How do you think he will effect Calgary`s real estate market?
What do you think of Mayor-Elect Nenshi?
- Thread starter RedlineBrett
- Start date
QUOTE (RedlineBrett @ Oct 20 2010, 10:07 PM) How do you think he will effect Calgary`s real estate market?
I like him, voted for him, and convinced others to vote for him. Something about how he had actual ideas for the city, as opposed to just warmed over platitudes.
As to his effect on real estate, his platform supported secondary suites in any owner occupied single family home, which doesn`t allow investors to legalize suites, which is a disadvangtage for those in that market. His focus on transit development (SE LRT, etc) should provide opportunities to profit from transportation changes, as neighbourhoods and streets get re-rated, so we`ll have to pay attention to opportunities there if it gets funded. His intention to make new developments carry the cost of their infrastructure would potentially drive up the cost of new housing stock on the fringe, which would reduce supply and increase the value of existing real estate proportionally. Hopefully his willingness to take on sacred cows (police budget) and actually make change (audit process) will outweigh his plans for increased spending on infrastructure and arts, so we don`t have tax increases higher than would otherwise be the case.
Ultimately, what he is able to get done will depend on the other 14 members of Council, as he only gets one vote. This will be an interesting 3 years for Calgary municipal politics to be sure.
What do others think?
Michael
I like him, voted for him, and convinced others to vote for him. Something about how he had actual ideas for the city, as opposed to just warmed over platitudes.
As to his effect on real estate, his platform supported secondary suites in any owner occupied single family home, which doesn`t allow investors to legalize suites, which is a disadvangtage for those in that market. His focus on transit development (SE LRT, etc) should provide opportunities to profit from transportation changes, as neighbourhoods and streets get re-rated, so we`ll have to pay attention to opportunities there if it gets funded. His intention to make new developments carry the cost of their infrastructure would potentially drive up the cost of new housing stock on the fringe, which would reduce supply and increase the value of existing real estate proportionally. Hopefully his willingness to take on sacred cows (police budget) and actually make change (audit process) will outweigh his plans for increased spending on infrastructure and arts, so we don`t have tax increases higher than would otherwise be the case.
Ultimately, what he is able to get done will depend on the other 14 members of Council, as he only gets one vote. This will be an interesting 3 years for Calgary municipal politics to be sure.
What do others think?
Michael
QUOTE (bizaro86 @ Oct 21 2010, 08:20 AM) I like him, voted for him, and convinced others to vote for him. Something about how he had actual ideas for the city, as opposed to just warmed over platitudes.
As to his effect on real estate, his platform supported secondary suites in any owner occupied single family home, which doesn`t allow investors to legalize suites, which is a disadvangtage for those in that market. His focus on transit development (SE LRT, etc) should provide opportunities to profit from transportation changes, as neighbourhoods and streets get re-rated, so we`ll have to pay attention to opportunities there if it gets funded. His intention to make new developments carry the cost of their infrastructure would potentially drive up the cost of new housing stock on the fringe, which would reduce supply and increase the value of existing real estate proportionally. Hopefully his willingness to take on sacred cows (police budget) and actually make change (audit process) will outweigh his plans for increased spending on infrastructure and arts, so we don`t have tax increases higher than would otherwise be the case.
Ultimately, what he is able to get done will depend on the other 14 members of Council, as he only gets one vote. This will be an interesting 3 years for Calgary municipal politics to be sure.
What do others think?
Michael
I voted for Nenshi as well. The points you list above are all valid in my eyes. The big concern is if he can pull this off. Naheed Nenshi has a lot on his plate and will have to deal with old stale, and often unreliable alderman like Druh Farrell and an entrenched bureacracy as well as a bunch of hostile developers that will fight for their `subsididies`. Yes four old alderman are gone, but 10 under whose watch a measly $700 million was missed are still in place.
Another issue I am concerned about is the background of the aldermaniac crowd. Most have only high school and worked as small entrepreneurs. Now there is nothing evil about this and many are smart people to begin with. But it is a fact that they miss the appropriate training to run a 100,000 plus ward and make decisions for a million plus population. Where are there administrative skills, their urban planning education, their economic education, there supervisory experience to overlook an organization counting thousands of employees and multi-billion dollar annual budgets? In a world where a 7-eleven manager is required to have as a minimum a management certificate and preferably a MBA one wonders why our politicians get away with such low qualifications.
As to his effect on real estate, his platform supported secondary suites in any owner occupied single family home, which doesn`t allow investors to legalize suites, which is a disadvangtage for those in that market. His focus on transit development (SE LRT, etc) should provide opportunities to profit from transportation changes, as neighbourhoods and streets get re-rated, so we`ll have to pay attention to opportunities there if it gets funded. His intention to make new developments carry the cost of their infrastructure would potentially drive up the cost of new housing stock on the fringe, which would reduce supply and increase the value of existing real estate proportionally. Hopefully his willingness to take on sacred cows (police budget) and actually make change (audit process) will outweigh his plans for increased spending on infrastructure and arts, so we don`t have tax increases higher than would otherwise be the case.
Ultimately, what he is able to get done will depend on the other 14 members of Council, as he only gets one vote. This will be an interesting 3 years for Calgary municipal politics to be sure.
What do others think?
Michael
I voted for Nenshi as well. The points you list above are all valid in my eyes. The big concern is if he can pull this off. Naheed Nenshi has a lot on his plate and will have to deal with old stale, and often unreliable alderman like Druh Farrell and an entrenched bureacracy as well as a bunch of hostile developers that will fight for their `subsididies`. Yes four old alderman are gone, but 10 under whose watch a measly $700 million was missed are still in place.
Another issue I am concerned about is the background of the aldermaniac crowd. Most have only high school and worked as small entrepreneurs. Now there is nothing evil about this and many are smart people to begin with. But it is a fact that they miss the appropriate training to run a 100,000 plus ward and make decisions for a million plus population. Where are there administrative skills, their urban planning education, their economic education, there supervisory experience to overlook an organization counting thousands of employees and multi-billion dollar annual budgets? In a world where a 7-eleven manager is required to have as a minimum a management certificate and preferably a MBA one wonders why our politicians get away with such low qualifications.
QUOTE (gwasser @ Oct 21 2010, 09:26 AM) Another issue I am concerned about is the background of the aldermaniac crowd. Most have only high school and worked as small entrepreneurs. Now there is nothing evil about this and many are smart people to begin with. But it is a fact that they miss the appropriate training to run a 100,000 plus ward and make decisions for a million plus population. Where are there administrative skills, their urban planning education, their economic education, there supervisory experience to overlook an organization counting thousands of employees and multi-billion dollar annual budgets? In a world where a 7-eleven manager is required to have as a minimum a management certificate and preferably a MBA one wonders why our politicians get away with such low qualifications.
Interesting. To be honest, I haven`t investigated the background of most of the alderman. I did look up the pay/benefits, and they`re certainly reasonable.
http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/alderm...m_of_office.pdf
Annual salary is 97,000, plus a car allowance of 9600 per year, plus benefits. While that`s not buy a private jet and retire to Monaco money, it`s not a pittance either, and should be enough to attract people with training/competence.
This differs from the school board trustee jobs. Apparently being a Catholic trustee pays ~20,000 per year, for doing something that essentially precludes you from taking other employment.
http://calgarypolitics.com/2010/08/26/desp...board-trustees/
I can see how it might not be attractive for someone with a good career to interrupt it for a job on 3 year terms at 20k/year. And the school boards run big budgets as well.
Michael
Interesting. To be honest, I haven`t investigated the background of most of the alderman. I did look up the pay/benefits, and they`re certainly reasonable.
http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/alderm...m_of_office.pdf
Annual salary is 97,000, plus a car allowance of 9600 per year, plus benefits. While that`s not buy a private jet and retire to Monaco money, it`s not a pittance either, and should be enough to attract people with training/competence.
This differs from the school board trustee jobs. Apparently being a Catholic trustee pays ~20,000 per year, for doing something that essentially precludes you from taking other employment.
http://calgarypolitics.com/2010/08/26/desp...board-trustees/
I can see how it might not be attractive for someone with a good career to interrupt it for a job on 3 year terms at 20k/year. And the school boards run big budgets as well.
Michael
QUOTE (bizaro86 @ Oct 21 2010, 08:20 AM) What do others think?
Michael
Good post Michael.
I voted for him too for a couple reasons.
1. Yes he only favors owner occupied secondary suites, but that`s a good solid step in the right direction.
2. Your point "His intention to make new developments carry the cost of their infrastructure would potentially drive up the cost of new housing stock on the fringe, which would reduce supply and increase the value of existing real estate proportionally"
I would definitely like to see greater densification inner-city especially if we are putting all the money into LRTs and other transit initiatives.
Michael
Good post Michael.
I voted for him too for a couple reasons.
1. Yes he only favors owner occupied secondary suites, but that`s a good solid step in the right direction.
2. Your point "His intention to make new developments carry the cost of their infrastructure would potentially drive up the cost of new housing stock on the fringe, which would reduce supply and increase the value of existing real estate proportionally"
I would definitely like to see greater densification inner-city especially if we are putting all the money into LRTs and other transit initiatives.
QUOTE (RedlineBrett @ Oct 21 2010, 02:50 PM) Good post Michael.
I voted for him too for a couple reasons.
1. Yes he only favors owner occupied secondary suites, but that`s a good solid step in the right direction.
2. Your point "His intention to make new developments carry the cost of their infrastructure would potentially drive up the cost of new housing stock on the fringe, which would reduce supply and increase the value of existing real estate proportionally"
I would definitely like to see greater densification inner-city especially if we are putting all the money into LRTs and other transit initiatives.
I definitely meant the potential for densification as a positive. I think it would make city services more economical to deliver, as well as providing critical mass for local, walkable business, making Calgary a more livable city in general.
Michael
I voted for him too for a couple reasons.
1. Yes he only favors owner occupied secondary suites, but that`s a good solid step in the right direction.
2. Your point "His intention to make new developments carry the cost of their infrastructure would potentially drive up the cost of new housing stock on the fringe, which would reduce supply and increase the value of existing real estate proportionally"
I would definitely like to see greater densification inner-city especially if we are putting all the money into LRTs and other transit initiatives.
I definitely meant the potential for densification as a positive. I think it would make city services more economical to deliver, as well as providing critical mass for local, walkable business, making Calgary a more livable city in general.
Michael
QUOTE (bizaro86 @ Oct 21 2010, 03:18 PM) I definitely meant the potential for densification as a positive. I think it would make city services more economical to deliver, as well as providing critical mass for local, walkable business, making Calgary a more livable city in general.
Michael
One of the problems with densification is public transport in particular the LRT. Have you ever tried to take the LRT from an innercity station, say Lions Park or Sunnyside? You can`t because the trains are just packed. Densification is fine but first we have to find a solution for this problem. It is nice to live near downtown but if you can only reach it on foot (after an hour walk) or an hour stuck in traffic and with high parking costs what is the advantage?
Michael
One of the problems with densification is public transport in particular the LRT. Have you ever tried to take the LRT from an innercity station, say Lions Park or Sunnyside? You can`t because the trains are just packed. Densification is fine but first we have to find a solution for this problem. It is nice to live near downtown but if you can only reach it on foot (after an hour walk) or an hour stuck in traffic and with high parking costs what is the advantage?
Godfried,
The same problem exists if you live in the suburbs, does it not? I mean, during rush hours, the roads are jammed.
Outside of rush hour, the roads are fine, and so are the trains.
Marc.
PS: The text editor for replying on this board is quirky, it doesn`t let me move the cursor around (in fact there is no cursor at all). Is this only a Firefox problem?
QUOTE (gwasser @ Oct 21 2010, 06:35 PM) One of the problems with densification is public transport in particular the LRT. Have you ever tried to take the LRT from an innercity station, say Lions Park or Sunnyside? You can`t because the trains are just packed. Densification is fine but first we have to find a solution for this problem. It is nice to live near downtown but if you can only reach it on foot (after an hour walk) or an hour stuck in traffic and with high parking costs what is the advantage?
The same problem exists if you live in the suburbs, does it not? I mean, during rush hours, the roads are jammed.
Outside of rush hour, the roads are fine, and so are the trains.
Marc.
PS: The text editor for replying on this board is quirky, it doesn`t let me move the cursor around (in fact there is no cursor at all). Is this only a Firefox problem?
QUOTE (gwasser @ Oct 21 2010, 06:35 PM) One of the problems with densification is public transport in particular the LRT. Have you ever tried to take the LRT from an innercity station, say Lions Park or Sunnyside? You can`t because the trains are just packed. Densification is fine but first we have to find a solution for this problem. It is nice to live near downtown but if you can only reach it on foot (after an hour walk) or an hour stuck in traffic and with high parking costs what is the advantage?
QUOTE (gwasser @ Oct 21 2010, 06:35 PM) One of the problems with densification is public transport in particular the LRT. Have you ever tried to take the LRT from an innercity station, say Lions Park or Sunnyside? You can`t because the trains are just packed. Densification is fine but first we have to find a solution for this problem. It is nice to live near downtown but if you can only reach it on foot (after an hour walk) or an hour stuck in traffic and with high parking costs what is the advantage?
I board the train at Crowfoot in the morning, and often the seats are full from there, and I sometimes can`t even get on the train on my commute home, so I appreciate that getting on in Sunnyside isn`t viable right now. That isn`t a problem with densification, its a problem with the LRT. When they move to 4 car trains in a couple of years, that should help, as its a 33% capacity increase. Ultimately, they need to build the 8th avenue subway tunnel, and run the NW and S lines through that, leaving the W and NE lines on 7th avenue. Then they could run the trains 2 or 3 times more frequently during rush hour, dramatically increasing capacity. Currently the limitation is the capacity of the 7th avenue transit mall, basically they can`t run the trains any more often downtown.
They`re also looking at a new style of seat alignment for the next batch of lrt cars, basically the seats would face inward from the outside. Apparently it reduces only a few seats, but significantly increase the standing capacity for rush hour travel.
Michael
I board the train at Crowfoot in the morning, and often the seats are full from there, and I sometimes can`t even get on the train on my commute home, so I appreciate that getting on in Sunnyside isn`t viable right now. That isn`t a problem with densification, its a problem with the LRT. When they move to 4 car trains in a couple of years, that should help, as its a 33% capacity increase. Ultimately, they need to build the 8th avenue subway tunnel, and run the NW and S lines through that, leaving the W and NE lines on 7th avenue. Then they could run the trains 2 or 3 times more frequently during rush hour, dramatically increasing capacity. Currently the limitation is the capacity of the 7th avenue transit mall, basically they can`t run the trains any more often downtown.
They`re also looking at a new style of seat alignment for the next batch of lrt cars, basically the seats would face inward from the outside. Apparently it reduces only a few seats, but significantly increase the standing capacity for rush hour travel.
Michael
QUOTE (bizaro86 @ Oct 22 2010, 08:50 AM) I board the train at Crowfoot in the morning, and often the seats are full from there, and I sometimes can`t even get on the train on my commute home, so I appreciate that getting on in Sunnyside isn`t viable right nMichael
So if the seats are already full at Crowfoot, who are the real users of the LRT? Commuters from Cochrane and Bearspaw? Are we all suffering because of out of city traffic? I for one would not want to subsidize commuters from out of town while not being able to use the LRT myself.
Maybe the West LRT will bring some relief but one wonders that if the Downtown core cannot handle the incoming traffic already (because we cannot increase the number of trains coming into downtown without blocking other traffic there) then should the downtown underground LRT not be the first priority rather than a new West Line and possibily an additional SE line?
So if the seats are already full at Crowfoot, who are the real users of the LRT? Commuters from Cochrane and Bearspaw? Are we all suffering because of out of city traffic? I for one would not want to subsidize commuters from out of town while not being able to use the LRT myself.
Maybe the West LRT will bring some relief but one wonders that if the Downtown core cannot handle the incoming traffic already (because we cannot increase the number of trains coming into downtown without blocking other traffic there) then should the downtown underground LRT not be the first priority rather than a new West Line and possibily an additional SE line?
QUOTE (gwasser @ Oct 22 2010, 09:12 AM) So if the seats are already full at Crowfoot, who are the real users of the LRT? Commuters from Cochrane and Bearspaw? Are we all suffering because of out of city traffic? I for one would not want to subsidize commuters from out of town while not being able to use the LRT myself.
Maybe the West LRT will bring some relief but one wonders that if the Downtown core cannot handle the incoming traffic already (because we cannot increase the number of trains coming into downtown without blocking other traffic there) then should the downtown underground LRT not be the first priority rather than a new West Line and possibily an additional SE line?
There are lots of people from Cochrane and Bearspaw getting on at Crowfoot. That`s why I`m OK with the park and ride fee, because it allows the city to get some value from those commuters, who are using City of Calgary infrastructure.
I think right now 4 car trains are the biggest priority, since it`ll give us the biggest bang (capacity increase) for our buck. The station expansions will be way cheaper than digging a tunnel under 8th ave. I`m hoping they do build the underground link on 8th ave as part of the SE LRT expansion, might as well get it all done at once.
Michael
Maybe the West LRT will bring some relief but one wonders that if the Downtown core cannot handle the incoming traffic already (because we cannot increase the number of trains coming into downtown without blocking other traffic there) then should the downtown underground LRT not be the first priority rather than a new West Line and possibily an additional SE line?
There are lots of people from Cochrane and Bearspaw getting on at Crowfoot. That`s why I`m OK with the park and ride fee, because it allows the city to get some value from those commuters, who are using City of Calgary infrastructure.
I think right now 4 car trains are the biggest priority, since it`ll give us the biggest bang (capacity increase) for our buck. The station expansions will be way cheaper than digging a tunnel under 8th ave. I`m hoping they do build the underground link on 8th ave as part of the SE LRT expansion, might as well get it all done at once.
Michael