Winnipeg Construction VIII

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Most of their seats are in Winnipeg I assume.

True enough. But realistically, I think the PST hike will probably stick in the craw of voters a lot more than a tax on new suburban homes.

[bomberjet]

Politics are ridiculous. It's like a junior high popularity contest. Should do away with political parties and just have everyone independent. Then none of this non sense would happen. The NDP blocks a move by the city to gain votes. When in reality the levy/tax/whatever is the right thing to do...

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Politics are ridiculous. It's like a junior high popularity contest. Should do away with political parties and just have everyone independent. Then none of this non sense would happen. The NDP blocks a move by the city to gain votes. When in reality the levy/tax/whatever is the right thing to do...

Dan Lett had an article today about it. Sounds like the province is all for it, but as soon as Fielding and others started calling it a tax they've had to step back a bit. I assume it'll go through eventually.

[Cyro]

This is not new news, but fitting as this discussion has gone political in this thread.

Castlebury Meadows is a go
Posted: 10/29/2013 11:47 AM

Despite opposition from the city’s planning department, a new subdivision for northwest Winnipeg was approved earlier this month by executive policy committee.

Terracon Development Ltd. plans to build Castlebury Meadows, a 30-hectare site at the corner of King Edward Street and Jefferson Avenue. Castlebury Meadows would include 593 units of single-family homes, duplexes and apartments.

City planners recommended that Terracon be totally responsible for funding upgrades to King Edward and Commercial Avenue. The planning department also suggested Terracon construct a noise barrier and build a road through Castlebury Meadows for Winnipeg Transit buses.

Michael Falk, vice-president of Terracon, said the roadwork would force him to double the price of the Castlebury homes from $300,000 to $600,000.

EPC modified the roadwork requirement and removed several others.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/our...229720401.html

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Cyrodill

Michael Falk, vice-president of Terracon, said the roadwork would force him to double the price of the Castlebury homes from $300,000 to $600,000.

EPC modified the roadwork requirement and removed several others.

There is a word to accurately describe EPC's actions, but I might get banned if I use it.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by esquire

There is a word to accurately describe EPC's actions, but I might get banned if I use it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Other comments..on the proposal...

"I don't want to put (a bus route) through the middle of the development," he said.

On the cost of road upgrades, Falk said his company should only be required to pay 50 per cent of any needed improvements to roadways fronting its property.

City staff said it's estimated the new subdivision would result in the number of vehicles using existing roads increasing to more than 7,000 daily from 1,000, adding since Terracon was responsible for that increase, the company should cover the entire cost.


^ Winnipeg Free Press
Planners lose on subdivision
City panel OK's big new project on Jefferson
More >> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...226261331.html

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Dan Lett had an article today about it. Sounds like the province is all for it, but as soon as Fielding and others started calling it a tax they've had to step back a bit. I assume it'll go through eventually.

Oh okay, I didn't read the article. So call it a "development fee".

The old saying "if you want to play, you gotta pay" fits quite well for this situation. If you want to live in a new development on the outskirts of town, pay for it. Don't except someone living in the core to have their taxes raised so you can live in a shiny new house on a large lot.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Oh okay, I didn't read the article. So call it a "development fee".

The old saying "if you want to play, you gotta pay" fits quite well for this situation. If you want to live in a new development on the outskirts of town, pay for it. Don't except someone living in the core to have their taxes raised so you can live in a shiny new house on a large lot.

As much as it appeals to people who want to see downtown development, I really wonder whether that argument makes economic sense. In particular, the assertion that "core" residents are somehow paying more for suburbia than suburbia pays for the core is something that I don't find very likely, but I don't know how you would analyze it. What does seem fairly clear to me is that if you push up new house prices in Winnipeg, you run the risk of undermining one of the relatively few economic advantages that Winnipeg has, which is affordable new suburban houses for young families. Obviously the real-world result of any such policy would be to shift development outside the city limits -- although that should (on this theory) be good news since suburban development supposedly comes at a net cost to the city.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Andy6

As much as it appeals to people who want to see downtown development, I really wonder whether that argument makes economic sense. In particular, the assertion that "core" residents are somehow paying more for suburbia than suburbia pays for the core is something that I don't find very likely, but I don't know how you would analyze it. What does seem fairly clear to me is that if you push up new house prices in Winnipeg, you run the risk of undermining one of the relatively few economic advantages that Winnipeg has, which is affordable new suburban houses for young families. Obviously the real-world result of any such policy would be to shift development outside the city limits -- although that should (on this theory) be good news since suburban development supposedly comes at a net cost to the city.

Can you show me how you think the suburban population pays for the core? I have always been of the opinion that if an apartment block/condo building houses 50 people it would cost less in infrastructure (and operations) to supply the building than the same number of single family dwellings.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Obviously the real-world result of any such policy would be to shift development outside the city limits -- although that should (on this theory) be good news since suburban development supposedly comes at a net cost to the city.

Exurban development does "cost" the City less, but it costs the province more, so it's a lose-lose.

The other thing this doesn't realize is the utility the exurbanites get from the City infrastructure. But you get diminishing returns when more people use streets, so basically the exurbanites are making the City infrastructure less useful for people who pay for it.

[esquire]

I think developers have already done a pretty good job of pushing up housing costs on their own... I'm not talking about the price of contractors and materials, but rather developers who are now charging $125,000 for a lot that was $50,000 a decade ago. It's not like the developers have just purchased these tracts of land either... in many cases, developers have banked the land for decades. And yet people still gladly pay for new houses at ever-increasing prices.

I'm not sure that tacking on another $12,000 to a new $450,000 house in Winnipeg is going to send all that many people to East St. Paul or Springfield, but if they do, they can look forward to new home taxes of $17,500 and $11,500 respectively in those municipalities, among others that charge those fees. The "but they're going to build outside the city" bogeyman has been used to justify all kinds of sprawl-friendly measures within Winnipeg, but it would seem to me that there's still a pretty limited market for housing outside of the city limits.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Exurban development does "cost" the City less, but it costs the province more, so it's a lose-lose.

The other thing this doesn't realize is the utility the exurbanites get from the City infrastructure. But you get diminishing returns when more people use streets, so basically the exurbanites are making the City infrastructure less useful for people who pay for it.

The thing that people often forget is that exurbanites generally live in bedroom communities. Unless it's in Springfield, these bedroom communities often have to rely quite heavily on residential property taxes for revenue. Assuming most of these people actually work in Winnipeg, you have to take into account that this benefits Winnipeg's industrial and commercial tax bases, which are taxed at a much higher rate than residential.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

The thing that people often forget is that exurbanites generally live in bedroom communities. Unless it's in Springfield, these bedroom communities often have to rely quite heavily on residential property taxes for revenue. Assuming most of these people actually work in Winnipeg, you have to take into account that this benefits Winnipeg's industrial and commercial tax bases, which are taxed at a much higher rate than residential.

So -- this is my exact argument... An exurbanite works downtown, but the City has to help him get downtown. The City builds wide roads with the tax-base they get from the offices downtown to subsidize the sprawling exurbanite.

How is this not the dense downtown subsidizing sprawl? More productive growth (what some might call densification) would be a better solution. Letting people work and live in the same area.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by Bdog

The thing that people often forget is that exurbanites generally live in bedroom communities. Unless it's in Springfield, these bedroom communities often have to rely quite heavily on residential property taxes for revenue. Assuming most of these people actually work in Winnipeg, you have to take into account that this benefits Winnipeg's industrial and commercial tax bases, which are taxed at a much higher rate than residential.

Winnipeg should just replace the property tax with a payroll tax.

Anyone who makes money in Winnipeg is taxed at a flat rate (lets say somewhere around 1.5%) but the property tax for all Winnipeg properties is abolished. Then if you want to live in Oakbank and work in Winnipeg you get to pay taxes twice.

[cheswick]

My in laws are from Montreal. I'm told there new developments are paid for by higher relative property taxes for X number of years to pay infrastructure costs.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Can you show me how you think the suburban population pays for the core? I have always been of the opinion that if an apartment block/condo building houses 50 people it would cost less in infrastructure (and operations) to supply the building than the same number of single family dwellings.

But if you're talking infill, then it could be quite a different story. If you have 10,000 people to house and you propose to do so by building 200 50-person apartment buildings in vacant lots throughout the older parts of Winnipeg, each needing to be dealt with separately and each presenting unique design and logistics challenges and with the need not to disrupt existing neighbours etc., it sounds to me (just on an intuitive basis) as though it could be fairly costly in comparison with the economies of scale of greenfielding a 2,500 home suburban development on a a few hundred acres of empty fields.
If you're talking about replacing the 2,500 houses with 200 50-person apartments in the greenfield area, then yes -- quite possibly you're right, but that's not how your target market wants to live.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Winnipeg should just replace the property tax with a payroll tax.

Anyone who makes money in Winnipeg is taxed at a flat rate (lets say somewhere around 1.5%) but the property tax for all Winnipeg properties is abolished. Then if you want to live in Oakbank and work in Winnipeg you get to pay taxes twice.

Winnipeg would soon lose as businesses relocated outside the city. That's particularly easy to do in a service economy such as we now have.

[Cyro]

oooohhh...Good discussion,.............................................


Katz won't take 'No' for an answer
Will press for right to tax new developments

Mayor Sam Katz says he’s not taking No from Premier Selinger.

Selinger said over the noon hour today he would not support giving Winnipeg new powers to impose new fees on developers.

But Katz said the city will still formally request legislative changes to impose fees to cover the costs of growth-related services.

Katz said he doesn’t understand how the province can allow rural communities to have the right to impose such charges on developers but not Winnipeg.

"If you live in a mature neighbourhood… Should you be subsidizing growth in other parts of the city, because that’s what this is all about," Katz said this afternoon. "Having growth pay for growth."

Earlier today, Selinger said he won’t support the city’s request.

"We’re not interested in new fees and charges," Selinger said. "They can do many of the things they want to do now through development agreements… We’re not going to bring forward legislation."

Katz said the city can’t collect enough property taxes to repair existing infrastructure in established neighbourhoods and provide services for new suburban communities.

Katz said developers have already accepted the concept, so long as the fees apply only to services spawned by suburban growth.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...230877131.html

..........................continue.....

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Politics are ridiculous. It's like a junior high popularity contest. Should do away with political parties and just have everyone independent. Then none of this non sense would happen. The NDP blocks a move by the city to gain votes. When in reality the levy/tax/whatever is the right thing to do...

That sounds like a good idea right up until you realize that money buys advertising and politicians advertise. In other words , whoever has the most money wins. Not really a step in the right direction.

Secondly , are we really going to go over this "make the users pay the taxes" garbage again ? You get a net benefit from exurban dwellers working in the city. They don't get bus service , access to the city water supply , our fire department or police service and so on. They pay their own taxes for their own services. If you want them to pay for using "our" roads then fine... you should be prepared to pay part of their tax burden as well. They pay for what they get. You pay for what you get. Don't like it ? Move to another city.

Now , on to actual construction again : Is it just me or does Heritage Landing seem to be taking a lot longer than one would expect to get out of the ground ?

Also , when is that Fort Rouge yards going to see a shovel stuck into the ground ? Transitway's done...what are they waiting for ?

[vid]

If after you throw in the value of road upgrades, those houses come to $600,000 each (according to the developers costing), then regardless of who pays for the road expansion, those are $600,000 houses. So what we're arguing is, to what degree should the municipal government be subsidizing $600,000 houses?

Thunder Bay is planning to spend approximately $20,000,000 to build a new road through an infilling subdivision on the edge of the city, which will connect to a road that is currently undergoing it's own $20,000,000 expansion. But what they don't mention is that, with 3,200 homes in the area, that comes to $12,000 per dwelling for the project (at it's current proposed cost; it will surely go up). They're only paying $2,500 to $3,500 in taxes per year, and that has to cover, in addition to capital road projects, all city services they receive.

And now that I have crunched these numbers, I actually have to ask: How the fuck does expanding a road in Northwest Winnipeg cost so much compared to the same project in Thunder Bay? We are building ours through muskeg, over private property (which had to be purchased at market rates), and it required the relocating of hydro and gas infrastructure. Active transportation (bike lanes, recreation trails and bus bays) were included in the project. Are the developers in Winnipeg building only 5 houses?? Or are they building 15 miles from town?

Why is it such an evil thing for people to pay for the roads they use?