I would love to know the over time rate for all that ‘urgent’ work.

It has nothing to do with finding things wrong or bikes or cars or chewing gum.

Given we are walking into a 20 million dollar shortfall in next years budget, I am perplexed why this effort was fast tracked at a huge additional expense as we move into winter months when the bike lanes will be barely used. Do you see gardens being planted anywhere else this time of year – there is a reason for that.

Fiscal responsibility and accountability should be a fair question – 2 wheels or 4.

I wish they could be as fast on the Carall St. Greenway as they have been on the cycle paths. They have closed Carall for months on end while they put the greenway in ( it’s a way I use to get home when I’m not riding my bike). Its a similar attitude that I see with city parks such as Victoria, Grandview and Oppenheimer, which have stayed closed for a year while the city “worked” on them. It shows that this city has a mis-placed sense of priorities. Guess I won’t be voting Vission anymore.

hello? the budget was too much if it included un-necessary overtime for crews and 3rd party cement delivery on a weekend. Since when is it OK to spend too much money just because you ‘warned’ people first?

There are $20,000 programs such as graffiti removal and street cleaning that have been cut because there is no money. I can almost bet the overtime costs on this project would have more than paid for those programs.

To me, that is a fiscal outrage and as a taxpayer, I think I deserve an explanation of why cement had to be poured today instead of tomorrow when the cost would have been half.

Some people are impossible to please. First they complain about construction impacts on businesses and traffic. Then when the city expedites the construction to minimize the impact, they complain about that as well.

@Julia

Anyway, it seems to be quite common for such roadwork that requires lanes of traffic to be closed to take place on the weekends. It is less disruptive for the businesses and motorists and probably safer for the workers. Not sure why people are making such a big deal about it here.

The city has committed to minimal tax increases this year so your claim “those same businesses are being taxed to death by an out of control city budget” is just a bit over the top. The HST is a much bigger problem for some of these businesses.

It’s not too late to complete the official City survey on the 2011 budget. Go to the CoV website and the links are easily found. Every commentor on this blog should complete the survey, flawed as it is (no place for comments, no contextual information, limited choices). You might also email the mayor and councilors about your priorities.

We get the government we deserve.

Spartikus, you are comparing income tax to property tax. We are talking city budgets and property tax.

Julia,

This is from spatikus’ KPMG link:

“[this report] compares the total tax burden faced by companies, including income tax, capital tax, sales tax, *property tax*, *miscellaneous local business taxes*, and statutory labour costs.

The report ranks 41 major international cities, with Vancouver ranking first, Montréal fourth, and Toronto fifth. “

but, look at how Vancouver compares to its neighbouring municipalities and the song begins to change.

We don’t compete with Montreal and Toronto. We compete with Victoria, Surrey, Burnaby and Richmond.

The Thought of The Day

“I’ve tried to match the Webster’s definition for the word ‘trial’ with what’s being done on Hornby Street, under the covert operation codename ‘Trial’. I couldn’t.”

You wouldn’t take out someone’s kidney and call it ‘trial’ surgery, would you?
You wouldn’t test a Boeing 777 with 550 passengers on board and call it ‘trial’ flight, would you?
You wouldn’t send 100, 000 troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and call it ‘trial’ liberation, would you?

Now, why would you spend $ 3 millions +… monies you don’t have; order the entire City Hall Street crews to work overtime, evenings and on weekends; ask them to break the asphalt, rebar and pour new concrete barriers…if it’s going to be, all… ‘trial’?

The Vision people behind this type of decision could only fall in two categories: it’s either the one in which they think, Vancouver IS THE Stupid City, or the other one in which they think THEY ARE the Pixie Dust Fairies.

Oh, wait, there might be a third one, the ‘Allen Garr Tales of Worship’ Category (you may need a shot of Tequila, or two, before reading his Vancourier propaganda column)

But, hey, all I wanted to do was to post this for Julia!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j064ZSmrMis

It seems the most suitable tune for this tenacious lady. Julia, what your detractors didn’t get is that your initial post was… not a ‘trial’.
They didn’t expect you coming back at them. Again, and again, and again. Loved it!

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

Thinking aloud…

Since we are talking taxes, and who should pay ’em, I have allowed what is left of my mind to wander further afield here, and am thinking about new sources of revenue for the city:

Since there is a general perception that business property tax costs are so unfair to the homeowner (hey, ask a small biz owner in Gastown, who watched his rent go up 100 percent in the last 2 years, because of the property tax hit his landlord has taken, because propertyvalues keep rising), I know I certainly would love to be paying 5 times the homeowner rate. Not.

And as an aside, and as a comparison, go to many similiar sized jurisdictions in the US and see what their homeowners are paying. I have a friend in upstate New York state who lived here in Westwood Plateau 2 years ago. He paid about $3,500 per annum in property taxes for a good sized home and property. He is now paying $18,000 in property tax for the same size home/property there . So much for writing off that mortgage interest, huh?

Rates of course, vary across that country and are set at different levels of government dependent on state and local government controls, but here is an interesting take on property tax as seen through the eyes of someone comparing Seattle’s to Vancouver’s:

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.econ/2007-05/msg00032.html

Perhaps we would be better served locally by shifting the burden not from business to residential—or back again–but by by paying LESS direct tax to our provincial and federal masters. Go to a higher property tax, that would then go directly to infrastructure necessities (hello, sewer system!) and quality of life services (parks and pools for our kids).

Our low property tax rates are actually hurting us. Part of what is attracting a lot of outside investment in Vancouver’s real estate market, IMHO, is the extremely low mill rate here. And of course, more investment on limited land means that our housing prices/assessments keep going up, up, and up. Yet the property tax here remains one of the lowest–if not THE lowest in North America.

Here’s another thought.

Since we are building all of these one bedroom highrises, clearly NOT built for families, and we acknowledge that many offshore buyers/investors (not necessarily landed immigrants, who I presume operate under different rules) are purchasing many of these babies, just what is the obligation of those homeowners/investors to the city, province and nation, vis-a-vis kicking in their fair share? I mean, besides the property tax?

If a home property investor doesn’t work here, or have a business here, (and therefore their investment could be considered “speculative”) or doesn’t have landed immigrant status, I assume that that property tax is all that they have to pay? No income tax, for instance?

How about looking at a ” foreign investors residential and commercial property tax” for foreign nationals who do not pay income tax here or who do not run or own a business (exclusive of commercial property, whose taxes are just downloaded on tenant businesses) in the jurisdiction, to help support city services? If they become landed immigrants, I assume they are then subject to some Canadian income tax? It could be a graduated program—once you are in, and paying income tax, your pre-immigration property would not have that tax removed.

Perhaps a modest .5 or 1 per cent on the value of their residential property ? I wonder how many private, non-rentable properties that would entail—and the total value of same?

Or, we all pay a little less income tax, and more property tax. Paying at this rate is robbing the local population of services while driving up the price of residential.

I look forward to hearing from developers and politicians about this suggestion. 🙂

For your general amusement, a very simple Wiki look at “property tax” charges (or “other” taxes on property) around the world: how they are made up, how they are computed. Quite fascinating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax

Oh no, no, no, “. . . posting somewhat against my better judgment . . . ” Oh no, no, no . . . Frances! For God’s sake are we back to this again.

Well, I’ll say this for ya Julia you’re the first to come on this blog with red-hot cojones. Don’t let the addled pant waists bug ya.

Yes Penny is a flake. Yes there’s a C$20M shortfall and when the whiners’ Spandex wears out they’ll clue into the prob: the world wide banking scam.

Jeezless going way back, Art, Mike, Sam all the losers flotsam, jetsam and forgettable Mountebanks, VV, for all its failings, is the best we’ve ever had.

Bike lanes, lots of ’em, for Xzts sake.

Ya got what you’re whining after. Stop defecating in yer leathers and gedda life.

I’m not going to comment on the bike lane today, but I want to talk about grafitti.

According to Julia….”There are $20,000 programs such as graffiti removal and street cleaning that have been cut because there is no money.”

I would invite city staff to advise if this is true, since I, and no doubt many of you have been greatly disturbed by the grafitti that suddenly appreared on the Burrard Bridge Structure, and has remained for at least the past 6 days.

One of the things that Vancouver has done very well over the past few years, especially compared by most international cities, is manage grafitti.

I therefore hope that a city worker will get over to the bridge as soon as it stops raining, and paint over this grafitti. It’s an eyesore, and I’m astounded it has remained for so long. Grafitti leads to more grafitti….let’s manage it.

http://www.straight.com/article-296974/vancouver/city-cuts-graffiti-program
http://vanrj.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/rj-based-anti-graffiti-program-in-vancouver/

gmgw: Granville Street got 2 crossing lights this week after almost 10 years of lobby efforts on behalf of pedestrians. 1 at 15th and 1 at 6th Avenue. Hopefully the cross walk roulette will end.

Check out the upcoming council reports. New bike lanes are heading to Kingsway.

Mezzanine, Businesses don’t go to libraries or skating rinks but business pays for half of their costs. Vancouver residents buy all their services at 50% off. Business picks up the rest.

Instead of taking about business vs. residents we should be talking about spending ALL of our money wisely, so nobody is paying too much.

Simple question – do you want a job in the city where you live… or not.

“Businesses don’t go to libraries or skating rinks but business pays for half of their costs.”

There’s a whole floor of the downtown library devoted to business topics and clearly many business people use the library for research. Ice rinks feature business advertising, and many have ‘beer’ leagues where businesses sponsor employee teams, as a means of enhancing employer/employee relationships (among other goals). Businesses need libraries and ice rinks.

Compared to the traditional ‘company’ town, where the primary employer has to pay the majority of costs for all the local amenities, as a means of attracting and keeping workers, to see that paying half maybe isn’t such a bad deal when it means you have a pool of talented individuals to draw from when you place a help-wanted ad.

We compete with Victoria, Surrey, Burnaby and Richmond.

You overreached by adding Victoria. City of Vancouver residents do not travel to Victoria to buy groceries. Or anything else, other than enjoy a visit.

And the idea that a City of Vancouver resident will commute to Richmond to shop simply because they might save a few dollars from the presumed property tax savings the business might have passed along to the consumer – something which you have NOT supported – rather than shop at the location that is the product of a calculus of convienence v. cost to them. I might travel to Richmond to buy certain things, mostly because those things are not available in Vancouver. I don’t shop for groceries or for 90% of the things I buy from week to week in Richmond. I don’t because any presumed saving – which once again have not been demonstrated as existing – are negated by the fact I have to travel to Richmond. I lose money on gas. I lose my time.

People really should take in what is being argued here by a vocal minority of the business community: They are arguing for permanent, radical changes to the way we operate our City all on a plea of poverty despite enjoying one of the most optimal business climates on the planet. They have enjoyed 10+ years of having the tax burden shifted off them on to the resident. And it’s not enough.

It will never be enough.

Times are currently tough. But I find very dangerous the idea we must remake our conception of local government based on a temporary trough in the business cycle. True, recessions have gotten more severe since the Reagan/Thatcher revolutions, but I would posit this is due to the dismantling of services and regulations government provides, rather than the level of property tax, which is paltry in the grand scheem.. And if you don’t believe this is a temporary trough – well I would posit again the fix lies at a higher level of government than Vancouver’s.

The Granville Bridge in my experience is indeed a white-knuckler. And it has been since 1954. Why has it never been made more pedestrian friendly across all these decades? I don’t know. I could speculate that the amount of pedestrian traffic on the bridge isn’t enough to warrant the cost of fixes. But that’s a guess. And perhaps if the bridge was made safer there would be more users.

But if you are arguing that this should have been a higher priority than “Bike Lane X” then you are buying in to the narrative that despite living in one of the most privileged cities of the world in the wealthiest era of human history, we can no longer afford anything. It’s a false dilemma and it’s encouraged by purveyors of limited government to turn, oh, bike lane advocates against pedestrian advocates against anti-homelessness advocates against…etc.

We could easily afford to do both.

@ Julia: “Vancouver residents buy all their services at 50% off. Business picks up the rest. ”

I would really like to see a full analysis of that done by KPMG in a regional context.

They may conclude that Vancouver’s billion dollar budget reflects the fact suburban municipalities do not pull their weight and Vancouver picks up the slack.

I am a very conservative individual but I wholeheartedly support these bike lanes. The fuss against them is absolutely ridiculous.

COST: Three million of public money for a bike lane is a lot, but how much does the taxpayer get soaked paying out insurance funds for car/bike accidents?

INCONVENIENCE TO BUSINESS: Businesses, suck it up. Construction is normal. What city never temporarily blocks streets for construction?

BAD TIMING: I guess it is a bit ridiculous to be opening this in time for winter. On the other hand, I ride all year round and am not especially hardy or hardcore about cycling. Rain gear is cheap.

LOSS OF PARKING: I shop downtown all the time, but it’s all small portable stuff — gifts, DVDs, lunch, maybe shoes. When I need my car for stuff (e.g. Costco) there is onsite parking. How will loss of spots hurt the businesses? People will either want to go there or not go there whether or not they can park in front of it.

Gee, no one wants to take a shot at my suggestions to raise property taxes?

🙂

MB – City of Vancouver consumption of services report 2007

http://vancouver.ca/taxcommission/pdfs/rpt010507.pdf

of course businesses use fire services, police service etc. and business should pay for them. But should they subsidize the residential share of those same services? And what is a reasonable level of subsidy?

I accept at face value the assertion that Granville Bridge is dangerous for pedestrians and wonder why public safety has not had a higher priority for the traffic engineers if the issue has been on the table for so long.

But as far as cyclists are concerned, if it is that dangerous on Granville Bridge (and I am prepared to believe them) why not use the Burrard Bridge instead (where there is a separated bike lane) and save the taxpayers the extra costs of cycle lanes on the Granville Bridge.

Just a devil’s advocate
-30-

@ IanS

According to this article in the Van Courier, the spike in crashes has to do with car drivers rear-ending each other:

http://www.vancourier.com/Burrard+Bridge+bike+lane+causes+rash+rear+enders/3742181/story.html

Bikes themselves hardly figure in the statistics:

“In the past five years, only 15 of nearly 900 ICBC accident claims at Burrard and Pacific involved a cyclist.”

So, with the number of cyclists having gone up (25-30%), and the number of cyclists admitted to VGH or St. Paul’s being down dramatically (from 4 down to 1), I’d say it’s become a lot safer for cyclists.

@ the 4th Horseman

Sure, I’m all for any change to the tax system which lowers income taxes and raises other types (consumption, property, etc.).

However, in a town like Vancouver that is so heavily dependent on development, it’s going to be a while before we see any political party champion that cause.

@ Morven

As a taxpayer and a cyclist, I’d like to see my tax money used to build the infrastructure I actually use. As Don Cayo pointed out a few weeks back, cyclists have been subsidising automobile infrastructure for decades. It’s about time we tried to find a balance, let alone make up for decades of mis-allocation.

To your question: as you might be aware, what you’re suggesting is quite a detour for anyone whose trip might be shorter by taking Granville rather than Burrard. Especially since cyclists are moving under their own power.

For someone who simply has to push down on a gas pedal, it wouldn’t be much extra effort. Playing the devil’s advocate, maybe it’s car drivers who we should be rerouting? 😉

As someone who has both cycled (once was enough) and walked Granville Bridge, it really is an uncomfortable experience. If at all possible, I avoid it. Luckily, it doesn’t figure amongst the usual routes I take to get downtown. I do feel sorry for those who have to take it on a regular basis.

@Pacpost #47:

You wrote:

“According to this article in the Van Courier, the spike in crashes has to do with car drivers rear-ending each other… Bikes themselves hardly figure in the statistics”

I agree. I merely cited the ICBC statistics as the ONLY available data addressing safety on the bridge since the installation of the separated lane.

You then write:

“So, with the number of cyclists having gone up (25-30%)…”

Actually, according to the City’s numbers, the actual increase from before /after the bike lane is 13.8%. You can check that out on the data published by the City.

“… and the number of cyclists admitted to VGH or St. Paul’s being down dramatically (from 4 down to 1)….”

Is there data to reflect that? Can you point me to it?

“… I’d say it’s become a lot safer for cyclists.”

You might well say that and, who knows, you might even be right. But, to date, there’s no data to support that statement. AFAIK, anyway.