News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

The province assesses value thought right? Regardless it's about $100K lower than what it should be (they assessed it at $406K), and as other have mentioned our mill rate are significantly lower than other GTA municipalities. To Keith's point that's a lot of extra money being left behind.
Yes, the province does it. Once every 4 years (currently). The most recent assessent date was January 1, 2012 - so if it is $100 K lower than it is now, that's not too surprising. Based on the actual date though, assessed dates are supposed to be generally accurate. And they appear to be in my neighbourhood based on my and neighbours assessed values, and sales during that period.

Our mill rate IS significantly lower. But then it should be, as simply because the house is worth twice as much doesn't mean it costs twice as much to provide service - in fact in denser areas it's cheaper to provide services. See how much road, sidewalk, and pipes you have to maintain in suburbs with wide lots compare to a dense downtown area.

But I don't disagree. Toronto property taxes (especially when you look at what the municipality gets compared to the Ministry of Education) are surprisingly low compared to many municipalities.
 
So, does a government worker in Ottawa earn less than a government worker in Toronto? A minimum wage plus tip server in Ottawa probably makes the same minimum wage as one in Toronto and the tips are probably not much different.

The federal government provides of cost of living allowances. So yes, you will get paid more if you live in Toronto and work for the feds. I get paid $18 000 more per year for my military posting to TO.

A bank branch manager in Ottawa probably makes a very similar wage to a bank branch manager in Toronto.

Public sector vs. private sector. On the other hand, you aren't likely to find many six-figure financial analysts and stock traders working in Ottawa.

Private sector vs. public

This table shows that the median family income in the Ontario part of Ottawa-Gatineau in 2010 was $94,700 while in Toronto it was $68,110. Now that is a very broad geographic area with different income profiles in different areas....but the gap in median incomes is also very large.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil107a-eng.htm

Median. Not mean. I'd argue that Ottawa has a very flat distribution of incomes because of its large public sector employment profile.

In the end though, I fail to see how income is relevant to property tax discussions per se. Look at property prices in Toronto. People can pay half a million dollars for a two bedroom condo in the core and they can't afford an extra $1000 per year for transit expansion? I don't buy that. And even that extra $1000 per month would still keep Toronto at the lower end of mill rates in the province.


At the end of the day we are all well aware that Toronto has a low mill rate (lowest in the province, I think) but that the out of pocket property tax payments Toronto residents make are still as large, and often larger, than those in other communities because it is applied to a higher property valuation.

Your comment shows you unaware of how much people pay elsewhere in the province. I pay more for in taxes for my $260 000 assessed condo in Ottawa than my parents do for their $500 000 assessed house in Scarborough.

One possible (likely?) outcome if Toronto was to raise its mill rate would be a bit of flight or mini-flight to the suburbs. As the cost of in city home ownership grew it would change the balance between location and cost....if there was such a flight it would reduce the value of those homes and, in the end, the municipality may not collect that much more in actual tax dollars.

I sincerely doubt it. Ask Mississauga, Brampton, Markham, etc. residents what they pay in taxes. Tax increases would bring them in line, in absolute terms and not even close in relative terms.

I would personally love road tolls to raise money for transit. Those would hurt 905 residents who commute disproportionately. It's also time that 416 residents stepped up and carried their share of the load too, with higher property taxes.
 
Yes, the province does it. Once every 4 years (currently). The most recent assessent date was January 1, 2012 - so if it is $100 K lower than it is now, that's not too surprising. Based on the actual date though, assessed dates are supposed to be generally accurate. And they appear to be in my neighbourhood based on my and neighbours assessed values, and sales during that period.

This is not really relevant though as municipalities adjust mill rates so as not to make the tax increases steep or to avoid tax increases altogether.

Our mill rate IS significantly lower. But then it should be, as simply because the house is worth twice as much doesn't mean it costs twice as much to provide service - in fact in denser areas it's cheaper to provide services. See how much road, sidewalk, and pipes you have to maintain in suburbs with wide lots compare to a dense downtown area.

If that's the case, taxes should not be based on property values. They should be based on frontage or square footage, etc. And really, if it was done this way, people like my parents would have 5-figure tax bills for their house in Scarborough and a condo dweller in the core would have a 3-figure tax bill.

But I don't disagree. Toronto property taxes (especially when you look at what the municipality gets compared to the Ministry of Education) are surprisingly low compared to many municipalities.

Shockingly low for a major metropolitan city. And yet Torontonians seem broadly opposed to pitching in to benefit themselves. And that's not just a Rob Ford phenomenon btw.
 
Keithz:

If that's the case, taxes should not be based on property values. They should be based on frontage or square footage, etc. And really, if it was done this way, people like my parents would have 5-figure tax bills for their house in Scarborough and a condo dweller in the core would have a 3-figure tax bill.

Well, can you imagine how your parents are going to react when they face a five figure taxbill? Most of the inner burbs are already paying relatively less property tax due to CVA, and it is also the area with the greatest resistance to any tax increases.

In the end though, I fail to see how income is relevant to property tax discussions per se. Look at property prices in Toronto. People can pay half a million dollars for a two bedroom condo in the core and they can't afford an extra $1000 per year for transit expansion? I don't buy that. And even that extra $1000 per month would still keep Toronto at the lower end of mill rates in the province.

Like I have mentioned before, most polls have indicated that the residents in the core are willing to pay extra for transit expansion - so really, what you really should be focusing on is the support of those in the burbs to have a tax increase.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Residential property taxes are low in Toronto but that's made up for by the high commercial and industrial property taxes. But really, this discussion misses the point of the debate about Toronto tax dollars subsidizing other parts of the country (as any big city does). There's way more to it than property taxes.
 
Keithz:



Well, can you imagine how your parents are going to react when they face a five figure taxbill? Most of the inner burbs are already paying relatively less property tax due to CVA, and it is also the area with the greatest resistance to any tax increases.



Like I have mentioned before, most polls have indicated that the residents in the core are willing to pay extra for transit expansion - so really, what you really should be focusing on is the support of those in the burbs to have a tax increase.

AoD

I am actually not one of those people who would complain. I call out the hypocrisy of family and friends in very blunt terms when they complain about transit, traffic, taxes, etc. Doesn't make my view popular to be sure.
 
This may be more effective for transit systems that are just busses.



How to Fund Transit Without Raising Fares or Cutting Service


Jul 18, 2013

By Eric Jaffe

logo.gif


Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/co...ithout-raising-fares-or-cutting-service/6241/


When Mark Aesch became head of the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, back in 2004, the metro area's bus system was in terrible shape. The agency carried a $4.5 million deficit and on-time performance was stuck at 76 percent. Officials wanted to approach the problem the way so many other city agencies were handling similar situations at the time: with a fare hike. Aesch said no.

- Not only did Aesch keep his pledge not to raise fares, but in 2008 he actually lowered them. By the time he left the position, at the end of 2011, Aesch and his creative approach had transformed Rochester's bus system into a total winner. Buses drove fewer miles, carried more passengers, and boasted a 91 percent on-time record. The agency accumulated a $35.5 million surplus while decreasing its reliance on taxpayer funding by more than a third.

- Aesch has since started a consulting firm called TransPro and written a book called Driving Excellence. His mission with both is to encourage transit officials to bring a "private-sector mindset" to public transportation. So far it's working. Last year, Aesch even stabilized the bus system in Detroit, of all places. If his methods can succeed there, they should do well in any number of struggling systems across the country. "I think the model works in almost any location," says Aesch.

- These days the public expects transit agencies to cut service or hike fares when funding runs low. But Aesch's entire philosophy is based on the belief that the best way to raise both ridership and revenue is by improving the transit experience.

- In Rochester, Aesch and colleagues took aim at the poor on-time performance of city buses. Using data to evaluate system routes, they realized that much of the problem came from buses that were early, not late. Soon they identified the culprit: because routes had down time built in at the end, drivers were rushing to finish up and take a longer break.

- As the system began to improve, Aesch created incentives to keep things moving in the right direction. He concocted a so-called "stock price" for the system and tied it administrator compensation. When performance improved, so did pay. Eventually enough drivers realized the advantages of merit-based compensation that the union voted to tie their paycheck to performance, too — something Aesch says would have been "unimaginable" when he first arrived.

- His biggest achievement came through securing partnerships with the community. Once bus service improved, Aesch sent out a sales force to college campuses, shopping centers, apartment complexes, and the like, and asked them to pay for the better service that now carried so many students and customers and residents through their corridors. Sometimes he drew a comparison to a utility: just as a housing development might pay the water bill for tenants, so too should it pitch in for transit.

- "If the model of public transportation is simply to ask the taxpayer for more money or the customer for more money, it's a short path to reducing service and reducing quality," says Aesch. "You've got to go identify new business partners to fund public transportation with non-taxpayer dollars."

- A big fear that many people have about a private-sector approach to public transit is that rewards efficiency at the expense of providing a social service. If a particular route isn't capturing much fare revenue, for instance, then business-minded officials might be more apt to cut it. That approach could end up stranding riders — particularly those in low-income corridors.

- Aesch says he's responded to this concern by creating a service metric that gives equal weight to ridership and fare recovery. So if a certain route does well at the farebox, it's a keeper, and if another route has a lot of riders, it's a keeper, too. What won't score well on this metric, he says, are those routes that neither make money nor seem to play a vital role in the community. These are the ones that efficient systems should be aiming to cut.

- Last year Aesch's system passed what some might call the ultimate test. In the wake a series of embarrassing bus crises in late 2011, Detroit brought in Aesch to overhaul service. Despite being given only a year to produce results, Aesch improved on-time performance, kept ridership stable, avoided a fare hike, saved the agency roughly $39 million, and even improved customer satisfaction by 40 percent.

.....




largest.jpg
 
This may be more effective for transit systems that are just busses.



How to Fund Transit Without Raising Fares or Cutting Service

...

- Last year Aesch's system passed what some might call the ultimate test. In the wake a series of embarrassing bus crises in late 2011, Detroit brought in Aesch to overhaul service. Despite being given only a year to produce results, Aesch improved on-time performance, kept ridership stable, avoided a fare hike, saved the agency roughly $39 million, and even improved customer satisfaction by 40 percent.

.....




largest.jpg

Detroit was/is in worse shape than Toronto. Hopefully none the less, TTC CEO Andy Byford will be taking notes.
 
An update observation on the infamous Dufferin bus route.

I found myself in my car behind a string of 3 southbound busses and across the street from 2 nose to tail northbound busses at St. Clair at 2:00 pm on Saturday, traffic was moving surprisingly well.

Another example of the drivers running the asylum.
 
Mississauga to Toronto: Wait your turn for more transit cash

Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...nto_wait_your_turn_for_more_transit_cash.html


Mississauga city councillors say Toronto’s sudden shift to a subway for Scarborough had better not come at the expense of its planned LRT.

“As soon as I heard it, I said: Uh-oh, where are they going to get the money?†Councillor Ron Starr said after hearing that Toronto City Council passed a motion Wednesday to pursue a Scarborough subway extension to replace the Scarborough RT, instead of the light rail planned by Metrolinx. On Thursday, Ontario Transportation Minister Glenn Murray said the province would pay $1.4 billion of the $2.9 billion cost to build the subway line.

With Mayor Hazel McCallion out of the country, other councillors picked up the argument McCallion has been making for months: Queen’s Park and Ottawa shouldn’t provide any additional transit funding for Toronto before Mississauga’s planned $1.5 billion LRT along Hurontario St. and other Big Move projects outside Toronto get funded. “Toronto already got $8.4 billion of Big Move funding that’s been allocated — the lion’s share,†said Councillor Bonnie Crombie. “Now they want more. “What about Mississauga’s portion?â€

.....




mississauga_lrt_project.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg
 
Gotta love this ridiculous fear mongering out of Mississauga.

I think it's a valid point. Toronto gets handed $8B on a silver platter, but Mississauga (and Ottawa, and Kitchener, and Hamilton) have to scrounge to find enough money to fund even their priority (singular, not plural) projects.
 
I think it's a valid point. Toronto gets handed $8B on a silver platter, but Mississauga (and Ottawa, and Kitchener, and Hamilton) have to scrounge to find enough money to fund even their priority (singular, not plural) projects.

What was irrational was Mississauga's fear that Toronto was going to somehow "steal" their LRT even when Metrolinx has said that Toronto won't be getting anymore than the $8 Billion.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top