Mayor may not have future support in development subsidy elimination plan
Posted Oct 5, 2013 1:51 pm.
This article is more than 5 years old.
Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi’s claim of having enough votes to make some big changes to who pays for development projects may not be completely true.
Speaking to reporters Friday, Nenshi said if re-elected he would end what he calls a huge subsidy given to developers who build new suburban communities, claiming developers pay 78 per cent of the cost of infrastructure, while Calgarians pay 22 per cent.
Nenshi said that comes to about $4,800 per home or $33-million a year and told reporters he believes he has the votes on council if enough incumbent aldermen get re-elected.
But Ward 3’s Jim Stevenson said he can’t get behind the change right now.
“I think the majority of the aldermen are like me, they want to see some facts before they make a decision on the fly in an election campaign like this,” Stevenson said, adding the more we increase the cost for development, the more potential there is of residents moving to communities outside Calgary.
“We have to make sure that we’re providing the choice for people that want to buy a new home with a white picket fence, we need to provide that choice for them and before we make decisions on the fly like this, we need to look at it very closely,” he said.
Meanwhile, Ward 10’s Andre Chabot believes Nenshi is using the proclamation as an election ploy. Chabot pointed to a proposal developers already made to the city, where they would pay for infrastructure and then recover their costs as development occurs.
“I think what he’s talking about is the alternative that’s already been proposed and he’s now trying to sell it as his idea,” Chabot said. “I think this is just a way for the mayor to kind of, take the attention away from the huge tax increases that have occurred over the last three years, which he has been supportive of.”
However, Ward 4’s Gael MacLeod is behind the idea in principle.
“I need to see the details for sure, and some of the specifics, but in terms of conceptually, absolutely,” she said. “We need to talk a little bit about how that happens and about the numbers, but we should not be subsidizing Greenfield Development at the expense of the built-up communities.”
The Urban Development Institute is against the proposal, saying what Nenshi calls a subsidy is really part of a negotiation with the city.
