Digging Deeper - Taproot Survey

Cities are my passion as the way they are designed and built fundamentally impacts our daily lives. Given this, I always find it perplexing that voter turnout in municipal elections is usually so low - typically less than a third of eligible voters take part. I know from talking to residents across the ward that one of the biggest obstacles to participating is the challenge of sorting through the range of candidates on the ballot. 

As such, I’m so grateful to the folks at Taproot for putting together such an impressive and in-depth candidate survey as part of their People’s Agenda initiative. This is a great effort to provide voters with a tool to connect with campaigns that reflect their values. I was pleased to take part in this survey, but there were six questions I didn’t feel I could do justice to in a multiple choice survey. I wanted to take this space to provide further information about my perspectives on those issues.

Question 2

Rather than focusing on more or less resources for different local and global initiatives, I think the most important role the City can take in economic diversification is to reduce barriers to businesses starting up. This includes things like the work I did to remove minimum parking requirements that prevented businesses from opening, and moving to form based zoning so that commercial buildings can be used more flexibly.  I’d also like to see the City come to the table with different incentives to attract international business here, including things like tax deferrals for the first five years after a new company has invested in Edmonton. This small upfront opportunity cost more than pays for itself with ongoing property taxes that we would have otherwise missed out on entirely. Our ability to diversify economically is also hugely dependent on our ability to coordinate within our region. We need to continue working collaboratively with our regional neighbours to avoid undercutting each other and by harmonizing regulations across the region to simplify permitting processes.

Rather than focusing on more or less resources for different local and global initiatives, I think the most important role the City can take in economic diversification is to reduce barriers to businesses starting up. This includes things like the work I did to remove minimum parking requirements that prevented businesses from opening, and moving to form based zoning so that commercial buildings can be used more flexibly.  

I’d also like to see the City come to the table with different incentives to attract international business here, including things like tax deferrals for the first five years after a new company has invested in Edmonton. This small upfront opportunity cost more than pays for itself with ongoing property taxes that we would have otherwise missed out on entirely. Our ability to diversify economically is also hugely dependent on our ability to coordinate within our region. We need to continue working collaboratively with our regional neighbours to avoid undercutting each other and by harmonizing regulations across the region to simplify permitting processes.

Question 7

The City’s limited ability to raise revenue is a major issue that’s been exacerbated by changes in municipal funding from the Provincial government. Developing an updated Fiscal Framework for Edmonton is a key priority and an initiative that I would champion. I also believe there are inefficiencies in how the City spends resources, particularly in contracting out various services and through a lack of coordination between different departments and external partners.But I think the greatest fiscal challenge is our growth patterns. Suburban development creates enormous costs for the City, both in terms of upfront capital for facilities like fire halls and libraries, as well as long term maintenance and replacement costs for infrastructure like roads and sewers. We can’t achieve fiscal sustainability while continuing to grow like we have.

The City’s limited ability to raise revenue is a major issue that’s been exacerbated by changes in municipal funding from the Provincial government. Developing an updated Fiscal Framework for Edmonton is a key priority and an initiative that I would champion. I also believe there are inefficiencies in how the City spends resources, particularly in contracting out various services and through a lack of coordination between different departments and external partners.

But I think the greatest fiscal challenge is our growth patterns. Suburban development creates enormous costs for the City, both in terms of upfront capital for facilities like fire halls and libraries, as well as long term maintenance and replacement costs for infrastructure like roads and sewers. We can’t achieve fiscal sustainability while continuing to grow like we have.

Question 8

The question of revenue split is an important one, and goes even further than residences versus commercial. The ‘residences’ portion of tax revenue includes two categories - residences that are typically owner occupied and those that are owned by commercial landlords, such as apartment buildings or even affordable housing providers like the organization I work for. This second group has its own tax rate under ‘other residential’ and it has seen greater tax increases than other residences in recent years. This cost is typically passed on to renters, creating an imbalance between the implications of property taxes for Edmontonians depending on whether they own or rent their home. This is a major issue and has a direct impact on the affordability of rent, and is something I think needs to be re-balanced in coming years. In terms of the breakdown between residences overall and commercial properties, I believe there needs to be a balance between the two but the way we currently discuss and measure these contributions can create a lot of confusion. For example, the total amount of taxes the City collects from residences can go up but if the value of your property has gone down, you will actually pay lower taxes. Similarly, the total amount of tax collected from the commercial levy can grow while individual businesses pay less because there are more businesses overall who are contributing. I think it’s important to understand and communicate the finer grained implications of tax rates by looking at the proportion of properties who see an increase or decrease in their tax bill, rather than an overall average increase. This could help clarify how changes in the amount of taxes collected impact the majority of homeowners, commercial landlords, and businesses, and help City Council make better informed decisions about how tax collection should be balanced between these parties.

The question of revenue split is an important one, and goes even further than residences versus commercial. The ‘residences’ portion of tax revenue includes two categories - residences that are typically owner occupied and those that are owned by commercial landlords, such as apartment buildings or even affordable housing providers like the organization I work for. This second group has its own tax rate under ‘other residential’ and it has seen greater tax increases than other residences in recent years. This cost is typically passed on to renters, creating an imbalance between the implications of property taxes for Edmontonians depending on whether they own or rent their home. This is a major issue and has a direct impact on the affordability of rent, and is something I think needs to be re-balanced in coming years.

In terms of the breakdown between residences overall and commercial properties, I believe there needs to be a balance between the two but the way we currently discuss and measure these contributions can create a lot of confusion. For example, the total amount of taxes the City collects from residences can go up but if the value of your property has gone down, you will actually pay lower taxes. Similarly, the total amount of tax collected from the commercial levy can grow while individual businesses pay less because there are more businesses overall who are contributing. I think it’s important to understand and communicate the finer grained implications of tax rates by looking at the proportion of properties who see an increase or decrease in their tax bill, rather than an overall average increase. This could help clarify how changes in the amount of taxes collected impact the majority of homeowners, commercial landlords, and businesses, and help City Council make better informed decisions about how tax collection should be balanced between these parties.

Question 9

For me, there’s no magic number, it’s rather a question of how effectively staff resources are being used. In fact, I believe there’s a distinct risk around linking the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position with organizational efficiency, as this current approach is currently having the opposite effect. In my time working at the City, there was a near-perpetual hiring freeze in order to keep FTEs down. Yet this didn’t mean that no one was hired - it simply meant there was a proliferation of short term contracts, typically 11-months long. Not only does this approach remove job security, it creates significant administrative inefficiency. This is how chasing numbers takes us away from informed and effective decision making. We need to be clear in how many resources are needed and commit to that service level.

For me, there’s no magic number, it’s rather a question of how effectively staff resources are being used. In fact, I believe there’s a distinct risk around linking the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position with organizational efficiency, as this current approach is currently having the opposite effect. In my time working at the City, there was a near-perpetual hiring freeze in order to keep FTEs down. Yet this didn’t mean that no one was hired - it simply meant there was a proliferation of short term contracts, typically 11-months long. Not only does this approach remove job security, it creates significant administrative inefficiency. This is how chasing numbers takes us away from informed and effective decision making. We need to be clear in how many resources are needed and commit to that service level.

Question 12

Encampments represent a failure of our system to provide safe, permanent, and affordable housing to everyone who needs it. Leaving encampments unchecked creates disruption for surrounding residents and businesses, and can have a significant ecological impact when located in the ravine and river valley system. At the same time, breaking encampments down without any housing alternatives further marginalizes the individuals living there by destroying their belongings and leaving them with even less security. I fully agree that response to encampments must be housing focused and compassionate, but I don’t think the current strategy is being implemented to successfully achieve these outcomes. Due to a lack of resources, there seems to be reactive cycle, rather than a proactive approach. Currently, encampments seem to be left for a period of time with all the incumbent impacts to surrounding properties. Then a certain breaking point is hit, encampments are forcibly removed with police involvement and, because of the large number of people displaced all at once, the housing system can’t absorb all these individuals, leaving them with no housing alternatives. This approach simply displaces, rather than solves, the issue. As an alternative, I’d like to commit greater resources to provide permanent outreach teams for areas of frequent encampments, for example around Dawson Park in Riverdale. These teams would be deployed on a daily basis and would help meet the needs of surrounding residents by providing a single point of contact, and taking the onus of reporting maintenance and clean up requirements away from residents. These teams could also address clear and present dangers in the camps (such as propane tanks and needles), and thoroughly clean up sites as people are moved into permanent housing. These teams can also watch for criminal activity and bring in police when intervention is necessary. Outreach teams would be equally responsible for meeting the needs of residents in encampments by building relationships and connecting them with services. This ongoing approach would more likely be successful in transitioning people into permanent housing by both creating trust and avoiding overwhelming the housing system. Groups like NiGiNan Housing Ventures are having tremendous success with this model and I would love to see it expanded further. Not only would this approach more effectively deal with encampments, it would save considerable costs associated with frequent deployment of fire rescue services, police, and clean-up services. While we can certainly improve our response to encampments, what we ultimately need is more bridge, permanent supportive, and affordable housing. You can read more on my thoughts of how we do this on my housing blog.

Encampments represent a failure of our system to provide safe, permanent, and affordable housing to everyone who needs it. Leaving encampments unchecked creates disruption for surrounding residents and businesses, and can have a significant ecological impact when located in the ravine and river valley system. At the same time, breaking encampments down without any housing alternatives further marginalizes the individuals living there by destroying their belongings and leaving them with even less security.

I fully agree that response to encampments must be housing focused and compassionate, but I don’t think the current strategy is being implemented to successfully achieve these outcomes. Due to a lack of resources, there seems to be reactive cycle, rather than a proactive approach. Currently, encampments seem to be left for a period of time with all the incumbent impacts to surrounding properties. Then a certain breaking point is hit, encampments are forcibly removed with police involvement and, because of the large number of people displaced all at once, the housing system can’t absorb all these individuals, leaving them with no housing alternatives. This approach simply displaces, rather than solves, the issue.

As an alternative, I’d like to commit greater resources to provide permanent outreach teams for areas of frequent encampments, for example around Dawson Park in Riverdale. These teams would be deployed on a daily basis and would help meet the needs of surrounding residents by providing a single point of contact, and taking the onus of reporting maintenance and clean up requirements away from residents. These teams could also address clear and present dangers in the camps (such as propane tanks and needles), and thoroughly clean up sites as people are moved into permanent housing. These teams can also watch for criminal activity and bring in police when intervention is necessary. Outreach teams would be equally responsible for meeting the needs of residents in encampments by building relationships and connecting them with services. This ongoing approach would more likely be successful in transitioning people into permanent housing by both creating trust and avoiding overwhelming the housing system. Groups like NiGiNan Housing Ventures are having tremendous success with this model and I would love to see it expanded further. Not only would this approach more effectively deal with encampments, it would save considerable costs associated with frequent deployment of fire rescue services, police, and clean-up services.

While we can certainly improve our response to encampments, what we ultimately need is more bridge, permanent supportive, and affordable housing. You can read more on my thoughts of how we do this on my housing blog.

Question 13

I struggled to answer this question because I felt more clarity in the context description was needed, mainly as City Council doesn't approve variances but rather approves rezonings. As a city planner, this is an important distinction to me! In general, I have definitely seen an issue of existing plans being amended in a piecemeal way. This erodes trust in planning processes and spot amendments (where a plan is amended for only one property rather than holistically) takes away from the comprehensive approach that plans are meant to provide. One issue has been that these neighbourhood based plans have not been updated as new overarching policies have come into place. I’m excited for the new district planning process which has the opportunity to create area-specific plans that are aligned with City Plan. In terms of overall pattern of zoning decisions, I think there’s been inconsistency in decision making at the Council level. For example, some small scale projects to allow a handful of row houses haven’t been allowed, even though this type of missing middle development is incredibly important for providing housing options in our mature neighbourhoods. At the same time, very high scale development has been permitted, even when little direct benefit to the community has been demonstrated. I’m also concerned with the proliferation of Direct Control (DC2) zones that have been permitted, which are cumbersome tools that don't adapt well over time. Part of the issue has been that we haven’t had good standard zones. I’m really excited for Zoning Bylaw Renewal, a project I helped kick-start while at the City, that will update our standard zones to meet our current policies. Getting standard zones right will enable much more predictable outcomes in the rezoning process and fewer of the one-offs that we’ve been seeing. When requests are made above and beyond what the standard zones provide for, I think Community Amenity Contributions are a good tool to ensure effective value capture. I also support a density bonus approach which can provide more development opportunity in exchange for certain project features. The new RA9 zone is a good example of this: in exchange for extra height, the project is required to provide a certain proportion of three or more bedroom units. This type of strategy can balance the need to create financially viable projects while ensure we achieve other community priorities - like having more family-sized units in Downtown and Oliver.

I struggled to answer this question because I felt more clarity in the context description was needed, mainly as City Council doesn't approve variances but rather approves rezonings. As a city planner, this is an important distinction to me!

In general, I have definitely seen an issue of existing plans being amended in a piecemeal way. This erodes trust in planning processes and spot amendments (where a plan is amended for only one property rather than holistically) takes away from the comprehensive approach that plans are meant to provide. One issue has been that these neighbourhood based plans have not been updated as new overarching policies have come into place. I’m excited for the new district planning process which has the opportunity to create area-specific plans that are aligned with City Plan.

In terms of overall pattern of zoning decisions, I think there’s been inconsistency in decision making at the Council level. For example, some small scale projects to allow a handful of row houses haven’t been allowed, even though this type of missing middle development is incredibly important for providing housing options in our mature neighbourhoods. At the same time, very high scale development has been permitted, even when little direct benefit to the community has been demonstrated.

I’m also concerned with the proliferation of Direct Control (DC2) zones that have been permitted, which are cumbersome tools that don't adapt well over time. Part of the issue has been that we haven’t had good standard zones. I’m really excited for Zoning Bylaw Renewal, a project I helped kick-start while at the City, that will update our standard zones to meet our current policies. Getting standard zones right will enable much more predictable outcomes in the rezoning process and fewer of the one-offs that we’ve been seeing. When requests are made above and beyond what the standard zones provide for, I think Community Amenity Contributions are a good tool to ensure effective value capture. I also support a density bonus approach which can provide more development opportunity in exchange for certain project features. The new RA9 zone is a good example of this: in exchange for extra height, the project is required to provide a certain proportion of three or more bedroom units. This type of strategy can balance the need to create financially viable projects while ensure we achieve other community priorities - like having more family-sized units in Downtown and Oliver.