Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
No, my position is more nuanced than that. I'm okay with wealthier areas subsidizing poorer ones. It's just the geographic / low density bias that's the problem. The problem is when then owner of a $450,000 condo is subsidizing the owner of a $450,000 house. It gets worse when you can buy a $450,000 condo and end up subsidizing a $500,000 house.
|
Sure, but they're not. The taxes are based on the market value? If my place is $450k and your place is $450k then we both pay the same. While you contend I use more services because I live further away, its a generalization. Maybe I walk to the C-train and someone who lives closer drives in. Maybe I work 3 blocks from my house, or have a home office. Its just silly.
Never mind the fact that someone with a ten percent higher property value pays more taxes (as in your example), there is just no proof that the guy in the condo uses less services or costs the city less money. What if they call the fire department 8 times this year, recycle absolutely nothing and have a family of 4 living in that condo whereas the suburban dweller is single, composts everything and uses very few services? Just because you live in a condo doesn't mean you're more sustainable.