Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Isn't this charge the same for every new build? Reading this thread and the other news articles, that's the impression I get. Everyone, whether its a new high rise condo downtown, or single family home on the edge of the city is paying this, aren't they?
I guess if you want to consider that a "sprawl subsidy", then sure, you win. If everyone, everywhere is paying the same costs I hardly see how it matters though? It's got less to do with "sprawl" and is more about new builds in general. Maybe I'm missing something here though?
|
It's a great little piece of double-speak.
The city wants to increase revenues and decrease growth.
So they added taxes to development, and created a subsidy for development in the areas they like. The old 'subsidy' was notional in that the growth they didn't like wasn't taxed heavily enough for their tastes and the development they do like had no cost advantage. So a new tax and an actual subsidy solves both, but 'ending sprawl subsidy' makes for a way better headline.
It's sort of like Notleys 'revenue neutral' carbon tax. Fun with words.