This is incredibly important analysis, and another example of our living well beyond our means with no real long-term financial planning. And it is another reason to support de-amalgamation, such that if people choose to live in suburban or exurban locales, that their services are paid for locally, which would also support business development in the burbs and more 15-minute communities.
Great questions. And one for me is: Will there be *demand* for Tewin? For family homes, there will be a glut on the market in the next decade as empty nest Boomers sell. And younger people are delaying families or can't afford a house, and want smaller units. If there are smaller, more affordable units, will people want the hour-plus commute each way (plus price of gas) if they work downtown?
For younger people, especially those who went to school in Toronto or Montreal, they want to live in more urban areas (if they want to live in Ottawa at all).
Tewin will undountedly sell, but likely to an older, higher income population who have less difficulty finding housing. It's a money grab based on how things used to be instead of looking ahead to what will be wanted.
There is nothing worse than living in the gentrified city, having to deal with neighbours, traffic, traffic lights, drug abuse, public transit etc.
Supply & demand. Working age people (except for those fresh out of school) much prefer the suburbs. You will never force people to live in left leaning city cores!
I would like to issue a word of caution about the Hemson study this post refers to. It may well be the best we'll ever get on the question of cross-subsidization urban-suburban, but the figures should be seen as indicators rather than as hard numbers that you can multiply out to predict the City's finances. Well before the Hemson study came out the general wisdom was that urban areas subsidize suburbia but no-one had ventured to put a number on it. So Hemson took up the challenge, using a small number of "typical" housing accommodations and going into the weeds what City services each consume. Fair enough, and as I said, the best we'll likely get if you want a number. But handle it with some circumspection.
That said, I wonder if the implicit assumption of the belief -- infill is cheaper than greenfields, i.e., requiring relatively little capital investment and increased operating costs -- is still valid. Maybe Councillor Menard could inquire with staff if the cheapness of urban infill fully takes into account the aging infrastructure in certain parts of the city. The current Infrastructure Master Plan does recognize the need for urban infrastructure renewal in response to densification. Is it enough? That's where useful scrutiny could be exercised.
The number might change. And it is a false debate. The real debate is what Neil put forward: For a whole host of reasons sprawl should be resisted. The likely weight on the City's finances (and therefore property taxes) is only one reason. FYI, in the New Official Plan debate, POP put forward a scenario, using the City's own numbers, where all projected requirements could be met without urban expansion. Like the Hemson report, it put a number on what we all know can and must be done. To no avail.
Great article. Thanks. I don't really understand how property taxes are calculated. What would be the possibilities of properties taxes being set so that those who choose to lived in suburbs fully pay their own costs to build and maintain infrastructure where they live?
It is a theoretical possibility. There are local area improvement charges, which can create different tax levels. Politically, they are hard to do well. The City of Ottawa does not currently report on spending by Ward, or by neighborhood, so we don’t have all the information that we would need to be able to assess what the changes would be.
This is incredibly important analysis, and another example of our living well beyond our means with no real long-term financial planning. And it is another reason to support de-amalgamation, such that if people choose to live in suburban or exurban locales, that their services are paid for locally, which would also support business development in the burbs and more 15-minute communities.
Great questions. And one for me is: Will there be *demand* for Tewin? For family homes, there will be a glut on the market in the next decade as empty nest Boomers sell. And younger people are delaying families or can't afford a house, and want smaller units. If there are smaller, more affordable units, will people want the hour-plus commute each way (plus price of gas) if they work downtown?
For younger people, especially those who went to school in Toronto or Montreal, they want to live in more urban areas (if they want to live in Ottawa at all).
Tewin will undountedly sell, but likely to an older, higher income population who have less difficulty finding housing. It's a money grab based on how things used to be instead of looking ahead to what will be wanted.
There is nothing worse than living in the gentrified city, having to deal with neighbours, traffic, traffic lights, drug abuse, public transit etc.
Supply & demand. Working age people (except for those fresh out of school) much prefer the suburbs. You will never force people to live in left leaning city cores!
I would like to issue a word of caution about the Hemson study this post refers to. It may well be the best we'll ever get on the question of cross-subsidization urban-suburban, but the figures should be seen as indicators rather than as hard numbers that you can multiply out to predict the City's finances. Well before the Hemson study came out the general wisdom was that urban areas subsidize suburbia but no-one had ventured to put a number on it. So Hemson took up the challenge, using a small number of "typical" housing accommodations and going into the weeds what City services each consume. Fair enough, and as I said, the best we'll likely get if you want a number. But handle it with some circumspection.
That said, I wonder if the implicit assumption of the belief -- infill is cheaper than greenfields, i.e., requiring relatively little capital investment and increased operating costs -- is still valid. Maybe Councillor Menard could inquire with staff if the cheapness of urban infill fully takes into account the aging infrastructure in certain parts of the city. The current Infrastructure Master Plan does recognize the need for urban infrastructure renewal in response to densification. Is it enough? That's where useful scrutiny could be exercised.
The number might change. And it is a false debate. The real debate is what Neil put forward: For a whole host of reasons sprawl should be resisted. The likely weight on the City's finances (and therefore property taxes) is only one reason. FYI, in the New Official Plan debate, POP put forward a scenario, using the City's own numbers, where all projected requirements could be met without urban expansion. Like the Hemson report, it put a number on what we all know can and must be done. To no avail.
Keep up the good work, Neil.
Great article. Thanks. I don't really understand how property taxes are calculated. What would be the possibilities of properties taxes being set so that those who choose to lived in suburbs fully pay their own costs to build and maintain infrastructure where they live?
It is a theoretical possibility. There are local area improvement charges, which can create different tax levels. Politically, they are hard to do well. The City of Ottawa does not currently report on spending by Ward, or by neighborhood, so we don’t have all the information that we would need to be able to assess what the changes would be.