Municipal Revenue Generation and Development in the Calgary and Edmonton Metropolitan Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipal reliance on property taxes and the competing priorities of municipalities—in terms of where they plan and approve land development within their boundaries—in order to capture new property taxes, has led to political conflict between adjacent municipalities.1 Nowhere in Alberta is this more evident than in the Edmonton and Calgary metropolitan regions, where sustained high-levels of growth has led to the expansion of the core-cities, rapid residential development rates in peripheral urban centres and the rise urban-scale development in the rural municipal districts – spurring intrametropolitan competition, harsh words and hurt feelings amongst municipalities.2 In response to this ongoing conflict, the province and at times the municipalities themselves have developed successive regional planning frameworks over the past 60 years3 to guide development and encourage—and at times enforce—intermunicipal collaboration. In an exploration of the contemporary relationship between municipal finance and development patterns in the Calgary and Edmonton metropolitan regions, we use municipal property tax and building-permit data for new residential, commercial and industrial development to track the incidence of development since 1983 and the property tax rates for municipalities in both regions from 2001 to 2015. In looking at the tax data there is evidence of increasing competition among municipalities, in particular for non-residential development; however, the trends could also be consistent with collusion. In looking at the building permit data, although there has been a lot of development in the peripheral urban and rural municipalities, proportionately, growth and development has occurred overwhelmingly in the core-cities. Our findings point to a system where local development considerations in both metropolitan regions, and the municipal prerogative to set municipal tax rates to attract development, take precedence over the regional planning frameworks in place.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".