Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I agree with you here. For some reason though we have a quick shot against the suburban home owners in this thread when it's irrelevant. Like I say, I have no issue with increased taxes for services and infrastructure that I think the city should provide. There are plenty of place where that money should be directed, but its not a "sprawl" or "suburbs" issue where the city would have all the money they need if it weren't for the minivan driving soccer mom.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
I call it posturing because you are treating criticism of a policy like it's a personal affront to a large segment of the population. That's classic wedge politics.
|
So exactly what wedge am I driving here? I just don't think the only issue the city faces is sprawl. You seem to think that this is some great panacea, but there are a lot of services and provisions that the city provides that are not impacted by sheer footprint.
I realise fully that there are certain things I want the city to undertake and provide, and those items all come with a price tag. I also think there are some areas where some cost savings could be had though. This is the point of zero based budgeting and I recognize that after the process is complete each taxpayer might have to fork over a few extra bucks; I'm fine with that. I think most people are, and no one expects a free ride. I just think that most of us want to see an honest review of the budget before the final ask for more cash from taxpayers.