Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
That was not the point he made though. Contribution to rec centres, fire halls and other social infrastructure is an example of cooperation between developers and the City reached through a negotiated settlement that has a time frame. To campaign on a perceived subsidy while ignoring this contribution which actually exceeds the utility cost differential is morally wrong.
|
It doesn't ignore this part of the agreement at all. It's far less relevant whether our antiquated MGA allows us to unilaterally impose a levy on a category of infrastructure or not than if it is a category of infrastructure that's necessary to develop a complete community.
Even if the City had the ability to simply unilaterally impose all infrastructure it wouldn't do that in any event - it would still cooperatively negotiate largely because everyone needs to agree on the base assumptions. The issue is an infrastructure gap.
UDI does not dispute this gap exists, they simply argued that it was not inappropriate because "a year of taxes" of a new home would make up that gap. Well, the average home pays $1400 in taxes to the City, so it would actually take 3 1/2 years to make up that gap, not one. And even so, taxes are supposed to pay for operating! If they are to be considered to be paying for capital, who is paying for those 3 1/2 years of costs to deliver services to that home?