Suburban Development and Sprawl

[cloney]

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.

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 The way that property taxes are collected seems extremely outdated and should have some sort of cost-to-serve component, this would capture both low density residential, low density commercial, areas of sprawl, and the whole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.

 

[soupcrate]

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.

Everytime someone complains at a public hearing about a new development just bring up the map and say right now the neighborhood is freeloading.

Probably not super productive but goddamn would I have to fight that urge.

 

[soupcrate]

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]

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.

 

[BrettB]

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.

 

[soupcrate]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

 

[ChazYEG]

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.

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]

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?

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.

 

[ChazYEG]

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.

This is a very unlikely scenario in almost any major and mid-sized North American city, considering the current level of density in their cores.
Density higher than desired would mean São Paulo, Tokyo or Hong Kong levels of density, with a lack of orderly growth patterns, which I just can't see happening in Edmonton, especially if we consider that there is a lot of power on the council's hand to control the developments that are approved or not in the city.

 

[Greenspace]

^I disagree. Recent approved DCs for some are FARs of 17, such as The Shift or Falcon Towers. These are already higher than the Capital City Dt Plan contemplates. Each one can be debated on it's own merits, those FARs are approaching Manhattan skyline levels. Is that necessary in a suburban city like Edmonton, and will there be more call for higher densities if there's a tax incentive? Posing the question.

 

[ChazYEG]

^I disagree. Recent approved DCs for some are FARs of 17, such as The Shift or Falcon Towers. These are already higher than the Capital City Dt Plan contemplates. Each one can be debated on it's own merits, those FARs are approaching Manhattan skyline levels. Is that necessary in a suburban city like Edmonton, and will there be more call for higher densities if there's a tax incentive? Posing the question.

The whole point is exactly to shift from being a suburban city to a denser, more walkable city, and if we can get our core to Manhattan levels of density, all the better. What is unsustainable, both economically and environmentally, is to let sprawl continue unchecked, like it has been happening in Edmonton.

 

[Greenspace]

^Density at any cost is not necessarily good planning. That's what urban planners thought 10 years ago. Downtown is always going to have the most dense projects, that's how most North American cities have developed. But you also have to look at context, built form --theres not reason some of that density can't be spread out. We're seeing it now in more 'missing middle' type projects, more mid height towers in West Oliver for example. It doesn't have to be 45 storey towers or single family, which has pretty much been Edmonton's model until now.

 

[ChazYEG]

^Density at any cost is not necessarily good planning. That's what urban planners thought 10 years ago. Downtown is always going to have the most dense projects, that's how most North American cities have developed. But you also have to look at context, built form --theres not reason some of that density can't be spread out. We're seeing it now in more 'missing middle' type projects, more mid height towers in West Oliver for example. It doesn't have to be 45 storey towers or single family, which has pretty much been Edmonton's model until now.

And adjusting property taxes in a balanced way can tackle the issue you mentioned, while still pushing for densities as high as possible in the core.

The level of infrastructure serviced to the core is way too high to allow mid-density to happen there, especially if we are looking decades into the future.