Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[WarrenC12]

Don't forget the ongoing property tax revenue that will be generated from that area and surrounding uplifted value in the future.

Even when they jam a ton of non-market housing in there, it's still a long term win for the city from a financial perspective.

[Vin]

*face palm* at those in denial.

First you have the viewcones, then the City wants a massive amount of land to go to social housing, and then there are people here who are against foreign investors paying high for their property purchases. So how much market condo sales can you put in to achieve the density and funding?

Please, stop this nonsense already. Greg Robertson is no longer around to prop that up.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

*face palm* at those in denial.

First you have the viewcones, then the City wants a massive amount of land to go to social housing, and then there are people here who are against foreign investors paying high for their property purchases. So how much market condo sales can you put in to achieve the density and funding?

Please, stop this nonsense already. Greg Robertson is no longer around to prop that up.

What nonsense are you talking about? Clearly there are still big parts of this plan that have not been ironed out. If the number is too big, the social and non-market housing parts will get cut back, just like Olympic Village.

[jlousa]

Property tax revenue? It's not a positive number from residential, the city spends more to service each unit then it takes in on residential property tax, it requires commercial property tax to compensate. The numbers are on the city's webpage. Hence why everytime Concord squeezes more residential units into a parcel while skimping out on the commercial component the city ends up losing.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Property tax revenue? It's not a positive number from residential, the city spends more to service each unit then it takes in on residential property tax, it requires commercial property tax to compensate. The numbers are on the city's webpage. Hence why everytime Concord squeezes more residential units into a parcel while skimping out on the commercial component the city ends up losing.

Where's the breakdown? I don't see it in the city's budget documents.

There's obviously economies of scale with dense neighbourhoods. The city needs to provide last-mile connections to utilities, but this is hardly like a new development at the edge of the wilderness.

[logan5]

I have to see these numbers that show high density residential is a money loser for the city. Condos towers are a rip off for home buyers, but 300 units on a 20 000 sq foot property is an extremely efficient use of land and infrastructure that is already in place, as mentioned above.

[jlousa]

The city used to have the numbers front and centre on their tax page but I can no longer find them. It used to show that the residential property tax (of which only about 50% goes to the city) only covered 75% or the costs of servicing that resident. Business the ratio was skewed the opposite. Remember that water and sewer and such are added over top and are net zero. We are talking about the price of servicing the residents and stuff like providing parkspace,recreation centres, policing, fire response doesn't get cheaper with higher density if anything it probably increases. My only guess is the commercial real estate lobby used the city's very figures to negotiate a further reduction in their tax share and the city removed the numbers.

[jlousa]

Been digging to try and find the numbers and it's been bugging me and the closest I dug up is even worse then my memory recalled. Sure the those numbers are dated but the ratio will still be similar and show that residential development doesn't fill the civic coffers.

A 2007 report by MMK Consulting for the City of Vancouver found that, on average, residential properties in Vancouver paid $0.56 in property taxes for each dollar of tax-supported services consumed, while non-residential properties paid $2.42 for every dollar of tax-supported services they consumed.

Source:
https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op...-ratio-is-unfair-to-businesses-1.9156789

And a copy the the full report as hosted on the citys website for those interested. Still weird to see the city bury this info.
https://vancouver.ca/taxcommission/assets/pdf/2007-commission-report.pdf

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The city used to have the numbers front and centre on their tax page but I can no longer find them. It used to show that the residential property tax (of which only about 50% goes to the city) only covered 75% or the costs of servicing that resident. Business the ratio was skewed the opposite. Remember that water and sewer and such are added over top and are net zero. We are talking about the price of servicing the residents and stuff like providing parkspace,recreation centres, policing, fire response doesn't get cheaper with higher density if anything it probably increases. My only guess is the commercial real estate lobby used the city's very figures to negotiate a further reduction in their tax share and the city removed the numbers.

That would be an interesting study, but there are a ton of details in that mix. Efficient land use (ie. condos) has to be in the best interests of the city vs. SFH. Of course commercial uses provide a ton of value, but they get some of that value from close proximity to dense residential.

As for policing, fire, etc, it can't be overstated how much those resources are used by a small part of the population, and likely not the ones paying a nickel of property taxes, if we're being honest.

I'd say overall it's a bit flawed in reasoning. If a business employs 10 people, and those people don't live in Vancouver, are they assumed to use 0% of parks and community rec centers in Vancouver? It's not quite that simple.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Been digging to try and find the numbers and it's been bugging me and the closest I dug up is even worse then my memory recalled. Sure the those numbers are dated but the ratio will still be similar and show that residential development doesn't fill the civic coffers.



Source:
https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op...-ratio-is-unfair-to-businesses-1.9156789

And a copy the the full report as hosted on the citys website for those interested. Still weird to see the city bury this info.
https://vancouver.ca/taxcommission/assets/pdf/2007-commission-report.pdf

Wow, very interesting and not what one would expect.

[logan5]

Can you find a further breakdown because this is on average (that document you posted is 171 pages, so forget that). We were originally talking about tower units. Providing city services for a detached home on 4000 sq feet has to be drastically different than providing for a 600 sq foot condo unit that’s worth 800k. Point being that a 300 unit condo tower, with each condo worth 6 or 700 grand, sits on the same foot print as 5 detached houses and collects an enormous amount of property tax compared to 5 houses. The city loves towers. They have to be making money off them.

[jlousa]

Read the report it's only a couple hundred pages, I did. And no the city does not make money on towers over sfh. The reason they are addicted to them is not for property tax revenue. And providing water and sewage is net zero and billed separately.

[logan5]

Ok read it. It doesn't say anything about condo units vs detached homes. Oh well. My sense tells me condo units are much less costly than detached homes to the city, and probably create revenue. Have to go with that for now.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Read the report it's only a couple hundred pages, I did. And no the city does not make money on towers over sfh. The reason they are addicted to them is not for property tax revenue. And providing water and sewage is net zero and billed separately.

Water and sewage is definitely billed separately, but what makes you think they aren't profit centers? NEU is, why would those be any different?

[Changing City]

The numbers have changed between 2006 and 2019. It's also worth noting that only half the taxes paid go to the city: Metro Vancouver, Translink and other provincial agencies take half the property taxes.

In 2006 residential property had 83% of the assessed value of all property in the city, and paid only 48% of taxes, with business paying 52%

In 2019 residential property represents 80% of the total assessed value and will pay 56% of taxes, with business paying 44%.

So there's been quite a shift over the past 13 years.

That's in terms of what the two categories pay - in terms of what benefit the two categories get, that's far more difficult to make a definitive statement. It's also made more difficult to look at because only 55% of what the city spends comes from taxes; 45% is raised from various fees, charges and income (like parking revenue).

Police and fire services represent 30% of expenditure; Engineering and utilities (Streets, garbage collection for RS and RT areas, water supply, sewers, lighting etc) are another 30%, parks spend 9%, 7% is corporate support (City Hall and staffing), 7% is debt servicing, and then all the other bits and pieces (community services, housing, planning, the library) are each under 5% and add up to 17%.

How do you determine what proportion of policing, sewers, and roads for example is attributable to business, and what to residents? Presumably visitors who use public services should be considered to be part of business, but business taxpayers (or those not in the tourism-related industries) don't see it that way.

So it's not at all easy to say if residents pay for all the services they consume, or whether businesses pay far more than they ought to. What's clear is that business now pays proportionately less than they used to, and residents more, and this Council moved that a further 2% was added on residential taxes, and off businesses.

[trofirhen]

Not long back, I saw an article on "The Dunsmuir Connection" (billed as 'Vancouver's answer to the High Line'). What is, does anyone know, the status on Viaduct demolition? Thank you

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Not long back, I saw an article on "The Dunsmuir Connection" (billed as 'Vancouver's answer to the High Line'). What is, does anyone know, the status on Viaduct demolition? Thank you

no news (from the new mayor and council) is good news?

meanwhile, the longer it is untouched, the demo & reno costs will keep rising, making it less affordable to do any major future changes other than overdue maintenance

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

no news (from the new mayor and council) is good news?

meanwhile, the longer it is untouched, the demo & reno costs will keep rising, making it less affordable to do any major future changes other than overdue maintenance

Thank you for the update.

[cairnstone]

Unlike the the Patello bridge the city has been maintaining the bridge and keeping it up in good order.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

Unlike the the Patello bridge the city has been maintaining the bridge and keeping it up in good order.

I'm not sure I would say good. There's a fair bit of exposed rebar on the deck side where the concrete chipped off and hasn't been patched. The city hasn't been doing much in the way of routine repairs.

For a while, most of the light bulbs were out on the street lights (especially the tall ones).