Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Fears of a new property tax to pay for Evergreen Line percolate

March 18th, 2010 · 55 Comments

In case anyone missed it, the region’s politicians are buzzing with anxiety about what the province has in mind in terms of paying for the Evergreen Line.

It’s difficult to imagine what is getting cooked up in Victoria, given how many options the province has already rejected, so people have taken to guessing and worrying. Here’s the latest chapter in what appears to be the never-ending TransLink drama.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Frances Bula

    Usually, it’s pretty clear, but I thought you meant from something on one of the radio programs I was on this morning.

  • Paul

    “Take away the U-Passes, concession fares and forced transfers and it would be very soon that we would see that the SkyTrain emperor had no clothes!”

    U-Pass is here to stay.

    First off there is a good chance that those students who did use transit while going to school. Might be more willing to use transit when they join the work force. I’m not saying all will.

    Secondly while I as a taxpayer or a transit rider might have to subsidize a student using U-Pass. The fact remains every time you see a student on a bus whether it be with a U-Pass or a concession fare. That is one less student driving around polluting the air. That to me is worth subsidizing.

    Of course I don’t expect you to see this. For your agenda is to get Vancouver to go cheap on Transit. Just so you can have you way quicker SoF.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Bit of a to-and-fro on a regional basis reminds one that representative regional government—with Translink and, say, social housing in its mandate—might help us move a few pegs down the board a notch or two.

    Paul, if you are looking at a 33′ x 122′ lot with a house on it, unit density tops out at about 18 units to the acre. It is not so much a function of the 2,400 – 3,000 s.f. that number represents, but of problems with front doors, opening windows for habitable rooms, and that other thing… parking.

    So, what Simpson and I were looking at in one of our FormShift schemes was to split the lot in two along the long dimension, then build with concrete and wood, and put the equivalent of 5 units per newly subdivided lot. That got us up to 60 units/gross acre in a very tight package that was still fee simple.

    This building type in Toronto is called a “stacked town house”, and the most likely use of it would be by two families, living one over the other. One family occupying the main unit, and renting the second as a mortgage helper.

    However, for the purposes of comparison, we still count that as 5 units with 2 persons per unit. In the case of stacked towns, you might actually have two households, with 10 people between them. Four adults and six children, or any other combination of that. A single flat might go on the top level, or over the garage adding a further resident and a second income source.

    We suggested a reduction in the parking arguing that trams on the arterials would reduce parking demand. One car per family would suffice, and a guest could can park on the street.

  • Chris Keam

    “Secondly while I as a taxpayer or a transit rider might have to subsidize a student using U-Pass. The fact remains every time you see a student on a bus whether it be with a U-Pass or a concession fare. That is one less student driving around polluting the air. That to me is worth subsidizing. ”

    Worth noting you’d still be subsidizing them as a automobile user anyway.

  • Paul

    “Paul, if you are looking at a 33′ x 122′ lot with a house on it, unit density tops out at about 18 units to the acre. It is not so much a function of the 2,400 – 3,000 s.f. that number represents, but of problems with front doors, opening windows for habitable rooms, and that other thing… parking.”

    Well they are currently building a house on my block with one living space upstairs, 2 living spaces downstairs (those are accessed by rear doors) and a laneway house. So that one 122×33 property has 4 dwellings on it.

    I know there are 13 properties on my block and it is about an acre. So assuming that all 13 properties are built the same way. I get 52 dwellings. I also realize that not every lot will be built the same way. And so that number would be lower.

    Having said that I do agree that parking would be a nightmare. Although it might force people to not own a car for the simple fact that they have no where to even park a car.

    “Worth noting you’d still be subsidizing them as a automobile user anyway.”

    Well if they are on transit. They can’t be in the car at the same time. Although I do realize that everyone at some point will use a car for what ever reason. But nobody can be on both at the same time.

←  Older Comments
 →