Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I respect your views, but I don't want to live inner city in crammed environment where because of the density the small parcel of property that I buy is hideously over priced.
I've done the downtown living, and while it was thrilling and interesting when I was young, it wore thin and I wanted to get away from it.
I bought in the sprawl because I want a decent sized backyard or my own greenspace.
I also don't think its fair that people should get tax breaks because they choose to buy and live downtown and they choose to pay the preminum both in tax and in initial purchase value by living in a concept based around density.
To me this is a question of distribution of money, not taxation. I think based on the inefficiencies of the city that the issue isn't the amount of tax dollars collected, its how its used and distributed.
If I had kids, I'd want to be as far from the core of the city that I can get. If I don't like the idea of condo living, then I'm going to go somewhere where I can buy a house with a yard.
To me the whole balance point of reduction of sprawl vs the right to buy and live where I choose within the city blanances heavily to the right to choose.
|
I dont think anyone is disputing that - just that some of us think you should get some sort of financial incentive if you live in an area that takes up less city square foot space.
Right now other than location, there is no financial incentive for people to choose to not to live in the house with the yard. In fact if you decide to live in a more compact location (example a condo) then you pay considerably more in property tax per sq footage of land space used than a homeowner.
I think there should be a tax break for people if you live up (ie condo etc) because it saves the city a considerable amount of money in support costs. No one is saying someone from saskatchewan who is used to easy farm living and a huge house with lot cant have that, we are just saying that the financials need to be more evenly balanced because that house takes alot more resources to support than a more dense living arrangement.
I would also like to see any stats as to how a suburb supports its costs. The city likely recoups its cost from the suburb over a certain amortization period of 20 or 30 years, but there is no way that a new suburb is bought and paid for after its completed if you take in all the costs of roads, sewers, fire, police, schools etc etc.
And this is not even counting the environmental costs of water, power, heat useage per legal age person of a house compared to a condo.