"A small tail wagging a very big dog"
Deny Sullivan: housing costs are much, much larger than water/sewer costs
A common objection to building more housing: what if there isn't enough water or sewer capacity in the neighbourhood?
Deny Sullivan argues that it doesn't make sense to block new housing because of the cost of adding water and sewer capacity. Don’t let Halifax Water block housing:
Last year, Halifax Water invested $153 million in new pipes and equipment. But total residential construction investment in Halifax was $2.74 billion.
If Halifax Water doubled its capital investment, enabling even a ~5% increase in residential investment would put the city in a better place economically. But it would lead to bad media articles and complaints - so Halifax Water continues focusing on its largely irrelevant finances.
Restricting investment in new water/sewer capacity to save money on monthly water bills, resulting in higher rents, is being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Similarly, the total capital budget for the Metro Vancouver Regional District is about $600 million annually; total residential investment in Metro Vancouver is about $10 billion annually.
This is a bizarre new topic to anybody from most of the water industry, certainly Calgary and Vancouver. My neighbourhood is currently at the start of 5 years of construction noise right outside my window, having already lost a beloved, super-busy park:
http://brander.ca/doraspage/20250227.html
...all to ensure that Metro Van has water , way before the construction starts.
Calgary had a 30-year plan at all times, and the main objection to it was that the plan conservatively assumed endless sprawl, though the utility championed density to bring costs down, and did not tire of pointing out that sprawling outward put ever-higher costs on the existing consumers who had to pay the ever-larger debt.
But "not planning" was unthinkable. Who the heck thought that one up in Halifax, and were they aware of Canada's immigration rates?