a ponzi scheme, really). There are many good examples of better suburban development at almost all densities, and not all of them cost more. Instead of setting reasonable standards to ensure, for example, a bus can access a subdivision because the streets are layed our properly, or that stormwater doesn't degrade streams or cause downstream flooding, most municipalities almost make it necessary to build poorly through their zoning, building codes and engineering standards. Surely it's not unreasonable to think we can build better suburbs?

P.S. Moncton your growth is pretty much astounding. Hopefully short-sighted, car-centric, subsidy happy crap like that Rogers contract doesn't get in the way of luring more growth downtown. Now that contract is an example of horrible subsidies and downtown development that doesn't pay it's way.

P.P.S. The Moncton-Halifax pissing match is ridiculous. Both cities are doing well, and the Maritimes needs all the growth it can get.

MonctonRad

Feb 11, 2012, 3:57 PM

:previous:

Good post Halifax Hillbilly. :tup:

The fiscal sustainability of sprawl is a real issue. This is where infill projects like the "vision lands" is important. This large tract of land between the UdeM campus and the TCH would provide for decades of liebensraum for Moncton, negating the need to build north of the Trans-Canada.

Instead we get Royal Oaks which is several km north of the TCH, and requires significant upgrades to Elmwood Drive, and extension of municipal services at significant expense to the city. Instead we get Rural Estates, where the average lot is 1-2 acres, the roads are not curbed and basic municipal sevices are not provided due to cost.

The other subdivision I mentioned is different. Mountain Woods is built around a golf course (like Royal Oaks), but lies at the existing fringe of the built up area of the city (not several km distant). There are condos and town houses as part of the development. Attention is paid to waterways and stormwater retention. There will be a road through the subdivision connecting Gorge Road and Mountain Road. With Crandall University on one side of the subdivision and Magnetic Hill on the other side, I have no doubt that there will be a future Codiac Transpo route through the development.

Many of the new (larger) subdivisions under development in the city are being designed with sustainability in mind. The Johnathon Estates subdivision off Ryan Street has been planned not to interfere with the existing watercourse of Johnathon Creek. The subdivision will also have an exit onto Horsman Road as well as Ryan Street. All of the new subdivsions being built in uptown Dieppe off of Dieppe Blvd will interconnect too.

In some ways, Royal Oaks is a good development. Golf course developments are always popular and the proximity to the Irishtown Nature Park is a plus. The lack of a road connection to McLaughlin however is ludicrous and the cost to service this development is probably unsustainable. Royal Oaks is a good development in the wrong place.

Rural Estates is a horrible development no matter which way you cut it. :hell:

-----------------------------------------------

And on a final note, the newspaper that shall not be named reported today that the scaffolding around the Dominion Public Building will finally be coming down this fall. :)

RyeJay

Feb 11, 2012, 10:06 PM

No offence, RyeJay, but where do you come up with this stuff?

That logic is like saying that Irving ought to start making defective condoms so that they can sell more diapers.

We weren't 5th in the country for economic growth, the Moncton CMA was 5th in the country for population growth in percentage terms. That said, our unemployment rate is has been stable or dropping for quite a while, and the amount of development in the CMA has been well balanced between commercial, industrial, institutional and residential. The cost of housing is still among the lowest in the country, meaning there has been enough construction to keep speculation-driven price increases under wraps.

The City of Moncton had a 14.9% debt ratio, which is well below the 20% amount the provincial government red flags.

As for what the city has been doing to 'pay for the growth'... they haven't really done a whole lot beyond infrastructure in the past few years. There have been some smallish projects like the arenas, but nothing on the scale of our counterparts in Fredericton, SJ, and Halifax. The taxpayer-funded construction that's gone one here has been largely funded by the province. The province is in a pretty bad financial situation, but that doesn't affect Moncton's ability to pay it's own debt obligations.

Also, Moncton doesn't have a pension deficit.

I'm not suggesting the city is swimming in cash, but it's hardly in an unsound financial position.

This...stuff?

My argument comes from the budget you’ve apparently read: which must be taken into context with trends we see in Moncton’s past budgets, as well as with the other municipalities in New Brunswick.

Yes, the debt ratio for Moncton is 14.9% -- and just how shall you pay for this debt and the debts of the other municipalities? As you’ve put it, Moncton is not swimming in money -- and neither is anywhere else in the province.

If left to its devices alone, Moncton roughly generates $100 million annually. Expenditures are to exceed $125 million (and continue rising); therefore, Moncton will continue to be reliant upon provincial stabilisation grants. Furthermore, Moncton’s debt-for-growth spending habits must be off-set by increasing property taxes, increasing water and sewer utility rates, increasing funds to fire and police protection; compounded further with the rising costs of fuel, building materials, food, electricity, insurances, and the like is burdensome on the taxpayers. My criticism of Moncton is not that it isn’t sustainable (because that’s obvious); my criticism is that the city is not even beginning to move toward sustainability.

Unless Moncton itself urbanises, the city will become as unaffordable as rural New Brunswick.

I would be interested in learning about any of Moncton’s revenue neutral (or even profitable) developments. As far as I’ve read, the vast majority of economic growth in the Moncton area is development that does not pay enough in taxes to support the required costs of creating and servicing said development. Moncton has little to no density from which magnified revenues can be collected and allocated to controlling debt, or even reinvestment for more revenue options (hello downtown events centre/arena).

You are correct that the provincial government red flags anything above 20%, in which case the provincial government will come in and...talk about the debt? The province isn’t doing much for all the declining municipalities in the province, of which Moncton’s revenues must increasingly support (or perhaps ‘ease their deaths’ is more apt). The province’s demand on Moncton will grow and no amount of industrial parks, strip-malls, and single-family homes are going to improve this reality.

Oh, and it was actually the 2011 Moncton CMA that was 5th (And this is what it feels like to have a responder indulge in a pettiness for meaningless clarification. Please reconsider next time). Still, no offence taken.

RyeJay

Feb 11, 2012, 10:43 PM

Wow, to suggest that the real reason that the T&T supports the Royal Oaks project is so that Irving can sell more gas to commuters borders on delusional paranoia. :sly:

And you seem to lack perspective into just how internally-political journalism can be. The T&T is not unique; there are many news providers that are biased due to ownership. And you shouldn't get yourself so worked-up over a suggestion.

I have no doubt that the paper has an agenda, but I think that it is much more straight forward an agenda; namely they don't want to see the city getting into a damaging fight with the province - a fight that they cannot possibly win.

Reading your posts on other threads, especially the Halifax forum where your main body of work resides, I know that you are passionately and vehemently opposed to sprawl in any form and that you feel that all forms of non sustainable development are evil. While this viewpoint has some merit, it does not reflect the opinion of all people and you should be a little bit more temperate in your comments.

There is a place for a suburban lifestyle and there is a place for suburban office parks, shopping malls and industrial parks. Not everyone can live in the core, bicycle to work and buy their grocieries in the neighbourhood market. Some industries don't belong downtown. Some people want to raise their children where they can have a backyard. Some people like to garden. As such, while sprawl should be discouraged, it can't be trammelled out of existence.

No need to trammel. Excessive debt will do the deed.

Moncton is growing. Sprawl is occurring, but not all sprawl is bad.

Growth is to Moncton, as fat is to a person. Economically, sprawl is not bad if its supported via revenue. Environmentally, sprawl is always bad.

The nature of Moncton makes suburban sprawl easy.

Your tax code makes sprawl easy. Your willingness for the status quo makes sprawl easy.

Moncton is not Halifax. Sprawl should be appropriately managed so that it doesn't get out of control but it shouldn't be outlawed. At some point in the near future, the inherent problems of sprawl (such as commuting times) will begin to make people think twice about living outside the core. When that occurs, core densification in Moncton will accelerate. Market forces should be allowed to play out.

Your free market wants cheap land.

Will commuting times finally force people to live amongst the poor? I doubt it. Regardless, the vast majority of the city's layout has been sprawled. Residential is mostly kept distant from areas where jobs exist; therefore, in most cases, walking is completely out of the picture in order to get to work.

Free enterprise (with appropriate governance) should be allowed to bloom. This is what Moncton excels at. This is why Moncton is growing the way it is. If this doesn't conform to your narrow interpretation of urbanism then so be it.

Moncton excels at this? Your opinion is noted. My argument claims otherwise.

RyeJay

Feb 11, 2012, 10:47 PM

Moncton is not Halifax.

Nope. Moncton isn't Frederiction either, nor Toronto, nor any other city.

Can you please stop bringing Halifax up? I'm talking about Moncton, not in comparison to Halifax, but in comparison to every city.

mylesmalley

Feb 12, 2012, 1:11 AM

This...stuff?

My argument comes from the budget you’ve apparently read: which must be taken into context with trends we see in Moncton’s past budgets, as well as with the other municipalities in New Brunswick.

Yes, I have read the budgets. I'm wondering if you have.

Yes, the debt ratio for Moncton is 14.9% -- and just how shall you pay for this debt and the debts of the other municipalities? As you’ve put it, Moncton is not swimming in money -- and neither is anywhere else in the province..

You pay for it the same way you pay for any other debt. In this case, by using debt to increase revenues. The city takes on debt to finance major infrastructure projects like the widening of Mapleton road. There's a huge upfront cost to that type of infrastructure, but the construction that it facilitates effectively pays property tax in perpetuity.

If left to its devices alone, Moncton roughly generates $100 million annually. Expenditures are to exceed $125 million (and continue rising); therefore, Moncton will continue to be reliant upon provincial stabilisation grants. Furthermore, Moncton’s debt-for-growth spending habits must be off-set by increasing property taxes, increasing water and sewer utility rates, increasing funds to fire and police protection; compounded further with the rising costs of fuel, building materials, food, electricity, insurances, and the like is burdensome on the taxpayers. My criticism of Moncton is not that it isn’t sustainable (because that’s obvious); my criticism is that the city is not even beginning to move toward sustainability.

The city is projecting tax revenues of 108 million this year. Plus 13 million in other revenue like service fees, assessment fees, rentals etc. Then 11 million comes in the form of an unconditional grant from the provincial government. Now you're right that the province isn't necessarily going to be giving as much money, which they aren't. The unconditional grant is down 2% this year. However property tax assessments and other revenues are both up significantly more. The city has been lowering it's tax assessment rate for the past few years now. Even if the province rolled back the whole grant, the city wouldn't be too hard off if they had to up their rate, and even that would be offset by growth and increases in property tax assessments.

Fire and police protection and all the other services the municipal government offers are indeed an issue, which is why i'm so supportive of the Finn report's suggested changes. However since the city is still growing and the tax rate is still dropping.... where exactly is the problem? And with respect to utilities, considering the fiasco with the Sewerage commission, I wouldn't' be surprised if there was some rate relief to be seen there, considering they've managed to save up faaar more money than they're allowed to.

Unless Moncton itself urbanises, the city will become as unaffordable as rural New Brunswick.

You're in a website devoted to urban issues... of course we all want to see more urbanization, but it's unrealistic to assume we'll all live in giant skyscrapers in the middle of forests to literally minimize our footprint. There's just no practical way to stop a city from physically growing altogether, short of banning all commercial and industrial development and shooting old people to keep the population stable. The city is urbanizing though, believe it or not. The amount of higher-density construction in the city has increased substantially over the past 10 years with no signs of stopping.

Of course there are mitigating factors. Moncton is essentially built on a plain with no physical constraint to development. This has kept real estate prices low, which discourages growing upward. Again that's changing, but it won't go away overnight.

I would be interested in learning about any of Moncton’s revenue neutral (or even profitable) developments. As far as I’ve read, the vast majority of economic growth in the Moncton area is development that does not pay enough in taxes to support the required costs of creating and servicing said development. Moncton has little to no density from which magnified revenues can be collected and allocated to controlling debt, or even reinvestment for more revenue options (hello downtown events centre/arena).

You wouldn't believe any examples I gave you anyway. And as I said before, investments in things like infrastructure have a long pay-back cycle. Don't get me wrong, the city has made some bad deals over the years. The Rogers deal downtown is a prime example, but they've done well with others, like the industrial parks.

You are correct that the provincial government red flags anything above 20%, in which case the provincial government will come in and...talk about the debt? The province isn’t doing much for all the declining municipalities in the province, of which Moncton’s revenues must increasingly support (or perhaps ‘ease their deaths’ is more apt). The province’s demand on Moncton will grow and no amount of industrial parks, strip-malls, and single-family homes are going to improve this reality.

I'm not sure what teeth the province has to whip over-spending municipalities back into shape. That said, me not knowing doesn't mean there aren't any. They are certainly within their rights to assume control of failing municipal governments. As for what the province does with 'failing' municipalities...that's really their business. The province does make more money off of Moncton every time the city's tax base grows. So do the feds.

Oh, and it was actually the 2011 Moncton CMA that was 5th (And this is what it feels like to have a responder indulge in a pettiness for meaningless clarification. Please reconsider next time). Still, no offence taken.

I don't even understand what you're getting at with this one. I specifically said it was the Moncton CMA. I'm well aware of the distinction between a municipality and a CMA.

MonctonRad

Feb 12, 2012, 1:12 AM

RyeJay, I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in arguing with you. You have your own opinions that are strongly held and no amount of discourse will change them.

But in any event, the sky is not falling. Yes Moncton receives both restricted and unrestricted grants from the province in order to top up municipal revenue. A large portion of these are paid in lieu of municipal tax. The rest are a form of "equalization" payment similar to what the provinces receive from the feds. Virtually every municipality in every province receive similar payments. This is a normal form of municipal income. The fact that Moncton receives grants from the province does not mean that the city is fiscally moribund.

As Myles stated, our debt ratio is quite manageable at 14.9%. The city by law is not allowed to run an annual deficit and this debt is accumulated by borrowing for necessary capital projects and infrastructure. Again, all municipalities have debts related to capital projects. Moncton's fiscal situation is better than most. In addition, as Myles stated, we have a fully funded and secure municipal pension plan.

Don't worry RyeJay, Moncton is doing fairly well from a fiscal point of view, despite the occasional misadventure such as the Rogers parking lot fiasco but thanks for your concern anyway.