TAS
Senior Member
Nice new concise release from Not Just Bikes on cost of surburbia using 3D models. Example at the end how Guelph made building density cheaper and easier and how it paid off.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
BrettB
Active Member
Yes, which I do find somewhat more attractive, and yet the article shows:
So my takeaway is there's still a long way to go to reach the 15-minute city goal.
cloney
New Member
I wonder how much it costed Guelph to have this analysis done, and if its something that Edmonton should look into. While current council might already be very supportive of increasing density (im honestly not sure), having a report like this that so clearly spells out the cost of it all, densification might get more public support. Im not sure how anyone could watch a video like that, and not think that the sprawl of Edmonton needs to stop
danimori
Active Member
I think a lot of people agree sprawl should stop but they don't want anything in their own community to change, which creates a bit of a problem lol
cloney
New Member
well, if people had to pick between changes to their neighbourhood or a higher cost of living, then im sure they would be more likely to change. And if they didnt, well then increases in property tax to these money draining areas would at least start to flip the script on who in the city pays for who
thommyjo
Senior Member
What could be cool too is using that analysis to highlight and set benchmarks. Showing people that we could basically triple our population without any greenfield development and it barely being noticeable from a neighbourhood/next door feel would be cool.
Like “hey, your neighbourhood could become tax positive by rebuilding half of it to be duplexes and townhouses, a few apartments/condos, and some basement suites and garage suites. Half the homes can stay bungalows. Density up. Revenue up. Felt difference minimized.
I think a lot of nimby stuff is theoretical and scare tactics more than reality. Like the parking/traffic/kids safety pieces are usually overblown.
We should also use data like this to build a more equitable property tax strategy. Large single family areas that aren’t as tax positive should pay more than denser areas that are tax positive.
Like “hey, your neighbourhood could become tax positive by rebuilding half of it to be duplexes and townhouses, a few apartments/condos, and some basement suites and garage suites. Half the homes can stay bungalows. Density up. Revenue up. Felt difference minimized.
I think a lot of nimby stuff is theoretical and scare tactics more than reality. Like the parking/traffic/kids safety pieces are usually overblown.
We should also use data like this to build a more equitable property tax strategy. Large single family areas that aren’t as tax positive should pay more than denser areas that are tax positive.
cloney
New Member
Totally agree, especially on the property tax part. The way that property taxes are collected seems extremely outdated and should have some sort of cost-to-serve component, this would capture both low density residential, low density commercial, areas of sprawl, and the whole variety of surface level downtown parking lots.
Edmonton eyes property taxes based on density with cuts for rental property owners and hikes for single-family homes
Tax bills for single-family homes could rise alongside a larger dip for apartment buildings as the city looks at an unconventional way to address density in Edmonton.
edmontonjournal.com
thommyjo
Senior Member
Whoop. There it is. Haha.
Hopefully creates some interesting discussions! 300k bungalows in the NE paying way less than 600k condos downtown just doesn’t make sense from a city standpoint.
And if the argument is that people with pricey homes should pay more than those with less costly ones, I don’t think property taxes are the best vehicle for that. Income taxes, capital gains tax, and wealth taxes should hit those areas. Property taxes should ensure financial sustainability of the municipal costs to manage an area. 1mil walkable, low carbon footprint condo shouldn’t pay more than 600k big SFH in keswick.
Hopefully creates some interesting discussions! 300k bungalows in the NE paying way less than 600k condos downtown just doesn’t make sense from a city standpoint.
And if the argument is that people with pricey homes should pay more than those with less costly ones, I don’t think property taxes are the best vehicle for that. Income taxes, capital gains tax, and wealth taxes should hit those areas. Property taxes should ensure financial sustainability of the municipal costs to manage an area. 1mil walkable, low carbon footprint condo shouldn’t pay more than 600k big SFH in keswick.
BrettB
Active Member
You can make interesting things happen through taxation. Older French buildings with their floors in the gables look the way they do because of property taxes way back when. Very interesting idea.
Not to mention rental apartments, which fall under "other residential" and has a 15% higher in property tax rate that gets passed down to renters.
TAS
Senior Member
Except if rental property owners are paying less property tax, will that be passed on to the renters? Apparently not.
Cate Watt, branch manager for assessment and taxation, said property owners could pass tax savings to renters but historically this hasn’t happened in Edmonton. (From the EJ article above)
“Previous councils implemented strategies to eliminate the other residential rate but cancelled those strategies after rental rates did not actually decrease,” she said last month. “It is … unlikely that the city would be able to measurably attribute any impact on rents to this potential policy change.”
BrettB
Active Member
This is true, but I'm wondering if the real impact of the changes won't be to encourage a change in the form of development over time. Economists say "tax what you don't want."
So over time, it might encourage fewer single family homes and more small-scale developments. For example, would it encourage homeowners to put in more rental basement and garden suites if it means a bit of income and a (however small) tax break?
So over time, it might encourage fewer single family homes and more small-scale developments. For example, would it encourage homeowners to put in more rental basement and garden suites if it means a bit of income and a (however small) tax break?
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Taxes are also a way to redistribute income, so I do acknowledge that property values need to factor in the property taxes, but it shouldn't be the only (or even the main) component.
Some cities I know have a formula that uses the kind of property, lot size, build area ratio and property value to calculate the taxes. This way, you end up with a better balance.
Greenspace
Senior Member
It could also happen that you have the wrong kind of growth, overly dense rental projects in the core, more dense than the plans contemplate or is desired.