Municipal Politics

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Doody said that just a year ago when she moved her company to the Inglewood building, the property was valued at $800,000. Now it’s valued at $2.2 million, which led to a significant increase on her tax bill.[/I]

Keeping up with real valuation has been a problem - they should have been inching up the building's valuation more quickly so that this year would not be as big a shock.

As an aside, this is one of the reasons I've always advised people to consider purchasing homes instead of condos - because it is the land that will increase in value, whereas the built structures will always depreciate (not unlike cars).

[MalcolmTucker]

In really depends. In Japan land is worth 80% of the total value of real estate. In North America typically the structure is worth 80% of the total value of the real estate.

As for properties along main streets, as the redevelopment value of the land increases far beyond the existing structure's use, it is on the building owners and the lease holders to come to an amicable solution on who pays what property tax for the property. Many leases pass 100% of the property tax onto the lease holder, but the increase in value is not based solely on the increase in value of the current use, but on redevelopment value. The increase in value as a redevelopment site shouldn't be passed through to the lease holder. This is like the Popeyes on 17th Ave SW, where their taxes jumped both because of the current shift and because the land owner had the zoning changed. The lease holder shouldn't be subject to the taxes caused by the zoning change, the property owner should. But I bet the lease doesn't contemplate anything as complicated as dividing up the property value costs. Nor should the lease holder be subject to an increase in value due to general market direction pointing towards redevelopment and therefor increasing the property value of comparable.

TLDR: This is not only a city problem, this is a problem for lease holders and property owners who signed agreements based on an understanding of what the main street properties are worth, and now they are worth far more due to redevelopment activities. The lease holders and property owners hold some responsibility to negotiate equitable cost sharing based on who is benefiting from the increased value.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Many leases pass 100% of the property tax onto the lease holder, but the increase in value is not based solely on the increase in value of the current use, but on redevelopment value. The increase in value as a redevelopment site shouldn't be passed through to the lease holder. This is like the Popeyes on 17th Ave SW, where their taxes jumped both because of the current shift and because the land owner had the zoning changed.

I'd 100% agree with that. The land-owner, Atlas, is cash rich and in the buy and hold business. Signs a lease with a fast food company to take on a building with a massive lot on 17th Ave SW. Applies to have the zoning change, which is approved, making that land worth $6-7M dollars, and thus sinks the lease holder. Then the owner of the land gets massive coverage in the Calgary Herald saying how tough it is for the people they are leasing to. Worse yet, many people on this forum, ignoring the reality of what actually happened, jump on city council without acknowledging the role of the billionaire owners of the land.

[suburbia]

What I'm hearing is, the motion in front of council is to cut spending, but without breaking out what specifically to cut. That's seems beyond odd.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

What I'm hearing is, the motion in front of council is to cut spending, but without breaking out what specifically to cut. That's seems beyond odd.

$60 million in permanent operating budget cuts that will happen immediately by the sounds of it. Details to come in July. Apparently it's going to hurt which makes it sound they've put no thought into this. With an operating budget initially proposed to be $4.525 billion how could $60 million in cuts be painful? I have a feeling the City is going to pull the same stunt they always do and target the most core aspects of the budget to scare people into accepting a further tax increase. They need to look at one of the biggest line items (CPS) and make cuts there.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

$60 million in permanent operating budget cuts that will happen immediately by the sounds of it. Details to come in July. Apparently it's going to hurt which makes it sound they've put no thought into this. With an operating budget initially proposed to be $4.525 billion how could $60 million in cuts be painful? I have a feeling the City is going to pull the same stunt they always do and target the most core aspects of the budget to scare people into accepting a further tax increase. They need to look at one of the biggest line items (CPS) and make cuts there.

From what I understand, the cut is based on only 6 months of operations, so akin to $120M over an operating year. The point, however, is that it is reckless to vote for cuts without finding things to cut. It is akin to me voting you cut off an inch from your body, assuming that you have hair to cut even though there is a possibility you might be bald and would have to cut an appendage. Could be painful, eh'?

Frankly, not only is it reckless a proposal (or non-proposal), it is incompetent.

[milomilo]

Am I missing something? If the obvious problem is that our tax burden is unevenly spread, why not fix that issue? $60M is going to make almost no difference to someone that has had their property tax bill 6 fold. Corn could be right, they are talking about doing things in the most painful way as it is easier to just increase taxes than fix the structural issue.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

... make almost no difference to someone that has had their property tax bill 6 fold.

I might be mistaken here, but I don't think there are many properties with a 600% increase in their taxes. What we have heard about is 100% over a period of five years not being out of the ordinary for highly valuable areas like 17th ave SW, Kensington and some parts of Inglewood (that have been rejuvenated over the last decade), and I agree something needs to be done about that. If someone's taxes did go up 600%, something else must have happened with the lot, driven by the owner. Do you have an example? Would love to understand what is going on there.

[milomilo]

One of the most recent CBC articles had an example of that, I agree though it is probably a rare case. But there seem to be many more examples of taxes going up 100%, and that was up from levels that already seem ludicrously high.

Maybe something external did happen, but that doesn't make it fair, and it is not conducive to being a business friendly city if already obscene property taxes can potentially double in a short period. It's going to seriously make people think twice about setting up shop here.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I might be mistaken here, but I don't think there are many properties with a 600% increase in their taxes. What we have heard about is 100% over a period of five years not being out of the ordinary for highly valuable areas like 17th ave SW, Kensington and some parts of Inglewood (that have been rejuvenated over the last decade), and I agree something needs to be done about that. If someone's taxes did go up 600%, something else must have happened with the lot, driven by the owner. Do you have an example? Would love to understand what is going on there.

A number of businesses outside of the core have reported tax increases of 80% or more this year over last. Over five years it's very possible some have seen a 700% increase.

This picking an amount to cut and then looking at the details makes no sense at all. They should look at the budget line by line and then decide what to cut, what to increase, etc. This is also why moving to a four year budget cycle was never a good idea.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Over five years it's very possible some have seen a 700% increase.

Lots of things are "possible" but attempting to change systems to resolve extreme scenarios for which root causes are zoning changes initiated by land owners make zero sense.

As an aside, when we think of systemic issues, granting the Flames Billionaires tax free status on the Saddledome is among the real reasons we're in this mess. When we think about what the Flames will be trying to extract from the city for the new arena, we need to think about all the small businesses, and not just about lining the Flames owner pockets.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

This picking an amount to cut and then looking at the details makes no sense at all. They should look at the budget line by line and then decide what to cut, what to increase, etc. This is also why moving to a four year budget cycle was never a good idea.

Fully agree with that.

As well - never give the Flames Billionaires a (municipal) tax free ride (particularly since they all got a 33% reduction from Kenney already). If you ever wonder why the rich get richer, this is precisely how.

[Corndogger]

Just saw this on Twitter. This folks is a piece of public art at Great Plains Arena in SE Calgary. How in the fuck did this get approved?! Has the public art program been killed off yet?



Source: https://twitter.com/calgaryrants/status/1141158684401078272/photo/1

[MalcolmTucker]

" The project was approved in 2013 with a budget of $150k and was completed in 2016."
https://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/P...ains-Recreation-Facility-Public-Art.aspx

[YYCguys]

The concept doesn’t show any dandelions or weeds, whereas the competed project sure has lots of them! Kind of disrespectful to the artist to not maintain the grounds properly.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

" The project was approved in 2013 with a budget of $150k and was completed in 2016."
https://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/P...ains-Recreation-Facility-Public-Art.aspx

Good thing we weren't trying to guess the cost b/c I would have been way off the mark. I need to become an "artist."

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Good thing we weren't trying to guess the cost b/c I would have been way off the mark. I need to become an "artist."

When something has to be installed in a way to work for 20 years without breaking, the cost is way higher than just throwing something together for a summer pop-up. You can bet 90% of that cost went into fab and site work.

[sammyd]

Has almost every city paid art installation been from a foreign artist? They really should source these things locally. This one is a complete joke.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by sammyd

Has almost every city paid art installation been from a foreign artist? They really should source these things locally. This one is a complete joke.

Seems like the most controversial ones have all been foreign. Maybe that's how public art works. The artists know that their pieces will be hated so best to do them as far away from home as possible.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Just saw this on Twitter. This folks is a piece of public art at Great Plains Arena in SE Calgary. How in the fuck did this get approved?! Has the public art program been killed off yet?



Source: https://twitter.com/calgaryrants/status/1141158684401078272/photo/1

Looks horrendous, however, I don't believe actual artworks that come out of the City process are things that should be discussed in the municipal politics thread. The artworks are not an expression of political ideology.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Looks horrendous, however, I don't believe actual artworks that come out of the City process are things that should be discussed in the municipal politics thread. The artworks are not an expression of political ideology.

The program is 100% political.