Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Some of these comments are gold. If you've played hockey you know that you drive all over the place to play, and those rinks serve people from all over the city. Its more convenient for a guy next door, but then other rinks won't be for that same guy. Same goes for gymnasiums, soccer facilities, etc.
|
And if you do a family swimming program, you're going to go to the local rec centre not the one accross town. But even if you wouldn't, but if the city sustains a certain level of rec centre per capita, then new rec centres are accurately assessed as a cost of growth - independent of geography.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Slava
Then the part about being able to afford to live in the inner city vs the suburbs. You're clearly not comparing apples to apples. For the same lot size, house size etc. the costs are not equal. I have no idea how you suggest that they are.
|
Of course it's not apples-to-apples. Subsidizing SFH is not a viable strategy for affordable housing, because SFH is one of the least cost-efficient ways to house people.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Slava
Oh, and a big LOL that the amount of money is 'pretty small' when the city keeps it, but apparently a huge deal for people in favour of keeping it. That is pure gold.
|
The principle and the indirect effects matter more than the amount.
Edit: also, the amount of money was bigger in the past, so the potential losses from restoring the subsidy are larger than the potential gains from eliminating it.