waterloowarrior
Senior Member
What's next, requiring condos and other residential buildings to provide a minimum amount of parking spaces even if the people living there don't own a car?
|
|
|
City orders condo developers to buy annual metropass for every unit
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
What's next, requiring condos and other residential buildings to provide a minimum amount of parking spaces even if the people living there don't own a car?
tkip
Active Member
What's next, requiring condos and other residential buildings to provide a minimum amount of parking spaces even if the people living there don't own a car?
Not even in the same ballpark in context. I was responding to the post about how it would be a great idea to force all citizens to buy a metropass. Who is the state or my neighbors to force me to purchase a pass when I may not even use the service?
I'm talking about a pass for transit when I might not take transit or ever have any use for it. What if I walk everywhere or use a bike? What then? The pass sits on my table and I still have to purchase a pass every month against my will?
It's entirely up to the individual to make that decision. I already subsidize the TTC through taxes and the fares I pay when I decide to use the service. No one has the right to force me to buy a pass if I choose not to.
There seems to be this slow nanny statism movement unfolding where people are pushing for everyone to subsize everything because someone thinks it makes sense to take away individual freedom and have the state make decisions for us.
Paying for essential services such as healthcare, police, infrastructure, water treatment, etc. is something I understand and support.
If we allowed the government to force the public to purchase passes for transit, what would be next? We keep opening the door further and further for the government to take away our decisions and manage our lives. People should be worried about this.....
Last edited:
urbanboom
Active Member
^
Yeah, great rant, but the city isn't forcing any individuals to buy a metropass. They're forcing the developers to do this. They already make a ton of money. Already they are required to help the community in which they plan on pouring thousands more. Why shouldn't we force them to help improve the infrastructure around them which would fall into decay otherwise due to overuse. We should be preventing them from just making a quick buck: building condos, getting them sold and then getting the hell out of there. Not being a part of the community and only looking in the shot term was how we ended up with the wonderful private enterprise of St. James Town.
Think about it: could downtown Toronto at the rate things are going, 10 000 new cars this year from all the condos? Not really. How about the park systems? Or the school systems? The the developers are going to over crowd these resources, then it's only fair that they contribute to their renewal. And it's not like it'll lead to their downfall! These people already make HUGE profits.
What's being proposed here is far from the weird senarios that are popping up in your head. This ins't the government forcing people to us the TTC as you earlier stated. It' the government encouraging people to use the TTC, much in the same way that Mr. Conservative himself, Stephen Harper is encouraging me to renovate my home.
Yeah, great rant, but the city isn't forcing any individuals to buy a metropass. They're forcing the developers to do this. They already make a ton of money. Already they are required to help the community in which they plan on pouring thousands more. Why shouldn't we force them to help improve the infrastructure around them which would fall into decay otherwise due to overuse. We should be preventing them from just making a quick buck: building condos, getting them sold and then getting the hell out of there. Not being a part of the community and only looking in the shot term was how we ended up with the wonderful private enterprise of St. James Town.
Think about it: could downtown Toronto at the rate things are going, 10 000 new cars this year from all the condos? Not really. How about the park systems? Or the school systems? The the developers are going to over crowd these resources, then it's only fair that they contribute to their renewal. And it's not like it'll lead to their downfall! These people already make HUGE profits.
What's being proposed here is far from the weird senarios that are popping up in your head. This ins't the government forcing people to us the TTC as you earlier stated. It' the government encouraging people to use the TTC, much in the same way that Mr. Conservative himself, Stephen Harper is encouraging me to renovate my home.
valkoholic
Active Member
Except that the develepors won't be paying for this, buyers will. This cost can be quickly worked into a pro forma and the cost of the units adjusted upwards. Don't pretend develepors will take the hit for this. All this is going to do is help push development away from transit nodes by increasing development costs. If they actually reduced parking standards as part of this (the new by-law maintains or increases parking requirements in the City) I would be all for it.
Eug
Senior Member
Now that you mention it... I said earlier that I was a driver when I lived downtown. Not exactly true. I drove to work, outside the downtown core, but when the weather was good, I'd ride my bicycle if the destination was in downtown.
I did take public transit from time to time, but a bicycle during the day is often way faster than taking the Queen streetcar.
Are you really that naive?
The money for this will come directly from the buyer of course, in the purchase price.
No, it would be more like requiring every single condo unit to have a parking space.What's next, requiring condos and other residential buildings to provide a minimum amount of parking spaces even if the people living there don't own a car?
MuchoGrande
New Member
TTC costs are already included in the City's Development Charges that are collected on every new condo project. It is the City's study that determines what the correct amount is for TTC expansion costs along with other infrastructure costs (including parks as you mention) to accomodate the growth in new residents.
Your comparison to home renovations tax credits is not a fair one. A tax credit for home renos vs an additional tax payable without a direct benefit to many condo purchasers is different.
Why should purchasers of new condos or developers subsidize the TTC system? If there is such an urgent need (and there very well may be), every Toronto resident should have to pony up through increased property tax.
Disparishun
Active Member
What's next, requiring condos and other residential buildings to provide a minimum amount of parking spaces even if the people living there don't own a car?
No, it's even worse. Next is forcing all citizens to pay for roads, even roads that they rarely use, and even for people who don't drive. This, in turn, is the same thing as forcing them to take to the streets. Which is just wrong!
If people want to make a personal choice to use a particular roadway, they can darn well pay for it themselves. And if they prefer sidewalks because they use their feet, then let them pay for that. (Or maybe the sneaker manufacturers. I haven't decided.)
And each additional bicycle trip is free! Those roads and road shoulders you drove on got paid for out of property taxes -- ultimately from buyers, through the purchase price for properties -- and you got to take them without paying any money. All because you sloughed off the cost on others who never even take those roads at all! I am outraged.
Exactly! This whole taxation, collective-subsidization business is idiotic. If the market wants hospitals, schools, police, streets, or teeny-weeny parks, then that is what the market will pay for. It's time the nanny city stopped coddling automobile manufacturers and their unwilling customer dupes. Want to get from point A to point B? That's your business. Pay for it.
Seriously, though, I would have thought that the City could get where it's going by tying metropass purchases to condo parking spots. Instead of requiring X spots per unit, figure out the average cost of building the spots, and allow the same money to be allocated to metropasses instead.
While the City really ought to include metropasses as part of property tax, the above would be an easy half-step in the meantime.
Last edited:
Eug
Senior Member
Those sarcastic arguments are not very convincing. Remember, we all ALREADY pay for the TTC. This is just a second tax on condo buyers specifically to pay even more for the TTC.
If anything, people in detached homes (including me) should pay more than a condo dweller to the TTC, and I do, because I pay higher property taxes. A TTC pass requirement for condo dwellers only is just blatantly stupid.
If anything, people in detached homes (including me) should pay more than a condo dweller to the TTC, and I do, because I pay higher property taxes. A TTC pass requirement for condo dwellers only is just blatantly stupid.
Disparishun
Active Member
simuls
Senior Member
As taxpayers, we pay a disproportionately small subsidy to the TTC in comparison to other municipalities around the globe and as recently as 1995 we paid 4x as much. The complete mess it's in now is a direct result of Mike Harris and his downloading, so if you want to complain about a nanny state, remember it's a conservative that has laid the groundwork for some of it to be necessary.
That being said, I agree that this metropass thing is ridiculous and short-sighted. A much more responsible thing to do would be to have zero parking requirements for builders within the downtown core. That way, they could build as many parking units as people are willing to buy vs being dictated to by an antiquated by-law created in a different and wrong-headed era of sprawl. Let the market decide how many spaces are needed. As it is, Toronto already has way too many.
That being said, I agree that this metropass thing is ridiculous and short-sighted. A much more responsible thing to do would be to have zero parking requirements for builders within the downtown core. That way, they could build as many parking units as people are willing to buy vs being dictated to by an antiquated by-law created in a different and wrong-headed era of sprawl. Let the market decide how many spaces are needed. As it is, Toronto already has way too many.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
'Free' TTC Metropass will make condos more costly
December 12, 2009
Stephen Dupuis
http://yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblo...ee-ttc-metropass-will-make-condos-more-costly
Whether they want it or not, whether they need it or not, new condo buyers in the City of Toronto are going to get a "free" TTC Metropass for a year from their condo builder thanks to a recent decision by city council.
Under the new policy, developers of condominium buildings with 20 or more units located in specified areas of the city (basically anywhere a developer would want to build) will be required to provide every purchaser in that building with a Metropass "at no cost."
This the city's way of encouraging people to take transit but everybody except city staff and council knows that people aren't going to use the TTC just because their benevolent developer was forced to give them a pass.
I couldn't tell you what percentage of buyers the "free" Metropasses will be wasted on but I do know that in any given building, there's going to be a segment of people that can walk to work and therefore don't require unlimited transit access. There will be another segment of residents who need their car to get from A to B during the workday so a Metropass is useless to them. And there will be a further segment of buyers that live in the core but commute to jobs in the regions. What are they supposed to do with their Metropasses?
Don't get me wrong, the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) is pro-transit and the industry as a whole is delighted with all the transportation infrastructure investment that is taking place.
But let's not forget that condo buyers are already paying for transit through development charges not to mention the connection fees that the TTC is extracting from the developers. And now they want us to pay the riders as well?
Let's get one thing straight. There is nothing free about this. If you do the math on a 300-unit building times the price of a monthly Metropass times 12 months, the developer is looking at a cost of more than $400,000. Sure, the policy says the builder has to provide the Metropasses "at no cost," but we all know that the cost will get buried in the purchase price. All the city has really succeeded in doing with this policy is to make condos more expensive for buyers.
Senseless regulation can be incredibly frustrating and this Metropass issue is just the tip of the iceberg. This year alone, the city has approved a near doubling of development charges, albeit deferred, while imposing additional regulatory costs through its green building standards and green roofs by-laws.
The city is currently looking at mandating condo developers to build 10 per cent of their units for families even though there is no demand for such units in the city at the price developers would need to charge.
And all of this is on top of the infamous local land transfer tax.
What's particularly galling about this latest regulatory assault by the city is the fact that it has been imposed retroactively with no fair transition or grandparenting provisions, just a money grab at the end of the approvals process when the city has the developers at its mercy.
If the city isn't going to rethink the whole policy, it behooves council to review the retroactive application of it.
If you will pardon the pun, there has to be "a better way" to treat the one industry that is investing in the city, creating tens of thousands of jobs in the process.
Stephen Dupuis is president and CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association. The views expressed are those of the president. Email: president@bildgta.ca.
Dupuis: Free Metropass policy needs review
December 19, 2009
Stephen Dupuis
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblogs/article/739793--dupuis-free-metropass-policy-needs-review
I can never predict which columns will generate the most reaction, but it seems last weekend's column on "free" Metropasses struck nerves all around.
Checking my email early last Saturday morning, I found my inbox was lit up like a slot machine with messages from condo owners and condo builders, as well as Toronto Councillor Adam Vaughan.
To quickly refresh your memory, the City of Toronto recently approved a new policy, which requires condo developers of buildings with 20 or more units to provide every purchaser in that building with a Metropass for a full year "at no cost" to the buyer.
I pointed out that far from being free, the Metropass policy would cost approximately $400,000 on a typical 300-unit building. But as one condo builder rightly noted, the cost on a city-wide basis rises exponentially. Some more quick math reveals that even in a year of relatively weak condo sales, such as this one, this new policy represents a massive burden on condo buyers.
This year, builders will sell approximately 10,000 condo units in the City of Toronto. Multiply that by roughly $1,000 for each "free" Metropass and all of a sudden we are talking about a $10 million extraction from condo buyers, year in, year out. And if I'm right that one-third to one-half of condo buyers will have no use for the "free" Metropasses, we're looking at a $3 million to $5 million grant to the TTC at best or at worst, the equivalent amount of pure waste.
Vaughan says that the problem with BILD positions is that we often omit "the total profile of an argument," by which he means that I failed to mention the savings that would accrue to developers from reduced parking requirements.
The truth is, apart from one very innovative project in Vaughan's Ward 20, the industry has certainly not seen any relaxation in parking standards from the city. In fact, in the course of one radio interview two weeks ago, Councillor Howard Moscoe stated at the outset that the free Metropass policy would be good for developers as it would allow for reduced parking requirements, but later in the interview stressed that he's not advocating condos with no parking, adding that the city hasn't reduced parking standards at this time.
Vaughan points out that parking spots can cost up to $35,000 to build, and he's not wrong. The only problem with his argument is that unless the city can wipe out a whole floor of parking, there is no savings to offset the cost of the Metropasses. And for the most part, the city is not prepared to relax its parking standards that much.
The exception to all of this is the 42-storey, 318-unit Residences at RCMI project by Tribute Communities being marketed in Vaughan's ward. The project has but nine parking spots for AutoShare cars. I give Vaughan huge kudos for shepherding this project through, particularly in light of a staff recommendation against the project based on, you guessed it, the lack of parking.
I said last week that the industry needs to have a conversation with the city about the retroactive application of the policy. On second thought, the whole policy deserves some sober second thought, particularly in light of the reaction from all quarters. As Moscoe admitted on air, the policy was "adopted without debate, it's the law, and it's not appealable," to which I say, there has to be "a better way."
Stephen Dupuis is president and CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association. The views expressed are those of the president. Email: president@bildgta.ca.
December 12, 2009
Stephen Dupuis
http://yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblo...ee-ttc-metropass-will-make-condos-more-costly
Whether they want it or not, whether they need it or not, new condo buyers in the City of Toronto are going to get a "free" TTC Metropass for a year from their condo builder thanks to a recent decision by city council.
Under the new policy, developers of condominium buildings with 20 or more units located in specified areas of the city (basically anywhere a developer would want to build) will be required to provide every purchaser in that building with a Metropass "at no cost."
This the city's way of encouraging people to take transit but everybody except city staff and council knows that people aren't going to use the TTC just because their benevolent developer was forced to give them a pass.
I couldn't tell you what percentage of buyers the "free" Metropasses will be wasted on but I do know that in any given building, there's going to be a segment of people that can walk to work and therefore don't require unlimited transit access. There will be another segment of residents who need their car to get from A to B during the workday so a Metropass is useless to them. And there will be a further segment of buyers that live in the core but commute to jobs in the regions. What are they supposed to do with their Metropasses?
Don't get me wrong, the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) is pro-transit and the industry as a whole is delighted with all the transportation infrastructure investment that is taking place.
But let's not forget that condo buyers are already paying for transit through development charges not to mention the connection fees that the TTC is extracting from the developers. And now they want us to pay the riders as well?
Let's get one thing straight. There is nothing free about this. If you do the math on a 300-unit building times the price of a monthly Metropass times 12 months, the developer is looking at a cost of more than $400,000. Sure, the policy says the builder has to provide the Metropasses "at no cost," but we all know that the cost will get buried in the purchase price. All the city has really succeeded in doing with this policy is to make condos more expensive for buyers.
Senseless regulation can be incredibly frustrating and this Metropass issue is just the tip of the iceberg. This year alone, the city has approved a near doubling of development charges, albeit deferred, while imposing additional regulatory costs through its green building standards and green roofs by-laws.
The city is currently looking at mandating condo developers to build 10 per cent of their units for families even though there is no demand for such units in the city at the price developers would need to charge.
And all of this is on top of the infamous local land transfer tax.
What's particularly galling about this latest regulatory assault by the city is the fact that it has been imposed retroactively with no fair transition or grandparenting provisions, just a money grab at the end of the approvals process when the city has the developers at its mercy.
If the city isn't going to rethink the whole policy, it behooves council to review the retroactive application of it.
If you will pardon the pun, there has to be "a better way" to treat the one industry that is investing in the city, creating tens of thousands of jobs in the process.
Stephen Dupuis is president and CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association. The views expressed are those of the president. Email: president@bildgta.ca.
Dupuis: Free Metropass policy needs review
December 19, 2009
Stephen Dupuis
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblogs/article/739793--dupuis-free-metropass-policy-needs-review
I can never predict which columns will generate the most reaction, but it seems last weekend's column on "free" Metropasses struck nerves all around.
Checking my email early last Saturday morning, I found my inbox was lit up like a slot machine with messages from condo owners and condo builders, as well as Toronto Councillor Adam Vaughan.
To quickly refresh your memory, the City of Toronto recently approved a new policy, which requires condo developers of buildings with 20 or more units to provide every purchaser in that building with a Metropass for a full year "at no cost" to the buyer.
I pointed out that far from being free, the Metropass policy would cost approximately $400,000 on a typical 300-unit building. But as one condo builder rightly noted, the cost on a city-wide basis rises exponentially. Some more quick math reveals that even in a year of relatively weak condo sales, such as this one, this new policy represents a massive burden on condo buyers.
This year, builders will sell approximately 10,000 condo units in the City of Toronto. Multiply that by roughly $1,000 for each "free" Metropass and all of a sudden we are talking about a $10 million extraction from condo buyers, year in, year out. And if I'm right that one-third to one-half of condo buyers will have no use for the "free" Metropasses, we're looking at a $3 million to $5 million grant to the TTC at best or at worst, the equivalent amount of pure waste.
Vaughan says that the problem with BILD positions is that we often omit "the total profile of an argument," by which he means that I failed to mention the savings that would accrue to developers from reduced parking requirements.
The truth is, apart from one very innovative project in Vaughan's Ward 20, the industry has certainly not seen any relaxation in parking standards from the city. In fact, in the course of one radio interview two weeks ago, Councillor Howard Moscoe stated at the outset that the free Metropass policy would be good for developers as it would allow for reduced parking requirements, but later in the interview stressed that he's not advocating condos with no parking, adding that the city hasn't reduced parking standards at this time.
Vaughan points out that parking spots can cost up to $35,000 to build, and he's not wrong. The only problem with his argument is that unless the city can wipe out a whole floor of parking, there is no savings to offset the cost of the Metropasses. And for the most part, the city is not prepared to relax its parking standards that much.
The exception to all of this is the 42-storey, 318-unit Residences at RCMI project by Tribute Communities being marketed in Vaughan's ward. The project has but nine parking spots for AutoShare cars. I give Vaughan huge kudos for shepherding this project through, particularly in light of a staff recommendation against the project based on, you guessed it, the lack of parking.
I said last week that the industry needs to have a conversation with the city about the retroactive application of the policy. On second thought, the whole policy deserves some sober second thought, particularly in light of the reaction from all quarters. As Moscoe admitted on air, the policy was "adopted without debate, it's the law, and it's not appealable," to which I say, there has to be "a better way."
Stephen Dupuis is president and CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association. The views expressed are those of the president. Email: president@bildgta.ca.
Last edited:
Eug
Senior Member
Just because the TTC wants more money doesn't always mean it deserves it.
However, IF increased efficiencies in the TTC budget are pursued (labour costs for example), then I am willing to pay increased property taxes to support public transit, or even an increased proportion of the property taxes at the expense of other programs.
And I say this not as a potential buyer of TTC-pass-price-inflated condos, since I already own a detached home. Furthermore, living in that detached home, I would also pay more property taxes than most condo owners would, save for a few in Yorkville, and thus would pay more toward the TTC than any condo owner would... if it were not for this bizarre punitive tax against condo purchasers.
Creative solutions to budgetary constraints doesn't only mean just finding creative ways of unfairly taxing certain people more.
Last edited:
tkip
Active Member
Absolutely correct and something I think many of us are getting sick of seeing this happening more and more from city council whenever they need a quick revenue increase to cover their mishandling of the budget.
I think it's well known now that the city keeps going to creative ways of taxing the public, to deal with their money problems instead of actually taking a closer look at other althernatives. Much like the TTC. Both probably need an external audit.
This is why I'm really opposed to the suggestion for example in this current debate, that it's somehow fair to force citizens living in Toronto to participate in propping up the TTC by buying a monthy pass.
Someone was advocating forcing us to buy passes against our will and thinking this would magically solve the problem while bulldozing across our freemdom to make our own decisions. This is what pisses me off whenever someone suggests more state intervention measures as a solution to everything.
rbt
Senior Member
About half of the accounting changes within the city were the direct result of an external audit performed by notable bankers/finance folks. You know, the same accounting changes which right-wing councillors immediately lambasted like the 30 year loans on capital with long usable life-spans.
The only genuine way to cut costs in Toronto with a noticeable impact to the current property tax bill is to halve the size of the police force; roughly 10% savings to be had if you can do that.
The equivalent would be to make the TTC have an operating profit. A 40% fare hike combined with service cuts might do it, or radical changes to staffing combined with the expected ~3 to 6 month transit outage during this period (union would go on strike at first hint of this process).
Last edited:
tkip
Active Member
Am I reading this right?
Is this person seriously suggesting the police force needs to be cut in half or massive fare hikes combined with service cuts for the TTC as a method that should be looked at with reducing property taxes? While I agree that we need to look at controlling costs, this is just not realistic. It's fantasy to think this approach would solve our problems.
Huge cuts are not the solution. It would lead to a downward spiralling of cutting and slashing everywhere with people paying the price in unreliable services as the result.
And I don't get this TTC operating profit budget approach. This sounds like running the TTC like a business but trying to run a profit conflicts with the TTC' responsiblity for delivering an essential public service that needs to cover the entire city.
Unprofitable routes would get cut and leave areas underserviced. This model is the reason why we don't run our healthcare like a business with profit as the utlimate priority.
Last edited: