Read on Twitter
This deserves a thread. And I’ll hit it tonight when I’ve finished the yard work to @barbcarra’s satisfaction. https://twitter.com/gregginyyc/status/1322977986413408256
Okay, thread time: way back B4 2010 we subsidized growth from the tax base as a matter of course. As soon as approvals for planning were completed, public $ for capital infrastructure followed. So having an ASP = getting public $. 1/
2010 saw the expiration of the previous off-site levy agreement & the election of a #yyccc that believed we needed to craft a new agreement in which growth covered its own costs. 2010-13 involved a lot of work with industry to prove whether & how much of a subsidy was practice 2/
While the term #SprawlSubsidy was despised by industry, all parties were in agreement that for decades all growth on the edge had been subsidized by tax $$$ by $5000-$20000/unit. In fact, #yycvote 2013 was a political struggle about whether or not to do something about that 3/
The #yyccc elected in 2013 was determined to establish a new growth regime in which: 1) growth paid for itself; & 2) we are able to growth up along side our ongoing ability to grow outwards. 2013-2017 was about figuring out how to do 1, but complicated by the recession. 4/
Unfortunately we determined that there can be no growth accommodated at the scale at which #yyc annually grows, without the support of public $. And so the mission switched from getting growth to pay for itself immediately to paying back over a reasonable amount of time. 5/
Put another way, we reframed @cityofcalgary’s participation in growth on the edge from blind subsidization to an investment w the expectation of payback. Taking place in conjunction w the work of who pays when, was a robust conversation surrounding what it was we’re paying for 6/
Whereas we used to subsidize whatever was next in the regulatory approvals process, we were now going to invest in the right growth at the right time to get maximum bang for our public $. While industry couldn’t afford all the capital costs of growth, they could pay for plans. 7/
And so, in the spirit of getting growth to pay for itself, as well as having a broad portfolio of thoughtful investment opportunities (rather than just whatever was next) the developer-funded ASP was born under the guidance of the New Communities Guidebook. 8/
We ideally want to know what every inch of land within #yyc is going to be when it grows up so our investments of limited public $ are well informed. We also want a competitive environment where developers are pitching us the best partnerships/products to get involved with. 9/
This all required a new mechanism for when public $ started to fund a plan because simply having a plan wasn’t enough any longer. So the GMO (Growth Management Overlay) was born. Today an approved plan then needs its GMO to be removed through acceptance of a business case. 10/
The first ever round of business cases came in in 2018 & at that time #yyccc set the intake pace for new business cases to be every two years - which is why the current batch (the second ever) is before us. 11/
In 2018, of 12-13 business cases submitted by industry, Admin recommended #yyccc approve acceptance (technically GMO removal) of 8. Due primarily to the economic circumstances facing #yyc, 11 were approved w the clear-eyed understanding that payback would take longer, but 12/
#yyccc decided keeping our 2nd biggest industry afloat was necessary given that our biggest industry was on the ropes (& when the two went down in the 1980s things were ROUGH). Also, for the 1st time ever, the cost to tax payers (0.75% tax increase) was quantified & public. 13/
While I didn’t support adding all 5 additional business cases, I supported the entire package at the end, partially for the reason stated above but also because we still need(ed) to deliver the 2nd part of the deal: the redevelopment system & investment stream. 14/
Sadly we’ve yet to deliver the redevelopment system/investment stream (its essential to being able to grow up rather than out), & we’re in worse economic shape than we were 2 years ago (thanks Covid). So this round of biz cases couldn’t have come at a tougher time. 15/
I support accepting no new biz cases at this time. But the system we’ve designed will only be fully functional when we have all the land in #yyc (on the edge & throughout the developed areas) under plan & w the systems in place to make apples-to-apples investment decisions. 16/
Belvedere in #Ward9 offers a good example: West Belvedere was one of the original 8 recommended in 2018. The decision to split it into an east & west area was driven mostly by drainage: we had storm water capacity for a certain amount of land on the west side of the hump. 17/
The smartest growth for the area is not car-dependent N-S growth along the ring road as the drainage allowed, but transit-oriented, economy-diversifying growth along the 17 AV SE corridor. Unfortunately, in 2018, w no where for the water to go, we couldn’t build the corridor. /18
In 2020 there’s a storm water solution (the CSWI), 17 AV SE is the no. 1 transpo priority in the region (out of over 100 projects), & we’re working to extend #MAXPurple service to @CityChestermere. So the preferred option of building the corridor is possible. 19/
Additionally, development in West Belvedere along the corridor is selling like hot cakes (there’s a reason @CityChestermere has been the fastest growing muni in Canada for 2 decades) but the lands north of the corridor aren’t moving yet. 20/
This is partially because they’re out too far right now, but also because some of the land owners who have GMO removals aren’t ready or able to move. On top of that @Trumanhomes has land up there, but they also have land along the corridor in East Belvedere. 21/
SO, I’ve been working w my landowners to build a coalition of the willing to use the amount of GMO removals in the area differently & better, rather than to simply approve more land for development; I think that’s what every member of #yyccc should do in their areas. 22/
