Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
A few things:
- Operating costs are location dependent too. Lot size is a factor, but so is lot location - particularly when it comes to transportation.
- Revenues are significantly higher for inner city lots.
|
Operating costs are location dependant but where a house is in the city is purely a function of wealth. Your own statement that the inner city is more desireable agrees with this. So you shouldnt increase tax on a postage stamp lot just because it is located in Bridlewood instead of sunnyside. The reason the house in Bridlewood is so far out is because of a lack of density everywhere from the core out. So its not fair to put the transporatation costs entirely on the person doing the commuting. The cost of that commute needs to be born by the people who cause that comute to be long. Those people are space users not yops or lattes.
As for revenues being higher for similar square footage lots that is the progressive nature of our tax system where wealthier people pay more in tax than less wealthy people. A person in an inner city sfh makes more than a person in a burb sfh and a person in an urban condo makes more than one in a suburban condo.
Tax lifestyle choice not wealth. As an aside I have always been curious in the lot size of the more vocal latte sippers. Are they causing more sprawl that the yops? Or are they too living on postage stamp lots in cookie cutter infills.