New Arena for Downtown Edmonton - Page 235

Hallsy's Toupee · #**4681** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 4:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

^^ different. the CRL takes funds from the supposed new development that will take place as a result of the construction. An infrasture inprovement levy takes funds from those already there.

Being a resident of downtown myself, I would have no issue with that, especially since I live just outside the CRL zone. But I wouldn't want the improvement levy for just the arena though.

SHOFEAR · #**4682** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ I am glad you agree. If a levy could cover the infrasture costs, then I think a lot of people would get behind the city throwing a few more bucks into the project itself. However, you're not going to keep all your tax dollars in your neighborhood kiddo... that ain't how it works. Plus you'd be pretty screwed when it came time to flush your toilet or take a shower

How is that any different from what you are suggesting? By promoting levies your essentially saying that peoples taxes should reflect what it costs to provide (and maintain/upgrade) services and infrastructure to them.

240glt · #**4683** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 5:11 PM**

^ But those levies don't come close to covering all the costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure over it's lifespan. Monies still need to be funnelled in from general revenues to cover the shortfalls. Plus, we're not talking about essential services here. We're talking about "wants" rather than "needs"

If I want my alley repaired (it's a mess right now) I have to get the majority of the residents backing onto the alley to sign a petition, then we have to pay a levy to get the work done. The alley right now is passable, but if I want it sparkly and new, that's what needs to be done. The city is basically saying "Yes, we'll fix your alley, but we want you as the adjacent land owners, who will benefit the most from this, to throw a few bucks into the pot" Same deal could be done for DT infrastructure, especially in the arena area where money is the big issue

And the tax disparity vis-a-vis how much you pay versus how much you get back is hardly a downtown only issue. Most central neighborhoods are in exactly the same boat

kcantor · #**4684** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

...
And the tax disparity vis-a-vis how much you pay versus how much you get back is hardly a downtown only issue. Most central neighborhoods are in exactly the same boat

while it's easy to boil it down to that, that's one of those statements that's entirely true but at the same time not quite complete either.

it's similar to the discussions on market vs non-market housing. if you have a 100 houses and it's 60% nonmarket when a healthier ratio would be 20%, is the solution to relocate two thirds of the nonmarket accommodation to "spread things out" or to add 200 market units to that neighborhood? it's may not easy to do that but neither is the alternative and the status quo is untenable for all.

on the taxes needed to pave the lane, it's not nust how much you need to pay to pave it versus how much you then need to get back but how much is needed to pave it and how many taxpayers are there to share that cost (and you can do that math for the entire city as well as for individual neighborhoods, central or not, if you want). the biggest problem with downtown and our central neighborhoods is probably attracting more taxpayers into sharing those costs, not simply spend less.

to bring it back to your lane example, if your lane has 15 homes on both sides to share the cost amongst all those using it, it's easier than being the only home on the block and having to pay for it yourself. to take that further, if you are the only one paying taxes on a house and lot and all the other lots are empty, the increased taxes if homes get built on the other 29 may eliminate the need for you to pay a special levy entirely. then the question becomes one of "will those other 29 homes get built sooner if the lane is paved first instead of leaving the lane undone until then".

240glt · #**4685** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

the biggest problem with downtown and our central neighborhoods is probably attracting more taxpayers into sharing those costs, not simply spend less.

I definitely agree with this statement

Quote:

if your lane has 15 homes on both sides to share the cost amongst all those using it, it's easier than being the only home on the block and having to pay for it yourself. to take that further, if you are the only one paying taxes on a house and lot and all the other lots are empty, the increased taxes if homes get built on the other 29 may eliminate the need for you to pay a special levy entirely. then the question becomes one of "will those other 29 homes get built sooner if the lane is paved first instead of leaving the lane undone until then".

Really though, it doesn't matter if there are houses on the lots or not... the owner of the land will still have to pay the levy to the property taxes, regardless of whether there is a structure on it.

However, once the alley is rebuilt, it might become more attractive for the adjacent properties to be developed... but in that case the land owner is still benefitting from the infrastructure improvement, whether it be to develop or sell the land.

MichaelS · #**4686** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 6:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tallisgood

Dude, people are sinking incomprehensible sums of cash into low yield investments right now, and have been for several years. Believe me, I know. If they weren't there wouldn't BE so many low yield debt instruments being bought up right now. Right or wrong, capital preservation is a dominant theme these days (except with hedge funds and investment banks). That's why bonds viewed as secure can get away with the piddley yields they offer, and Canadian federal, provincial, and municipal debt is considered extremely safe in the investment community.

Good point. For now it is considered extremely safe. But, how will it be affected if the municipallity begins to take on massive amounts of debt for questionable projects? Maybe it won't have a noticeable impact, but there is a reason Mr. Draghi had to announce the ECB would be doing unlimited bond buying in Europe. I am not saying Edmonton is Greece, but spending half a billion dollars on a "nice to have" stadium is not a step in the opposite direction in my opinion.

kcantor · #**4687** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

I definitely agree with this statement

Really though, it doesn't matter if there are houses on the lots or not... the owner of the land will still have to pay the levy to the property taxes, regardless of whether there is a structure on it.

However, once the alley is rebuilt, it might become more attractive for the adjacent properties to be developed... but in that case the land owner is still benefitting from the infrastructure improvement, whether it be to develop or sell the land.

it does matter if there are houses or not. it's probably reasonable to expect 750 a year for taxes on the lot and 2,750 for a lot with a house on it. in this instance - and i appreciate it's illustrative only - if the city was getting another 580,000 each and every year in base property taxes on lots that already exist, maybe you wouldn't need to come up with a levy over and above your 2,750 tax bill to have a paved lane. which brings the discussion back to whether it would be in the city's interest to pave it now to attract 29 more homeowners. yes it would likely be borrowed money but the 580,000 a year should more than repay it with interest. the question is how much influence that paving - or rec centre or arena or pac etc. - would have on their selection process (not only within edmonton but to edmonton). not always easy questions to answer either way.

240glt · #**4688** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdnklc

it does matter if there are houses or not. it's probably reasonable to expect 750 a year for taxes on the lot and 2,750 for a lot with a house on it. in this instance - and i appreciate it's illustrative only - if the city was getting another 580,000 each and every year in base property taxes on lots that already exist, maybe you wouldn't need to come up with a levy over and above your 2,750 tax bill to have a paved lane. which brings the discussion back to whether it would be in the city's interest to pave it now to attract 29 more homeowners. yes it would likely be borrowed money but the 580,000 a year should more than repay it with interest. the question is how much influence that paving - or rec centre or arena or pac etc. - would have on their selection process (not only within edmonton but to edmonton). not always easy questions to answer either way.

Except with regards to an infrastructure levy, it is not proportional to the value of the land and structure... the levy is a fixed amount that (I believe) is proportional to either the size of the lot or the frontage... My neighbors' house to the south is brand new, on the same sized lot.. and he pays the same as I do for our IIL.

So going back to the arena... if property owners within a set distance of the proposed project were to be charged a levy to help cover the cost of the upgrades, then theoretically the levy would also induce additional investment by way of the added desireablility that the upgrades bring to the adjacent properties. The owners in the area are the ones who are going to benefit from the infrastructure, therefore it could be beneficial to levy current downtown property owners for the future value increase that the upgrades will supposedly bring

tallisgood · #**4689** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Good point. For now it is considered extremely safe. But, how will it be affected if the municipallity begins to take on massive amounts of debt for questionable projects? Maybe it won't have a noticeable impact, but there is a reason Mr. Draghi had to announce the ECB would be doing unlimited bond buying in Europe. I am not saying Edmonton is Greece, but spending half a billion dollars on a "nice to have" stadium is not a step in the opposite direction in my opinion.

I agree that our national/provincial/municipal finances aren't quite as rosy as most people perceive (commodity prices largely driven up by a Chinese real estate bubble has saved our behinds the last few years). That said, no one is advocating taking on massive amounts of debt for questionable projects. We're talking $100 mil, here. And I do think it's a necessary project. We need an arena anyway, so we may as well think big and do right and make our downtown more vibrant in the process.

Coldrsx · #**4690** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 1:56 AM**

Is it built yet? I was kinda hoping to return to it.

Airboy · #**4691** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 3:02 AM**

Sitting here in Seattle, I read a news report about the local city council approving the funding for a new 490 Mil Arena. After it is all payed of the team owner can buy it for 200 mil. But they are looking at the revenue that will be generated over a number of years and the taxes collected. The only bitching came from the local manufacturing association and the port authority, as it would bring more traffic into the area. When I get to a computer I will link the article.

CMD UW · #**4692** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 3:22 AM**

^Seattle learned its lesson after the Supersonics left town because of not approving a new arena.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**4693** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 1:20 PM**

The downtown Edmonton arena project could be jeopardy. Global News is learning from several sources that a major roadblock could put an end to the project.

Gary Wayne · #**4694** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 1:33 PM**

The longer we weight the more it will cost has been known for a very long time. I think city council should just make the decision now and earmark a 100,mil from there 2013 budget even though it may upset some tax payers. The alternitive will be no arena because it is obvious that the government will not give any money for the Arena.

MichaelS · #**4695** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Wayne

The longer we weight the more it will cost has been known for a very long time. I think city council should just make the decision now and earmark a 100,mil from there 2013 budget even though it may upset some tax payers. The alternitive will be no arena because it is obvious that the government will not give any money for the Arena.

So what projects do you want to see cancelled because you are re-purposing $100 million?

oiler-dude · #**4696** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

The downtown Edmonton arena project could be jeopardy. Global News is learning from several sources that a major roadblock could put an end to the project.

Well isn't that just peachy...

As much as I love this city, it sure does piss me off a lot. My reasons to stay here would be a good chunk smaller if this falls through.

240glt · #**4697** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 3:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Wayne

The longer we weight the more it will cost has been known for a very long time. I think city council should just make the decision now and earmark a 100,mil from there 2013 budget even though it may upset some tax payers. The alternitive will be no arena because it is obvious that the government will not give any money for the Arena.

It's too bad that the whole process was so terribly flawed from the start. A new arena is great, but the way it's been gone about is just awful.

We're at a point where they should be sealing up deals and making exciting announcements, not hand wringing and pontificating

If taxpayers were going to be on the hook for most of the project that should have been made clear from the start. I disagree that the city should just throw all caution to the wind and fund it regardless of how much it costs. And if we do, well we need a much better deal with Mr. Katz.

Or do what should have been done in the first place... work with existing stakeholders with whom the city has long standing relationships to come forward with a model for a publicly funded, publicly owned facility.

oiler-dude · #**4698** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 6:31 PM**

Per various tweets:

- Katz Group asked council for more public funding
- Council denied; sticking to original deal
- Mandel: "Optimistic" not the right word for Arena; "Frustration" would be more accurate

Certainly doesn't seem like good news at all... Goodbye downtown arena?

Kevin_foster · #**4699** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 6:41 PM**

ffs

tallisgood · #**4700** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 7:26 PM**

So once this arena plan dies, what's going to happen when it suddenly dawns on everyone that we need a new arena, have no new plan to proceed on building one, and now rising inflation AND interest rates will make the whole thing much more expensive than had we proceeded sooner.... Oh, and Seattle now has a nice new arena? KC's still looking for a team to fill their nice new arena, too. Wow, Edmonton.