M
Mike in TO
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
HTML Comments are not allowed
HTML Comments are not allowed
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
C
cdl42
Guest
Re: I've seen the future as T.O. goes broke
"Sierra Club is a pretty bias group with a strong anti suburban agenda. Thier reports would have a strong bias."
Well, please tell me how those stats I posted are biased. Are they false? Lies?
I refuse to ignore them just because they are an environmental group. If you're going to be like that then EVERYONE is biased and untrustworthy.
"Sewer installation is paid for by home buyers/commercial or industrial uses through development charges, not by taxpayers."
That's the whole point! Are development charges less in dense areas due to the lower cost since one installation can serve more people? Or do they pay the same amount per unit proving the whole point in the first place? And what about replacement later on?
"Sierra Club is a pretty bias group with a strong anti suburban agenda. Thier reports would have a strong bias."
Well, please tell me how those stats I posted are biased. Are they false? Lies?
I refuse to ignore them just because they are an environmental group. If you're going to be like that then EVERYONE is biased and untrustworthy.
"Sewer installation is paid for by home buyers/commercial or industrial uses through development charges, not by taxpayers."
That's the whole point! Are development charges less in dense areas due to the lower cost since one installation can serve more people? Or do they pay the same amount per unit proving the whole point in the first place? And what about replacement later on?
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"Between the mid-80s and the mid 90s, Atlanta, Georgia, one of the fastest sprawling cities in America, and Portland, Oregon, a city with tight regulations preventing sprawl, had population growth at approximately the same rate. Atlanta’s property taxes increased 22%, whereas Portland’s dropped 29%."
I'm wondering if Portland's regulations have resulted in a big boost in housing prices; maybe they then dropped the property tax rate. Portland is still sprawling, though, not nearly as much as Atlanta (but then what city is), but beyond the reach of the growth regulations, especially in Clark County, WA. I guess they've been much more successful at condensing their suburban growth and limiting its geographic area, and this probably makes a big difference in associated costs...Atlanta's barely trying.
I'm wondering if Portland's regulations have resulted in a big boost in housing prices; maybe they then dropped the property tax rate. Portland is still sprawling, though, not nearly as much as Atlanta (but then what city is), but beyond the reach of the growth regulations, especially in Clark County, WA. I guess they've been much more successful at condensing their suburban growth and limiting its geographic area, and this probably makes a big difference in associated costs...Atlanta's barely trying.
E
Ed007Toronto
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
Never said it would save the taxpayers anything. The point is the Province would pay rather than the City of Toronto meaning the City could balance its budget. Then the Province would need to deal with the money. You know, uploading.
Hence I don't see how a significant sum of money would be saved.
Never said it would save the taxpayers anything. The point is the Province would pay rather than the City of Toronto meaning the City could balance its budget. Then the Province would need to deal with the money. You know, uploading.
M
Mike in TO
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
I haven't seen the report and I didn't suggest they were lies, just they should be taken with a grain of salt.
I wouldn't ignore them either, but I'm sure I could find reports from right wing organizations like the Fraser Institute that would suggest very different findings.
The answer your question generally the answer is yes. Development charges are based on cost recovery - DC's are generally higher in suburban locations that urban locations as they have to cover the installation of new infrastructure, whereas in Toronto a lot of that infrastructure is already in place. Essentially it is a system of growth paying for growth.
Also in new subdivisions it is often the developer themselves that are installing all of the roads, water and wastewater electrical facilities etc. Once the subdivision is complete and occupies these facilties are turned over to the municipality (or in the case of electrical facilities to the utility).
It is a misconception that taxpayers are saddled with the costs associated with infrastructure for new growth.
Well, please tell me how those stats I posted are biased. Are they false? Lies?
I haven't seen the report and I didn't suggest they were lies, just they should be taken with a grain of salt.
I refuse to ignore them just because they are an environmental group. If you're going to be like that then EVERYONE is biased and untrustworthy.
I wouldn't ignore them either, but I'm sure I could find reports from right wing organizations like the Fraser Institute that would suggest very different findings.
"Sewer installation is paid for by home buyers/commercial or industrial uses through development charges, not by taxpayers."
That's the whole point! Are development charges less in dense areas due to the lower cost since one installation can serve more people? Or do they pay the same amount per unit proving the whole point in the first place? And what about replacement later on?
The answer your question generally the answer is yes. Development charges are based on cost recovery - DC's are generally higher in suburban locations that urban locations as they have to cover the installation of new infrastructure, whereas in Toronto a lot of that infrastructure is already in place. Essentially it is a system of growth paying for growth.
Also in new subdivisions it is often the developer themselves that are installing all of the roads, water and wastewater electrical facilities etc. Once the subdivision is complete and occupies these facilties are turned over to the municipality (or in the case of electrical facilities to the utility).
It is a misconception that taxpayers are saddled with the costs associated with infrastructure for new growth.
B
Brighter Hell
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
^ongoing maintenance and providing services costs a lot, not to mention capital costs for repairs.
^ongoing maintenance and providing services costs a lot, not to mention capital costs for repairs.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
The playing field for development charges isn't level for greenfield vs. intensification however - since it's can only used for new infrastructure, whereas in older areas, what's often needed is ongoing maintainence.
In addition, given the much lower densities, repairs, maintainence and replacement costs per local household tends to be higher for suburban municipalities - and these problems are just starting to crop up for the inner suburbs.
AoD
The playing field for development charges isn't level for greenfield vs. intensification however - since it's can only used for new infrastructure, whereas in older areas, what's often needed is ongoing maintainence.
In addition, given the much lower densities, repairs, maintainence and replacement costs per local household tends to be higher for suburban municipalities - and these problems are just starting to crop up for the inner suburbs.
AoD
M
Mike in TO
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
^ Which is one reason why Toronto's residential tax rates should be increased to reflect the need for ongoing infrastructure maintenance and repairs in the inner suburbs. It is these older areas that desperately need funding to meet today's infrastructure standards.
One potential problem arising from intensification is that older infrastructure doesn't always have the capacity to accomodate infill growth. There are many long neglected areas of Toronto that need to reinvest in repairing and in many cases replacing infrastructure.
Sewers, roads and water facilities aren't as glamorous as new transit lines - but they are just as important and unfortunately just as expensive.
^ Which is one reason why Toronto's residential tax rates should be increased to reflect the need for ongoing infrastructure maintenance and repairs in the inner suburbs. It is these older areas that desperately need funding to meet today's infrastructure standards.
One potential problem arising from intensification is that older infrastructure doesn't always have the capacity to accomodate infill growth. There are many long neglected areas of Toronto that need to reinvest in repairing and in many cases replacing infrastructure.
Sewers, roads and water facilities aren't as glamorous as new transit lines - but they are just as important and unfortunately just as expensive.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
Mike in TO:
From what I've heard in some quarters, being the whole rationale behind the amalgamation exercise. It doesn't change the reality that the cost of infrastructural replacement is higher when spread over the fewer number of households. That's the crux of the argument against low-density development on the basis of efficiency.
As to increase in taxes - it's already happening in some ways through user fees (like water-rates).
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't development charges in these areas only pay for local infrastructure and not system-wide improvements even if they are needed? I've also heard that in many suburban locales, the original infrastructure is oversized - such that capacity remains for intensification.
AoD
Mike in TO:
It is these older areas that desperately need funding to meet today's infrastructure standards.
From what I've heard in some quarters, being the whole rationale behind the amalgamation exercise. It doesn't change the reality that the cost of infrastructural replacement is higher when spread over the fewer number of households. That's the crux of the argument against low-density development on the basis of efficiency.
As to increase in taxes - it's already happening in some ways through user fees (like water-rates).
One potential problem arising from intensification is that older infrastructure doesn't always have the capacity to accomodate infill growth. There are many long neglected areas of Toronto that need to reinvest in repairing and in many cases replacing infrastructure.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't development charges in these areas only pay for local infrastructure and not system-wide improvements even if they are needed? I've also heard that in many suburban locales, the original infrastructure is oversized - such that capacity remains for intensification.
AoD
W
wyliepoon
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
How common is this? I've read that it is required by law for developers to provide infrastructure in Australia, but this is the first time I heard about this in Canada.
This is kind of an urgent question... my thesis report revolves around the stuff you people are writing about.
Also in new subdivisions it is often the developer themselves that are installing all of the roads, water and wastewater electrical facilities etc. Once the subdivision is complete and occupies these facilties are turned over to the municipality (or in the case of electrical facilities to the utility).
How common is this? I've read that it is required by law for developers to provide infrastructure in Australia, but this is the first time I heard about this in Canada.
This is kind of an urgent question... my thesis report revolves around the stuff you people are writing about.
M
Mike in TO
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
Generally this depends how long ago the subdivisions were built. Some older areas of Toronto don't have much capacity, while many areas of 905 do have a lot of capacity. Although York Region is experiencing a number of problems resulting in building permit delays and delayed closings in a number of projects.
Wylie, I would suggest calling a few planning and building/ development departments for exact details. Taxpayers in most growth municipalities in Ontario are not responsible for covering the cost of growth. Growth pays for growth. There is a provision in the development charges act that states that existing taxpayers must allocate 10% of the funds for new infrastructure - development charges pay the other 90%. This is to ensure municipal accountability for spending. So we don' end up with goldplated bridges and there is some spending restraint - not to mention that any bridge, road etc is not only going to be used by new residents in a given area.
However within a given subdivision developers install the roads, sewers, water etc. These are then assumed by the municipalities at a later stage of development.
I've also heard that in many suburban locales, the original infrastructure is oversized - such that capacity remains for intensification.
Generally this depends how long ago the subdivisions were built. Some older areas of Toronto don't have much capacity, while many areas of 905 do have a lot of capacity. Although York Region is experiencing a number of problems resulting in building permit delays and delayed closings in a number of projects.
How common is this? I've read that it is required by law for developers to provide infrastructure in Australia, but this is the first time I heard about this in Canada.
Wylie, I would suggest calling a few planning and building/ development departments for exact details. Taxpayers in most growth municipalities in Ontario are not responsible for covering the cost of growth. Growth pays for growth. There is a provision in the development charges act that states that existing taxpayers must allocate 10% of the funds for new infrastructure - development charges pay the other 90%. This is to ensure municipal accountability for spending. So we don' end up with goldplated bridges and there is some spending restraint - not to mention that any bridge, road etc is not only going to be used by new residents in a given area.
However within a given subdivision developers install the roads, sewers, water etc. These are then assumed by the municipalities at a later stage of development.
M
miketoronto
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
Well the city still pays even if development charges cover sewers and roads for new subdivisions.
The charges do not cover the cost for buying new buses to serve new suburban routes, etc. If I remember right, Mississauga spent millions last year or is going to this year, to buy new buses to serve new subdivisions. That cost is not coming from development charges. It is coming from the tax increase. Same goes in Brampton, etc.
Well the city still pays even if development charges cover sewers and roads for new subdivisions.
The charges do not cover the cost for buying new buses to serve new suburban routes, etc. If I remember right, Mississauga spent millions last year or is going to this year, to buy new buses to serve new subdivisions. That cost is not coming from development charges. It is coming from the tax increase. Same goes in Brampton, etc.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
A suburb or growing city collects more taxes on houses than on empty land because the value of the property is higher. It is true that growth is making the suburbs a lot of money... the problem hits when there is no greenfields any more and infrastructure starts to wear down. In a densely populated city with more people paying for each park and each metre of road, sewer, and sidewalk the taxes increases to pay for the infrastructure won't be so bad, for a low density suburb or low density city the end of land for expansion means rapidly rising tax rates.
A suburb or growing city collects more taxes on houses than on empty land because the value of the property is higher. It is true that growth is making the suburbs a lot of money... the problem hits when there is no greenfields any more and infrastructure starts to wear down. In a densely populated city with more people paying for each park and each metre of road, sewer, and sidewalk the taxes increases to pay for the infrastructure won't be so bad, for a low density suburb or low density city the end of land for expansion means rapidly rising tax rates.
M
Mike in TO
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
^ enviro - I agree completely
As it should, there are plenty of economic benifits to growth and growing an economy.
GO Transit development charges cover many growth releted costs for GO. As for other municipalities the Development Charges Act allows for municipalities to include 10 year service averages for transit in thier background studies. This does contribute funds for transit as it relates to growth.
^ enviro - I agree completely
Well the city still pays even if development charges cover sewers and roads for new subdivisions.
As it should, there are plenty of economic benifits to growth and growing an economy.
The charges do not cover the cost for buying new buses to serve new suburban routes, etc. If I remember right, Mississauga spent millions last year or is going to this year, to buy new buses to serve new subdivisions. That cost is not coming from development charges. It is coming from the tax increase. Same goes in Brampton, etc.
GO Transit development charges cover many growth releted costs for GO. As for other municipalities the Development Charges Act allows for municipalities to include 10 year service averages for transit in thier background studies. This does contribute funds for transit as it relates to growth.
M
maxy505
Guest
Re: I've seen the future � as T.O. goes broke
So there are some savings associated with building at higher densities -- but there are also costs. The price of land goes up (not a true consumption, but a transfer of wealth from buyers to landowners), and the price of construction per square foot goes up.
Look at the difference: suburban dwellers should be paying maybe an extra $1000 per year in taxes, but they save $150,000 on their purchase. It is harder to factor in the cost of owning a car (which I conceed is 99.9% a necessity in the burbs) but remember that most people really like owning a car.
******************************
Instead of government's ham-fisted attempts to make people live a certain way, let's make people pay their own way and live how they like. My proposal is that taxes are calculated on two components: a) tax per head, to pay for services that an extra individual will incur (library, police, parks, schools) b) tax per square foot, to pay for services that cost more with greater distance (road repair, sewers, fire stations (sort of)).
EXAMPLE 1: Single adult, living in a bungalow in the burbs
Head Tax = $2000 x 1 person
Land tax = $2 x 1500 sq. ft. property = $3000
TOTAL $5000
EXAMPLE 2: Single adult, living in a condo
Head Tax = $2000 x 1
Land tax = $2 x 100 sq. ft. (his share of the condo's land)
TOTAL $2200
EXAMPLE 3: Family living in Rosedale
Head tax = $2000 x 2 (social subsidy: children are free!)
Land tax = $2 x 2000 sq. ft = $4000
TOTAL $8000
*****************************
I think this system would be fairest and would encourage people to live at the best balance of efficiency, desirability, and affordability. Subsidies for the poor and penalties for the rich should be dispensed through income taxes and supplements, not in such a roundabout way through property value-based taxes.
I could go on and answer potential criticisms but I'll ask first -- am I missing an obvious defect or is this as ideal as I imagine? Are there any other cities in the world using this system?
So there are some savings associated with building at higher densities -- but there are also costs. The price of land goes up (not a true consumption, but a transfer of wealth from buyers to landowners), and the price of construction per square foot goes up.
Look at the difference: suburban dwellers should be paying maybe an extra $1000 per year in taxes, but they save $150,000 on their purchase. It is harder to factor in the cost of owning a car (which I conceed is 99.9% a necessity in the burbs) but remember that most people really like owning a car.
******************************
Instead of government's ham-fisted attempts to make people live a certain way, let's make people pay their own way and live how they like. My proposal is that taxes are calculated on two components: a) tax per head, to pay for services that an extra individual will incur (library, police, parks, schools) b) tax per square foot, to pay for services that cost more with greater distance (road repair, sewers, fire stations (sort of)).
EXAMPLE 1: Single adult, living in a bungalow in the burbs
Head Tax = $2000 x 1 person
Land tax = $2 x 1500 sq. ft. property = $3000
TOTAL $5000
EXAMPLE 2: Single adult, living in a condo
Head Tax = $2000 x 1
Land tax = $2 x 100 sq. ft. (his share of the condo's land)
TOTAL $2200
EXAMPLE 3: Family living in Rosedale
Head tax = $2000 x 2 (social subsidy: children are free!)
Land tax = $2 x 2000 sq. ft = $4000
TOTAL $8000
*****************************
I think this system would be fairest and would encourage people to live at the best balance of efficiency, desirability, and affordability. Subsidies for the poor and penalties for the rich should be dispensed through income taxes and supplements, not in such a roundabout way through property value-based taxes.
I could go on and answer potential criticisms but I'll ask first -- am I missing an obvious defect or is this as ideal as I imagine? Are there any other cities in the world using this system?