Winnipeg | 2026 Civic election & City affairs

[cllew]

Sounds like the Amazon project is just wishful thinking. Wpg Free Press is saying for Saturdays paper Amazon has no idea of what Kelvin Klien and Shawn Nason are talking about. They are happy with their two last mile distribution terminals in Winnipeg.

Klien for his part said that he verified the project was real as his 25 years of news media experience taught him to check with 3 unrelated sources.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by cllew

Sounds like the Amazon project is just wishful thinking. Wpg Free Press is saying for Saturdays paper Amazon has no idea of what Kelvin Klien and Shawn Nason are talking about. They are happy with their two last mile distribution terminals in Winnipeg.

Klien for his part said that he verified the project was real as his 25 years of news media experience taught him to check with 3 unrelated sources.

Nice fact-checking there CBC and CTV.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by cllew

Sounds like the Amazon project is just wishful thinking. Wpg Free Press is saying for Saturdays paper Amazon has no idea of what Kelvin Klien and Shawn Nason are talking about. They are happy with their two last mile distribution terminals in Winnipeg.

Klien for his part said that he verified the project was real as his 25 years of news media experience taught him to check with 3 unrelated sources.

Amazon is staying out of it. All of this happened over 6 months ago. It’s been silent since then.

[Ando]

Here is the FP article re Klein's creative imagination. The article also notes that getting one of these super warehouses is no hell anyway and certainly not a provider of high end jobs.
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/...use-never-in-cards-for-winnipeg#cxrecs_s

[trueviking]

boom...this guy always gets it right.

https://www.dearwinnipeg.com/2022/09/12/battle-of-the-business-titans/

[esquire]

Originally Posted by trueviking

boom...this guy always gets it right.

https://www.dearwinnipeg.com/2022/09/12/battle-of-the-business-titans/

Even here?

https://www.dearwinnipeg.com/2022/08/30/to-lrt-or-not-to-lrt-that-is-the-question/

[zalf]

This is one of those things were the intent of the policy really matters when considering its value.

Is the intent to be raise cash for the City? In this case, as the article demonstrates, it's probably making the city less money than having done nothing at all.

Is the intent to ban-without-banning small development like this? If this isn't the goal, it's accidentally doing it anyway. If it is the goal, then it's a terrible one.

Is it trying to act as a filter out dilettantes to make sure only serious proposals make it in front of council committees? Maybe a system where the local councillor has to back it before it proceeds to Community Committee or PP&D would be better.

The secret fourth option might be that this system sort of evolved accidentally out of a bunch of seemingly small and unrelated other decisions, and no one ever actually intended to build a system with such large barriers to small development.

---

Edit: When it comes to public policy, only outcome, not intent, matters. But understanding intent can help change things.

[BarbadosSlim]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/murray-transit-plan-winnipeg-1.6580167

Murray said he would also get more people out of their own cars and onto buses by speeding up the frequency of Winnipeg Transit service along 13 routes so buses arrive every 10 minutes.

He also pledged to complete a citywide transit system "as envisioned by city's transit master plan" by 2030. [...] The city intended to build out this network over the next 23 years at a cost of $588 million to $1.1 billion. Murray said the city can do it more quickly by ensuring development takes place along transit routes and helps fund them.

Refreshing to see transit improvements being discussed with the intention getting people out of their cars with more frequent service and with a mindset of densifying our major corridors over the long-term.

Centre running BRT/LRT down the rapid transit corridors would help restore what was lost when all the streetcar tracks were paved over.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

Even here?

https://www.dearwinnipeg.com/2022/08/30/to-lrt-or-not-to-lrt-that-is-the-question/

Ha ha. I ran into him on the patio at kilter and we had it out. It turns out we agree with each other. He set up a false choice between LRT and the frequent transit model but once you get past that he agreed that LRT is better in every single way except cost.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by trueviking

boom...this guy always gets it right.

https://www.dearwinnipeg.com/2022/09/12/battle-of-the-business-titans/

This guy's blog shows his heart is in the right place, but almost every single time his math on municipal finance is consistently wrong. He'd gain a lot more credibility in the places that matter if he actually knew how to do the math correctly.

For example, in the latest blog post on the corner store, he says waiving the $20k application fee will take 15 years to pay off. The actual math says its 27, almost double. I'm guessing the author forgot about the difference between assessment and portion values, or some other nuance in the property tax calculation.

I know all the urbanists love his blog because the author is putting numbers behind their theories, but the dude needs to brush up on his understanding of how municipal finance works if he wants to be taken seriously by government officials, and more importantly, arrive at the correct answers.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

I know all the urbanists love his blog because the author is putting numbers behind their theories, but the dude needs to brush up on his understanding of how municipal finance works if he wants to be taken seriously by government officials, and more importantly, arrive at the correct answers.

I don't think the intention of an anonymous blog is to be taken seriously as a subject-matter expert by government officials so much as it is to weigh in on a public conversation. Kind of like a long-form Tweet, or letter to the editor. Or posting here for that matter, ha.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by BarbadosSlim

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/murray-transit-plan-winnipeg-1.6580167





Refreshing to see transit improvements being discussed with the intention getting people out of their cars with more frequent service and with a mindset of densifying our major corridors over the long-term.

Centre running BRT/LRT down the rapid transit corridors would help restore what was lost when all the streetcar tracks were paved over.

I like his vision for electrifying the fleet. Political will is one of the key elements and he recognizes the important role of federal $$ that are and have been available. The challenge will be having a provincial government that cares about the city and is on board to support it.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Ando

I like his vision for electrifying the fleet. Political will is one of the key elements and he recognizes the important role of federal $$ that are and have been available. The challenge will be having a provincial government that cares about the city and is on board to support it.

Timing is everything. As much as I liked Murray the first time around, a lot of what he achieved was no doubt because the stars lined up to give him a federal government and provincial government government with improving finances and a willingness to come to the table, cash in hand.

I don't think Murray would have accomplished nearly as much under a Pallister provincial government, for example.

And the way things are headed, we will likely soon have a new provincial government that is a little more inclined to get things done, although fiscal capacity to take on new projects is certainly an issue right now.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

This guy's blog shows his heart is in the right place, but almost every single time his math on municipal finance is consistently wrong. He'd gain a lot more credibility in the places that matter if he actually knew how to do the math correctly.

For example, in the latest blog post on the corner store, he says waiving the $20k application fee will take 15 years to pay off. The actual math says its 27, almost double. I'm guessing the author forgot about the difference between assessment and portion values, or some other nuance in the property tax calculation.

I know all the urbanists love his blog because the author is putting numbers behind their theories, but the dude needs to brush up on his understanding of how municipal finance works if he wants to be taken seriously by government officials, and more importantly, arrive at the correct answers.

Also the Amazon project would be a fulfillment centre - approx 1m sq ft, not 200,000 sq ft and approx $150-175m.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

For example, in the latest blog post on the corner store, he says waiving the $20k application fee will take 15 years to pay off. The actual math says its 27, almost double. I'm guessing the author forgot about the difference between assessment and portion values, or some other nuance in the property tax calculation.

i did wonder about that actually....but I have no idea really how taxes are arrived at...it isn't straight assessed value.....how does it work?...can it be easily explained?

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i did wonder about that actually....but I have no idea really how taxes are arrived at...it isn't straight assessed value.....how does it work?...can it be easily explained?

Yeah for sure. Winnipeg has probably the most complex property tax regime in Canada thanks to provincial legislation. People - especially those outside Manitoba - often screw up comparisons because they forget a step in the calculation. Basically to calculate taxes, you multiply a property's assessment value by it's portion amount (which depends on the property classification), divide it by 1,000, and then multiply it by the current mill rate to get property taxes owed. The portion value for properties depends on the property use. Residential properties pay tax on 45% of the assessment value, and commercial properties pay tax on 65% of the assessment value. Other property uses have different portion values, but I won't get into that here.

For the property at 157 Scott Street, the current assessment is $85,000 for "other" and $55,000 for "residential". So to get the municipal property tax bill, you first determine the portion value (45% for res, 65% for other), then divide by 1,000, then multiply by the mill rate. So the municipal tax bill is currently (((85,000*0.65)+(55,000*0.45))/1000)*13.468=$1,077 per year.

Now if the property was transitioned entirely to residential with an assessment value of $300,000 as the blogger proposes, then the new tax bill is ((300,000*0.45)/1000)*13.468=1,818 per year.

The net difference from the property improvement is +$741 per year, all else held equal. So if we consider the city forgoing the $20,000 application fee to allow the improvement to happen, it would take $20,000/$741=27 years for the forgoing of the fee to "pay for itself".

FYI, most other cities have a much less complicated calculation. Visit Calgary's, Toronto's, or Vancouver's website and you'll see very simplified methodology. Often times they just express their municipal tax rates as a percentage (i.e. residential property tax = 1.1% of assessed value). They have no need for all this complicated portion value stuff. Some will point out that Saskatchewan also uses portion values like Manitoba, but their portion values for most property types are 100% of assessed values, so it's basically a non-issue there.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Yeah for sure. Winnipeg has probably the most complex property tax regime in Canada thanks to provincial legislation. People - especially those outside Manitoba - often screw up comparisons because they forget a step in the calculation. Basically to calculate taxes, you multiply a property's assessment value by it's portion amount (which depends on the property classification), divide it by 1,000, and then multiply it by the current mill rate to get property taxes owed. The portion value for properties depends on the property use. Residential properties pay tax on 45% of the assessment value, and commercial properties pay tax on 65% of the assessment value. Other property uses have different portion values, but I won't get into that here.

For the property at 157 Scott Street, the current assessment is $85,000 for "other" and $55,000 for "residential". So to get the municipal property tax bill, you first determine the portion value (45% for res, 65% for other), then divide by 1,000, then multiply by the mill rate. So the municipal tax bill is currently (((85,000*0.65)+(55,000*0.45))/1000)*13.468=$1,077 per year.

Now if the property was transitioned entirely to residential with an assessment value of $300,000 as the blogger proposes, then the new tax bill is ((300,000*0.45)/1000)*13.468=1,818 per year.

The net difference from the property improvement is +$741 per year, all else held equal. So if we consider the city forgoing the $20,000 application fee to allow the improvement to happen, it would take $20,000/$741=27 years for the forgoing of the fee to "pay for itself".

FYI, most other cities have a much less complicated calculation. Visit Calgary's, Toronto's, or Vancouver's website and you'll see very simplified methodology. Often times they just express their municipal tax rates as a percentage (i.e. residential property tax = 1.1% of assessed value). They have no need for all this complicated portion value stuff. Some will point out that Saskatchewan also uses portion values like Manitoba, but their portion values for most property types are 100% of assessed values, so it's basically a non-issue there.

Oh man, this is gold! A hobby project of mine for a while has been a data visualization of actual property taxes paid across all properties in the City; basically the same kind of viz shown here. The thing I kept tripping on what how to actually go from assessed value to dollars paid because it was so opaque.

[trueviking]

this is great information....thanks so much....i'm going to print this off and keep it.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by zalf

Oh man, this is gold! A hobby project of mine for a while has been a data visualization of actual property taxes paid across all properties in the City; basically the same kind of viz shown here. The thing I kept tripping on what how to actually go from assessed value to dollars paid because it was so opaque.

Ask and ye shall receive... at least for Winnipeg. It's difficult to do for other Canadian cities because they don't post their assessment value by parcel data publicly like Winnipeg does.

Note that the map only shows one side of the equation: revenue per acre. What it doesn't show is cost per acre which is much more difficult to calculate. The majority of the budget isn't capital and fuel costs, so spatially, parcels of land that contain more people or more jobs (e.g. highrise apartments or offices) cost the city more than those that don't since operating costs would be distributed on a per-capita basis.

The true test comes when determining what the balance between revenue and expenditure is in capital/road intensive developments, and if the higher assessment values of McMansions backing retention ponds in Bridgwater outweighs the long-term maintenance costs of the associated lengthy road network. It's difficult math, but I'm sure someone is working on it.

Would-be politicians love to slam the city for "corruption" and "lack of transparency" but our Open Data portal combined with our extensive budget books and taxation statistics make the state of our municipal finances quite transparent relative to most other Canadian cities.

Spoiler added due to large map/image size below.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Ask and ye shall receive... at least for Winnipeg. It's difficult to do for other Canadian cities because they don't post their assessment value by parcel data publicly like Winnipeg does.

Very cool! I'm a tiny bit disappointed I didn't get to build it first, but I'm glad it exists somewhere. I'm might recapitulate it anyway, since it's a jumping off point for other analyses.

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Note that the map only shows one side of the equation: revenue per acre. What it doesn't show is cost per acre which is much more difficult to calculate. The majority of the budget isn't capital and fuel costs, so spatially, parcels of land that contain more people or more jobs (e.g. highrise apartments or offices) cost the city more than those that don't since operating costs would be distributed on a per-capita basis.

The true test comes when determining what the balance between revenue and expenditure is in capital/road intensive developments, and if the higher assessment values of McMansions backing retention ponds in Bridgwater outweighs the long-term maintenance costs of the associated lengthy road network. It's difficult math, but I'm sure someone is working on it.

I've tried looking for some estimates but have come up short. I wouldn't be surprised if something like "lane-km from Portage & Main times some dollar value" turned out to be a close-enough approximation.

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Would-be politicians love to slam the city for "corruption" and "lack of transparency" but our Open Data portal combined with our extensive budget books and taxation statistics make the state of our municipal finances quite transparent relative to most other Canadian cities.

This is such a big personal pet peeve. Corruption can be a hugely corrosive force on society, and is when public officials or elected representatives steal public value for personal gain. It does not mean "policies I disagree with". I know everyone here knows that, but my god do I ever see the term abused in everyday discourse.

The Open Data portal is fantastic, and the City deserves huge props for providing it. My only complaints are that it doesn't seem revision-controlled (i.e., I can't go and look at a dataset as it appeared, say, 5 years ago) and there are some data that seem like they should be readily available but are not (e.g. transit daily ridership).