Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
And I wasn't talking about house prices. In the last thread I compared a $450K house in Acadia, Calgary to a $220K house in Westwood, Winnipeg. Both were 1000 sq ft 30 year old bungalows.
What I was trying to say is that even with house prices being equal in both cities, Calgary has a lot more of the bigger houses; bringing the average up. If you or I moved to Winnipeg (shudder), we would likely buy a similar house to what we have now. We wouldn't be buying a mansion, and we wouldn't be buying a place beside the $5 hookers either.
Do I think we should keep spending under control? Yes. But I also see so many places where the city has cut corners that we should spend the money on upgrading while we can. Classic example again is the GE5 interchange; paid in full with "boom time" money. Get us caught up so if we end up in a ressecion, we have can afford (from an infastructure standpoint) to cut back on spending.
|
On the taxes I may be a bit thick today but I still don't get it. If CGY has 1000 houses and brings in (from all property sources) 10K, while Winnipeg has 800 houses and brings in 4k ( don't think the difference is that extreme, just for example), the avergaes are $100 and $50, no? CGY is taking more money? You're saying yes, but CGY has more big houses, so the average is skewed?
Spending is the more important issue anyway. On that front I don't disagree with your sentiment, but thats not where the money is headed. generally speaking, property taxes don't fund infrastructure.