Quote:
Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois
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.
|
Pretty much bang on. I would thank this a million times if I could because its exactly what is taking place.