Business
In a highly unusual move, Red Deer County Mayor Jim Wood writes a letter to everyone in the Red Deer region
Letter submitted by Mayor Jim Wood, Red Deer County
City of Red Deer Economic Climate
To the residents, business owners and elected officials of the Red Deer region.
I am writing this letter on behalf of Red Deer County Council, in the spirit of cooperation among those of us elected to lead this region into the 2020s. This letter also comes as a response to a recent submission from the Red Deer Chamber of Commerce that indicated the City of Red Deer was a poor supporter of their business community.
I happen to believe that we are all in a better position to move forward when we work together. As the saying goes, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” This is certainly true when it comes to the local economy we rely on for goods, services, and employment.
In my 15 years on Council – the last 9 as Mayor – I have had countless dealings with the City regarding all kinds of matters. Overall, the relationship has been extremely positive. We collaborate with the City on crucial issues such as regional water and sewer services, and partner with them on many shared boards such as the Red Deer Regional Airport, Westerner Park, Family and Community Support Services, Central Alberta Economic Partnership and Access Prosperity. The County and City have also worked in conjunction on funding requests for the Canadian Finals Rodeo and the Canada Winter Games. In addition, we have participated together in regional lobbying in relation to our local College, Hospital and Courthouse.
I would like to point out that the Red Deer City and County Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) has been in effect for 13 years and has provided for a mutually beneficial relationship. As you read this, we are beginning the process for our mandated Intermunicipal Collaborative Framework (ICF), and I anticipate this will be a very smooth process as well.
Much has been made in the press about City businesses leaving for other jurisdictions such as Gasoline Alley. Red Deer County does not actively ‘poach’ businesses from the City, and we do not see Gasoline Alley or the New Junction 42 Partnership Rest Area as being in direct conflict with Red Deer Economic Development. To put it simply, different businesses have different needs. Some needs can be best managed in a City environment, and some are best met outside an urban setting. Ultimately, business chooses the best location for success. Regardless of the municipality, business growth in central Alberta provides important jobs for the region.
I have read that 90 new businesses opened in Red Deer over the last two years. This statistic points to the overall health and resiliency of our regional economy. As for the downtown area, Red Deer County recognizes that most cities struggle with downtown development; every modern urban environment goes through transition stages.
In closing, I hope that we all continue to work together to foster a welcoming business environment in the Red Deer region. I know that working together to attract and retain jobs is a far more effective use of our time than creating a divisive and hostile climate among the leaders of our community.
Yours truly,
Mayor Jim Wood
Red Deer County
Business
The Snack Attack: Are Major Food Brands Making Kids Addicted?
By Christof Plothe, DO
A lawsuit has just dropped that could send shockwaves through your pantry.
Eleven major food manufacturers including Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, and Nestlé are accused of engineering their ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to be downright addictive, while marketing these tasty ‘treats’ directly to our kids. Sounds like a plot twist right out of a movie, doesn’t it?
The drama unfolds in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, where a brave plaintiff, Bryce Martinez, claims that his exposure to these sugary, salty foods led him to develop type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at the tender age of 16. As his complaint states, “Due to Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff regularly, frequently, and chronically ingested their UPF, which caused him to contract Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.”
The lawsuit draws comparisons to the notorious marketing tactics of ‘big tobacco’. Public health expert Carlos Monteiro, who coined the term UPF, is sounding the alarm, saying that food companies are using the same underhanded strategies to hook kids on their products. With the food industry reportedly spending a staggering $2 billion each year to market these processed foods to children, it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow.
The lawsuit, which includes Conagra Brands among the accused, alleges that these companies are not just selling food, they are selling addiction. Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, and others were approached for comment but have remained tight-lipped about the allegations.
A plateful of addictive substances
We’re talking about a food landscape in the U.S. where 73% of what’s on the plate is ultra-processed. This isn’t just a health concern for adults; studies show that a whopping 67% of American children’s diets are made up of these foods, with many displaying signs of addiction.
As this legal battle heats up, we might just witness a seismic shift in how these companies advertise their products. Could we see warning labels on our favorite snacks? Or maybe a complete overhaul of their marketing strategies? Only time will tell!
Stay tuned, because this is one story that’s just getting started and with the changes in the US health politics that seem to be in the pipeline, we see a “better way” for the health of our children.
Sources:
https://www.
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/
If you find value in our work and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.
Business
Solving the Housing Affordability Crisis With This One Cool Trick
As you’ll soon see, local and provincial governments – if they were so inspired – could drop the purchase price on new homes by 20 percent. Before breakfast.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It’s all about taxes and fees. This post will focus mostly on taxes and fees as they apply to new construction of relatively expensive detached homes. But the basic ideas will apply to all homes – and will also impact rentals.
Here are some estimated numbers to chew on. Scenarios based on varying permutations and combinations will produce different results, but I think this example will be a good illustration.
Let’s say that a developer purchases a single residential plot in Toronto for $1.4 million. In mature midtown neighborhoods, that figure is hardly uncommon. The plan is to build an attractive single family home and then sell it on the retail market.
Here are some estimates of the costs our developer will currently face:
- Construction costs on a 2,000 sq. ft. home (@ $350/sq. ft.): $700,000
- Land transfer taxes on the initial land purchase: $35,000
- Development fees: $100,000
- Permits and zoning/site approvals: $40,000
Total direct development costs would therefore come to $875,000. Of course, that’s besides the $1.4 million purchase price for the land which would bring our new running total to $2,275,000.
We’ll also need to account for the costs of regulatory delays. Waiting for permits, approvals, and environmental assessments can easily add a full year to the project. Since nothing can begin until the developer has legal title to the property, he’ll likely be paying interest for a mortgage representing 80 percent of the purchase price (i.e., $1,120,000). Even assuming a reasonable rate, that’ll add another $60,000 in carrying charges. Which will bring us to $2,335,000.
And don’t forget lawyers and consultants. They also have families to feed! Professional guidance for navigating through the permit and assessment system can easily cost a developer another $25,000.
That’s not an exhaustive list, by the way. To keep things simple, I left out Toronto’s Parkland Dedication Fee which, for residential developments, can range from 5 to 20 percent of the land value. And the Education Development Charges imposed by school boards was also ignored.
So assuming everything goes smoothly – something that’s far from given – that’ll give us a total development cost of $2,360,000. To ensure compensation for the time, work, investments, and considerable risks involved, our developer is unlikely to want to sell the home for less than $2,700,000.
But various governments are still holding their hands out. When the buyers sign an agreement of purchase, they’ll be on the hook for land transfer taxes and – since it’s a new house – HST. Ontario and Toronto will want about four percent ($108,000) for the transfer (even though they both just cashed in on the very same transfer tax for the very same land at the start of the process). And, even taking into account both the federal and Ontario rebates, getting the keys to the front door will require handing over another $327,000 for HST.
Here’s how development fee schedules currently look in Toronto:
And here’s a breakdown of the land transfer taxes assessed against anyone buying land:
In our hypothetical case, those fees would give us a total, all-in purchase price of $3,135,000. How much of that is due to government involvement (including associated legal and interest fees)? Around $695,000.
That’s $695,000 our buyers will pay – over and above the actual costs of land and construction. Or, in other words, a 22 percent markup.
Let’s put this a different way. If the cost of the median home in Canada dropped by 22 percent, then around 1.5 million extra Canadian households could enter the market. Congratulations, you’ve solved the housing affordability crisis. (Although supply problems will still need some serious work.)
Now it’s probably not realistic to expect politicians in places like the Ontario Legislature and Toronto City Council to give up that kind of income. But just lowering their intake by 50 or even 25 percent – and reducing the costs and pain points of acquiring permits – could make a serious difference. Not only would it lower home sale prices, but it would lower the barriers to entry for new home construction.
Just what were all those taxes worth to governments? Let’s begin with the City of Toronto. Their 2023 Financial Report tells us that land transfer taxes generated $944 million, permits and zoning applications delivered $137 million, and development fees accounted for $1.45 billion. Total city revenues in 2023 were $16.325 billion.
We’re told that all that money was spent on:
- Roads and transit systems
- Water and wastewater systems
- Fire and emergency services
- Parks and recreation facilities
- Libraries
Well, we do need those things right? We can’t expect the city to just eliminate fire and emergency services.
Wait. Hang on. I seem to recall being told that revenue from my property tax bill covered those services. Yes! My property tax did fund those things. Not 100 percent of those things, but a lot.
Specifically, Toronto property tax revenues cover 65 percent of the municipal costs for roads and transit systems, 85 percent of fire and emergency services, 75 percent of parks and recreation facilities, and 95 percent of library costs (even though very few people use public libraries any more).
Granted, property tax revenue covered only five percent of water and wastewater systems, but that’s because another 40 percent came from user fees (i.e., utility bills).
So revenues from land transfer taxes, developer fees, and permitting aren’t an insignificant portion of City income, but they’re hardly the linchpin propping the whole thing up either. City Council could respond to losing that income by increasing property taxes. Or – and I’m just throwing around random ideas here – they could reduce their spending.
Now what about the province? I couldn’t get a good sense of how much of their HST revenue comes specifically from new home sales, but Ontario’s 2023–24 consolidated financial statements tell us that provincial land transfer taxes brought in $3.538 billion. That would be around 1.7% of total government revenues. Again, a bit more than a rounding error.
Politics is about finding balances through trade offs. Sure, maintaining program spending while minimizing deficits is an ongoing and real challenge for governments. On the other hand, they all say they’re concerned about the housing crisis. Foregoing just one to five percent of revenues should, given the political payoffs and bragging rights that could follow, probably be an easy pill to swallow.
A few weeks ago I reached out to the City of Toronto Housing Secretariat and the Province of Ontario’s Municipal Affairs and Housing for their thoughts. I received no response.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day ago
Canadian Court Upholds Ban on Clearview AI’s Unconsented Facial Data Collection
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
Trump Takes Over and Implements Communication Freeze at HHS, CDC, and NIH
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Jaw-Dropping Number Of Inmates In Women’s Prisons Are Actually Men
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Immigration actions, deportation flights begin
-
COVID-191 day ago
Emails obtained by CHD reveal government’s failure to monitor COVID vaccine injury reports
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Hegseth Confirmed As Secretary of Defense After Chaotic Process
-
National1 day ago
Doug Ford is calling an election to save his political skin and Justin Trudeau’s government
-
Podcasts1 day ago
Mother of Likely Murdered OpenAI Whistleblower Reveals All, Calls for Investigation of Sam Altman