Winnipeg Construction X

[Winnipegger]

The growth fee would help somewhat, but it's not the silver bullet - unless the provincial government amended the City of Winnipeg Charter. But as it stands, my understanding of the legal judgement on the matter is that the city needed to prove beyond a doubt that the projects that we collected development fees for had to be unequivocally tied to the development that was supplying the revenue. So, for example, the city could likely easily get away with charging fees for a community centre in Bridgwater by collecting revenue from houses built in Bridgwater, but it could not collect revenue from Bridgwater houses to use on something like the Keneston widening project because that project wasn't directly connected to the development (though demand would certainly be induced by it).

The kicker with the development fee is that at current tax rates, even if the city had collected development fees as intended to do all the projects on the list, the development fee wouldn't have funded 100% of all those project costs. Rather, it would only fund a portion, which for some projects, was really small. So it begs the question: even if you collected sufficient development fee revenue without legal challenge, how would you have funded the remaining portion of all these really expensive projects? And if you collected development fees but couldn't build the project as promised, you'd be obligated to return the fees to those who paid. Collecting ~$5 million from houses being built in Amber Trails to help pay for a $500 million expansion to Chief Peguis Trail is hardly a drop in the bucket.

So a proper development charge needs to be accompanied by a long-term capital funding strategy to ensure there is sufficient revenue to pay for all projects, otherwise the fee is useless. While I am also not a lawyer, it is my rudimentary understanding that to make the development fee pass legal challenge without an amendment to the City of Winnipeg charter, the program would need to be scaled back to ensure funded projects were closely linked to the communities being charged. Of course, the proper way around this is to charge all growth across the city (not just suburban areas), and then issue rebates to growth that aligns with policy objectives (i.e. infill or densification).

A new development fee is certainly possible within the current legal framework, but it will still be a challenge. In general, the more national and international developers are supportive of a growth fee here in Winnipeg - mostly because we lack infrastructure and we are the only major city in Canada without such a fee - but the "locally grown" developers (i.e. the ones who took the City to court) will have to be dragged kicking and screaming because it will harm their profitability and they have an incorrect "gated community" view that their subdivisions filled with winding roads are a "net positive" to city coffers and are doing us all a favor when they build tracts of single detached homes along retention ponds with high assessment values despite the fact that the city is responsible for tens of millions of road maintenance for the rest of time once the development is completed.

I swear that this city is being held hostage in the 1990s by a select few local key players in the "business" scene who have an oversized influence on municipal and provincial politics.

[WinCitySparky]

^ I believe you

[trueviking]

great post. Thank you.

[bomberjet]

It's the construction racket. Again. This time instead of the road construction racket, it's the home builder racket.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Of course, the proper way around this is to charge all growth across the city (not just suburban areas), and then issue rebates to growth that aligns with policy objectives (i.e. infill or densification).

Great! Let's do that. Seems like it passes the "direct", "universal", and "primarily to shape behaviour" tests. Hopefully the new mayor and council take another kick at the can.

I'm realizing my ideal political platform is over time slowly converging to "Promises to internalize externalities".

[esquire]

Rather than a rebate scheme designed to get around the obstacles of the Charter as it currently exists, a more elegant solution would be an amendment to the Charter clearly authorizing the City to impose these types of fees in the first place.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by esquire

Rather than a rebate scheme designed to get around the obstacles of the Charter as it currently exists, a more elegant solution would be an amendment to the Charter clearly authorizing the City to impose these types of fees in the first place.

I dunno. This feels like a Chesterson's Fence. The ramifications and original intent of that limitation have to be fully understood before removing it.

I'm very in favour of a fee regime that has new development fund the needs of the aging core as opposed to the reverse. If that can be done within the City's current powers, then it should be.

[trueviking]

i know I complained about this a page back but seriously this is a big part of the problem. Why would anyone build infill when this happens.

Small infill housing project proposed for a vacant lot on Grosvenor near Lilac. Developer submitted a pre-application with a front driveway. Planning department and Public Works rejected it saying it violates the Neighbourhood Plan and required that it be accessed from the back lane. They completely redesigned it, working with planning to make sure it it fulfilled the area requirements. The proposal was approved and supported in every way by planning, public works, emergency services etc. The Director of Planning, Property and Development approved it. Resident's appealed.

Councillors rejected it because they didn't like access from the lane. Lukes spent 15 minutes harping on the lane being too narrow because an F150 is apparently 17 feet wide and the lane is 23 feet wide. An F150 is only seven feet wide. Most vehicle lanes are 10-11 feet wide. Klein was insistent that a fire truck couldn't get to it despite being reviewed and approved by emergency services. He said. Oh they always approve it. Then he said there's no way to clear snow from the lane but it's been there for 100 years and gets cleared every winter. They were making no changes to the current conditions of the lane. The lane is newly paved and wider than most. They demanded to talk to public works and then tore them apart with opinion after being provided with factual information and engineering calculations to back up their approvals. Klein even questioned who wrote public works standards. John Orlikow even made an appearance as a registered speaker to complain about the project.

It was non sensical. Lukes told them they need to go back to their front drive proposal despite it being completely against the approved neighbourhood plan. Against everything the planning department told them to do. It would destroy the building and the street. She even suggested they do a building on stilts with a nice metal lattice hiding it from the sidewalk instead of having homes at the ground floor.

How can developers possibly want to do infill if they do everything planning and public works wants only to be shut down months into the process by the whims of councillors who know nothing about the neighbourhood and openly disregard the approved neighbourhood plan. It's incredible. How do they have this power? How can they reject a project based on nonsensical arguments like there's no room for 17 foot wide trucks or that they can't clear snow on a street they clear every year?! Is it coincidence that the back lane is behind Crescentwood mansions on Ruskin Row?


https://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/dmis/Vie...8&isMobile=yes

[esquire]

Originally Posted by zalf

I dunno. This feels like a Chesterson's Fence. The ramifications and original intent of that limitation have to be fully understood before removing it.

I'm very in favour of a fee regime that has new development fund the needs of the aging core as opposed to the reverse. If that can be done within the City's current powers, then it should be.

That's fair, but if other Canadian cities have some form of growth fee to defray the costs of suburban development that meets their needs, then what is the rationale for preventing Winnipeg from implementing one without having to resort to some sneaky end-run around the existing legislation?

[trueviking]

...and my project on Brebeuf was 7th on the docket...the meeting stopped for an hour and half so Klein could go do a campaign announcement...the first project went from 9am to 2pm....at 4pm they said, we are done and announced that our project would be heard on November 24th!!! Seriously? You delay our project by two and a half months? We are supposed to go to tender a month later....the project was unanimously approved but all it takes is one person to appeal and it delays the entire things for months.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by esquire

That's fair, but if other Canadian cities have some form of growth fee to defray the costs of suburban development that meets their needs, then what is the rationale for preventing Winnipeg from implementing one without having to resort to some sneaky end-run around the existing legislation?

To add, would it be easier for the City to make more stringent/demanding cost share agreements with the developers?

Make them pay for more of the services for the community they are building, such as community centres, schools (provincial, yes I know) and the direct infrastructure in the area, including arterial roads.

Wasn't the Waverley west developers supposed to cover interchanges along Kenaston at North/South Town and Bison, and that got revised where the city was OK with at-grade?

Someone might cry out that it'll chase away developers but I say so be it. Pay for your share of the cost on the city or get out.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by trueviking

...and my project on Brebeuf was 7th on the docket...the meeting stopped for an hour and half so Klein could go do a campaign announcement...the first project went from 9am to 2pm....at 4pm they said, we are done and announced that our project would be heard on November 24th!!! Seriously? You delay our project by two and a half months? We are supposed to go to tender a month later....the project was unanimously approved but all it takes is one person to appeal and it delays the entire things for months.

Wow big BS! Also, I was looking at some of the letters from concerned residents on various items on the docket, those are a sure fire way to put a damper on your day.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by trueviking

because an F150 is apparently 17 feet wide [...]. An F150 is only seven feet wide.

No joke, I think she possibly made a typo in her notes, and then went Ron Burgundy on it.


That whole saga is appalling. I had a modicum of respect for Lukes, since she's often been quite good about putting the needs of the wider city. This undoes a lot of that.

Being off Ruskin Row does might explain explain some of the reticence of councillors, but I can't imagine how even the NIMBYest NIMBYs would prefer an empty lot over a small apartment building. Especially when the site has MURBs on both sides. It should be city policy to put up "Camping Permitted" signs on empty lots. And seed the site with a carton of cigarettes. That would bring the NIMBYs onside.

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by trueviking

...and my project on Brebeuf was 7th on the docket...the meeting stopped for an hour and half so Klein could go do a campaign announcement...the first project went from 9am to 2pm....at 4pm they said, we are done and announced that our project would be heard on November 24th!!! Seriously? You delay our project by two and a half months? We are supposed to go to tender a month later....the project was unanimously approved but all it takes is one person to appeal and it delays the entire things for months.

Jesus man that’s insane. How do you cope?

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by zalf

No joke, I think she possibly made a typo in her notes, and then went Ron Burgundy on it.

ha ha...it was totally....she googled it sitting there and obviously misread length for width.

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

...and my project on Brebeuf was 7th on the docket...the meeting stopped for an hour and half so Klein could go do a campaign announcement...the first project went from 9am to 2pm....at 4pm they said, we are done and announced that our project would be heard on November 24th!!! Seriously? You delay our project by two and a half months? We are supposed to go to tender a month later....the project was unanimously approved but all it takes is one person to appeal and it delays the entire things for months.

Hmmmm, your last 2 posts would make a great editorial or even basis for some good 'ol investigative journalism at the FP...

Why not put some of these politicians be put in the hot seat for their unqualified decisions, that fly in the face of staff and departments that the City of Winnipeg already pays to make these decisions?

It's really baffling.

[esquire]

^ It's the way things have always been. As I'm sure you know, politicians meddle in government decisions all the time, but the City of Winnipeg takes it to extremes.

[drew]

^ I know. But I doubt the public is aware this is the process of things. Especially the inefficiency of the tax payer funded system. It would be helpful to pull the carpet back a git I think.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by drew

Hmmmm, your last 2 posts would make a great editorial or even basis for some good 'ol investigative journalism at the FP...

Why not put some of these politicians be put in the hot seat for their unqualified decisions, that fly in the face of staff and departments that the City of Winnipeg already pays to make these decisions?

It's really baffling.

Journalists spend a frustratingly large amount of time on Twitter and Reddit and scraping them for stories. SSP forums would be a goldmine for a local beat reporter were any of them to look.

[Sheepish]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
These councilors should be challenged on their actions at campaign events.