Connect with us

Business

City of Red Deer introduces funding program to boost downtown development

Published

2 minute read

From The City of Red Deer

New incentive program for downtown development projects in Red Deer

A new funding program has launched in Red Deer to support downtown development projects. The program aims to increase activity and growth opportunities in the Greater Downtown Area while supporting The City’s overall Strategic Plan.

There are five funding opportunities in the program, including:

  • Facade and Storefront Improvement Rebate, intended to increase a sense of downtown pride through an investment in beautification, restoration, signage and improved security features.
  • Environmental Site Assessment Rebate, which supports owners of properties which require Environmental Site Assessments before redevelopment can occur.
  • Demolition of Vacant and Derelict Properties Rebate, which assists property owners with demolition costs to facilitate sale or redevelopment of their property.
  • Utility Connection Fee Rebate, which supports property owners required to replace or upgrade utility connections as part of developing or redeveloping on their property.
  • Residential and Mixed Use Development Grant, which promotes the development of newly constructed multifamily residential and/or mixed use units.
  • These opportunities will contribute to a healthy, successful downtown by improving aesthetic, encouraging developers to build residential units downtown, and reducing the costs of investing in our downtown.

“These economic development programs are taking intentional actions to incent development in our downtown,” said Tara Lodewyk, Director of Planning Services. ”We recognize that downtowns are the heart of our cities and play a vital role as our communities’ business, administrative, and cultural centres.”

Property owners and developers may apply for funding from all five opportunities for a single location, pending eligibility. The first intake occurs February 15 – March 15, 2020 and a second intake is planned for July 1 – August 1, 2020, pending available remaining funds.

For more information and to apply online, visit www.reddeer.ca/EconomicIncentives.

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Business

Carbon tax costs taxpayers $200 million to administer

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Ryan Thorpe

The cost of administering the federal carbon tax and rebate scheme has risen to nearly $200 million since its inception in 2019.

That’s according to government records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and first reported by the online news site Blacklock’s Reporter.

The hit to taxpayers last year alone was $82.6 million, with the government assigning 465 full-time employees to administer the carbon tax and rebate scheme.

“The carbon tax is a double whammy for taxpayers,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “First, it makes our gas, heating and groceries more expensive. And then we’re forced to pay higher taxes to fund Trudeau’s battalion of carbon tax bureaucrats.”

The records were released in response to order paper questions from Conservative MP Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie-Mackenzie).

Carbon tax administration costs totaled $82.6 million in 2022, and $116.5 million between 2019 and 2021.

Last year, there were 223 bureaucrats “assigned to work on the collection of the fuel charge,” while 242 administered the rebate scheme.

Annual costs spiked last year as the government changed the rebate scheme “from a

refundable credit claimed annually on personal income tax returns, to [a] quarterly tax-free payment made through the benefit system,” according to the records.

“It should be obvious to everyone that the feds can’t raise taxes, skim hundreds-of-millions off the top and hire hundreds of new bureaucrats, then somehow make everyone better off with rebates,” Terrazzano said.

Cost to administer the carbon tax and rebate scheme, 2019 – 2022

Year

Total annual cost

Number of employees

2019

$33,219,471

256

2020

$40,541,290

316

2021

$42,766,636

333

2022

$82,628,993

465

The carbon tax will cost the average family up to $710 this year even after the rebates, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the federal government’s independent budget watchdog.

The carbon tax currently costs 14 cents per litre of gasoline and 12 cents per cubic metre of natural gas. By 2030, the carbon tax will cost 37 cents per litre of gasoline and 32 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.

“Canadians pay higher taxes so federal paper-pushers can increase our fuel prices and make our lives more expensive,” Terrazzano said. “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau can immediately make life more affordable by scrapping his carbon tax and taking some of the air out of his ballooning bureaucracy.”

Continue Reading

Business

Costly construction isn’t the culprit behind unaffordable housing

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Wendell Cox

Land restriction creates what amount to land cartels. A now smaller number of landowners gain windfall profits, which, of course, encourages speculation

The latest Demographia report on housing affordability in Canada, which I produce for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, reveals that over half of the 46 Canadian housing markets we assess are severely unaffordable. In fact, Vancouver and Toronto rank as third and 10th least affordable, respectively, among the 94 major global markets included in our latest international housing affordability study.

To evaluate housing costs, we utilize the “median multiple,” which divides the median house price within a given market (census metropolitan area) by its median household income. A multiple equal to or less than 3.0 is categorized as “affordable,” while anything exceeding 5.0 is labelled “severely unaffordable.”

Among the major Canadian housing markets, Vancouver (with a median multiple of 12), Toronto (9.5), Montreal (5.4), and Ottawa-Gatineau (5.2) fall into the severely unaffordable category. Vancouver has maintained a high median multiple for several decades, while Toronto has been in this range for approximately two decades. The increased prevalence of telecommuting has recently contributed to Montreal and Ottawa-Gatineau’s affordability challenges, leading to a surge in demand for larger homes and properties in more distant suburbs. In contrast, housing in Edmonton (4.0) and Calgary (4.3) remains comparatively affordable.

In Toronto and Vancouver, the implementation of international urban planning principles, particularly those promoting anti-sprawl measures like greenbelts and agricultural preserves, has led to unprecedented price hikes. This “urban containment” approach has consistently driven up land values where it has been adopted. And high land values rather than increased construction costs are what explain the substantial disparity between severely unaffordable and more budget-friendly markets.

Land restriction creates what amount to land cartels. A now smaller number of landowners gain windfall profits, which, of course, encourages speculation. Maintaining or restoring affordability requires eliminating windfall profits by ensuring a competitive market for land.

Another issue arises from urban planners’ preference for higher-density housing, such as high-rise condos. Some households may prefer high-rise living, but families with children typically seek housing with more land, whether detached or semi-detached. When they’re priced out of good housing markets, their quality of life suffers and they may even fall into poverty.

The troubling paradox is that unaffordable housing is far more common in markets like Vancouver and Toronto, which have embraced the planning orthodoxy — which is supposed to produce affordable housing. The same applies to international markets like Sydney, Auckland, London and San Francisco, where urban containment and unaffordable housing have gone hand in hand.

What’s the solution? Give up on urban containment and make more land available for housing. But wouldn’t that threaten the natural environment, as critics of Ontario’s recent attempt to allow development of a sliver of its greenbelt argued?

Not at all. It’s true that land under cultivation in Canada has been declining steadily over the years. But the culprit is improved agricultural productivity, not urban expansion. According to Statistics Canada, between 2001 and 2021, agricultural land shrank 53,000 square kilometres. That’s about equal to the land area of Nova Scotia. And it’s about triple all the area urbanized since European settlement began. Even in Ontario and B.C. where most of the severely unaffordable markets are concentrated, urban expansion from 2016 to 2021 took up less than one-quarter of the agricultural loss over that period. Urban expansion is not squeezing out agricultural land.

Given all this, what should we do about affordability? In my view, three things:

First, it’s essential to acknowledge that Canadians are already addressing the issue by relocating from pricier to more affordable regions. Housing is more affordable in the Atlantic and Prairie provinces and areas in Quebec east of Montreal. So it’s not surprising there is now a net influx of people to smaller, typically more affordable, locations. In the past five years, markets with populations exceeding 100,000 have collectively witnessed over 250,000 people moving to smaller markets.

Second, make more land available for development in increasingly unaffordable markets like B.C., southern Ontario, and the Montreal-Ottawa corridor. One way is with “housing opportunity enclaves” (HOEs), in which traditional, i.e., not high-density, housing regulations would apply, but essential environmental and safety regulations would. The aim would be to provide middle-income housing at the price-to-income ratios that were typical before urban containment came along and housing across the country was largely affordable.

Market-driven development would be ensured by relying on the private sector to provide housing, land, and infrastructure, a model that has been successful in Colorado and Texas. Current residents would maintain their property rights but could sell to private parties and First Nations for development.

HOEs would be situated far enough outside major centres to take advantage of low-priced land, prioritizing areas with the largest recent agricultural land reductions. Communities likely would resemble Waverly West in Winnipeg or The Woodlands in Houston, with ample housing space and yards for families with children.

These new communities would attract people working at least partly from home. Jobs would naturally follow, creating self-contained communities where most commutes occurred within the HOE. To ensure a competitive market and prevent land cost escalation, HOEs must have ample land available.

Third, public authorities should allocate an ample amount of suburban land to safeguard reasonable land values in the Prairie and Atlantic provinces, as well as in Quebec east of Montreal. This would allow currently more affordable markets such as Quebec City, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Moncton and Halifax to accommodate interprovincial migrants without jeopardizing their affordability.

Provincial and local governments would need to monitor housing affordability multiples on at least a five-year cycle, and legislatures, land use authorities and city councils would have to allow enough low-cost land development to maintain price-to-income stability.

It’s not enough just to provide enough building lots to meet projected demand. The goal should be to enable builders to provide housing at prices middle-income households can afford. The key to that is affordable land.

Wendell Cox is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is the author of 2023 Edition Of Demographia Housing Affordability In Canada and has been featured on Leaders on the Frontier – Cost of Living Under Crisis With Charles Blain.

Continue Reading

Trending

X