Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I know we're off topic now, but I have no idea how you get to your position that the current market is not in equilibrium? Even if the inner city prices are too high and suburb prices are too low though, it would appear to be a small amount, as there aren't drastic price moves to compensate in either case at this point?
|
I didn't say the market was not equilibrium. I suspect that it is (or is close to it, anyways).
Quote:
|
Secondly, if you want to turn this into a pure economics discussion, the introduction of a tariff to build new subdivisions would actually create more inefficiencies, never mind the policy ramifications that would arise. In other words, you don't want to build overpass and deal with snow removal and transportation now, but how do you avoid that once this kind of feel is implemented? Now the city is in a position where they have to address all of these issues because everyone is "paying their fair share", only you still have an inequality because the inner city has paid their fair share since the dawn of time (allegedly), I know I'm in a suburb, and according to the inner city denizens haven't paid my fair share, and of course the new builders would be. Careful what you wish for.
|
I just want the suburbs to pay their fair share, be it up front through developer levies or amortized into property taxes. How it is achieved doesn't really matter to me - they are pretty much equivalent. Yeah, if you're going to do it through developer fees you're probably going to end up grandfathering in existing, newer developments that haven't paid their way. But it's still better to do something than to do nothing.
As far as a higher fee inducing higher spending demands, the fee is based on the level of service. For a higher level of service, the fee would have to go up further. (Both of these point seem to suggest that a taxation-based solution would be better, but there may be arguments against.)