Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[theKB]

Putting a fee on developers is like trump saying the mexicans will pay for the wall by taxing their imports, at the end of the day the consumer is out of pocket.

Also the notion that property tax doesn't affect everyone is wrong. People paying rent still cover the property tax expense as do all the businesses paying triple net leases. The only way is property tax or a levy on electricity/gas as they already do as everything else is completely avoidable if you try hard enough. Gas taxes are dumb and frankly should be eliminated and moved somewhere else for the simple fact that it is avoidable.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Areas around the broadway corridor should have higher taxes... like ALL other areas within x km of a station. Have it graduated into zones. 1km from station, 1–5km from station. 5+ km from station. B-Line, Seabus, or SkyTrain line could apply

There's no need to put in a bunch of arbitrary boundaries like this. Since market forces value properties close to a Skytrain higher, and since tax is proportionally allocated across all properties based on those values, the properties benefiting most from Skytrain are already paying more taxes. This is as true in residential areas as it is in commercial ones.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by theKB

Putting a fee on developers is like trump saying the mexicans will pay for the wall by taxing their imports, at the end of the day the consumer is out of pocket.

Doesn't matter what they go for, the residents will pay for it. It is just a matter of where.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Suppose I'm a developer. What's more likely?

"I've been hit by a development fee because I'm building a tower next to a SkyTrain station. Sure, I'd love to make less money because of where I'm building."

"I've been hit by a development fee because I'm building a tower next to a SkyTrain station. Let's take that fee, divide it by the number of units, and add that to the prices so we still make the same profit."

"I'm looking at building a tower next to a SkyTrain station. Eh, I don't want to get hit by a development fee so I'll look more closely at building one slightly farther away."

"I've been hit by a development fee because I'm building a tower next to a skytrain station. I and everyone else in the development business should offer less for land that now has less profit potential"

Taxi incidence is always a fun thing.

[nname]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Suppose I'm a developer. What's more likely?

"I've been hit by a development fee because I'm building a tower next to a SkyTrain station. Sure, I'd love to make less money because of where I'm building."

"I've been hit by a development fee because I'm building a tower next to a SkyTrain station. Let's take that fee, divide it by the number of units, and add that to the prices so we still make the same profit."

"I'm looking at building a tower next to a SkyTrain station. Eh, I don't want to get hit by a development fee so I'll look more closely at building one slightly farther away."

"I'm looking to make the most profit for my business. Eh, it's too expensive to build near a SkyTrain station and housing price may not increase as much due to the introduction of a new tax. It is now more profitable to build giant homes in the middle of nowhere when land is still relatively cheaper and fee is low, so this is what I should do and hopefully the price will be much higher by the time I've finished."

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Suppose I'm a developer. What's more likely?

"I've been hit by a development fee because I'm building a tower next to a SkyTrain station. Sure, I'd love to make less money because of where I'm building."

"I've been hit by a development fee because I'm building a tower next to a SkyTrain station. Let's take that fee, divide it by the number of units, and add that to the prices so we still make the same profit."

"I'm looking at building a tower next to a SkyTrain station. Eh, I don't want to get hit by a development fee so I'll look more closely at building one slightly farther away."

There is a fourth alternative ... Pay 10,000 per unit fee, not build 40,000 dollar parking spots, save people 10,000 a year in lease, insurance and gas costs by not buying another car, and put 200,000 on the unit.

You make more money.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

There is a fourth alternative ... Pay 10,000 per unit fee, not build 40,000 dollar parking spots, save people 10,000 a year in lease, insurance and gas costs by not buying another car, and put 200,000 on the unit.

You make more money.

I think there are laws requiring the parking. So, really what needs to be changed is the local bylaws requiring as much parking.

[WarrenC12]

You can get a parking relaxation from the city in exchange for building "car share" only parking spots, which are owned in perpetuity by the CoV (I think).

A free market solution of "no minimums" on parking is good in theory, but that passes the cost along to the government to provide public transit to pick up the slack, which virtually never pays for itself, so the developer should pay something, whether it's a dedicated fee that goes to transit capital/operating, or whatever.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

you don't want building parking, look at the West End, it is a mess. it is a dumb idea to not require parking. the units wont get cheaper and there will just be more West End issues all over the city.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

you don't want building parking, look at the West End, it is a mess. it is a dumb idea to not require parking. the units wont get cheaper and there will just be more West End issues all over the city.

The west end has plenty of building parking. A lot of it goes unused. The West End is a mess, like anywhere else that is a parking mess, due to underpriced street parking.

Your comment is counter to the bulk of the academic work on the issue

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

The west end has plenty of building parking. A lot of it goes unused. The West End is a mess, like anywhere else that is a parking mess, due to underpriced street parking.

Your comment is counter to the bulk of the academic work on the issue

This was true not only of the tower I once lived in the west end but my building in east Van now, especially if they are near a major transit corridor. In my place now only my building manager and 2 other cars park in my parkade in my 45 unit building. Many of these older apartment buildings with underground parkades have them mostly empty because they are not set up to accommodate a separate area for short term parking with a machine to pay.

This would require the parkade gate to be moved further inside the parkade and section off the back area for resident parking for security and parking space stealing issues, possibly with a middle area for neighbors who need monthly parking but have none in their building. This is common in new developments but rarely retrofitted in older buildings. After the initial investment of re-configuring the parkade it is a good new stream of income for older buildings. I'm kinda surprised more parking companies haven't proposed this to building owners, especially in the west end.

Even my moms older condo tower in downtown New Westminster (with a zero rental policy) has the parkade half empty. Though to be fair all 2 bedroom units have 2 spaces and one beds a single space.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

The west end has plenty of building parking. A lot of it goes unused. The West End is a mess, like anywhere else that is a parking mess, due to underpriced street parking.

Your comment is counter to the bulk of the academic work on the issue

but the issue in the West End is that there will always be cars on the street overnight. since many buildings have too much and many have absolutely none. then look what happens when the price is raised, all hell breaks loose. and you cant honestly tell me prices decrease when less parking is built; that just doesn't happen. no matter how much parking is built, the demand of units make the price what it is and in our housing market, a parking spot wont change it.

yes the prices were way under valued, but there should be no reason for cars to be parking on street in the first place. if a house, walk up, or tower they should have ample parking so that streets can be used for transportation.

if you take away the requirement for parking, unit prices stay constant, now there needs to be extra fees ontop of the same-priced unit. instead of having something like Yaletown, you get something like the West End. you are requiring people to pay an extra fee instead of providing what should be provided.

but we are getting off topic...


the PST was the best option, but that boat has sailed so now it will be property tax and the gas tax most likely. i doubt they will be charging developers because "that will just raise prices" which is a flawed argument in Vancouver's housing market.

[retro_orange]

previous post

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ditto a proximity tax. For rentals, the landlord pays and the tenants are safe;

In what world do you live in in which landlords don't pass on the cost to tenants?

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Doesn't matter what they go for, the residents will pay for it. It is just a matter of where.

A sany economist will tell you, all taxes and levies, without exception, end up in the final price.

There is no way, ever, of taxing a producer along the way in any fashion that does not simply shove that tax onto the final price.

The real discussion around rapid rail transit is how much of a price difference does proximity to a RR station make ... and how much of that difference should be captured to pay off some of the cost of the RR system in the first place.

It is a logrithmic die off. Double the distance from a station is not half the value, perhaps not even a quarter.

So you cannot properly recover the cost from just the new line.

This also does not take into account the network effects on existing property owners. For example

I own a condo in the new Brentwood development. (I know they are not done yet, so work with me on this one, please). In front of me is the Millenium line. Now the line gets extended to Arbutus, which crosses the Canada line.

The value of my condo in Brentwood just went up, even though there is no construction anywhere around me.

Adding to the RR network, anywhere along the line, means the value of properties within 500 meters of any station goes up.

It is not simply that a few landowners along the line get a bump, it is that everyone along the line does.

The wealth creation effects of putting in more RR is for everyone.

So more BS complaints about how it gets funded, please. We all pick up a few dollars once it is built.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

A sany economist will tell you, all taxes and levies, without exception, end up in the final price.

This simply is not true. A great many introductory economics courses familiarize students with the concept of tax incidence, and explain by way of straight-forward supply & demand analysis how taxes can burden buyers and sellers to variable degrees in different markets

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

A sany economist will tell you, all taxes and levies, without exception, end up in the final price.

There is no way, ever, of taxing a producer along the way in any fashion that does not simply shove that tax onto the final price.

Totally false. The seller and buyer will share in any costs the seller has to pay. That's basic supply/demand curve economics.

[Feathered Friend]

Ah supply and demand, that's what I've never understood with this project. There's clear demand, and yet the three levels of government can't get their act together to supply it.

Seriously though, it feels these discussions are best left to the general transit discussion, if not the politics thread. I get that feelings are high on this (like the viaducts), but do we really have to keep having the same discussions over and over?

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

This simply is not true. A great many introductory economics courses familiarize students with the concept of tax incidence, and explain by way of straight-forward supply & demand analysis how taxes can burden buyers and sellers to variable degrees in different markets

Okay .. here is a definition of tax incidence. ...

"A tax incidence is an economic term for the division of a tax burden between buyers and sellers. Tax incidence is related to the price elasticity of supply and demand, and when supply is more elastic than demand, the tax burden falls on the buyers."

Did you forget the part of "if supply is more elastic".??? Supply in housing in Vancouver is far from elastic and that means, using your definition, that ALL taxes and levies on housing in the metro Vancouver area falls directly on the buyer.

But let me point out one more thing. The only time that a developer is trapped and must continue even if more levies are piled on top is when he is substantially under construction. Then he is trapped.

Except ... a) pre sales will have sold the majority of the units to buyers already. his profits are locked in.... and b) the taxes and levies are levied at permit time, not once the development is underway. once all permits are issued, it is rare for a government to be able to impose further burdens except in the case of a general rise in corporate taxes. And that kills everyone, not just the developer.

[waves]

Can someone please bring this full circle and back on topic. I am totally lost with how any of this has anything to do with the MLine expansion.