As we're into budget time, and seeing these other posts... I wanted to add this article, a lot of things we already know on here but nice to see it in an article on a place that has the reach the CBC does. Typical suburban development is not good for cities (finances and livability).
SFHs are becoming unaffordable
In some ways that's sad and too bad (if you're raised to think 'success' is a SFH and having multiple cars) but in other ways it is a very good thing if you're an existing rate payer in the City of Calgary. It means your tax dollars will go further in the future. Currently, and using the city's current formula, SFH communities do not pay anywhere near their fair share of taxes. Basing taxes off of property value subsidizes suburban SFHs long after the communities they're in are subsidized for their initial development. As the article points out suburbs are essentially a loss for the city which is made up for by taxes on businesses and more urban communities. When will councilors
and MLAs (because I know it will require a change to the municipal government act) be willing to change how property taxes are collected to more evenly share the cost? I don't think a lot of people know the disparity in dollar per service a urban community pays versus a suburban community.
Edit: As darwink says it does not require a change to the MGA.
My idea is changing the collection to be based community cost sharing of services where density is rewarded and proper the cost of service delivery is more accurately allocated is a much more fair approach. Take a community like Cranston versus Marda Loop, if you apply the same cost to provide services to the same geographic area, the community with more people per square kilometer should pay less. By doing this wouldn't you also incentivize people to not be a development NIMBY? More "oh development, that means less taxes, good" and even "ugh another development, I'm willing to pay more taxes to keep my community SFHs".
And because it's in the municipal government act, bedroom communities would also be incentivized to make their communities more dense. Sure people who really want a SFH will still get one, but at least the property taxes will be more evenly spread, 'let them eat cake' as they say.
Edit: darwink's post below makes this more of a problem as the bedroom communities of Calgary could benefit from my proposed change.
we’ve come a long way, and makes me feel hopeful.
There is some hope, as BKah says downtown is much more dense and will continue to add more rate payers per square kilometer and although I know you're talking about downtown specifically, the north part of Seton will dense-ish and there is decently dense development happening in Springbank Hill and West District. So there is suburban hope too.
calgaryherald.com
