Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Growing pains for Capital region.

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Foolworm
    Originally posted by moahunter View Post
    Social services are the responsibility of the province. I'd rather other cities and towns sprawl than my town, as the burden of most of the cost goes onto those towns / cities. Would I rather there be no sprawl at all? Yes. But leadership has to start somewhere, sucking up vast tracks of land to the airport isn't consistent with that.
    That's not the point. Edmonton already bears the legacy cost of maintaining city infrastructure which is (and really, there is no arguing the point here) widely used by the region. The costs of sprawl will not be felt by the other cities and towns because:

    1) they do not inherit the costs of maintaining current infrastructure
    2) They divert industry and taxpayer base which would otherwise pay into maintenence.

    These two phenomena are pretty much killing Detroit right now. If oil were to plummet to post-gulf levels tomorrow, I'm pretty sure history would repeat itself for that reason. It is a classic Davidson Rees-Mogg incentive trap.

    Originally posted by Komrade View Post
    Annex everything! Lets have a super city! If we built a new ringroad that circles all these outlying communities it would make sense. Lets get it done!
    We don't even have the Henday done yet.


    2 things did not kill Detroit and it was no back up economic plan for the city back in the 60's in case when big 3 auto went downhill . but it did went very slowly when Japanese cars first arrive in America in the late 60's and now it is a total bust for Detroit. 2/3 of land just outside of downtown Detroit is gone.
    Last edited by jagators63; 12-05-2013, 02:03 PM.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Komrade View Post
      Annex everything! Lets have a super city! If we built a new ringroad that circles all these outlying communities it would make sense. Lets get it done!


      Exactly

      The road is in the planning stage. The Govt in power has to have the balls to pull the trigger on this.

      Comment


      • #18
        They should just create a new county that contains edmonton and all the surrounding land to the west up to stony plain, to the south to 5km south of leduc, to the east to 10km east of highway 21 and to the north to 10km north of mornville.

        Then all the bickering could stop. Everyone is in the same county working for the same goals.

        Comment


        • #19
          If Edmonton had annexed St.Albert & Sherwood Park back in the early 80's like they wanted to would we be still be having this problem?

          Yes
          No
          Problem would still be here, but not as bad
          Last edited by Terry; 12-05-2013, 04:02 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            ^ For the umpteenth time, yes. Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
            “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by moahunter View Post
              Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
              You don't get it moa we don't live in a Vacuum. We all pay. Be it through taxes to the prov gov't that pays for 100% of the counties infrastructure or the increased concentration of social services offloaded onto the city...
              Social services are the responsibility of the province. I'd rather other cities and towns sprawl than my town, as the burden of most of the cost goes onto those towns / cities. Would I rather there be no sprawl at all? Yes. But leadership has to start somewhere, sucking up vast tracks of land to the airport isn't consistent with that.
              I don't care what it says on paper Moa the city caries the cost of a lot of social services that the province downloads onto the City. O the province does things like cuts programing for the mentally ill which just pushes problems onto the police or innercity programs.

              So lets get realistic.
              "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by jagators63 View Post
                Originally posted by Foolworm
                Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                Social services are the responsibility of the province. I'd rather other cities and towns sprawl than my town, as the burden of most of the cost goes onto those towns / cities. Would I rather there be no sprawl at all? Yes. But leadership has to start somewhere, sucking up vast tracks of land to the airport isn't consistent with that.
                That's not the point. Edmonton already bears the legacy cost of maintaining city infrastructure which is (and really, there is no arguing the point here) widely used by the region. The costs of sprawl will not be felt by the other cities and towns because:

                1) they do not inherit the costs of maintaining current infrastructure
                2) They divert industry and taxpayer base which would otherwise pay into maintenence.

                These two phenomena are pretty much killing Detroit right now. If oil were to plummet to post-gulf levels tomorrow, I'm pretty sure history would repeat itself for that reason. It is a classic Davidson Rees-Mogg incentive trap.

                Originally posted by Komrade View Post
                Annex everything! Lets have a super city! If we built a new ringroad that circles all these outlying communities it would make sense. Lets get it done!
                We don't even have the Henday done yet.


                2 things did not kill Detroit and it was no back up economic plan for the city back in the 60's in case when big 3 auto went downhill . but it did went very slowly when Japanese cars first arrive in America in the late 60's and now it is a total bust for Detroit. 2/3 of land just outside of downtown Detroit is gone.

                Very few of the Car manufacturing or HQs of the major industry were actually in Detroit. Ford is in Lancing. Chrysler is in Auburn Hills.

                What is happening in Edmonton is a PERFECT example of Detroit. Taxes in Detroit are huge as the city struggles to maintain services the whole region use (like 2 major connections to Canada) Wil next to no industrial tax base and a diminishing property tax base.

                If you are going to speak on an issue please do some research!
                "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
                  Originally posted by jagators63 View Post
                  Originally posted by Foolworm
                  Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                  Social services are the responsibility of the province. I'd rather other cities and towns sprawl than my town, as the burden of most of the cost goes onto those towns / cities. Would I rather there be no sprawl at all? Yes. But leadership has to start somewhere, sucking up vast tracks of land to the airport isn't consistent with that.
                  That's not the point. Edmonton already bears the legacy cost of maintaining city infrastructure which is (and really, there is no arguing the point here) widely used by the region. The costs of sprawl will not be felt by the other cities and towns because:

                  1) they do not inherit the costs of maintaining current infrastructure
                  2) They divert industry and taxpayer base which would otherwise pay into maintenence.

                  These two phenomena are pretty much killing Detroit right now. If oil were to plummet to post-gulf levels tomorrow, I'm pretty sure history would repeat itself for that reason. It is a classic Davidson Rees-Mogg incentive trap.

                  Originally posted by Komrade View Post
                  Annex everything! Lets have a super city! If we built a new ringroad that circles all these outlying communities it would make sense. Lets get it done!
                  We don't even have the Henday done yet.


                  2 things did not kill Detroit and it was no back up economic plan for the city back in the 60's in case when big 3 auto went downhill . but it did went very slowly when Japanese cars first arrive in America in the late 60's and now it is a total bust for Detroit. 2/3 of land just outside of downtown Detroit is gone.

                  Very few of the Car manufacturing or HQs of the major industry were actually in Detroit. Ford is in Lancing. Chrysler is in Auburn Hills.

                  What is happening in Edmonton is a PERFECT example of Detroit. Taxes in Detroit are huge as the city struggles to maintain services the whole region use (like 2 major connections to Canada) Wil next to no industrial tax base and a diminishing property tax base.

                  If you are going to speak on an issue please do some research!
                  Detroit lost 800,000 people in the last 40 yrs. many of them moving out to surburb or out of state.
                  Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
                    ^ For the umpteenth time, yes. Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
                    Only if you let it. Fix the MGA and make a region wide green belt and agriculture zone, don't allow any urban growth in it, limit development outside of it too...and problem solved. For the umpteenth time
                    Last edited by Medwards; 12-05-2013, 07:11 PM.
                    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Foolworm
                      Originally posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
                      Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
                      The problem is that this is already happening. Sturgeon's Neighbourhood G 'replaces' St. Albert, and Strathcona's Brenner 'replaces' Sherwood Park. As East McCauley notes, it's called leapfrogging.

                      This is why I consider specialized municipalities a bad precedent. They have all the land they could ever need to expand, cut-throat bottom-of-the-barrel attitudes to attracting tax base, and they won't have to consider the revitalization and maintenance costs of existing infrastructure. I wonder what will happen once their existing infrastructure needs renewal.

                      Reading the article, I can't help but pity Fort Saskatchewan - they can't negotiate for more land until 2031 and they're already running out of space.
                      These are also called EX Burbs. We need to take a good hard look at what is happening to these in the American cities right now..

                      They are not healthy viable communities.
                      "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Medwards View Post
                        Originally posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
                        ^ For the umpteenth time, yes. Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
                        Only if you let it. Fix the MGA and make a region wide green belt and agriculture zone, don't allow any urban growth in it, limit development outside of it too...and problem solved. For the umpteenth time
                        Ok, and then housing prices would rocket and the city would choke itself off. Then we'll have endless generations of students banging pots because housing isn't affordable, and we'll blame you for the dumb idea.
                        "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          There is no way that Edmonton to 1.5 million+ people and not expand outwards.

                          We are going to grow bigger and acting like we wont or making plans to try to prevent that are silly.

                          It's HOW we do it that matters..
                          "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Foolworm
                            Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
                            These are also called EX Burbs. We need to take a good hard look at what is happening to these in the American cities right now..

                            They are not healthy viable communities.
                            I think the maps on this site are telling: http://www.radicalcartography.net/in...n-foreclosures.

                            Looking south, it looks like a ripple effect is occuring. The first wave of exodus guts the inner city core, which leads to urban decay and blight. Things deteriorate until the rot overflows into the suburbs, leading to a flight to sub-suburbs. Gentrification and revitalization of the inner city core only aids the demise of the suburbs as the less savory elements are pushed outwards anyway. This pretty much sums up the US urban situation of the last half-century or so; I think the subprime crisis was the event that really brought the issue of suburban decay to the forefront.
                            I have a little bit of a less dramatic account.

                            We have a limited pot of money.. right now a large amount of the pot goes to urban expansion while we struggle to fund urban renewal. BUT if we flip that around and and focus on urban renewal than special interest groups (a la Calgary) start squawking about being hard done buy and land speculators stand to loose millions of dollars. We also have a concern with limited supply, house pricing and losing population increase to other centers

                            As for economic conditions.. Ex burbs are not sustainable without a car as they really have no employment node, Not like the core of Edmonton -Very few are situated withing easy non auto commute of industrial areas, and many often have poor transit connections.

                            The Exburbs are now becoming the home for poverty. (in the USA)

                            “In Atlanta, the poor population in the city held stead between 2000 and 2010 whilethe poor population in the suburbs grew by 122 percent — more than doubling over the course of the decade,” said Elizabeth Kneebone, a fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, who was in Atlanta presenting her findings.

                            By comparison, among the nation’s 95 largest metro areas, the poor population in the suburbs grew by 53 percent between 2000 and 2010, while the poor population in cities grew by 23 percent, Kneebone added.

                            The last decade has been tough for the United States as per capita income has declined.
                            Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 13-05-2013, 12:19 PM.
                            "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Something else to ponder.... Taxes.

                              I get listings from Chicago and the surrounding area.. Muni Taxes on a 290,000 home in Chi Town... over $5000 / year.

                              Taxes across the region have to have a rhyme and a reason. We can't have counties sucking out industrial dollars just to turn around and depend on the province/cities for infrastructure funding/water/sewer all the while giving their residents low taxes on our back.
                              Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 13-05-2013, 01:47 PM.
                              "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Chmilz View Post
                                Originally posted by Medwards View Post
                                Originally posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
                                ^ For the umpteenth time, yes. Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
                                Only if you let it. Fix the MGA and make a region wide green belt and agriculture zone, don't allow any urban growth in it, limit development outside of it too...and problem solved. For the umpteenth time
                                Ok, and then housing prices would rocket and the city would choke itself off. Then we'll have endless generations of students banging pots because housing isn't affordable, and we'll blame you for the dumb idea.

                                It's not a dumb idea and is inplemented in Ottawa an Toronto fairly well. Create enough room for reasonable responsible growth, create a green/agriculture zone beyond that and do not allow urban development in this zone and beyond it.
                                A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X