Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
I still haven't seen any actual evidence that inner city dwellings are more efficient on an operating basis, only that higher densities are more efficient. So it's quite possible, imo, that condos in the suburbs are subsidizing single family homes.
Also, the delivery of services isn't cheaper downtown, since most of the services (water, sewer, garbage collection) are delivered from suburban areas. The infrastructure is already there, but it's getting old. If developers pay a levy (in an amount the city gets to set) to cover the cost of new infrastructure, then I don't see an issue, as I don't think there's an operating cost subsidy urban vs suburban.
|
Pretty much all infrastructure comes with an operating cost. LRT needs drivers. Roads need maintenance and snow removal. Pipes need energy for pump stations etc. So it follows that if an area is more capital intensive, it is probably more operating-cost-intensive too.
Another factor is commute distance. It's possible for people living in the suburbs to have short commutes, but generally they don't. They are greater consumers of travel infrastructure (and the associated operating costs) because they travel larger distances.
Then of course, there's the revenue side of subsidization too. Lower property assessment equals lower taxation for the a building in the suburbs vs an identical building in the inner city.
Obviously you could charge developers a lump sump that will cover the ongoing costs, but if you're going to cover ongoing costs with ongoing revenue, then you need to change the tax model to eliminate the suburban subsidy.