Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Candidate Bryan George Kapitza

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Mr. Kapitza,

    After reading the article from the CBC website below where you suggest lower taxes for people living downtown, why would you exclude people who make a conscious decision to live in places like Century Park (TOD)? Don't you think these people should also be rewarded for their choices?

    Thank you.

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/st...-proposal.html
    Last edited by etownboarder; 06-10-2010, 02:56 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Property Tax Assessment

      Dealing with the media has been an interesting experience.
      They tend to get part of the story.

      My proposal is to base property tax assessments on the value of the infrastructure that the city provides to a lot. Where ever there is higher density the taxes should be lower because you are sharing the cost of building and maintaining that infrastructure with your neighbours. This more accurately reflects the cost of living where you choose to live

      These changes don't happen over night.

      Over time, because downtown residents maximize use of infrastructure their taxes should go down. Century park residents would see a decrease as well. People who live in the sprawling suburbs would see a gradual increase.

      It encourages people to move to higher density areas, slowing sprawl and making better use of tax dollars.

      Presently, the city grows, taxes go up, services struggle to meet demand
      Under the new system, the city shrinks, taxes go down, and services improve

      This is not a new idea. Our present tax system is a historical development. This "new" system is in use in other jurisdictions: denmark, new zealand, hong kong, singapore and a few american states out east.

      check out the media release on my website www.communitiesfirst.ca
      Last edited by Bryan Kapitza; 06-10-2010, 04:37 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        I firmly believe in this idea Bryan and I applaud you for bringing it to people's attention. You certainly can count on my support come Election day.
        Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

        Comment


        • #19
          ^
          ^^
          except that's already the way things work isn't it?

          property taxes are assessed on the land value and on the value of the improvements. the first of these is fixed.

          if there is one unit on the site, it will pay for all of the tax assessed on the land plus the tax assessed on the improvements.

          a duplex would see each unit pay half of the land tax plus the tax assessed on their individual unit.

          a fourplex would see each unit pay a quarter of the tax assessed on the land plus the tax assessed on their individual unit.

          a building with 100 units would see each unit pay one percent of the tax assessed on the land plus the tax assessed on their individual unit.

          all the city needs to do is ensure that all land in the city is appropriately zoned for highest and best/most appropriate use and the system as it stands should already properly incent those that elect to live in denser housing forms.
          Last edited by kcantor; 06-10-2010, 07:17 PM.
          "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

          Comment


          • #20
            You've got my vote -- nothing gets me all hot and bothered like tax reform.

            I've vouched for something similar to what you're proposing, called Land Value Taxation. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax .

            It's a greatly simplified version. No need to create some man-made formulae about shares of infrastructures, etc, which becomes cumbersome to communicate, implement, defend against appeals.

            Tax only the land value, not against any improvements. That empty lot in Boyle you speak of will see a requisite increase in its taxes, incentivizing the owner to either develop the lot or sell it to someone who will. A homeowner taking the burden of improving their home (and therefore their community) will not be punished for doing so.

            Keep fighting the good fight Bryan. No issue is less 'sexy' to the media/public, but no issue presents as much potential to be a powerful agent towards densification and cost containment for the city budget.

            Fundamentally improved results demand fundamental changes, not mere tinkering with current policy.

            Comment


            • #21
              West LRT reply

              I had the opportunity to talk with the LRT project managers yesterday.

              The west LRT corridor, 104 ave/stoney plain road, has been approved by council and written into the transportation system bylaw. The administration is using this as the guideline for moving forward in fulfilling the vision set out in the transportation master plan. The upcoming open house will be to decide alignment and station locations in this corridor.

              Can council change its mind? Yes it can. That would require that council rescind the evaluation criteria used by administration to determine the corridor and rescind the bylaw.
              Is this going to happen? No.

              I support the 104 ave /stoney plain route. It touches many important locations and is close to many others (Norquest, Grant Macewan (2 campuses), Oliver square, the 124 street intersection (great for businesses there) and all the businesses on stoney plain road). Additionally, this route is within easy walking distance (3 blocks or less) for many more residents than the 107 ave route.

              It will significantly reduce traffic on 104 ave and with proper traffic control excess traffic can be moved to 111 ave avoiding congestion on 102 and 107 ave.

              Big thumbs up.

              Comment


              • #22
                The airport

                People always want a simple answer.

                Airport open or closed?

                Closed.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Bryan Kapitza View Post
                  I had the opportunity to talk with the LRT project managers yesterday.

                  The west LRT corridor, 104 ave/stoney plain road, has been approved by council and written into the transportation system bylaw. The administration is using this as the guideline for moving forward in fulfilling the vision set out in the transportation master plan. The upcoming open house will be to decide alignment and station locations in this corridor.

                  Can council change its mind? Yes it can. That would require that council rescind the evaluation criteria used by administration to determine the corridor and rescind the bylaw.
                  Is this going to happen? No.

                  I support the 104 ave /stoney plain route. It touches many important locations and is close to many others (Norquest, Grant Macewan (2 campuses), Oliver square, the 124 street intersection (great for businesses there) and all the businesses on stoney plain road). Additionally, this route is within easy walking distance (3 blocks or less) for many more residents than the 107 ave route.

                  It will significantly reduce traffic on 104 ave and with proper traffic control excess traffic can be moved to 111 ave avoiding congestion on 102 and 107 ave.

                  Big thumbs up.
                  Thank you for acknowledging that the West LRT route decision is reversible by the new Council. Whether this happens depends on who gets elected to the new Council. At least one of the other Ward 6 candidates wants Council to reconsider the SPR route.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Bryan,

                    What are your feelings about the Capital Region Board? Is there enough being done here, or do we need to further look towards a better way to coordinate our regional land use framework?

                    http://www.capitalregionboard.ab.ca/
                    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The Capital Region Board is still in its infancy.
                      Land Use is the most contentious of issues.
                      We can and have made some progress on other softer issues, namely transit.
                      Housing is just starting to be discussed with Homeward Trust trying to develop a community plan that takes into account regional perspectives.
                      So, short answer, continue meeting, try to find common ground. Eventually this board will become much more important as the capital region communities start to blend together.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hi Bryan,
                        I have enjoyed reading your views on the many issues affecting our community. The other Ward 6 hopefull's seem to be a bit off target or are just pushing a personnel agenda. Thanks for the fresh ideas and informed perspective.
                        You have my vote.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The Alberta Aviation Museum Association, in 2006 a small community museum now the 3rd largest aviation collection in Canada, is a feature tourism attraction in North Edmonton currently serves (5) veterans organizations, (3) Heritage organizations, (2) Youth organizations as well as a series of (6) modern aviation volunteer organizations such as the Civil Air Search And Rescue Association. The Museum also has the most advanced K-12 aviation education programming and is currently an operationally self sufficient not for profit operation that receives no operational funding from any level of government.



                          This is a facility that currently receives over 150,000 individual uses per year and attracts visitors from around the world.


                          What do you, as a candidate commit to specifically doing to insure the ongoing success and expansion of the Alberta Aviation Museum with the closure of the City Centre Airport and the damage it will cause to the facility?



                          I have been directed to ask on behalf of the boards of this facility.



                          Thomas Hinderks
                          Executive Director
                          Alberta Aviation Museum

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            hello thomas
                            the aviation museum will remain where it is, it will remain open, protected from any future construction and I will ensure that it has adequate room to expand its exhibits.
                            regards
                            bryan

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              ^ Bryan how can you make a statement like this? You can't guarantee any of this statement that you've made can you, and if you can please tell me how you would? I think you are making "election promises" you haven't got the power to keep.

                              Yes this museum is a great addition to Edmonton but could this museum not exist in it's entirety some place else? Why do you think it needs to stay in this physical location?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                this is what i would work towards.
                                the aviation museum stays where it is because of its connection to the land.
                                this is not uncommon for historic resources.
                                we have a rail car at the end of the CPR line in strathcona for the same reason.
                                a statue of gretzky by the coliseum as well
                                nor will we move rutherford house from the UofA
                                its a great location for the aviation museum, even when the rest of the land is developed

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X