no tax. only spend.
How does that work again?
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2026
12 points (100.0% liked)
Ottawa
1426 readers
31 users here now
News, events, discussions, and what not from Ottawa, Ontario.
Municipal website: https://ottawa.ca/
Rules
- Be polite and respectful.
- Please only post content relevant to the City of Ottawa or to its residents.
Ottawa on the Fediverse:
Ottawa chatrooms:
-
XMPP: empty
-
Telegram: https://t.me/chatottawa
-
Discord: https://discord.gg/TrCHrucmqJ
Please note the following:
* All chatrooms are linked together. If you join one room your messages will be copied to the other platforms.
* Matrix is an open source and potentially distributed chat protocol. The matrix room listed is hosted on matrix.org, a somewhat centralized hub for a lot of currently public rooms. Though the protocol itself is free, libre and open source, the deployment of the protocol resembles a centralized service. This may be fixed in the future with the deployment of independent servers.
* Be aware that both Telegram and Discord are centralized proprietary platforms and do not necessarily protect your rights nor privacy while simultaneously giving power to corporations.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Ask Ottawa the last 4 years, or Ontario the last... oh I dunno... 20. At least since Dalton "no new taxes" McGuinty.
He already had his chance to fix it, but he crumbled to the whiners about low taxes.
Now would be a perfect time for Leiper to produce an adult tax policy. Unfortunately, he's choosing to consult those same whiners after the election.
The province ought to kick in money if they are limiting development charges but yes, higher property taxes and service rates (water/garbage) are the only sustainable way forward. You can't find "efficiencies" forever.
The province is kicking in money, though. Assuming you're talking about the agreement the province has with cities to reduce development charges by 50%.
My comment was pretty vague but yes, I was referring to the funding for this coming from external sources including the provinces program for lowering DC.
You may be choosing to simplify the description of the program for brevity, but this isn't an agreement to reduce DC by 50%: https://www.ontario.ca/page/development-charge-reduction-program
It's a funding program that needs to be applied to, and the pool of money is handed out based on the criteria on that page.
None of this prevents the province from ordering a municipality to lower their DCs based on their whims. That's a fear in the municipal asset management world throughout the country: capacity upgrades have been delayed and delayed to keep spending down, and with the push for housing the provinces are targeting DCs and are like, "too bad lol".
Eta: I would encourage people to read this: https://www.calgary.ca/emergencies/feeder-main-repair/bearspaw-feeder-main-independent-review.html
Well... I mean... we are kind of in the midst of a housing crisis, among others.
I don't understand what this means?
It means, development charges aren't getting houses built, and we're in a housing crisis to go along with the cost of living crisis, health care crisis, etc etc that we're in. Something's gotta give, or we'll see an increasing homelessness crisis. I'm all for a better alternative, but as a society we're also allergic to increasing taxes.
Okay, I see.
I think we have a fundamentally different understanding of DCs and I'm not sure either is 100% correct because it's not a simple problem.
The DC is a charge to the developer. They are profiting from the improvements to the land that the municipality does, so this is a cost recovery for the investment the municipality did. If, for example, your municipality was building a sewer to your area you as the homeowner would have to pay for the connection on your land. This, in turn, increases the value of your property.
It's effectively an incentive to the developer to build in areas where it doesn't cost them as much to build, maximizing profits. There is no mechanism to force a decrease in house prices or rent. If the municipality charged the purchaser directly, then it would lower costs to them, but the infrastructure needs to be built whether individual homes sell or not so that's not a great method.
This is going to make the infrastructure gap worse. Municipalities won't be able to attract developers if they are charging appropriate DCs, so they will be forced to lower the DC and either raise taxes and/or utility rates and fees to keep things running and build for expansion. Or they won't build for expansion and just cross their fingers.
If you read the Bearspaw feeder report you can see that Calgary was putting off expansion because of all the capacity savings the trend towards water saving devices gained. Those days are over. Municipalities all over the country are hiting this hard capacity wall and they have to build. But because of the direction the province is taking with DCs and overriding rejected development applications (because of infrastructure limits) we are all going to suffer so that developers can make more money.
I don't have the solution to the housing crisis but I don't think it's "entice developers by making it more profitable to develop in your areas while redlining your infrastructure".
The solution is raise taxes, but people's heads explode when that gets brought up. And no, not "tax the suburbs more". Taxes don't work like that. So the core doesn't vote for increased taxes because they don't want to subsidize the suburbs (they don't), and the suburbs don't vote for increased taxes because the taxes they already pay aren't getting them the infrastructure they need.
Take some of the rural parts of Ottawa, for example. They pay the same residential taxes as you or I, and their infrastructure absolutely sucks. However, they pay lower fees for things like transit. The logic is, because they have little or no access to transit, they should pay little or no transit fees. No. Charge the transit fees, and get transit built. And then increase the damn taxes to pay for the rest of the infrastructure.
We're on the same page for sure, but I do want to flag that the City of Ottawa has special levy areas where they do charge more taxes to cover hyper local costs. The easiest way to see this is the GeoOttawa overlay layers on the topic (under misc > property taxation boundaries)
Looks like there is just one right now but I know I've heard of more, maybe they are just in planning?
They also have DCs specific to rural transit! GeoOttwa is one of the best municipal GIS I've seen tbh.
This goes back to the idea of DC paying for growth and taxes/rates laying for operation and renewal/replacement.
But yes, we need to stop kicking the can down the road and start paying the actual costs of maintaining our infrastructure.
I know the special areas you're talking about, but those aren't typically applied to all of, for example, Nepean or Barhaven or Kanata. For example, Alta Vista used a special levy zone to pay for an arena. The various BIAs are under special levy zones that pay for things those zones need, like marketing. The Centretown BIA is one such rate. A similar rate used to apply to ByWard, before the BMDA was formed and it became a municipal corporation.
Also: Transit is also a specific levy on your property taxes. In rural Ottawa, that levy is lower than it is downtown. Since people who have lived there for 30 years would probably use transit as frequenty as people who've lived there for 30 minutes if transit was available, we should try increasing that and making transit available.
I think I'm following, but a few clarifications:
BIA levies only apply to member businesses, but yes I get the analogy.
I mentioned the transit DC specifically, because under the current way the long range financial plan (LRFP) is set up the DC is intended to fund the growth of the transit service to the area whereas the property tax levy is to fund operations and maintain the current level of service. It makes sense it's less in the rural area now while the level of service is lower.
DCs need to be backed by studies and plans, which are subject to provincial scrutiny and approval if I am remembering correctly.
It might be easier to pivot to finding growth via property tax levies (which is what I think you are suggesting) but I don't know the details of what it takes to change the LRFP, but I imagine the province isn't going to jump in an say they need to lower taxes. Because that doesn't help developers 😉
I'd personally love to see Ottawa increase rural transit, it's been a real treat to be able to drive to the southern end and take the train in 🚇
(Eta: I hope this doesn't come across as arguing, I am just excited to discuss Ontario municipal structure lol)
I mentioned the transit DC specifically, because under the current way the long range financial plan (LRFP) is set up the DC is intended to fund the growth of the transit service to the area whereas the property tax levy is to fund operations and maintain the current level of service. It makes sense it’s less in the rural area now while the level of service is lower.
It really doesn't, though, if the goal is to actually bring transit to the area. Because as evidenced by the current state of suburban/rural areas of Ottawa, the DCs aren't actually doing what they're supposed to. That's why transit still sucks in too many places today.
DCs need to be backed by studies and plans, which are subject to provincial scrutiny and approval if I am remembering correctly.
You are indeed remembering correctly. The problem is Ontario can also shape what those DCs look like, hence the various programs we're talking about like the DCRP. Which is why Ottawa should be pursuing ways to do the same thing through increased taxes.
It might be easier to pivot to finding growth via property tax levies (which is what I think you are suggesting) but I don’t know the details of what it takes to change the LRFP, but I imagine the province isn’t going to jump in an say they need to lower taxes. Because that doesn’t help developers 😉
This may be where I need to double check my own memory, but I don't think Ottawa needs provincial approval to set and adjust its property taxes. So if, for example, Ottawa decides that taxes absolutely need to be at 5% to catch up on the city's backlog, Ontario doesn't care. But of course that requires Ottawa to say taxes need to be 5%. McKenny lost for saying 3.
I’d personally love to see Ottawa increase rural transit, it’s been a real treat to be able to drive to the southern end and take the train in 🚇
Transit city-wide needs an overhaul, including the train, IMO. I'm not rural, but any trip that involves the train is going to involve a bus first, if it shows up properly. I would happily pay more in property taxes to see that fixed. It's certainly not gonna be fixed with Sutcliffe's 2.5%.
Your reply triggered me to read the Transit Master Plan amendments to support DCs and yikes lol. Can you tell my professional experience in municipal asset management is in a different sector? 😅
For other nerds:
The 2024 Provisional DC Study included the growth-related capital needs associated with Public Transit in the City. Public Transit is calculated on a city-wide level and is not differentiated by area.
You have public sector asset management experience? I just fix computers. Well, and live amidst Ottawa's shitshow.
Didn't mean that as a flex, more like a self criticism for assuming shit.
Ottawa is a unique place. Good luck out there lol
Oh, I absolutely didn't see that as a flex. In fact I kinda hoped your experience might catch something I missed. If anything I'm disappointed - in the city, not you.
I’m pretty annoyed that this election is going to “more garbage bins, no improvements”
This city needs some ambition. Look at Mamdani, why the hell can’t we have that!?
They have a different system, the mayor has a lot more power.
For the same reason NYC won't have that in 4 years. Though I agree we can do better than the current crop.
We really should start making our politicians sign legally binding contracts, instead of letting them "pledge" to do things they have no intention of doing.
Come up with a real plan, that actually works by the numbers, and sign a contract to get it done.
I don't see how that would be enforceable at any level, as I can't think of a plan that is without the need for external cooperation.
Municipal politics is especially challenging for an idea like this. Municipalities operate under rules the province sets. That's how they were able to remap wards and change the number of councillors in Toronto, for example. Strong Mayor powers are extremely limited, given to a few cities, and are designed to make it easier for cities to push forward the goals of the province despite local opposition.
Further, but more of a personal opinion, I don't think candidates (especially municipal, especially if not incumbent) know enough to make effective plans. It's one thing to view from the outside, but without access to the staff who have all the history and supporting documentation, it's just not realistic.
See, in order to actually do it, you rework the entire system top to bottom.
If politicians are in legally binding contracts, they won't be lying to all of us constantly.
The entire idea requires a completely different system than we have, with the existing system, they just lie with impunity, or were "wrong" about a subject they pushed, and see no negative effects of that at all. You or I do that at our jobs, and we're fired.
If you're suggesting that you simply cannot hold public officials to their word, because reasons that just isn't good enough. That's just acknowledging that we're letting them lie to the citizenry with no consequences at all.
If they're found to be corrupt, arrest and jail them. What we do now is abhorrent when it comes to the political class lying with impunity.
Respectfully, I think you are giving municipal politicians too much credit.
Do they promise things they have zero power to achieve? Yes, absolutely. I would like to see better understanding of how municipalities operate so that people can see through that. And to understand wording like "work towards" and "advance" and being super vague because he can't promise to actually do much.
If you're suggesting that you simply cannot hold public officials to their word, because reasons that just isn't good enough. That's just acknowledging that we're letting them lie to the citizenry with no consequences at all.
I'm saying he's not actually promising much if anything, because he can't do much, if anything. I can be more specific, if you'd like. Here is his plan: https://marksutcliffe.ca/priorities/infrastructure I will focus on what he can do, not whether it's a good idea.
Promises that involve asking staff to look at things and make recommendations (that they might already be doing, I don't know Ottawa that well) or directing them to work with others:
I will expand the application of a climate lens for infrastructure investments
Through analysis and community consultation, I will identify Ottawa’s worst intersections and will fix the 50 worst.
Roads in many local communities and former municipalities, such as Nepean, are more than 20 years old. I will develop a dedicated funding stream for improving aging local roads throughout rural, urban, and suburban Ottawa.
I will work with the federal and provincial governments to secure major investments, such as the $4 billion upload of the LRT and the start of LRT Phase 3 to Kanata, Stittsville, and Barrhaven.
Ottawa should have a downtown core that reflects the greatness of Canada. By addressing intersections and nodes that hinder this key area, we can bring a true national capital experience closer to visitors, residents and commuters. I will advance the redevelopment of Rideau Street and Sussex Drive by rationalizing traffic flow, promoting pedestrian accessibility and prioritizing public safety.
I will modernize and undertake a full reform of infrastructure procurement and planning to deliver infrastructure more quickly and thoughtfully. We will examine how much infrastructure costs in Ottawa compared to other municipalities to ensure that we are getting the best value for money possible on our investments.
(My popcorn is READY for this one.)
To advance this new strategy, I will create a new Parks and Recreation Committee of Council, ensuring that capital, operating, and planning decisions regarding City parks and recreational centres are properly considered, coordinated, and consulted on with members of the community.
We will also explore new revenue sources to help offset debt costs, including naming rights, advertising strategies on both municipal sites and through by-law changes that permit digital signage in more locations city-wide subject to municipal fees, and mixed-use redevelopment on sites that can support it while retaining or enhancing existing community uses.
Promises that require others who he has no power over to agree to do
Before communities are built, I will ensure infrastructure like roundabouts, traffic lights, and sidewalks are constructed prior to residents moving in. I will ensure that the infrastructure is built prior to homes being built by leveraging front ending agreements.
I will work with the provincial government to move forward quickly on the Ring Road, creating the conditions to remove trucks from Manotick and surrounding communities, as well as lower congestion on the 417 and truck traffic in the downtown core.
I will ensure we receive our fair share of infrastructure investment from other levels of government, as I have successfully done in my first term.
Promises that depend on things outside of his control, like availability of engineering and construction contractors, regulatory approvals, etc.
Before communities are built, I will ensure infrastructure like roundabouts, traffic lights, and sidewalks are constructed prior to residents moving in. I will ensure that the infrastructure is built prior to homes being built by leveraging front ending agreements.
Through analysis and community consultation, I will identify Ottawa’s worst intersections and will fix the 50 worst.
Through the $10-billion infrastructure plan, I will rapidly expedite the speed at which this renewal work is undertaken so that a full municipal renewal is completed by 2033.
Promises to do with the budget, which he has a lot of power over but cannot unilaterally set (if 2/3 vote to override his veto he's SOL)
I will invest $500 million by 2030 to develop 1,000 kilometres of new or resurfaced traffic lanes, inclusive of new roads, widenings, and restoration work to ensure commutes are safe, fast, and frustration-free. This includes a $50-million increase in rural road funding, compared to the 2022-2026 term of Council.
I will ensure that funding is provided or construction is started on at least four new community or recreation complexes, with at least one located in every region of the city, including the Barrhaven Civic Centre, a new facility at Confederation Heights, and a new facility in Vanier.
I will find another $250 million in savings and efficiencies over the next four years, as I did over the last four years. These measures allow us to invest without asking local families to pay more.
Promises he has a single vote towards, i.e. approving the award of contracts
I will prioritize infrastructure investments in communities where flood risks are present, moving quickly to upgrade infrastructure to improve resilience against future extreme weather events.
I will advance priority transportation infrastructure projects that ease traffic. This will include new roads, widening existing arteries, and adding new traffic signals and roundabouts.
I will also prioritize $1.3 billion of expedited new bus rapid transit or dedicated bus lane projects.
I will ensure that funding is shifted toward “missing links” in our network for sidewalks and multi-use pathways that are used as routes for kids to get to school, such as the sidewalk on Church Street in North Gower.
Ottawa should have a downtown core that reflects the greatness of Canada. By addressing intersections and nodes that hinder this key area, we can bring a true national capital experience closer to visitors, residents and commuters. I will advance the redevelopment of Rideau Street and Sussex Drive by rationalizing traffic flow, promoting pedestrian accessibility and prioritizing public safety.
Things that aren't promises, but statements of what is currently planned.
Over the next four years, $500 million is prioritized for investments in infrastructure that make our communities stronger in the face of extreme weather, such as the heavy rain events that caused flooding. This will include upgraded storm sewers, ditch enhancements, and more. Priority will be given to addressing infrastructure gaps in flood-prone communities as guided by expert recommendations.
Over the next 10 years, there is over $400 million worth of renewal work across all our city recreational facilities, representing roughly 6,000 projects.
To fund this effort, a mix of parkland dedication and unlocked cash in-lieu of parkland will be advanced. New parks will include a mix of new dog parks, new central / district parks, parkettes and urban “third spaces”, fully revitalized parks in existing communities, new parks in communities with fewer existing amenities
I hope this helps. I think the public needs to stop thinking of municipal politicians as people who can promise results and instead look to what they say they will prioritize and support.
That'll never fly. It should, but you'd need a politician to agree to that. Good luck.