Olympic Village & Southeast False Creek Updates Discussion

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Once you turn it into a park it's pretty politically difficult to change it back.

The plot of land where James was built at 1st & Crowe was a temporary park for a year or so. They even had signs up saying something like "your community park by cressey", which made it vaguely sound like a lasting amenity. Then, boom, condos.

[osirisboy]

Also as mentioned in the phot update the one by pinnacle was also a park. So it's not difficult at all to develop these parks. Anyways I can see it getting developed in a few years

[Jebby]

They could just put a sign reminding people that while they wait for market conditions to improve they want the people of SEFC to be able to enjoy the land. Then at the bottom say "new homes coming soon" or something like that to remind them that it isn't going to be a park for ever.

[mpatricklee]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Once you turn it into a park it's pretty politically difficult to change it back.

In North Van they're turning a waterfront lot into temporary beach volleyball courts until they can figure out what to do with it.

Only politically difficult if it's city land. If it's privately owned and the SEFC community plan calls for it to be developed eventually, then I think most in the community will realize it's only temporarily a park.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by mpatricklee

Only politically difficult if it's city land. If it's privately owned and the SEFC community plan calls for it to be developed eventually, then I think most in the community will realize it's only temporarily a park.

The type of people who complain about losing a temporary private park are not the type to care about who owns it.

[spm2013]

#OccupyTemporaryPark

[BCPhil]

Tax breaks for temporary parks are a bad idea. Developers should be encouraged to develop their land, not sit on it. And cities should be encouraged to own parks, not lease them from companies at the expense of tax income.

Letting a developer sit on land, with a tax break, only further harms and slows the market by artificially decreasing supply (the land is basically taken out of the market), which in turn drives up prices (temporarily), thus further decreasing demand, which will then drive down the prices to the point where the developer is in an even worse market in which to develop, so he sits on it longer. It would only lengthen the amount of time that land sits undeveloped.

[jlousa]

I agree that tax breaks for parks isn't the best of ideas, but it's not all negative, if the market is in a slump it's better to leave the land vacant for a year or two and then build it out to max zoning, then just have the owner develop it with a minimal building which will be stuck there for decades.
The public realm obviously improves with a temp park over a vacant lot, the issue then is how much of a benefit is derived and what should tax payers have to pay for it. Personally I feel the current system is too generous and hence why it's so popular. A better balance needs to be struck.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The public realm obviously improves with a temp park over a vacant lot, the issue then is how much of a benefit is derived and what should tax payers have to pay for it. Personally I feel the current system is too generous and hence why it's so popular. A better balance needs to be struck.

Why would a developer turning a lot into a temporary park cost taxpayers anything?

A tax break is not a cost to taxpayers. That assumes that the money belonged to the government in the first place.

There should be more tax incentives for developers to turn private spaces into parks and other amenities which can be enjoyed by the general public. Privately run spaces not only would save taxpayer money, but are almost always of better quality than publicly owned and operated spaces.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Why would a developer turning a lot into a temporary park cost taxpayers anything?

A tax break is not a cost to taxpayers. That assumes that the money belonged to the government in the first place.

There should be more tax incentives for developers to turn private spaces into parks and other amenities which can be enjoyed by the general public. Privately run spaces not only would save taxpayer money, but are almost always of better quality than publicly owned and operated spaces.

You do realize that temp parks get an property assessment treatment that renders a far lower property tax bill, yes? That's money foregone by the City, so in a sense you can trust that it's costing us.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

You do realize that temp parks get an property assessment treatment that renders a far lower property tax bill, yes? That's money foregone by the City, so in a sense you can trust that it's costing us.

Remember you're talking to a Ron Paul acolyte. They don't operate in our economic world.

[jlousa]

The way property tax is done is via a mill rate, the city figures out how much it needs for the year and adjusts the mill rate to reach that figure, when you lower the value of a property the mill rate needs to be adjusted upwards to make up for that lost income. So everyone in the city pays additional property tax every time the city allows a temp park. I'm not completely against this, but I do feel we should question if we are getting our money's worth.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The way property tax is done is via a mill rate, the city figures out how much it needs for the year and adjusts the mill rate to reach that figure, when you lower the value of a property the mill rate needs to be adjusted upwards to make up for that lost income. So everyone in the city pays additional property tax every time the city allows a temp park.

This assumes that the amount of money City Hall spends must always be taken for granted, that the size of its budget and the manner in which it spends it are beyond question. It assumes that City Hall, unlike every other household, is incapable of (or exempt from) having to question how much it spends and decreasing (or finding greater efficiencies in) its budget.

This is obviously false. This is why a reduction in a person's tax bill can never be rationally construed as "costing" other taxpayers. It's City Hall's spending (and only City Hall's spending) that costs taxpayers.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

This is obviously false. This is why a reduction in a person's tax bill can never be rationally construed as "costing" other taxpayers. It's City Hall's spending (and only City Hall's spending) that costs taxpayers.

Let me introduce you to a word evidently missing from your dictionary: interconnectedness.

"Obviously false"?

Tax cheats cost everyone else. It's zero sum, my friend.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Jebby

There should be more tax incentives for developers to turn private spaces into parks and other amenities which can be enjoyed by the general public. Privately run spaces not only would save taxpayer money, but are almost always of better quality than publicly owned and operated spaces.

I think your argument breaks down near the end. There is no comparison between the quality of public parks and the temporary parks created through the incentive system being discussed.

Public Park in SEFC

IMG_0274.jpg by Alex.Wren.Photo, on Flickr

'Private Park' in SEFC

Taken by SFUVancouver, May 18th, 2012.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by s211

It's zero sum, my friend.

Let me repeat myself, my friend:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

This assumes that the amount of money City Hall spends must always be taken for granted, that the size of its budget and the manner in which it spends it are beyond question. It assumes that City Hall, unlike every other household, is incapable of (or exempt from) having to question how much it spends and decreasing (or finding greater efficiencies in) its budget.

This is obviously false.

Thus, it's not true that a reduction of tax revenue in one area must entail an increase in another. City Hall can reduce its spending or spend more efficiently.

If you have a substantive response to this point and want to contribute to the dialogue in an intelligent way, then by all means do.

[SpongeG]

better it sits for a few years as a "park" than an eyesore

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I think your argument breaks down near the end. There is no comparison between the quality of public parks and the temporary parks created through the incentive system being discussed.

I never suggested that a public permanent park and a private temporary park built solely for tax reasons would be equal.

What I claimed is that a private permanent facility is almost always superior to a publicly owned one and that they almost always end up saving taxpayers money. Take Bryant and Central Parks in New York for example. Both were desolate places...until their management was taken over by private organizations.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

This assumes that the amount of money City Hall spends must always be taken for granted, that the size of its budget is beyond question. It assumes that City Hall, unlike every other household, is incapable of (or exempt from) questioning how much it "needs" to spend and decreasing (or finding greater efficiencies in) its budget and living within its means.

This is obviously false. This is why a reduction in a person's tax bill can never be rationally construed as "costing" other taxpayers. It's City Hall's spending (and only City Hall's spending) that costs taxpayers.

Very well said, especially the last part. I'm glad someone here gets it.

[jlousa]

It still costs taxpayers money, as cityhall could decrease expenses and spend more efficiently with or w/o the temp park in place. Lets assume for amusment sakes that the goverment was 100% efficient and they just gave a tax break to a developer, they would then have to raise tax of everyone else to make up that lost income to meet their budget. Obviously they aren't 100% efficient but the point stands that they will not meet the shortfall by cutting expenses, otherwise they should already be doing that.