Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
This is true but it isn’t based on the cost the city incurs as a result of property size. It’s based on the perceived value to a perspective buyer. It also doesn’t account for the class of home either. If you look at a 450k inner city condo vs a 450k suburban home they pay the same property tax. A person who chooses the 450k condo has less impact on the city but that isn’t reflected in tax rate.
What I want the system to do is reflect cost to the city in a component of city taxes but not just be punitive on people who can’t afford to live closer.
Why does location matter? Isn’t that just a function of the ability to afford and zoning restrictions. I’m not seeing a cost to the city based on where the impact occurs. The total acreage of the city remains unchanged.
|
I don't disagree that a $450k condo/townhouse in the inner city vs a $450k suburban home obviously have a totally different foot prints and costs to the city for hooking up utilities, roads, infrastructure etc. However, the costs to maintain the infrastructure in the inner city are significantly higher when you have higher end amenities in the inner city as well as higher usage on roads/infrastructure, +15 etc. than that of suburbia. I don't think there's an issue with both properties paying the same amount of tax. This is the result if you have a smoothing type of system that our municipality has. It's also hard to differentiate usage unless you charge specifically for extra usage. This would probably manifest as things such as zone fees for transit, toll roads etc. is how you'd penalize those that live further away. By the way, Calgary already has a basic level of zone fee for transit. It literally is the free fare zone down town and then flat fee for the rest of the city for 90 minutes.
Honestly speaking, this is the first time I've ever heard the weighted property tax debate based on geographic location in the city. The suburbs are already taxed slightly extra with the extra hook up fees that the city has been putting on developers who then just pass the cost on to the buyer. It does make sense to charge extra to hook up these new communities at times as extra infrastructure is required to build more servicing nodes the further out you go. But after they're hooked up and the infrastructure is in place, isn't it no different than any other place in the city? Over tweak property tax and it's no worse than watching condos with high condo fees plummet in sale price because of the extra cost required to retain said property via condo fees. Do anymore than this, I can't help but imagine you'd see an inadvertent effect that causes Chestermere, Okotoks, Cochrane and Airdrie explode in population growth, then implode under the strains which are placed in their infrastructure/utilities which would just defer the issue then cause even more headache once it hits the point where Calgary just annexes them into Calgary. This also isn't considering other serious effects to smaller communities like DeWinton, Langdon, Priddis etc. that also would see sudden migration.
I seriously feel like this is a solution looking for a problem and it's a solution based on some odd sense of wanting to penalize those that live in the suburbs.
Another facet that I've noticed lately has nothing to do with age. Somewhere along the lines things changed with the way we as people behaved. We as a populace no longer behave in a way that reflects a citizen of a nation that will do his/her part for the common good or give strangers the benefit of a doubt. There is a significant portion of the population that is exceptionally selfish, never admits fault and constantly points fingers at everyone else at being at fault. I don't know what it is but it certainly isn't solely an attribute of millennials as I feel like I've witnessed an equal proportion of boomers doing the same thing. What the hell happened? Is it a concept of "the customer is always right" and a spectrum of age ranges that feels used to ripping other people down to make themselves feel better?
I feel like it used to be common to agree to disagree, but still be able to respect one another. This doesn't seem common anymore. In unity is strength. I still remember that old adage, but I haven't felt that there's been true unity and collaboration in a long time. Nowadays, I feel like outright warfare and disrespect is the common mentality out there. Maybe it's history repeating itself, because it sure feels like an eye for an eye out there right now. To me it's always insane everyone always thinks they're right. Because to me, I always consider it's plausible that everyone is wrong or everyone is right/partially right.
... god damn I feel old.