Edmonton's Direction Under Premier Redford

[The_Cat]

With last night's election done, Edmonton and much of Alberta have sent a signal that Alberta is a more urban province. This is a great opportunity for Edmonton, provided that we as a city and region take ownership.

This is a new beginning in some ways, but Edmonton has run out of excuses about lack of opportunities. What will be Edmonton's game plan with Alison Redford and the PC's being re-elected?

[etownboarder]

We know NAIT will be getting a new building, so maybe somehow integrating this new building with the airport lands and getting started on that redevelopment with some assistance from Ally's new government.

[moahunter]

Maybe will get some health clinics?

[edmonton daily photo]

I am really proud that it's the province that trended around Edmonton.

The wildrose never had a large lead here and Edmonton, true to form, stayed a centralist bastion of common sense.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by etownboarder

We know NAIT will be getting a new building, so maybe somehow integrating this new building with the airport lands and getting started on that redevelopment with some assistance from Ally's new government.

Not only Nait but also Norquest...

I believe that we will see some other fiscal conservative measures taken as the books need to be balanced.

[GreenSPACE]

Yay RAM. And Norquest hopefully.

[The_Cat]

I think it would be great for the city if the province approved the Community Revitalization Levy for downtown. Also, building MacEwan, Norquest and LRT would add to downtown.

However, the city business community also has to take more initiative. What would it take to attract business to our city? What about a skilled workforce? What about access to capital markets for businesses to grow?

[bolo]

Promote the Alberta tax advantage. With the new rich tax just introduced by McGuinty, I'm sure a lot of the wealthier folk in Ontario are getting a little peeved. With Edmonton's redevelopment, we would be able to mold our future plans to accommodate new and growing businesses in a variety of fields.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ Taxing people who make $500,000+ a year a little extra won't drive them to move to other provinces....

The upper few percent should pay more tax anyways.. even here in Alberta.

[jagators63]

wealthier Ontario business people may bolt to alberta due to low taxes and could create jobs here??

[kjh]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I believe that we will see some other fiscal conservative measures taken as the books need to be balanced.

I have a 100 million dollar request in mind that should be denied (saves more than that if the corresponding CRL is likewise deep sixed)

[GreenSPACE]

Redford is also committed to giving Edmonton and Calgary charter status. This will allow us more flexibility in taxation. The only large cities left in Canada without these kind of powers.

[christopherj]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

^ Taxing people who make $500,000+ a year a little extra won't drive them to move to other provinces....

No? I know a few people who "live" in Alberta for the 10% flat rates. Not suggesting it is common but there is more than a handful.

[bolo]

Originally Posted by christopherj

No? I know a few people who "live" in Alberta for the 10% flat rates. Not suggesting it is common but there is more than a handful.

Same here, I know more than a few. It's not just cheaper taxes, but a better economy and fiscal future as well. Ontario's debt is spiraling out of control right now (no hyperbole) and things are going to turn bad very soon (part of the reason why this tax hike was imposed).

In this day and age, we have an extremely mobile work force. When I moved to Edmonton, I was actually working for both a Toronto and a Chicago company at the time and continued to work for both of them for many years from Edmonton. I didn't move for the tax savings, but I sure did enjoy them.

[SP59]

Originally Posted by GreenSPACE

Redford is also committed to giving Edmonton and Calgary charter status. This will allow us more flexibility in taxation. The only large cities left in Canada without these kind of powers.

What does it mean to give cities charter status and what will the benefits be?

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

^ Taxing people who make $500,000+ a year a little extra won't drive them to move to other provinces.....

Do you know how many Alberta Trustees manage trusts for Quebec high wealth individuals who pay tax in Alberta (i.e. helps us out) and not Quebec?

Hint - its a lot (note - some interesting Court cases might call into question though).

If taxes are unreasonably, high wealth individuals can shift their income into other forms or locations.

[GreenSPACE]

Originally Posted by SP59

What does it mean to give cities charter status and what will the benefits be?

Right now municipalities like Edmonton and Calgary have no authority to implement their own taxes. They can only collect property taxes and user fees. That is why you see Council doing creative things like CRL's for neighbourhoods to try to raise money for infrastructure. With charter status, they will be free to look at other options to create 'taxes'. For example, a transit tax to raise capital to continue to expand the LRT, etc. Most other cities our size have these powers in other provinces. In fact, it is unusual that the province has so much authority over taxation, given that our largest cities are a large share of the economic activity. This requires the Province to make changes to the Municipal Government Act (MGA) and they have been resistant until now. All political parties committed to this change in principle prior to the election on Monday.

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city

Cities Matter - http://www.citiesmatter.ca

Mastermaq "More power and money to cities in Alberta? I don't believe you!" - http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2012/04/13/...t-believe-you/

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by kjh

I have a 100 million dollar request in mind that should be denied (saves more than that if the corresponding CRL is likewise deep sixed)

How does deepsixing the CRL save tax money?! You realize that development, sales, rentals and revenue generation PAY income tax right?!

you are completely misguided nor do you understand what a CRL is if you think stopping it will save the prov Tax dollars.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Do you know how many Alberta Trustees manage trusts for Quebec high wealth individuals who pay tax in Alberta (i.e. helps us out) and not Quebec?

Hint - its a lot (note - some interesting Court cases might call into question though).

If taxes are unreasonably, high wealth individuals can shift their income into other forms or locations.

That's right and a 1% tax increase to the most wealthy will drive everyone away... like get real moa.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by GreenSPACE

Right now municipalities like Edmonton and Calgary have no authority to implement their own taxes. They can only collect property taxes and user fees. That is why you see Council doing creative things like CRL's for neighbourhoods to try to raise money for infrastructure. With charter status, they will be free to look at other options to create 'taxes'. For example, a transit tax to raise capital to continue to expand the LRT, etc. Most other cities our size have these powers in other provinces. In fact, it is unusual that the province has so much authority over taxation, given that our largest cities are a large share of the economic activity. This requires the Province to make changes to the Municipal Government Act (MGA) and they have been resistant until now. All political parties committed to this change in principle prior to the election on Monday.

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city

Cities Matter - http://www.citiesmatter.ca

Mastermaq "More power and money to cities in Alberta? I don't believe you!" - http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2012/04/13/...t-believe-you/

If the Province would stop collecting school taxes via property tax that would be an instant request... As for the prov gov't claiming taxes won't go up... that is a crock as the education rider has gone up constantly...

People just need to be educated in this and mandel wants to see it happen.

[kjh]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

How does deepsixing the CRL save tax money?! You realize that development, sales, rentals and revenue generation PAY income tax right?!

you are completely misguided nor do you understand what a CRL is if you think stopping it will save the prov Tax dollars.

[SARCASM=on]
I am feeling the love EDP. I really enjoy this way that you can discuss something without insulting someone or calling them ignorant just because you don't agree with their point of view.
[/SARCASM]

The CRL is basically a clever way to move provincial Income tax dollars to City tax dollars by taking the education component of the increased property taxes and using them to pay off a city debt. That close enough to understanding how the CRL works.

It's good for the City ie it is free money but I think that the Province will be looking for ways to pay some of their election promises, and by turning down the CRL request that gives the province more tax income.

Here is a question for you EDP: If the CRL doesn't cost the Province anything why do they have to approve the CRL application?

Unless you are working under the assumption that the Arena will be responsible for all of the increase in property tax values through the whole downtown for the next 25 years. If you work under that assumption then the province does not lose any money from the CRL, otherwise they do.

PS when the Province is doing their calculation of how much the CRL will cost them they will assume that the downtown grows at a high growth rate (conservative assumption for the province) while the City chose a CRL based on a low growth rate (conservative for the city). Guess how that affects the likelihood of the province approving the CRL?

[kjh]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

If the Province would stop collecting school taxes via property tax that would be an instant request... As for the prov gov't claiming taxes won't go up... that is a crock as the education rider has gone up constantly...

People just need to be educated in this and mandel wants to see it happen.

Likely the province would dial back the MSI funding in equal portion to the education property tax amount.

What is that quote about free lunches and how there is no such thing as them? I can never remember it.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by kjh

[SARCASM=on]
I am feeling the love EDP. I really enjoy this way that you can discuss something without insulting someone or calling them ignorant just because you don't agree with their point of view.
[/SARCASM]

The CRL is basically a clever way to move provincial Income tax dollars to City tax dollars by taking the education component of the increased property taxes and using them to pay off a city debt. That close enough to understanding how the CRL works.

It's good for the City ie it is free money but I think that the Province will be looking for ways to pay some of their election promises, and by turning down the CRL request that gives the province more tax income.

Here is a question for you EDP: If the CRL doesn't cost the Province anything why do they have to approve the CRL application?

Unless you are working under the assumption that the Arena will be responsible for all of the increase in property tax values through the whole downtown for the next 25 years. If you work under that assumption then the province does not lose any money from the CRL, otherwise they do.

PS when the Province is doing their calculation of how much the CRL will cost them they will assume that the downtown grows at a high growth rate (conservative assumption for the province) while the City chose a CRL based on a low growth rate (conservative for the city). Guess how that affects the likelihood of the province approving the CRL?

Any existing education tax, which is a pittance compared to the extra income tax the province will make off of a redeveloped dt, will still go to the gov't. The city will only keep future increases and only for 10 years.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by kjh

Likely the province would dial back the MSI funding in equal portion to the education property tax amount.

What is that quote about free lunches and how there is no such thing as them? I can never remember it.

o wait so you just get to make things up to support your argument. It's pretty clear to the Prov and the city that we have a huge infrastructure deficit. the only way we should see MSI funding dialed back is via a comprehensive rework of the system where the entire muni funding picture is visited.

[edmonton daily photo]

Here is a question for you EDP: If the CRL doesn't cost the Province anything why do they have to approve the CRL application?

The CRL has to be approved by the prov gov't because that is the way the gov't has set up the system. If Ralph Kliene had been proactive and a true visionary the city governments, which are a child of our prov gov't, would have been reviewed and updated decades ago.

The end result is that we have municipalities with no access to stable predictable funding. The CRL was a cheap work around for this... mainly created for Calgary's benefit, Edmonton has just used it to it's advantage.

[kjh]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

o wait so you just get to make things up to support your argument. It's pretty clear to the Prov and the city that we have a huge infrastructure deficit. the only way we should see MSI funding dialed back is via a comprehensive rework of the system where the entire muni funding picture is visited.

that bolded part above doesn't do anything for your argument except make you sound like you are trolling, which I don't think you're trying to do.

Yes we have an infrastructure debt (deficit refers year to year where debt refers to accumulated requirements). However the provincial government is not required to remedy our and I'll say that again, OUR infrastructure debt. Also it is difficult to plead poverty when we are planning that fancy new arena, and fast-tracking LRT expansions, and and and and and.

[kjh]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Here is a question for you EDP: If the CRL doesn't cost the Province anything why do they have to approve the CRL application?

The CRL has to be approved by the prov gov't because that is the way the gov't has set up the system. If Ralph Kliene had been proactive and a true visionary the city governments, which are a child of our prov gov't, would have been reviewed and updated decades ago.

The end result is that we have municipalities with no access to stable predictable funding. The CRL was a cheap work around for this... mainly created for Calgary's benefit, Edmonton has just used it to it's advantage.

What makes you think that if we reviewed our city government structure we wouldn't have chosen the exact same method we are using now? Or one that is very similar?

PS. The municipalities have access to stable, predictable funding.

It's called Property Tax. It's way more stable than oil and gas royalties, it's also more stable than income tax, and we do a lot of predicting based on our future property tax income.

Oh and if you say that Property tax isn't enough then raise property taxes. It's pretty easy, council does it all the time.

[kjh]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Any existing education tax, which is a pittance compared to the extra income tax the province will make off of a redeveloped dt, will still go to the gov't. The city will only keep future increases and only for 10 years.

Additional income tax is only realized if it is new income to the province, not redistributed income within the province.

I don't see how a redeveloped downtown will generate all that much extra compared to the equivalent downtown without an approved CRL.

But please expand on how this would happen I am excited to hear it.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by kjh

that bolded part above doesn't do anything for your argument except make you sound like you are trolling, which I don't think you're trying to do.

Yes we have an infrastructure debt (deficit refers year to year where debt refers to accumulated requirements). However the provincial government is not required to remedy our and I'll say that again, OUR infrastructure debt. Also it is difficult to plead poverty when we are planning that fancy new arena, and fast-tracking LRT expansions, and and and and and.

Our infrastructure deficit is the provinces problem, our prior lack of regional planning is the provinces problem... Municipalities fall under the responsibility of the province as per the Federal Constitution.

No one is crying proverty.... Alberta has not invested in itself nearly as much as required.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by kjh

Additional income tax is only realized if it is new income to the province, not redistributed income within the province.

I don't see how a redeveloped downtown will generate all that much extra compared to the equivalent downtown without an approved CRL.

But please expand on how this would happen I am excited to hear it.

What are you are saying is that is condo X isn't built DT then it would be built elsewhere... which is true. BUT

The dt core is the face of DT. Having a gutted and baron DT has gotten us this far. A vibrant and and lively dt is shown to be a fundamental economic driver. Increased tourism, Increased landvalues, more business based out of Edmonton etc etc etc.

Things don't operate in a vacuum and moreso almost everyone else sees the value in the things i am saying EEDC, Council, DECL, OCL Downtown Vibrancy Task Force, U of A, etc

[kjh]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Our infrastructure deficit is the provinces problem, our prior lack of regional planning is the provinces problem... Municipalities fall under the responsibility of the province as per the Federal Constitution.

What happens if the province says that they have supplied enough resources to deal with our infrastructure?

what if the province doesn't do anything about regional planning?

What then? Vote Social credit? Cry to our mommies?

If we treat it like our problem chances are we'll be better off rather than whining and bellyaching.

[kjh]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I believe that we will see some other fiscal conservative measures taken as the books need to be balanced.

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

What are you are saying is that is condo X isn't built DT then it would be built elsewhere... which is true. BUT

The dt core is the face of DT. Having a gutted and baron DT has gotten us this far. A vibrant and and lively dt is shown to be a fundamental economic driver. Increased tourism, Increased landvalues, more business based out of Edmonton etc etc etc.

Things don't operate in a vacuum and moreso almost everyone else sees the value in the things i am saying EEDC, Council, DECL, OCL Downtown Vibrancy Task Force, U of A, etc

Your words not mine.


how do you reconcile these two ideas?

[etownboarder]

The provinces and federal governments know full well why the cities have such severe infrastructure deficits. They aren't debating the fact that cities just haven't been their biggest priority over the past decades. Thankfully most governments are beginning to see things differently and understand that new ideas will be necessary to keep Canadian cities competitive with other cities internationally for business and investment.

[kjh]

EDP / Etownboarder

Are you two arguing that we have an infrastructure deficit or debt?

Because I would argue that the Province and Federal governments are acting like we do NOT have an infrastructure deficit.

[The_Cat]

Infrastructure deficit? No. (Construction on neighbourhood rehab, new roads like AHD, LRT)
Infrastructure debt? Yes. (Neighbourhoods on waiting list, need for new schools)

[The_Cat]

David Staples column:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...067/story.html

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by The_Cat

Infrastructure deficit? No. (Construction on neighbourhood rehab, new roads like AHD, LRT)
Infrastructure debt? Yes. (Neighbourhoods on waiting list, need for new schools)

Deficit yes... Unfunded revitalization projects like Jasper Ave. unfunded park redevelopment. Unfunded revitalization zones like oliver.

[kjh]

^ not to sound like a jerk but I don't think that you understand the difference between a deficit and a debt.

Either that or you don't know how to explain your examples as a type of deficit.

[edmonton daily photo]

I'm just using the cats examples.. There are a number of needed or planned projects that are not yet funded.

[The_Cat]

I think our net infrastructure debt is going down (deficit < 0).