Paying for growth in Medicine Hat

By Medicine Hat News Opinon on April 26, 2018.

Medicine Hat council’s list of priorities for the next four years shows a lot of motherhood and apple pie —items that you couldn’t possibly argue against.

Yet, many of them are holdovers or at least extensions from items on the last list, which the public questioned often and the last council couldn’t stop voting against.

There’s some common ground, of course, on the list that was released in late March.

Optimizing the assets of the gas department and continuing with a flood mitigation strategy shouldn’t cause much consternation.

However, a deeper read finds items that are at crossed purposes, especially to do with land development, and creating so-called “sustainable development.”

A list of 33 items in five general categories, such as “economic vitality” shows changes that will make the city’s land department more and less active at the same time.

That’s no doubt a nod to developers and the business lobby, who don’t like the land department, and conversely, builders, who are happy that city land is available for projects.

There’s the possibility of selling off large tracts of non-strategic land to developers — a move that will no doubt encourage suburban growth.

Meanwhile, the general plan is to arrest growing infrastructure costs with a focus on redeveloping the centre of the city. The older parts of town require millions in infrastructure upgrades that will be hard enough for the existing tax base to shoulder without the prospect on major new spending for utility and road expansions.

The theory is as simple as the math.

Having more people use the same existing, paid-off, water, sewer and road systems lessens the costs. That savings to the individual is multiplied by adding more ratepayers and taxpayers, since the relatively lesser cost is paid for by more people.

Easy, right?

Recent history suggests otherwise.

During the 2012-2017 council term, members consistently shot down zoning changes that would have added higher density housing to older neighbourhoods.

That’s been at the loud requests of neighbours and residents who want their low-density neighbourhoods to remain so, devoid of duplexes, townhouses or apartments.

Conversely, the municipal planning commission heard last month the gist of updates that the city’s long-term development plan should be to encourage adding population density to mature communities, just as it was in the 2012 edition.

However, that’s at odds with a seemingly endless call for the city land department to cut their new subdivison projects into larger (meaning fewer) premium, estate-style lots.

The real estate, development and business community have howled for some time that larger lots is what new home buyers want.

As for new communities, an acre of land divided into 10 lots or 15 is serviced by basically the same amount of water line, roadway, and storm sewers.

Yet, smaller lots, and therefore more houses in the same space, mean more customers to help pay costs of installation — costs that are paid for by the entire community via capacity charges and general fees.

Ah, but don’t bigger lots bring in bigger tax revenue?

A startling example, from the long-term planning document, states that while the Medicine Hat Mall and the downtown core are about the same size geographically, the combined tax bills from the more compact city centre is twice as much or more that the mall’s.

In the final analysis, council’s priorities call for a more even balance to urban versus suburban growth.

One councillor puts it succinctly that the city should concentrate on growth in existing communities without excluding new development on the outer edges.

That, however, could be a recipe for continuing strife between taxpayers and city hall, ratepayers and the utility departments, and the private sector and city’s planning office.