Author Topic: Stacked Single Family Home  (Read 525 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #90 on: May 19, 2018, 03:11:18 pm »
So who subsidized you?

Nobody, it was part of the house sale price and went to the family(ies) before who paid the taxes. There is nothing second rate about those buying new homes, I just don't want the existing community to become the second rate ones by subsidizing them.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #91 on: May 19, 2018, 03:32:21 pm »
Nobody, it was part of the house sale price and went to the family(ies) before who paid the taxes. There is nothing second rate about those buying new homes, I just don't want the existing community to become the second rate ones by subsidizing them.

So what if you are the third or fourth owner of the home? Each owner has piggy backed off the original owner. You are not subsidizing services that you use.

When your neighbourhood needs new sewer and water lines or upgraded electrical because the existing ones need replacement due to age or obsolescence, maybe your neighbourhood should bare the entire cost. After all, why should those who have paid for newer more modern services under your system, help pay to replace your old ones?

 I'll ask again, what does society and community mean to you?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #92 on: May 19, 2018, 03:40:09 pm »
When your neighbourhood needs new sewer and water lines or upgraded electrical because the existing ones need replacement due to age or obsolescence, maybe your neighbourhood should bare the entire cost. After all, why should those who have paid for newer more modern services under your system, help pay to replace your old ones?

That's exactly it. When I was in my 1950s bungalow they had to replace some sewers, including the line that connected the main sewer to my house. The city did not demand the people on the street pay for the sewer upgrades. And back when the houses were originally build they didn't have these big development fees, so even the original owners didn't pay for them. What exactly does the city have to pay for a new development, anyway? Hydro isn't their problem. So aside from the sewers what are the costs? I don't believe the city paves the roads or puts sidewalks in. More services needed for those who live there, sure, but those people are paying taxes for those services just like anyone else.

And again, if you're bringing in 340,000 new people every year as immigrants we have to build these developments.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #93 on: May 19, 2018, 08:27:23 pm »
I guess it is hard for some people to understand the difference between maintenance and new build.

SJ, yes if the new immigrants want to have new communities then they should participate in financing them. As I said many times before, I don't support the notion of growth is necessary for a vibrant economy. I am not against growth, and not against immigration, but there should be bennefits all around.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #94 on: May 19, 2018, 09:56:03 pm »
I guess it is hard for some people to understand the difference between maintenance and new build.

SJ, yes if the new immigrants want to have new communities then they should participate in financing them. As I said many times before, I don't support the notion of growth is necessary for a vibrant economy. I am not against growth, and not against immigration, but there should be bennefits all around.

So how do you stop growth? How do you differentiate which Canadians are a product of growth and which aren't. What makes you think you yourself aren't a product of growth or are you one of these "old stock" Canadians? I think you want to enjoy the benefits a growing vibrant economy provide but want someone else to pay for it.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #95 on: May 20, 2018, 08:48:33 am »
So how do you stop growth? How do you differentiate which Canadians are a product of growth and which aren't. What makes you think you yourself aren't a product of growth or are you one of these "old stock" Canadians? I think you want to enjoy the benefits a growing vibrant economy provide but want someone else to pay for it.

Well that is the problem, we have a disagreement if growth is necessary for a vibrant economy. There are clearly examples that don't depend on growth like Germany. We have many in Canada who believe that growth is unnecessary for the economy, and many that argue that growth hurts us and want to stop it. My argument is simply that where possible, growth should pay its own way.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #96 on: May 20, 2018, 10:06:16 am »
Well that is the problem, we have a disagreement if growth is necessary for a vibrant economy. There are clearly examples that don't depend on growth like Germany. We have many in Canada who believe that growth is unnecessary for the economy, and many that argue that growth hurts us and want to stop it. My argument is simply that where possible, growth should pay its own way.

For the most part it does pay its own way. How do you think our society could function if people weren't willing to invest and take risks? You speak as though developers were some kind of parasites. If so, go buy some tools and figure out how to build your own home and install your own services. The only other option is to live with your parents until they croak and then take over their home. Hope you don't have any siblings because you will be living with them for the rest of your life.

How do you plan on controlling growth without a rapidly ageing population?

In Vancouver, to demolish an existing home and rebuild on the same lot with existing infrastructure, permit fees are close to $30,000. Municipalities have ways of getting money out of builders and developers. They can impose whatever conditions they want on a developer and if those conditions aren't cost effective, the developer can walk.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #97 on: May 20, 2018, 11:13:44 am »
Well that is the problem, we have a disagreement if growth is necessary for a vibrant economy. There are clearly examples that don't depend on growth like Germany.

Germany? Whaaa?   Germany is taking in huge numbers of newcomers, to the point that it's becoming a major political conflict.

We have many in Canada who believe that growth is unnecessary for the economy, and many that argue that growth hurts us and want to stop it. My argument is simply that where possible, growth should pay its own way.

For the record, I'm with you... I'm not convinced that we really need to keep growing the population.   Replacement-level immigration would be fine, I believe.

People say "we need more people working so that we have enough tax payers to pay for everything."  (what they really mean is that the government needs revenue.)

People say "we need workers to do all these jobs because there's a shortage of workers in some industries, and Canadian kids don't even want to do low-paying jobs anyway..."  (labor market issues are a whole 'nother thread, but a shortage in certain areas of the market (like skilled trades at the moment) isn't addressed by large scale immigration but rather by training and by specifically bringing in immigrants with the specific skills desired. A shortage of teenagers willing to pour coffee at Tim's shouldn't be addressed by the government, it should be addressed by Tim's.)


I don't think population growth is actually a good thing.  I think many of the problems we're facing-- skyrocketing housing costs in Canada's biggest cities, transportation, pollution and environmental problems, providing services and infrastructure for more and more people-- are made worse by growing the population. So I'm completely with you on the idea that just growing and growing isn't the answer.


 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #98 on: May 20, 2018, 01:11:15 pm »
There is a difference between growing a population and growing an economy. A growing economy without population growth will increase demand on its own, because as people become more affluent their desire for more and better will increase.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #99 on: May 20, 2018, 02:09:00 pm »
Good question. First off I personally don't subscribe to the growth model, but yes I agree it seems to be the public policy foisted upon us by the power brokers. Second, we can have growth as a country by building new communities and not diluting existing communities.

For the most part, communities don't appear because somebody said "there should be a community here".  (There are exceptions, like Washington DC or Brasilia, which were established to be capitals.)

Historically, communities occur where they occur for a reason.  Access to key transportation routes or proximity to natural resources, or strategic locations, for example.  It was inevitable that a community occur where Vancouver is, because the location makes it so. Other cases aren't as cut and dried. Edmonton didn't need to be exactly where it is. It moved several times, in fact.  But commercial factors related to the fur trade meant there was going to be some sort of trading post in northern Alberta,  the North Saskatchewan River was a transportation route, and the river flats in what is now Edmonton made it a good location.  Other similar forts came and went over the years, but Fort Edmonton survived the decline of the fur trade because it became a useful location for other economic purposes as well. A stop on the way to the Klondike gold rush, a center point for the growing agricultural industry in the region, and the transportation and services required to serve these industries, and eventually the oil industry as well.  The evolution from fur trading post to regional center illustrates a point about how communities are created and evolve.  They were settling the prairies... bringing immigrants to northern Alberta to build farms... why did they bring the railway line to Edmonton?  Because Edmonton was already there... it was the most practical place to bring the railway line because there were already people and services there.  Ultimately it became the regional center for all this immigrant settlement and farming activity because the Hudson Bay fur traders had set up shop there a hundred years earlier.  Population centers are like gravity.  They attract more people and more economic activity, which in turn attracts even more people and even more economic activity.

And this is why people are drawn to existing population centers instead of starting new communities in the middle of nowhere.  We are extending existing communities, because people are drawn to the economic opportunities and infrastructure and services that already exist in these places.

The cost of living might be much lower in Flatbush Saskatchewan than in the BC Lower Mainland, but if you're an immigrant arriving in Canada you might have trouble finding work in Flatbush.  You might also have a hard time finding a mosque or halal groceries in Flatbush.  If you go to a larger center, you're more able to find work and find services you require as well.


When we want to extend existing communities, that extension has to pay its own way. This is not the same as an existing community deciding they want to have more local services, say a theatre or arena, then the exiting members should pay for that. The community has built the infrastructure, and should benefit from it. That has nothing to do with personal mobility, you are welcome to join the community by buying a house from an existing family that has supported it and the house price will reflect that level of service.

Now we come to developers. They see two communities (different sides of the track so to speak). They decide to build in the one that has the better services, because they know they will be able to sell the house for a higher price. They are the ones that should be paying extend the community, not those who built it in the first place.

But much of the need for the new laborers coming to Canada is in existing large communities.  These Tim Hortons' crying out for more workers, the construction laborers, and all the rest, these are happening for the most part in big cities, not in Flatbush.  To the extent that "we" "need" more workers to fuel our economic growth and pay taxes and all the rest, we need these new workers to be in existing communities.  So if "we" "need" growth, then "we" have to help make it possible for our communities to expand.

 -k
Masked for your safety.