[GGG]

Is a $1000 fine any more of a deterrent then a $300 fine? The problem lies in enforcement. If 999/1000 a person does not get caught they are going to continue the behaviour regardless of the fine. The $1000 fine might act as a deterrent for that individual for a while after they get caught but as a global deterrent it will probably fail.

A good example of expensive punishment doing nothing is drinking and driving. By the time insurance, fines and legal fees are all done you are probably out 10,000 if you get a DUI but is that a deterrent? It doesn't appear to work. My theory is that since people can drive 1000 times without getting caught the risk assessed by the individual for drinking and driving approaches zero. Regardless of the fine if you got caught 10% of the time people would do it less as people would see it as a real risk.

Another good example is Red Light tickets. Intersections with signs for red light camera see a very high reduction in red light violations. Why? Because people believe they will get caught if they go through the intersection. In regular Police based intersections people run red lights at a higher rate.

When the probability of getting caught approaches zero it doesn't take much marginal benefit for people to have a negative behaviour. Also humans are a very poor at assessing risk. Generally underestimating the risk of rare but highly negative outcomes (fines, stock market crashes) and overestimating the probability of winning rare but large outcomes (lotteries)

I think that the goal of the law is to reduce the number of butts thrown. In my opinion this fine is excessive for accomplishing that goal and will negatively affect peoples lives to a large degree for those who get caught and provide no punishment for the vast majority who get away with it. I think a more reasonble fine in the $200 to $300 dollar range combined with increased enforcement of the bylaw would have the desired result without causing people to be unable to afford rent.