Amenity levies charged to developers, such as CACs,
are ultimately passed on to the buyer – and that’s the wrong approach, argues
housing expert Michael Geller
For years, municipalities across Canada have been struggling
with how best to finance the costs from new development. While Canadians pay a
lot in taxes, only eight cents of each dollar goes to municipalities, generally
in the form of property taxes and fees.
The concept of charging new developments to help finance the
costs association with growth has evolved throughout Metro Vancouver over the
past few decades.
In 2004, Vancouver City Council approved a report entitled
Financing Growth, which identified two revenue sources: Development Cost Levies
(DCLs), which would be charged on all new developments to help pay for roads
and other infrastructure; and Community Amenity Contributions (CACs), which would
be charged to pay for additional amenities such as affordable housing and
childcare, when new development occurs as the result of rezoning.
Financing Growth raised a most important question: Who
really pays these fees?
While the cheque is written by the developer, staff
concluded that neither the developer nor future homebuyers pay. Instead, they
concluded the DCCs and CACs would be paid by the land owner whose property is
being rezoned, since the fees would have a downward pressure on land values.
Neither I, nor most Vancouver urban land economists and
developers, agree with this analysis. Instead, we believe that new purchasers
and tenants ultimately end up paying for these additional fees.
So is this a bad thing? Many would say there is nothing
wrong with a system that charges new residents for the additional services they
consume. While I might agree in principle, there are serious problems with the
City’s approach to financing growth, especially when it results from rezonings.
My concerns relate to both the method of determining the
amount of the CACs, and the concept of burdening new buyers and renters with
these costs.
Rather than charge a CAC based on the cost of providing
services, the City of Vancouver and more recently other Metro municipalities
usually calculate the CAC based on the increased value of the land. As a rule,
they try to collect 75 per cent of the land value increase, either in cash or
in-kind facilities such as childcare facilities or social housing units.
Again, while it may seem like a good idea for municipalities
to share in the land value increase resulting from rezonings, this approach can
lead to unintended consequences.
For one thing, it encourages municipalities to improperly
zone land, so that developers will bring forward rezoning applications for
townhouses or apartments and be required to make CAC payments.
However, if developers do not come forward, the result will
be an insufficient supply of suitably zoned land for certain types of housing,
leading to higher costs.
We are now seeing this happen. In many locations around
Metro Vancouver, new townhouse and apartment developments are very expensive,
since there are so few suitably zoned sites. As an illustration, I cannot think
of any available townhouse sites in either the Westside of Vancouver or West
Vancouver.
Neighbourhood residents should also be concerned with this
approach. When the city receives the major portion of the land value increase
resulting from a rezoning, politicians and officials may be prepared to approve
projects at higher densities than good planning might dictate, knowing the
money can be put to good use. While they deny this would ever happen, I know
otherwise.
New homebuyers and renters should also be concerned with the
current approach since they are effectively paying to fund social housing,
parks and community centres in other parts of their municipality; facilities
that really should be paid for by a broader segment of society, and over time.
Conversely, if rezonings are not approved, there may be
insufficient funds to finance new or upgraded community services. In Vancouver,
most new childcare facilities are built by developers and financed through
rezonings. No rezoning, no childcare. This is no way to plan a city.
So what is the solution?
New developments should be required to offset the costs of
growth, but over time. Rather than the current ad-hoc “let’s make a deal”
approach, municipalities should pre-zone land through a proper comprehensive city
planning process, and impose DCLs and CACs which reflect a portion of the cost
of providing additional services.
While some might fear that “pre-zoning” land will result in
higher taxes, zoning can be designed so that properties are assessed at their
current use, not their future development potential.
We should also look to past practices when new
infrastructure and facilities were financed over time through local improvement
charges and other forms of taxation. We can also learn from other cities which
use bond financing and other approaches to more evenly spread out the costs.
As Metro municipalities consider how best to include greater
housing choices in new and existing neighbourhoods, it is a good time to
reconsider how best to zone land and finance growth.
We desperately need new approaches that will contribute
towards the cost of subsidized housing, affordable childcare and other
amenities, without burdening new buyers and renters with more than their fair
share of these costs.
Michael Geller is an architect, planner, real estate consultant and
developer with more than four decades of experience in the public, private and
institutional sectors. Some of his notable projects include the redevelopment
of the South Shore False Creek, Bayshore in Coal Harbour and UniverCity at SFU.
He is an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University and is an affiliate of
the UBC Masters in Urban Design program. Michael is a well-known commentator on
real estate and housing and an adviser to the City of Vancouver's Affordable
Housing Task Force. He is also a past president of UDI Pacific and UDI Canada, and
has been honoured as a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Planners and a Life
Member of the Architectural Institute of BC.
1 comment:
Michael,
Thanks for this post. Its an important topic that I think doesn't get discussed enough. That said, you have not convinced me. I've read the Coriolis report that addresses this question of whether CAC's increase the cost of housing (as Im sure you have) and I've looked at the BC governments guidebook to CAC's. Both of these documents come to the same conclusion: the cost of housing is set by the market and is based on the supply. In other words, Michael, you would not simply increase the purchase price of a town home you develop because of CAC charges; that price would be based on what the market will pay for it.
Can you please explain further what these two studies have gotten wrong? Thanks!
Daniel
Post a Comment