have a point though. Strictly relating to tax revenue efficiency UMR is already paying a decent amount of taxes. The real culprits are the mid ring neighborhoods of lower value (Marlborogh, Rundle, Ranchlands, Beddington, Queensland, etc..).
Take for example this house in Rundle
, it's a single family home with yard and back alley, with annual taxes of $2,407. Then we take this house in UMR
, it's also a single family home with a yard (no alleyway), and it's not even one of the larger mansions. The yearly taxes are $14,020 - 6 times the amount of the house in Rundle! yet both are not much different in terms of cost to the city. Personally, I think the houses in Mount Royal are okay from a tax perspective, and in many way are getting ripped off, but it is what it is for an exclusive rich neighborhood. When comparing it to an apartment in this building in Mission
, where the taxes are $1,522 per year. The house in Mount Royal is paying almost 10 times the tax amount, so basically the same as a small 10 unit apartment building.
Marlborough and Rundle, etc.. might be less wealthy areas, but it doesn't take away from the fact they still use city services just as much as house in Mount Royal. Neighbourhoods like those, and others like Ranchlands, Beddington, etc... are easily the least efficient neighborhoods when it comes to taxes, and the real issue with our sprawl. We can't say that we want to control sprawl, and at the same time say that people who are less well off deserve a SFH and less taxes.
On a side note, I've always believed, taxes shouldn't be based straight up on market value, but a combination of market value and square foot of land. Apartments would used some kind a modified square footage formula.