Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ Straw man alert: I never argued for those things before, therefore I'm not sure why you think I should defend those things or refute your arguments against them.

I'm curious if you even read the article? It talks about none of those things, either.

You brought up the previous conversation, I expanded on it. Question remains, do you want people to bear the financial responsibility for their lifestyle decisions? Or does this bearing of responsibility only include some people?

As far as the article. He's absolutely right that emergency response plays a huge role. Roadway widths are oversized from what they have to be to accommodate these vehicles. I think there is a considerable size difference between your average European firetruck and north American and I think it's safe to say that your average north American municipality tends to bubble wrap the shit out of everything and is over cautious with public safety.

As far as affordability, which seems to be his biggest concern, there are a ton of new 2 bedroom suburban wood frame product in the 250 to 275 range. And lots of older suburban 2 bedroom product in the high 180s. Changing the way we design neighbourhoods is going to have a very minimal impact on this.

And as far as his comment about affordability being tied to better transit......well...I guess that goes back to my original point...transit is affordable when everybody is forced to bear that cost, but I'm still confused as to where you want to draw the line on not subsidizing peoples lifestyle choices. But I get that feeling that in your opinion that only applies to households making 130k a year before taxes.

[SHOFEAR]

Fantastic article by Staples.

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/colum...on-the-way-with-proposed-15-tax-increase

David Staples: Tax rage on the way with proposed huge property tax hikes




David Staples, Edmonton Journal
More from David Staples, Edmonton Journal

Published on: November 3, 2015 | Last Updated: November 3, 2015 6:21 PM MST
​

Will Mayor Don Iveson and city council take appropriate action to avoid that backlash by controlling and cutting spending at city hall?

Will Mayor Don Iveson and city council take appropriate action to avoid that backlash by controlling and cutting spending at city hall? Greg Southam / Edmonton Journal
​

Share

Adjust

Comment

Print


How many of you expect to get a 4.9-per-cent wage increase each of the next three years? How about the next two years? The next year, even? How about maybe just hold on to your job?

Alberta is now in a recession, with rising unemployment. Yet in the face of economic downturn, Edmonton city hall is carrying on as if this city were booming. City administration has put forward a budget that calls for a 4.9-per-cent property tax increase in each of the next three years.

If that increase isn’t chopped significantly, this city council will be hit by the biggest wave of tax rage this province has seen since the 1990s.

Will Mayor Don Iveson and city council take appropriate action to avoid that backlash by controlling and cutting spending at City Hall? I wonder if they have either the appetite or the stomach for it. The majority on council sings from a marvellous, old hymn book with a heavy focus on social equity, equality and helping out the disadvantaged. There’s a great deal to be said for such progressive instincts, but they must be balanced by fairness toward homeowners and wage earners. They’re not to be treated like council’s own personal piggy bank for council’s own causes, no matter how fine those causes.

We've had years of reasonably progressive civic leadership that has done a pretty good job of balancing various interests. Pendulum has swung way to far as social justice warriors have guilted us into supporting their ever expanding concerns of injustice. My guess is the next council we see will be very different.

[Daveography]

^ It's ironic that you don't make the connection between having a city continue to sprawl unabated with poorly designed neighbourhoods, and the escalating costs of maintaining such a city.

It's also ironic that for how much you rage on against "social justice warriors" that you seem to refuse to make the connection that ignoring poverty, homelessness, addictions, or mental illness actually cost you more in taxes than addressing them preemptively and proactively.

[Airboy]

Amarjeet Sohi named Infrastructure Minister. Now maybe we can get some money for the LRT.

[hilman]

Bill Mah ‏@MahSpace

Gateway Casinos to rebrand, redevelop Palace Casino at West Edmonton Mall to Starlight Casino Edm.



Bill Mah ‏@MahSpace

New $45 million casino at WEM opens fall 2016. Will be 115,000 sq ft, 850 slots, 34 table games.



Gateway Casinos says Starlight will bring 300 new jobs. Also building Ice District Grand Villa.



Gateway Casinos also announces partnership with NAIT, bursaries for hospitality, culinary students.



https://twitter.com/MahSpace

[Hallsy's Toupee]

Originally Posted by Airboy

Amarjeet Sohi named Infrastructure Minister. Now maybe we can get some money for the LRT.

Edmonton needed some good news after losing 2 direct flights and then McJesus injury.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ It's ironic that you don't make the connection between having a city continue to sprawl unabated with poorly designed neighbourhoods, and the escalating costs of maintaining such a city .

We've already discussed this. Maintenance costs of new neighbourhoods are far less than older neighbourhoods. The way they are engineered and the life expectancy on infrastructure is far superior. Because we have gotten rid of the inefficient grid system there is also significantly less infrastructure (underground and surface) to maintain.

It's also ironic that for how much you rage on against "social justice warriors" that you seem to refuse to make the connection that ignoring poverty, homelessness, addictions, or mental illness actually cost you more in taxes than addressing them preemptively and proactively

Unless you want to talk about reopening institutions (well, a more kinder gentler version with out the lobotomies and such) we can keep tossing money at these problems and they will never go away. It's tragic that social activists of the day preferred seeing these people suffer in the general population where they are free to do what they want and not forced to get the attention and comfort they need in a relatively financial efficient manner. Neither solution is ideal, but shit, you could rebuild Ponoka, house a couple thousand chronic people there (forced) and I think it would be better for everyone. Deal with the chronic people in a very efficient manner and we would have the funds to help out those who can contribute but for whatever reason are down on their luck or vulnerable. Throwing money at it they way it is now is not a solution.

I don't mind helping out paying my proportional share...but proportional seems to mean different things to different people. between tax brackets, municipal taxes based solely on value, increased corporate taxes which trickle down to effect employees like myself and my clients and RRSPs and my investment portfolio, etc etc.... I contribute way more than my proportional share.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

We've already discussed this. Maintenance costs of new neighbourhoods are far less than older neighbourhoods. The way they are engineered and the life expectancy on infrastructure is far superior. Because we have gotten rid of the inefficient grid system there is also significantly less infrastructure (underground and surface) to maintain.

We did indeed, and I brought up costs that aren't immediately apparent, and you brushed them off and deflected with bizarre straw-man arguments about somehow forcing others to pay more. That's not even remotely what this discussion is about. The discussion is about improving the design of newer neighbourhoods in ways that can reduce overall costs, both the obvious and less obvious ones, not just for residents in those neighbourhoods but for the entire city. I don't get how you can keep trying to argue that this is somehow a bad thing.

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Unless you want to talk about reopening institutions (well, a more kinder gentler version with out the lobotomies and such) we can keep tossing money at these problems and they will never go away. It's tragic that social activists of the day preferred seeing these people suffer in the general population where they are free to do what they want and not forced to get the attention and comfort they need in a relatively financial efficient manner. Neither solution is ideal, but shit, you could rebuild Ponoka, house a couple thousand chronic people there (forced) and I think it would be better for everyone. Deal with the chronic people in a very efficient manner and we would have the funds to help out those who can contribute but for whatever reason are down on their luck or vulnerable. Throwing money at it they way it is now is not a solution.

It's weird, but it sounds like you're actually agreeing with me here in that it sounds like you're suggesting that proactive treatment of social issues costs less than letting it fall through the cracks where it winds up being "treated" by emergency services, courts, correctional services, etc.

But I'm not sure how you don't think money helps, especially if those proactive costs have proven to pay for themselves in reducing the "reactive" costs.

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

I don't mind helping out paying my proportional share...but proportional seems to mean different things to different people. between tax brackets, municipal taxes based solely on value, increased corporate taxes which trickle down to effect employees like myself and my clients and RRSPs and my investment portfolio, etc etc.... I contribute way more than my proportional share.

What is a fair share is subjective and an area no one will ever agree on 100%. Sure, I'd like it if I didn't have to pay as much in taxes, too. But I recognize that cutting spending and services often just leads to higher costs in other areas and services, or deferring costs to later years when they will be more expensive. Finding efficiencies in how we spend is much more important, but also much more nuanced, and unfortunately no one likes nuance, they like knee-jerk band-aids that do nothing long-term.

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Unless you want to talk about reopening institutions (well, a more kinder gentler version with out the lobotomies and such) we can keep tossing money at these problems and they will never go away.

This is a really broad and ignorant statement.

Homelessness has many contributing factors, and needs many solutions. Housing, addiction care, mental health, basic needs provision, social support programs. I do not argue that there are individuals who need significant mental care and medication. You may see the same group of guys on the street for the past 5 years and think that any money being spent on programs isn't working, but the numbers show differently, especially things like the Housing First program: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/n...-to-end-homelessness-makes-progress.aspx.

Anyways.... can we get back to talking about development now?

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by hilman

Bill Mah ‏@MahSpace

Gateway Casinos to rebrand, redevelop Palace Casino at West Edmonton Mall to Starlight Casino Edm.



Bill Mah ‏@MahSpace

New $45 million casino at WEM opens fall 2016. Will be 115,000 sq ft, 850 slots, 34 table games.



Gateway Casinos says Starlight will bring 300 new jobs. Also building Ice District Grand Villa.



Gateway Casinos also announces partnership with NAIT, bursaries for hospitality, culinary students.



https://twitter.com/MahSpace

Interesting. Looks like they are abandoning their plans to try to relocate outside of WEM. They have some property on the southside they were trying to rezone, but never went anywhere.

This looks good, but I hope it is more than just cosmetic.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

10 years should be 5, but good either way and not applicable here.

why? what's the difference between the zoning on an "upzoned" site and any other zoning in the city the city has approved and put in place?

what difference does it make to the city if the site is sold the day after - other than the city from that day onwards is entitled to reassess and collect more property taxes than they could the day before?

using the same philosophy this approach embodies, every undeveloped site in the city should revert to agricultural zoning if undeveloped after some arbitrary period of time. and what constitutes "a start"? vision on the corner?

this is totally and completely backwards - zoning is applicable to a site, not to who owns the site and this potential reversal of that is a potentially dangerous slippery slope.

and this doesn't even address where that puts the owners or tenants in adjacent properties - how do they make additional investments and improvements in their properties based on the long-term potential for their neighborhood when that potential becomes time limited?

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Fantastic article by Staples.

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/colum...on-the-way-with-proposed-15-tax-increase




We've had years of reasonably progressive civic leadership that has done a pretty good job of balancing various interests. Pendulum has swung way to far as social justice warriors have guilted us into supporting their ever expanding concerns of injustice. My guess is the next council we see will be very different.

Canadians in general are over-taxed. Harper, for all his faults, understood this and was able to follow through on his promises to lower taxes, which was a big reason why he appealed to so many middle-class suburban family voters who are struggling to get by.

For a country of Canada's size, the bureaucracy is too big, bloated and incredibly wasteful. Capital gains taxes are a money grab that stifle ingenuity and initiative. Also, the blatant disregard for ensuring that tax dollars are spent wisely and effectively, made painfully apparent by the Metro Line fiasco and other avoidable civic infrastructure f*ck-ups, is unforgiveable. A un-biased audit/investigation should look into these fiascos, and criminal charges should be laid if warranted.

Whoever runs against Iveson in the next election will have a lot of ammunition - especially 5% annual property tax increases! Wow.

[bulliver]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Is that different than normal... Oh yes I just did.

Coal for Christmas, you're getting....

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Spliff

Capital gains taxes are a money grab that stifle ingenuity and initiative.

False. The only reason why gains are not fully taxed is due to the recognition that part of the gain is predictably due to currency inflation. But a gain is an income that is reported on income statements for the reason that it is directly comparable to revenues from merchandise.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

False. The only reason why gains are not fully taxed is due to the recognition that part of the gain is predictably due to currency inflation. But a gain is an income that is reported on income statements for the reason that it is directly comparable to revenues from merchandise.

False. I have worked hard to pay off a rental property, and now need to pay taxes on the rent I take in because of capital gains taxes. Also, if I want to sell the play, I have to pay taxes on whatever I get from the sale, because its not my primary residence. This is on top of all the inflated property tax I pay for the place, plus maintenance. Its too much. For the amount I paid for it, and the amount of work I put into paying it off, after all the taxes, I take clear about 5000$ a year. Its crazy.
My wife is from South Korea and she has a rental place in Seoul. The property tax is a fraction of what it is here, and there is no capital gains taxes. Its wayyyy more worth the time and effort to concentrate our investment there, because Canada has too much red-tape and taxes, and it crushes initiative.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Spliff

False. I have worked hard to pay off a rental property, and now need to pay taxes on the rent I take in because of capital gains taxes. Also, if I want to sell the play, I have to pay taxes on whatever I get from the sale, because its not my primary residence. This is on top of all the inflated property tax I pay for the place, plus maintenance. Its too much. For the amount I paid for it, and the amount of work I put into paying it off, after all the taxes, I take clear about 5000$ a year. Its crazy.
My wife is from South Korea and she has a rental place in Seoul. The property tax is a fraction of what it is here, and there is no capital gains taxes. Its wayyyy more worth the time and effort to concentrate our investment there, because Canada has too much red-tape and taxes, and it crushes initiative.

That's nice. It still counts as a behaviour that has little difference with merchandise. Merchants still put a lot of work and resources in selling their wares.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by rapid_business

This is a really broad and ignorant statement.

Homelessness has many contributing factors, and needs many solutions. Housing, addiction care, mental health, basic needs provision, social support programs. I do not argue that there are individuals who need significant mental care and medication. You may see the same group of guys on the street for the past 5 years and think that any money being spent on programs isn't working, but the numbers show differently, especially things like the Housing First program: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/n...-to-end-homelessness-makes-progress.aspx.

Anyways.... can we get back to talking about development now?

I'm not talking about institutionalizing a bunch of shit head kids drinking in beaverhills, or some bottle picker trying to scrounge up ten bucks for beer....lets make that clear. But when I see the same guy walking around every morning/afternoon fucked out of his brain, who is, lets be honest hear, never going to (or able to change) constantly being picked up by the homeless ambulance because he's passed out and shit his pants....toss him in an institution for life. shit give him a garbage bag of heroin I don't care.

We try to treat all these people the same. They're not. There are those that can be helped and those that cant. We keep hearing from EPS that a small number of these people are the ones consuming the vast majority of their resources and expenses. isolate those people.

We did indeed, and I brought up costs that aren't immediately apparent, and you brushed them off and deflected with bizarre straw-man arguments about somehow forcing others to pay more. That's not even remotely what this discussion is about. The discussion is about improving the design of newer neighbourhoods in ways that can reduce overall costs, both the obvious and less obvious ones, not just for residents in those neighbourhoods but for the entire city. I don't get how you can keep trying to argue that this is somehow a bad thing.

Go for it. http://www.collierscanada.com/14634#.Vjtqwp3n_Ic

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by kcantor

why? what's the difference between the zoning on an "upzoned" site and any other zoning in the city the city has approved and put in place?

what difference does it make to the city if the site is sold the day after - other than the city from that day onwards is entitled to reassess and collect more property taxes than they could the day before?

using the same philosophy this approach embodies, every undeveloped site in the city should revert to agricultural zoning if undeveloped after some arbitrary period of time. and what constitutes "a start"? vision on the corner?

this is totally and completely backwards - zoning is applicable to a site, not to who owns the site and this potential reversal of that is a potentially dangerous slippery slope.

and this doesn't even address where that puts the owners or tenants in adjacent properties - how do they make additional investments and improvements in their properties based on the long-term potential for their neighborhood when that potential becomes time limited?

I get what you are saying Ken and agree in part for non-Direct Control sites, but we have been burned multiple times by DCs in the last few decades and now have some fairly stagnant sites.

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Go for it. http://www.collierscanada.com/14634#.Vjtqwp3n_Ic

You know, it's funny the number of farmers/land owners who try selling sites adjacent to municipal boundaries, but want the price per acre that would be justified if they had the development rights that being within the municipality would grant them.

"Future Zoning"? This property isn't even within the boundaries of Beaumont's proposed annexation!

[s4.audios]

Driving by Mayfair 2 this morning I saw glass up on the first residential floor (third floor?). Not much there yet but it looked good.