"The funding at stake is relatively small. ... In Barrie, the infrastructure payments are about $7,600 per housing completion; in Calgary, they’re about $3,700. This is about 1.5-3% of total revenue."
Total municipal revenue. "The payments that Poilievre wants to use to punish or reward cities amount to only 3.4% of Barrie’s total municipal revenues — and 1.6% of Calgary’s."
Apologies as I haven't read the Paul Wells article (paywalled).
In Calgary's case, 1.6% of revenue would be $88.7M/year. After three years that amounts to $266M (which is more than the money Calgary is gaining from the Housing Accelerator fund). I'm not sure I agree that this is "relatively small amount."
Deny Sullivan comments on the surprising effectiveness of the Housing Accelerator agreements (which are indeed for relatively modest one-time payments). One big difference is that the actions required by the agreements are under the direct control of the respective municipal governments, unlike housing completion numbers. https://deny.substack.com/p/halifax-budges-on-housing
Wells walks through what Poilievre's proposal would look like in practice, using data starting from 2015.
"For reasons that rhyme with 'oil crash,' Calgary fell from 14,543 home completions in 2015 to 9,732 three years later, and 11,134 in the fourth year. So Calgary would have been eligible for only 44% of its payments in the third year and, despite the modest rebound, still only 44% in the fourth.
"Well, you’d want to avoid that penalty, wouldn’t you? A city would do anything to avoid losing half of its federal payments. That’s the whole point of the bill. Carrot and stick! Common sense!
"Well, sort of. Again, put these amounts in perspective. Calgary’s “penalty” [lost GST and CCBF revenue] would amount to less than 1% of municipal revenues.
"These are rounding errors. Think of everything else that was happening in Calgary in the late 2010s — an economic mess so severe it managed to get a provincial NDP government elected. Would the mayor, there or anywhere, have had the luxury of upending municipal priorities for the hope of attracting or avoiding a fraction of a percentage point of revenue?"
Wells concludes by noting that CCBF funding goes to the province, not to the municipalities, which seems like a fatal flaw.
One wonders what he'd do with Vancouver 2024. Every single stop and impediment pulled away - and a 15% reduction in housing starts. Apparently, dwellings so expensive people can't afford them, still don't provide enough profit to build them?
The Sun story mentioned "permitting", still - what permit problems are left?
In the spirit of brainstorming and SF, new idea: no permits, just build it - but the City reserves the right to inspect for the next 10 years, and make you tear it down. Based on the "Censorship in China" principle that self-censorship is worse.
"The funding at stake is relatively small. ... In Barrie, the infrastructure payments are about $7,600 per housing completion; in Calgary, they’re about $3,700. This is about 1.5-3% of total revenue."
$3,700/1.5%=$246,667
$3,700/3.0%=$123,333
What is "total revenue" referring to?
Total municipal revenue. "The payments that Poilievre wants to use to punish or reward cities amount to only 3.4% of Barrie’s total municipal revenues — and 1.6% of Calgary’s."
Apologies as I haven't read the Paul Wells article (paywalled).
In Calgary's case, 1.6% of revenue would be $88.7M/year. After three years that amounts to $266M (which is more than the money Calgary is gaining from the Housing Accelerator fund). I'm not sure I agree that this is "relatively small amount."
Deny Sullivan comments on the surprising effectiveness of the Housing Accelerator agreements (which are indeed for relatively modest one-time payments). One big difference is that the actions required by the agreements are under the direct control of the respective municipal governments, unlike housing completion numbers. https://deny.substack.com/p/halifax-budges-on-housing
Wells walks through what Poilievre's proposal would look like in practice, using data starting from 2015.
"For reasons that rhyme with 'oil crash,' Calgary fell from 14,543 home completions in 2015 to 9,732 three years later, and 11,134 in the fourth year. So Calgary would have been eligible for only 44% of its payments in the third year and, despite the modest rebound, still only 44% in the fourth.
"Well, you’d want to avoid that penalty, wouldn’t you? A city would do anything to avoid losing half of its federal payments. That’s the whole point of the bill. Carrot and stick! Common sense!
"Well, sort of. Again, put these amounts in perspective. Calgary’s “penalty” [lost GST and CCBF revenue] would amount to less than 1% of municipal revenues.
"These are rounding errors. Think of everything else that was happening in Calgary in the late 2010s — an economic mess so severe it managed to get a provincial NDP government elected. Would the mayor, there or anywhere, have had the luxury of upending municipal priorities for the hope of attracting or avoiding a fraction of a percentage point of revenue?"
Wells concludes by noting that CCBF funding goes to the province, not to the municipalities, which seems like a fatal flaw.
One wonders what he'd do with Vancouver 2024. Every single stop and impediment pulled away - and a 15% reduction in housing starts. Apparently, dwellings so expensive people can't afford them, still don't provide enough profit to build them?
The Sun story mentioned "permitting", still - what permit problems are left?
In the spirit of brainstorming and SF, new idea: no permits, just build it - but the City reserves the right to inspect for the next 10 years, and make you tear it down. Based on the "Censorship in China" principle that self-censorship is worse.
I think about this whenever I see Senakw going up.