City of Ottawa

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Fraser

What services should the suburban residents be gutted of exactly?

Since those suburban councillors keep voting to underfund transit, I say they lead by example with their disproportionately overserviced wards.

After that, any cut they propose, they get to lead. Want to cut library hours? Let them go first.

And so on.

Heck, let's cut some road maintenance too. There's no reason for Bronson to have more potholes than Fallowfield, other than the city misallocating road maintenance.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

He wants to gut transit service, so that the city is even more car dependent overall.

Wrong. The burbs are already car dependent and keep electing councillors who want to cut and underfund transit. I don't see why those cuts should be applied evenly and not biased towards the least transit dependent communities.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Wrong. The burbs are already car dependent and keep electing councillors who want to cut and underfund transit. I don't see why those cuts should be applied evenly and not biased towards the least transit dependent communities.

Dangerous precedent but you could lower their tax rate making it very popular. Cut them down to rush hour only.

Simple fact is most voters don't use transit and only agree to fund it if they think it will get some people out of their cars and hence out of their way. Anything denying this is just a fudge.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Dangerous precedent but you could lower their tax rate making it very popular. Cut them down to rush hour only.

Simple fact is most voters don't use transit and only agree to fund it if they think it will get some people out of their cars and hence out of their way. Anything denying this is just a fudge.

The only dangerous precedent here is that increasingly anti-urban policy here is sleepwalking this city into the kind of hollowing out we see in the US. All while, urbanites disproportionately pay the bills.

And indeed, if the median voter thinks transit's only utility is traffic reduction (a view suburbanites regularly express with their votes) than maybe service in low use areas should match what they vote for.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

There are two falsifiable claims in there. Let's walk through both of them.

Claim #1: "Guaranteed more city $ are spent on that Centretown block than the suburb."

Fact: This has been studied again and again so there's no need to rely on intuition or gut feelings. I know of three separate studies commissioned by the City of Ottawa in the last 15 years. Two of them by Henson, one I believe by Deloitte. They all show that suburbs cost way more in municipal services than they generate in taxes. You can read more about these studies here:

https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.c...cumentid=86660

https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ott...cument%205.pdf

The studies consistently show that there is a net variance of more than $400 per household. Suburbs are WAY more expensive.

< snip >

Thanks for posting those two reports.

From the 2009 Hemson report:


Notice, for the city of Ottawa, at the time of the report, that ‘Inside Greenbelt’ properties were generating a positive amount for the city; that the ‘Rural’ properties were generating a negative return; but that the ‘Urban – Outside Greenbelt’ properties were almost neutral. It was not, at that time, Barrhaven, Kanata, and Orleans that the inner suburbs are subsidizing.

Indeed, the later, 2021, Hemson report also mentions that, at a high level, the budget for the city of Ottawa has grown as expected between 2013 (when a detailed study was done) and 2020. This would indicate, Hemson says, that approximately the same amounts are being spent to do the same things throughout that period. However, during those years, over 80% of the population growth happened in the ‘Outer Suburbs’. If these areas truly were the serious drain on the city’s finances, as has been postulated in this thread, then the city’s budget would have grown disproportionately. Yet, it did not. By 2021 the city was spending about the same (adjusting the value as required, of course) per capita as in 2013.

Statistics can be used to support any opinion. Espesially when they are 'Cherry-Picked'.

Look at the number of rural and suburban Councilors, compared to the number of city Councilors representing wards that are entirely within the Greenbelt. One could say that, since each Councilor and their office has a cost, more money is spent on Councilors outside the Greenbelt. It is a true statement, but completely useless.

Non-residential taxes account for about 35% of the tax revenue, yet gets about 30% of the expenditures. Obviously, non-residential is subsidizing residential. This is blatantly unfair. Only non-residential uses will henceforth be permitted on roadways. This sounds about as ridiculous as what some have been suggesting.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The only dangerous precedent here is that increasingly anti-urban policy here is sleepwalking this city into the kind of hollowing out we see in the US. All while, urbanites disproportionately pay the bills.

And indeed, if the median voter thinks transit's only utility is traffic reduction (a view suburbanites regularly express with their votes) than maybe service in low use areas should match what they vote for.

Well amalgamation avoids a hollowing out as it forces the suburbs to pay for the downloaded services. The risk of something too aggressive is we are in a big hole and will have substantial tax increase over the next few years and people can still flee to Rockland, Arnprior or Gatineau.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The only dangerous precedent here is that increasingly anti-urban policy here is sleepwalking this city into the kind of hollowing out we see in the US. All while, urbanites disproportionately pay the bills.

And indeed, if the median voter thinks transit's only utility is traffic reduction (a view suburbanites regularly express with their votes) than maybe service in low use areas should match what they vote for.

This is quite the statement. The hollowing out of American cities had everything to do with racial tensions that peaked during the 1960s. This has never been a significant problem in Canada.

The only issue right now in Ottawa relates entirely to federal work from home policies, but this will never be comparable to what happened south of the border. We continue to see development in urban Ottawa, which I see as a positive.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Thanks for posting those two reports.

From the 2009 Hemson report:


Notice, for the city of Ottawa, at the time of the report, that ‘Inside Greenbelt’ properties were generating a positive amount for the city; that the ‘Rural’ properties were generating a negative return; but that the ‘Urban – Outside Greenbelt’ properties were almost neutral. It was not, at that time, Barrhaven, Kanata, and Orleans that the inner suburbs are subsidizing.

Indeed, the later, 2021, Hemson report also mentions that, at a high level, the budget for the city of Ottawa has grown as expected between 2013 (when a detailed study was done) and 2020. This would indicate, Hemson says, that approximately the same amounts are being spent to do the same things throughout that period. However, during those years, over 80% of the population growth happened in the ‘Outer Suburbs’. If these areas truly were the serious drain on the city’s finances, as has been postulated in this thread, then the city’s budget would have grown disproportionately. Yet, it did not. By 2021 the city was spending about the same (adjusting the value as required, of course) per capita as in 2013.

Statistics can be used to support any opinion. Espesially when they are 'Cherry-Picked'.

Look at the number of rural and suburban Councilors, compared to the number of city Councilors representing wards that are entirely within the Greenbelt. One could say that, since each Councilor and their office has a cost, more money is spent on Councilors outside the Greenbelt. It is a true statement, but completely useless.

Non-residential taxes account for about 35% of the tax revenue, yet gets about 30% of the expenditures. Obviously, non-residential is subsidizing residential. This is blatantly unfair. Only non-residential uses will henceforth be permitted on roadways. This sounds about as ridiculous as what some have been suggesting.

The fact that rural costs are higher should be no surprise. But what are we going to do? Those living in rural areas had no choice. Amalgamation was imposed on them. There were probably other subsidies available from other sources for rural communities to offset the higher cost of services. For example, they were probably the most effected by the downloading of the provincial highway system back in the late 1990s.

Other comments about rural representation don't pay attention to the fact that this was a compromise based on the loss of local representation and to give a reasonable rural voice on city council knowing that rural needs are substantially different. Again, based on provincially imposed amalgamation.

[Richard Eade]

I think that there is a lot of mis-information around; including about who subsidizes whom for what – and why.

An example is the big water pipe that Ottawa ran out to Cumberland. Why? The same river runs past the far east end as past the city’s water filtration plant in the west end.

Economies of scale is a real thing, but there are limits. To take sewage from the far west end to the existing processing plant in the east end requires a lot of kilometres of piping that needs to be maintained – and re-sized if too much ‘Sprawl’ happens. The distance means that there must be intermediate pumping stations along the way, since gravity can not be used over such long distances.

There comes a point when it is more economical to simply build additional facilities, closer to where the water is needed, and where the waste is generated.

If Ottawa, Kanata/Stittsville, Barrhaven/Riverside South, and Orleans/east each had their own facilities, then the issue of ‘sprawl’ disappears.

In the ‘olden’ days, new subdivisions, built out in the ‘boonies’, had to have their own communal well; and each property was large enough to have its own septic system. And, Yes, this includes neighbourhoods that are now well within the Greenbelt. The developers were responsible for providing the initial infrastructure, and the house-purchaser paid the developer back. Those neighbourhoods were self-sufficient, in many ways. (Although the city was responsible for maintaining the old wooden Water Towers, there would be a special local tax levy when repairs were needed.) With distributed infrastructure, adding a new group of houses outside the ‘urban’ area wasn’t a big problem.

Then came the idea that a centralized system would be best for everyone. That is when things became expensive to expand the city.

Solution: Distribute the plants, again.

This is not limited to just sewer and water. There is a strong move to create small electric generators that can reduce the demand for moving huge amounts of power long distances across The Grid. The idea of ’15-minute neighbourhoods’ follows the same general idea. Don’t have huge, centralized facilities that requires transportation to/from them; distribute the services so that they are closer to where they are needed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well amalgamation avoids a hollowing out as it forces the suburbs to pay for the downloaded services. The risk of something too aggressive is we are in a big hole and will have substantial tax increase over the next few years and people can still flee to Rockland, Arnprior or Gatineau.

The thing is, when they flee to those areas they pay up. Go look at taxes and services in those parts. You're only getting a break on property taxes out there if you have well and septic. And in Gatineau, you're putting up with worse infrastructure, worse healthcare and higher provincial taxes.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Suburbs are expensive, but this is a little disingenuous.

The suburban picture is from a neighborhood built 30-40 years ago and was in a completely different City (Nepean). The City of Ottawa has made progress in densifying the suburbs.

I don't see what's disingenuous. The point is not about what the land use policy was when and where the places where built. It's what the impact of those decisions are now.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Look at a city budget. Guaranteed more city $ are spent on that Centretown block than the suburb.

I'd like to see the math.

Regardless it doesn't matter we don't have a poll tax we are a democracy and everyone has an equal voice.

In Ottawa, some have more equal voices than other, actually.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa Council's criticism of developer deal with Shawn Menard is utterly hypocritical
What's also baffling is why the city allowed the problem — if it even was a problem — to fester.

Mohammed Adam
Published Feb 08, 2024 • Last updated 13 hours ago • 3 minute read

Ottawa Council is having a fit over one member’s recent decision to negotiate a $300,000 deal with a developer to pay for projects in his ward. But the remarkable thing about the outrage is the hypocrisy of those criticizing Capital Ward Coun. Shawn Menard’s action.

Menard brokered the $300,000 agreement with developer Groupe Katasa, which is building a 22-storey high-rise at the corner of Bronson and Carling Avenues, to fund community projects in his ward. He explained in a Citizen article that the agreement was cleared by city lawyers and presented for public discussion at the planning and housing committee, which passed it.

But some councillors, who have had no qualms about pocketing thousands of dollars from developers for their election campaigns, were somehow horrified that a developer should be asked to help pay for community projects in this manner. Beacon Hill-Cyrville Coun. Tim Tierney said the agreement “doesn’t pass the sniff test,” and told CFRA he wants a provincial investigation. Orléans East-Cumberland Coun. Matthew Luloff likened the donation to a “slush fund,” suggesting that it might have come from a shakedown. Kanata South Coun. Allan Hubley called it “a bag of money being put on the table.”

Mayor Mark Sutcliffe, who, it has emerged, took a $1,000 donation he claims he didn’t know about from an executive of the very same Groupe Katasa, also criticized it, saying councillors must hold themselves “to the highest possible standards.” In essence, many councillors saw the money as an illicit donation, essentially dirty money.

The takeaway from our high-minded councillors is that they can take donations from developers to boost their political careers, but communities can’t benefit from similar donations. Unreal.

But council’s hypocrisy didn’t stop there. When the issue came up for a vote, councillors took the “bag of money on the table.” Even as they slammed the nefarious deal, they still voted to take the money, and share it among all 24 wards. Consider that this was, to many of them, dirty money. Councillors intimated as much, and you would expect them to reject, and send it back to the developer. Wrong. In spite of their moral outrage, they helped themselves to the “slush fund.”

This is the new standard of Ottawa Council. They were morally outraged all along indeed. The only reason councillors didn’t keep the money, in the end, is that the developer withdrew the donation.

What is baffling is why the city allowed the problem — if it was a problem — to fester. Why was the donation not rejected at planning committee if it was so unacceptable? If city lawyers signed off on the agreement, why was its legitimacy called into question at council? Why did it pass the smell test of city lawyers, and planning committee, but not full council? Might it be that some councillors saw an opportunity to have one over Menard, who has consistently argued against city politicians taking developer money for election campaigns? Questions were also raised about the shady past of Samir Chowieri, founder of the Katasa Group, who reportedly has a past criminal record. But that is irrelevant when it comes to the donation.

The city, in its wisdom, saw fit to do business with the company and permit it to build a 22-storey building, presumably knowing all about the owner’s past. The company is said to be run by Chowieri’s daughters, and if that was good enough for the city, it should be good enough for Menard, who carries no blame for negotiating with Katasa.

The city now says it needs a formal policy on such donations. Sutcliffe says councillors should not enter into agreements with developers to fund community projects because they create doubts about the integrity of the development process. Fair enough. By the same token, politicians should not be allowed to take campaign donations that only benefit them, from individuals who work for or are developers because these also cast doubts on the integrity of the planning process. Money buys access that ordinary citizens don’t get.

If communities can’t benefit from developer donations, councillors shouldn’t either. Integrity should work both ways.

Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa journalist and commentator.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/ad...y-hypocritical

[J.OT13]

Sutcliffe is claiming that Katasa donation was the only one that flew under the radar, but he still refuses to release his full list of donations. If he's not hiding anything, what's the hold-up?

Something quite similar to the Menard deal came up in 2021 with Heron Gate. No one had an issue at the time. Maybe because it was a Watson Club Councillor (Cloutier)?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ding-1.6142429

Don't think a guy who bribed his opponent to step out of an election race, or the guy who threatened to get a police officer fired because he disagreed with his wife, or the guy who was part of a campaign of lies and coverups regarding Stage 1 O-Train, or all of them who vigorously opposed an inquiry on O-Train Stage 1, have the moral high ground to criticize Menard.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Sutcliffe is claiming that Katasa donation was the only one that flew under the radar, but he still refuses to release his full list of donations. If he's not hiding anything, what's the hold-up?

Something quite similar to the Menard deal came up in 2021 with Heron Gate. No one had an issue at the time. Maybe because it was a Watson Club Councillor (Cloutier)?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ding-1.6142429

Don't think a guy who bribed his opponent to step out of an election race, or the guy who threatened to get a police officer fired because he disagreed with his wife, or the guy who was part of a campaign of lies and coverups regarding Stage 1 O-Train, or all of them who vigorously opposed an inquiry on O-Train Stage 1, have the moral high ground to criticize Menard.