2020 Servicing Plan and Financing Strategy (2006)

[CRCP]

Member posts follow:

[John Zeger]

There were some interesting (and revealing) comments made by some city councillors at the Nov. 6, 2006 city council meeting where staff presented a recommendation that the city increase DCCs between 30% and 35% to cover the increased cost of providing services such as roadways and parks. Councillor Andre Blanleil objected to the proposed increases as he didn't want developers to have to pay more in DCCs because he felt that might stifle growth. Staff responded by saying that the only other option was for taxpayers to absord the increased servicing costs. Councillor Colin Day implied that taxpayers paying some of the costs of services created by growth was fair and that this shouldn't be considered as subsidizing growth as new development benefits the entire community and not just developers. However, what he didn't mention was that the need for additional services was created by the growth that profited these developers. So then why should existing residents have to pay these costs at all? Furthermore, DCCs don't cover some of the costs of growth such as additional policing. Lastly, Councillor Robert Hobson commented that increased densities create greater efficiencies that result in lower costs per capita. He obviously hasn't seen the study that demonstrated exactly the opposite which was that higher densities result in higher per capita costs. www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/review2.htm Councillor Norm Letnick was the only member of council that expressed concern about the impact that higher servicing costs would have upon taxpayers. Councillors Clark, Gran and Rule were mum (speechless?).

I feel that the costs of growth as manifested by increased servicing costs should be completely paid for by developers and that the "assist factor" (the percentage of these costs that are borne by the public through property taxes) should be reduced to the legal minimum of one percent as specified by Provincial legislation as it was mentioned at the council meeting that other municipalities in BC have adopted a one percent across the board assist factor.

[Rick Shea]

I note the conclusion in the report that costs tend to increase above densities of 250 people per square mile.

Kelowna has a land area of about 88 square miles, and a population of about 110000 people. This gives about 1250 people per square mile -- already 5 times the density where the lowest costs occur.

[John Zeger]

Indeed. There are some on city council such as Robert Hobson who reason simplistically that if a little bit of density is good, then a whole lot more must be even better. I wonder if he also takes mega doses of vitamins? Hobson, the physical planner on council, like most physical planners is fixated on "efficiency." Well, high densities are neither efficient nor healthy from a social planning perspective, but then I doubt that he would understand that as social psychology is not a course requirement for an M.A. in urban planning. If Hobson's education was more well-rounded he might appreciate that at high doses density can be toxic to an urban system like high doses of vitamins are toxic to our bodies.

[westman]

Yah but i density save so much green space if we make the highrises nice, energy efficient it wont be to bad. I beleive in the very middle of kelowna should be high density. Then medium density and so on.

[Rick Shea]

westman said:

Yah but i density save so much green space if we make the highrises nice, energy efficient it wont be to bad. I beleive in the very middle of kelowna should be high density. Then medium density and so on.

I'm wondering what you mean by high density. Perhaps you could give a definition.

As well, I note again that the city with one of the highest urban densities in the U.S. -- Los Angeles -- continues to lose green space. In fact, urban infill eliminates green space within cities and does nothing to save surrounding green space. The promise in Portland was to preserve green space with densification, yet they continue to expand the urban growth boundary, and green space continues to disappear. How will Kelowna be any different?

The question is, once we construct those highrises, then what? Where will we put more people once every inch of Kelowna is covered in highrises, and how will we deal with the traffic, pollution, demand for services, noise, and so on?

[John Zeger]

westman said:

Yah but i density save so much green space if we make the highrises nice, energy efficient it wont be to bad. I beleive in the very middle of kelowna should be high density. Then medium density and so on.

I want to save green space too, Westman, but are erecting highrises the best way to do this? High density living creates great demands for open space because people want frequent escapes from their crammed living styles. This puts added pressure on our parkspace which is of an insufficient amount as is. Do you know that Kelowna has significantly less park space per capita than Vancouver and Victoria and is about on par with Regina, Saskatchewan, a prairie city. With overrun park space the city will be looking for areas that it can add to it, and the logical choice will be presently undeveloped natural areas surrounding the city which are habitats of all sorts of wildlife. Do you want to see these undeveloped natural areas turned into public parks driving the wildlife out of their homes? Well, that is the logical consequence of high density living. Wouldn't it be better to say that there are already too many people living in this valley and that further population increases will only put an increased burden on our ecosystem and stop issuing new building permits?