Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
This is just silly though. You're trying to argue that this amount is so egregious on one hand must be stopped immediately. At the same time, when someone asks where the money will be redirected, its not much money at all. Its obviously not both.
If the savings is so small so as to be ineffective when the funds are allocated elsewhere it makes me wonder what's driving this fight in the first place. Ideology? Ego?
|
No, I'm not trying to argue that the initial, capital subsidy is huge. The total lifecycle subsidy is what's huge, and we can reduce that by reducing the capital subsidy. So in the short run, it's $30M/y. In the long run, it's more. Where would $30M/y go? Could be taxes, could be services, but most people would barely notice a difference. Either way, it's better than where it currently goes, which is into incentivizing a city form that's costly to maintain. Heck, the $52M/y was small potatoes too.
What's driving this? Principle. Having supply management double the price of cheese doesn't affect my life very much, but it's still ridiculous that we make dairy farmers rich at the expense of the general public through market intervention.
There's also a risk of backsliding. If we go back to the previous agreement, we'd be looking at $80M+/y. That's becoming more significant, particularly if compared to inflation.
====================
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
According to Conference Board of Canada, 80% of Canadians would prefer to live in a single-family home. High-density setting does increase property taxes from a smaller area of land (the point that Rollin Stanley love to proclaim on his stupid slides), but they also bring a variety of negative issues, i.e. traffic woes, inner-city infrastructure shortages, crime etc. It should not be one or another when it comes to housing, but a peaceful co-existence based on people's preferences.
|
80% of Canadians might prefer to drive a sports car, but that doesn't mean we should start subsidizing them.
Also you have a very flawed idea of what causes traffic. Low density is what causes traffic, because everyone has to drive everywhere. Vehicle-miles go up in a low density city, which means you need more road infrastructure. Deerfoot trail doesn't service the Beltline, it services the suburbs.
I am all for choice, but those choices have to be free of market interference. If we were talking about a growth perimeter, I'd likely be appear to be pro-suburb.