167 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

To outpace inflation? Saanich would have to do something radically different to shift those numbers. 

 

I'm open to the idea that it will be beneficial in the long term, but Geoghegan's pledge to vote against any short term tax increase doesn't add up. Infrastructure is an investment in the future and there are up-front costs associated with it, whether it's increased services or more municipal staff to speed along development applications.

 

Development is market driven. If you want to spark a development boom, you have to put something on the table to attract development, and those incentives costs money.

 

Well, Saanich is about to embark on absolutely optional infrastructure work on Shelbourne, that does not fall into the necessary "crumbling infrastructure repair" category.  Same happened with Tillicum.  Maybe Wilkinson was critical.  So if you do not go looking for projects, you can save money.  On the project, and you can also lay off the planners.

[jonny]

I think what's happened in Langford over the past ten years is unique in the region and can't be repeated elsewhere. The fact that they've had a massive border-to-border increase in residential and commercial development and they've still only been able to "hold the line" against tax increases tells me that hikes in Saanich are inevitable given the modest anticipated pace of development.

 

The problem, IMHO, was that Saanich's population wasn't growing. Growth has started to pick up over the past few years, but for a while there Saanich's population growth was pretty stagnant. 

 

Considering Saanich is one of BC's largest municipalities, I think it's recent record on development is pretty poor. The UVic/McKenzie corridor is still a bizarre no man's land. Uptown has so far failed to become "downtown". It's major corridors and roadways are a mish-mash of housing styles. Saanich still has this weird vibe where it seems to think it's rural, when it's definitely urban and definitely a larger municipality.

 

There has been very little development considering it is one of BC's largest municipalities. Compared to places like Langley, Kelowna, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Saanich has been pretty lame in terms of moving forward. 

[lanforod]

Plenty of projects in Saanich that could be considered 'optional'. Some would disagree they aren't optional though.

 

I don't understand some of the decision-making though. Example:

They are expanding West Saanich Rd. from Royal Oak to Travino lane to add a bike lane. Great, fills in a bike lane gap. Not a cheap project though, even though its just 200 meters or so.

Mt. Doug parkway from Ash to Shelbourne was repaved a couple weeks ago, including regrading etc. There's a bike lane gap there too... but no bike lane was added, even though it seems it'd be fairly easy to widen the road 6 feet...

[Michael Geoghegan]

I think what's happened in Langford over the past ten years is unique in the region and can't be repeated elsewhere. The fact that they've had a massive border-to-border increase in residential and commercial development and they've still only been able to "hold the line" against tax increases tells me that hikes in Saanich are inevitable given the modest anticipated pace of development.

Rob you are also ignoring the massive increase in infrastructure that has been built in Langford.  Meanwhile Saanich has far too many streets without sidewalks.

[Rob Randall]

Look, my views line up with Geoghegan's and it's great that he's one of the few that are brave enough to talk about the benefits of densifying Saanich.

 

I just don't believe it's wise to promise tax cuts along with infrastructure improvements without explaining specifically how that's possible given that Council has limited tools to affect the development market.

[rjag]

Look, my views line up with Geoghegan's and it's great that he's one of the few that are brave enough to talk about the benefits of densifying Saanich.

 

I just don't believe it's wise to promise tax cuts along with infrastructure improvements without explaining specifically how that's possible given that Council has limited tools to affect the development market.

 

I think you can introduce tax cuts in 2 ways, reduce costs or increase the tax base. 

[jonny]

Look, my views line up with Geoghegan's and it's great that he's one of the few that are brave enough to talk about the benefits of densifying Saanich.

 

I just don't believe it's wise to promise tax cuts along with infrastructure improvements without explaining specifically how that's possible given that Council has limited tools to affect the development market.

 

I may vote for Mike, but I agree with you Rob. 

 

The reality is that infrastructure is very expensive nowadays with the insane costs of construction. There's not much Saanich can do about that, but they can be smart about how they spend their money. Unfortunately, Saanich does have some catching up to do in terms of sidewalks and roadways. 

[DavidSchell]

Rob you are also ignoring the massive increase in infrastructure that has been built in Langford.  Meanwhile Saanich has far too many streets without sidewalks.

Saanich has far to many NIMBYs and too many counselors that only listen to the vocal minorities in the hopes of getting reelected.

 

I always enjoyed chatting with you Mike when we were neighbours on Mysty Woods, hope you get elected as Saanich need someone like you. 

[Rob Randall]

I think you can introduce tax cuts in 2 ways, reduce costs or increase the tax base. 

 

Simple eh? So why doesn't it work in real life?

 

There's not much Saanich can do about that, but they can be smart about how they spend their money. Unfortunately, Saanich does have some catching up to do in terms of sidewalks and roadways.

 

 

I believe Saanich already gets developers to build sidewalk infrastructure (Borden St., The Shire etc) but we are also talking about making things easier for developers as we all seem to agree the pace of development is not aggressive enough. I've heard from Saanich developers complaining about having to build infrastructure and "green" features. What else can Saanich do to spur development but offer juicy tax breaks but that takes us back to square one of the myth of instant tax relief.

 

I've worked on a few budgets in my time. I fear "no new taxes" is merely a popular election slogan, not a realistic municipal financial plan.

[VicHockeyFan]

Saanich could allow higher density in many key places that already have good infrastructure.  So that gives you extra money.  For example if the Superstore site on Douglas and Cloverdale became a 16 storey very dense building, hardly anyone would object and it would bring in much taxes.

 

I recently talked in this space about doing things along Hillside adjacent to the mall.

 

There are still large portions of Shelbourne that are still good for density, same McKenzie near Blenkinsop.

 

I talked earlier today about university lands.  Much of it is in Saanich.

 

Some lands in the industrial area around Dupplin and Ardersier is ripe for more development, yup, people living above very light industry.

 

Car lots on Oak St. could be incentivized to move or innovate.

 

I've talked here before about moving the Saanich works yard.  And see what can be done with Telus on that corner and even see what can be done with Jawl on his building site there.  He's innovative.

 

You could put 6,000 housing units just on this corner, no problem.  It's on MAJOR bus routes.  It's on the Lochside Trail.

 

 

 

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 11 September 2017 - 12:22 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

I'm willing to take on sacred cows like parks and school yards and unproductive ALR land see if we can squeak in some housing.

 

I wrote here years ago that we could build housing on the fringes of the Cedar Hill Golf Course and solve its money problems at the same time.

 

We all know the Royal Oak Golf Course sits empty now.  Why?  

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 11 September 2017 - 12:28 PM.

[Rob Randall]

Guys, listen. This is all great but a comprehensive re-visit of the Saanich OCP is a five-year process. That's longer than a council term.

 

Geoghegan is promising instant tax savings.

 

If he simply promised densification while promising to vote to keep taxes as low as possible I'd be happy with that and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Edited by Rob Randall, 11 September 2017 - 12:43 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

OCP need not be a 5-year process in areas where there is/will be little opposition to density.  Like Quadra/McKenzie/Borden, or Oak St.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 11 September 2017 - 01:02 PM.

[North Shore]

There has been very little development considering it is one of BC's largest municipalities. Compared to places like Langley, Kelowna, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Saanich has been pretty lame in terms of moving forward. 

 

Geezus - if that's the plan for the future of Saanich - cookie cutter strip malls verging on 4 lane 'highways' with traffic lights every block, then how do I vote against that?

[rjag]

Simple eh? So why doesn't it work in real life?

 

 

 

Because municipal politics has become less involved with the original intent of pipes, roads, zoning and parks and have been entangled in the spiders web of social justice and other events beyond A: their control and B: outside of their mandate.

 

How much did property taxes increase in the 50's, 60's or 70's? They were sure building a whole whack of Saanich back then putting in roads and pipes etc

 

Yesterdays municipal Councillor is todays social worker, just look at the bureaucratic bs they are jumping through with the sewage plant....so wrapped up in process that its been 10 years and shovels are barely in the ground.....  

[jonny]

Geezus - if that's the plan for the future of Saanich - cookie cutter strip malls verging on 4 lane 'highways' with traffic lights every block, then how do I vote against that?

 

What are you on about? Where did I suggest cookie cutter strip malls? 

 

All I was saying is that those similarly sized places have been growing. Saanich has chosen to remain stagnant. I was not referring to the form of development. 

[Rob Randall]

All I was saying is that those similarly sized places have been growing. Saanich has chosen to remain stagnant. I was not referring to the form of development. 

 

How much of that is Saanich's fault? Rezonings are being submitted and approved. Look at the stuff along McKenzie: Otto, Lyra, Habitat for Humanity etc. being built on old SFD land. The market is chugging along.

 

I'm just interested in hearing how council can encourage development while managing the budget responsibly and without hyperbole. 

[Mike K.]

Saanich ain't that bad in terms of growth by raw numbers, but of course being the largest municipality by some 30,000 people it ought to have a growth figure much higher than Victoria.

 

Between 2011 and 2016 the three munis with the most growth were as follows:

 

Langford: 6,114 (26.4% of total CMA growth)

Victoria: 5,775 (24.9%)

Saanich: 4,396 (19%)

 

Together those three munis made up over 70% of the region's growth of 23,190 individuals.

[Michael Geoghegan]

I think you can introduce tax cuts in 2 ways, reduce costs or increase the tax base. 

 

Thank you for your comments.  My first priority is to grow the tax base with increased residential being a key component of that.  The second is to eliminate wasteful spending and identifying efficiencies.  That is basic budgetary prudence.  In terms of increases in spending I certainly support increased infrastructure spending on things like sidewalks playing fields and the like.

[Michael Geoghegan]

Guys, listen. This is all great but a comprehensive re-visit of the Saanich OCP is a five-year process. That's longer than a council term.

 

Geoghegan is promising instant tax savings.

 

If he simply promised densification while promising to vote to keep taxes as low as possible I'd be happy with that and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I am promising higher densification and to keep taxes as low as possible.  Projects get held up in Saanich for years regardless of whether or not they conform to the current OCP.