Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark
Doesn’t matter which country it’s in, the same principles apply. New York is currently going through a blip on the radar, but they will return to more “historic “ levels soon enough. I get what the suggestion is; it’s just not accurate the moment you measure more than one variable. Vacancy rates should NEVER get to 2 percent; let alone the under 1 that we have experienced here. If that does ever happen, steps need to be take right away to get more supply through the pipeline as Toronto did when their market went to such silly levels once.
Again, already dealt with the issue of “business tax” rates and issues with that. Calculations for such lists vary wildly. For a contrast, CD Howe identified Saskatoon as having the lowest business taxes in the country. On a side note, Calgary came in ahead of Vancouver on that one too. Again they too left out a number of items that equally affect business.
And again that article from BIV once again takes the usual Vancouver spin to speak to percentages rather than real numbers. When a tenant is looking to occupy a space, they want hard numbers; not percentages. Just as any potential residential renter can care less if a landlord tells them that the rent is 1% of the total value of the home. What is import to them is the actual hard number. City of Vancouver is famous for trying this — to justify endless property tax increase because ya if you look at other places based on percentages, we’re a bargain!
As for H2 the city’s location and cheap workforce were much more attractive than other areas. Vancouver didn’t even put in a bid for H2 cause they knew they would get eliminated PDQ. Toronto put up a bid, and was shortlisted, but even they could not compete with big US markets and what they were offering. Calgary didn’t and it was front page news and had the community questioning itself. Vancouver failed forward when the winning bid backed out and we got a bunch of those extra jobs, while the rest were spread out to other cities. Most of the favourable tax environment here is a provincial initiative; not a civic one. Your own article identifies that.
|
Every time you post there's another example of something you believe, that isn't true. This exchange has so little to do with the Civic Election that I'm not posting another response here, for the sake of all the posters that want to debate the thread topic.
Vancouver City Council can't directly 'make' the development industry respond by building new office space in a timely manner when vacancy rates start falling to historic low percentages, unless they're refusing to allow proposals to be approved, or they're restricting where offices can be built. Neither is true. For the past decade, since the Metro Core study, zoning has changed to increase the amount of space allowed to be built, expanded the places where it can be built, and encouraged rezonings where it's deemed appropriate (in terms of transit connections) to allow higher densities. That has led to more being built, in a range of sized units that cover the potential demand from small to larger floorplate. The economy has been growing too, and the new companies coming in are often locating in those spaces. Even some established businesses are even choosing to move from a suburban location to the Metro Core (like Best Buy moving their Canadian HQ to W 6th).
Vancouver did bid for Amazon's HQ2. It's
here. It's easy to see what taxes the cities are responsible for. The City of Vancouver commercial tax levy is $4.91 per $1,000 of assessed value, and the total tax payable with all the other taxes added - Provincial schools tax, Translink, Metro Vancouver etc is
$9.97 per $1,000 of assessed value. In Toronto it's
$12.30 per $1,000. Calgary is
$20.61 per $1,000 of assessed value, and has risen for businesses more than in most cities over the past several years.
Prev
Linear Mode
