Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
This macroeconomic argument is easy to make, but it's hard to make a distinction between inner city vs. suburb tax dollar ROI.
There is probably some synergetic relationship between inner and outer city tax dollars, but I have yet to find a reason why my tax dollars as a resident of Westbrook/Wildwood are even relevant to a Falconridge or Tuscany infrastructure services, just like you would feel the same way.
Either way, i would like to see tax dollars stay in the community they're paid from, and have a City-appointed finance manager per community with resident/citizen board members. If we feel a park is in order, we'll build it with our own tax dollars and leave Falconridge to deal with their own parks.
Public infrastructure and recreation costs, such as Memorial Trail or Prince's Island Park, should be designated city-wide taxes since most Calgarians will either use these pieces of the city at some point. Of course, robust research should go into what counts as a city-wide infrastructure piece.
|
I agree with both of you, it really is irrelevant to consider who is actually paying for what in our current state. But it is still frustrating that I'm responsible for upgrading the sewage line in front of my house being built in Renfrew with a higher tax burden because my property value is higher than that of places outside the inner city.
I'd just like to see more money spent on the established communities, and to make the cost of initial infrastructure a little bit more passed onto the new home buyers. The city subsidizes the cost of infrastructure to developing communities so that the cost of the housing stays cheap. That's a big problem in my opinion.
Initial investment should be part of the cost of buying your home if it's a new construction, that seems fair given I have to pay for it myself to build a new home in an established neighbourhood.