Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3
allot of the latte sippers here are pretty funny. Their basic argument is, if you made more money, or different lifestyle choices, or just generally wanted to live like me, you could too be a latte sipping hippy living in a 600 sqft box for $1800/month.
I'm not saying it is wrong to choice that type of lifestyle, but I'm guessing us YOP gobblers don't chose that lifestyle because we don't find it remotely attractive. We want a big house and a quite park near by because we want space for our kids to to have toys, or a dog without going down 7 stories for every piss, or to have our large families over regularly, because we want to take our family to a small playground with a few people at it rather than a crowed pathway.
There are lifestyle choices people make, because it's what will make them happy. And to assume it would not be an imposition on me to live more like you is kind of funny.
This topic also makes we wonder. Who is paying for all of those water main repairs on 14th? Why do some many of you Latte sipping hippies think the CRL for east village was such a good idea? What do I care if some place a few blocks from your home is where bums like to gather and shoot up. Why should my tax dollars go towards addressing innercity problems when they could just send a bill to everyone living in those communities. It's not really about driving development in one place or another, but ensuring that development is more financially sustainable for the City, wherever it happens.
I understand that the city wants to slow outward development for many reasons. So I do understand to policy decision going forward. But to assert some tax payers should have user fees on public infrastructure is kind of crazy. I don't think that's what this policy is about, I think its about trying to steer development to where the city needs it, in the past it went the other way, because that is where the city needed development.
|
There's apartment-dwelling latte sippers (often at the childless stage) but also a lot of latte sippers with kids in (decently large) inner city houses.
As for the levy. There is a new levy for redevelopment to help cover the cost of new water and wastewater treatment capacity. The new community levies have been a round for a long time, but now cover "100%" of the cost of infrastructure to service those communities. Previously, existing rate-payers and tax-payers picked up more of the tab for infrastructure that primarily benefitted specific new subvivisions. Developers already paid all on-site infrastructure costs, this is for off-sites like pipe extensions, treatment, interchanges, fire stations, rec centres and so forth. Redevelopment does pay for things like sanitary pipe upgrades, not through a levy, but through one-off payments if their development is triggering a capacity constraint. Levies are usually more on per unit basis, but are predictable, these one-offs are not predictable.