Capital Cost Contributions

[beyeas]

I think may have been brought up already, but maybe deserves its own thread.
If we are not going to tax people (through property taxes) at a rate commiserate with the cost of servicing their property, this alternative idea (of instead folding that cost into the development cost) is worth considering.

Plan good for core area
By TIM OLIVE
Wed, Sep 21 - 4:54 AM

The Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in the Capital district are pleased to see the recommendation from the HRM finance committee regarding additional capital cost contributions (CCCs) for development to help pay for recurring costs of infrastructure and services in newly developed areas of HRM.

However, our similar proposal to HRM was formed under the presumption that these additional development charges would be site-specific to suburban and rural areas. This would encourage the developers to review options for the urban core, as recommended in the Regional Plan and the Economic Strategy.

If developers are required to pay the real incremental costs of infrastructure and services over the life of new developments, they may reconsider rural and suburban development in favour of meeting the proposed 25 per cent increase in the population of the Capital district.

Not charging urban developers the CCC, or charging at a reduced rate, is what the BIDs had envisioned in order to ensure the sustainability of our urban centres. In the Kitchen and Slack report attached to the HRM recommendation, they allow for this option: "As the Kitchen & Slack study indicates, the CCCs presented are intended to be an approximate upper limit and council may agree to recover less than the eligible amount for a variety of reasons, or exempt some or all of a charge to encourage certain kinds of developments in particular locations.

the rest of the article can be found here:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1264224.html

[someone123]

At a very high level part of the problem is that the city is already mostly suburban, so politically it is dominated by suburban interests. Politics explain why commercial taxes are so high, why suburban and rural area rates are favourable, and why the level of investment in the regional core is pretty much just the same as if it were some random neighbourhood.

I am not sure exactly how far along this is or what the magnitude or distribution of these fees would be. I'd be surprised if anybody knows. I think this could work if it only affected new development. This would still be horribly unfair since the people in 90s era sprawl have already cashed in but something needs to change.

The exurban growth is not viable at all on a large scale. Even if you don't provide stuff like snow removal, which is expensive in low-density areas, you have people move in and then demand schools, fire protection, etc. -- and once they've moved in it's too late to say no. Suburban development is not that bad assuming it can be intensified over time (inner city neighbourhoods started as suburbs) and served by transit.

The poorly connected cul de sac pods neighbourhoods with sparse, segregated commercial development should not be permitted. The city will need to take a bigger role in planning these new areas because developers are incapable. Developers given free reign just build whatever is locally most profitable and do not take the regional picture into account. This was okay when Halifax was 10% suburb but is not viable when 90% of the city is built that way.

[halifaxboyns]

I may be asking a very dumb question here but does the property taxing system for HRM take into account regional differences?

What I mean is: Would the tax rate for a residential property in downtown Halifax or Dartmouth be taxed at the same rate as suburban Halifax (say Fairview or Clayton Park)?

I realize the rate has to do with property value; but I don't believe there are different mill rates for residential for different parts of the city; it's just one rate isn't it?

[someone123]

Nope, there are three different tax rates: urban (most expensive), suburban, and rural.

http://www.halifax.ca/revenue/TaxBoo...etaxrates.html

The differences are not huge but the pricing seems to be based on number of services provided rather than the cost of providing the service. This totally hides the efficiencies of different types of development.