MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3159419377 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v11i1.43330

Has the City-Rural Tax Base and Land-Use Balance Changed in Alberta? Explorations into the Distribution of Equalized Property Assessments Among Municipality Classes

2018· article· en· W3159419377 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Melville McMillan

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésProperty taxProperty (philosophy)Distribution (mathematics)GeographyBalance (ability)Base (topology)Agricultural economicsSocioeconomicsBusinessEconomicsPublic economicsMathematicsTax reformPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Alberta ended its regional planning commissions in 1996. They were replaced by voluntary inter-municipal negotiation, but this has raised concerns about adverse effects on land use. Pressure to terminate the commissions came largely from the rural municipalities. Some of them felt the commissions retarded their economic development. They believed that in a less restrictive planning environment, they would be able to attract a greater share of development, especially business. This study assesses the consequences of that change. Alberta’s rapid growth over much of the post-1995 period affords an exceptional opportunity to search for noticeable changes in the urban-rural tax base and land-use patterns and balance. Municipal tax base is measured, and land use reflected, by property values. Those values are taken to be the provincially determined equalized assessments used for property tax purposes. Fortunately, these provide a reliable and consistent measure of property values across municipalities and over time for properties of different kinds. For the types of properties of prime interest for this analysis, residential and unregulated business property, equalized assessments approximate 100 per cent of market value. Residential property represents over 60 per cent of total provincial equalized assessments and business property about 20 per cent. In cities, the percentages are 70 per cent and 24 per cent; residential and business properties represent almost all the taxable property. The focus of the analysis is whether, during the past two decades, the shares of residential and/or business property have shifted from cities to rural municipalities. The possibility of shifting city-rural tax base/land-use patterns is explored from four perspectives. This report examines trends in the distribution of residential and business equalized assessments among the types of municipalities in the province. To obtain a better perspective in specific cases, the city-rural split of assessments is reported for the Edmonton and Calgary metropolitan areas and nine cities between 1997 and 2014. Examining the movements in the ratios of business to residential assessments of 31 city and rural municipalities provides further insight. The final approach is to simply review changes in the location of population and dwellings between cities and rural areas. There has been no notable or general shift of land development away from cities and to rural areas. Despite the rapid growth and the devolved planning environment, the cityversus-rural distribution of tax base and land use has, overall, been remarkably constant although development was definitely not uniform across Alberta cities. If anything, the cities’ shares of residential development may have increased while their shares of business development have been more uneven. For both types of property, however, the development patterns have varied across both city and rural municipalities. Concern that the changed planning environment might have shifted property development towards the rural municipalities does not appear to have been justified. Whether this development met other planning criteria is not explored here. This analysis encourages more detailed investigations using alternative indicators.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,470
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,863

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,113
Tête enseignante GPT0,370
Écart entre enseignants0,257 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsMême sujetLocal Government Finance and DecentralizationTravaux en français237 207