SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Suburbs (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=284)
-   -   Flamborough (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=149939)

coalminecanary Apr 24, 2008 12:51 PM

Flamborough
 
This business in Flamborough is funny. They are mad that the slot machine income will be spread through the entire city.

Who do they think is paying for the hwy6 expansion? The overpass going in at clappisons? Ploughing and maintaining the long stretches of road between their spread-apart rural houses? The entire city is!

They need to get a grip. Some of the tax amounts these guys are quoting are less than mine, and I guarantee their property is bigger, and probably their house too -- and worth more. That's how property taxes work!

Sad to say, but the flamborough region has seen huge property value increases over the past decade and higher taxes are part of that deal. None of them are crying about their house value doubling but raise the taxes 10% and they want to run away from home...

I kinda want to see them de-amalgamate just to see what happens. I don't think they realize that they can't just deamalgamate themselves at the flick of a switch...

flar Apr 24, 2008 1:03 PM

I agree in principle that the slot money should go to the city as a whole, but the amount is not that great and the city could easily afford to phase the new arrangement in to buy some goodwill. Flamborough already hates being part of the city; tax issues are just about the number one thing to get people riled up. Pasuta has already stated he'll be voting down anything and everything benefiting the rest of the city (like LRT). He was quote in the Spec saying "I never forgive and I never forget". All of the acrimony could have been prevented at minimal cost.

raisethehammer Apr 24, 2008 1:12 PM

I do feel bad for folks in rural Flamborough. they should be able to separate from Waterdown...Waterdown is really the problem with it's unchecked sprawl, highways and costly infrastructure. As Coamine said, the entire city pays for all that crap.
Rural Flamborough is getting screwed IMO. that ward needs to be split in half. suburban and rural.

realcity Apr 24, 2008 1:29 PM

tell Flamboro that Dofasco and Stelco's taxes stay in the lower city and the airport taxes stay on the mountain.

They are so misinformed they all think they subsidize Hamilton. All of Flamboro generates less then half the revenue then West Mountain alone. They don't realize that their taxes have increased mostly from the Assessments Office at Queens Park. They've not been paying their share for a long time, maybe never. Paying for long stretches of road between houses and huge lots gets expensive.... pony up.

It was narrowly passed last night 8 - 7 in favour. A deal is a deal.....

raisethehammer Apr 24, 2008 1:32 PM

less than half of the west mountain?? where the heck does the west mountain generate taxes?
I'd love to see the comparison to the north end neighbourhoods with stelco/dofasco etc.... or downtown wards with all the office towers.

realcity Apr 24, 2008 1:48 PM

I know, that's what I thought. From Whitehead.. It must be houses, one cluster of high rises, and basically two commercial strips along Mohawk.

Mostly houses.... the Scenic drive homes are totally getting ripped, but if they want to pay $700 a month (in just taxes) to live on Scenic, I hope the view is worth it?... it's your money. Even being 'close' to scenic -- which the city defines as all the way to Sanatorium, they're paying a hefty premium. I looked at one super-60s-Boogey-Nights house on West 20ish about two blocks away from Scenic and the taxes were $4800 for a normal sized lot and $300,000 house. I couldn't justify the tax payment being 75% of my mortgage payment.

SteelTown Apr 24, 2008 1:53 PM

^ Combine all that with the hikes for the water bills as the city is replacing the water lines because of the countless floods in the area (Sanatorium).

raisethehammer Apr 24, 2008 2:22 PM

who the heck does crybaby MacCarthy think is paying for her nifty Hwy 6 interchange and endless sprawl servicing?? if ALL of flamborough only generates that measley amount of taxes, they are completing getting a free ride on the backs of urban dwellers, downtowners, scenic drivers etc.....

beanmedic Apr 24, 2008 2:38 PM

The council meeting is being replayed on cable 14 at noon if you missed it.

Millstone Apr 24, 2008 2:55 PM

I like McCarthy's attitude. Anybody catch that St. Marys meeting walkout?

raisethehammer Apr 24, 2008 3:07 PM

I heard about it....
that's exactly my point. she's a friggin crybaby.
they got a free ride for 26 years under the old 'regional government'. now we're slowly trying to play catch-up and she's acting like they're so hard done by.
why don't we give the rest of the city a massive break for 26 years and see how she likes it.

the dude Apr 24, 2008 3:22 PM

can we just deamalgamate, please? it's the best for all considered.

HAMRetrofit Apr 24, 2008 3:22 PM

I think creating a tax free zone downtown is the best way to stimulate reinvestment. Create a high density enterprise zone. Raise taxes in the suburbs.

Millstone Apr 24, 2008 3:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the dude (Post 3507431)
can we just deamalgamate, please? it's the best for all considered.

From what I've read, Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough wanted to become a city and Stoney Creek-Glanbrook another one, as one of the proposals for amalgamation 8 years ago?

In any event, just sever Hamilton proper back off. =)

LikeHamilton Apr 24, 2008 4:12 PM

Flamborough likes to shoot themselves in the foot and blame everyone else. I was doing some research on this year’s budget and came across the numbers for area rated items for 2008. I am using population for the calculations, as I cannot find the number of household info on the cities web site. The ratios should be close.
Flamborough's culture and recreation amount actually went down by $299,842. Their increase for improved fire service was $834,647. Their increase for HSR was $263,672. That gives them as increase on the area rated part of taxes of $798,477 or approx. $20 per person based on 40,000 population in Flamborough. If there were no area rating, then 505,000 people would be paying the bill. It would work out to just $1.58 per person for Flamborough’s tax increase.
Area rating only works in area’s that are stable and have no growth in services. But the blame everyone else for their mess!

JT Jacobs Apr 24, 2008 4:15 PM

Perhaps the City could have been a little more gentle with the revenue transition by phasing it in gradually. However, I have a hard time with the general contention that Flamborough got screwed. They pay the lowest taxes in the city, and are just now coming into line with the rest of the GHA.

Naturally services in the rural areas cannot be compared to urban services. Finally, the issue is that the GHA is one unit. As such, all revenue should be shared.

Queen's Park will never allow de-amalgamation, but if it did, I woudn't mind ditching the suburbs. Once Hamilton prospers again, the suburbs will change their collective tune. Oh, and if they are severing, that should mean an immediate cessation of all services (like public transit, however limited it may be). There are benefits to being attached to a large city.

Finally, the idea of a tax-free zone downtown to stimulate urban investment is a pretty terrific idea to me.

realcity Apr 25, 2008 1:30 PM

No Flamboro wanted to be part of Burlington and Waterloo Region. They just like how it sounded better then being 'From Hamilton'.

Here's what Flamboro does..

allows 3+ acre lots for houses,
only accessible by 2 and 4 lane highways, then complains about road traffic and access
spreads out the houses so that servicing via Fire/Ambulance is difficult and costly,
Roads are expensive each rate payers alone has to pay for that massive stretch of asphalt in front of their 300 foot frontage, or the rest of the city has to subsidize their sprawl, then complains about the condidtions of the roads,
doesn't build sidewalks, then complains they don't even have them,
has too a low density of residents that HSR is not possible/viable, then complains they don't have HSR (they wouldn't use it anyway)
the homeowners cover 2 of their 3 acres with useless lush green lawns then complains about the water bill and water restrictions in drought imposed by the City

they're completely ignorant of the facts, I'm not sure why the City is so afraid of educating them?

realcity Apr 25, 2008 1:33 PM

They chose to live in the middle of nowhere that's what they get.
I guess it's expensive to be an idiot

Hammer Native Apr 25, 2008 1:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by realcity (Post 3509766)
No Flamboro wanted to be part of Burlington and Waterloo Region. They just like how it sounded better then being 'From Hamilton'.

Here's what Flamboro does..

allows 3+ acre lots for houses,
only accessible by 2 and 4 lane highways, then complains about road traffic and access
spreads out the houses so that servicing via Fire/Ambulance is difficult and costly,
Roads are expensive each rate payers alone has to pay for that massive stretch of asphalt in front of their 300 foot frontage, or the rest of the city has to subsidize their sprawl, then complains about the condidtions of the roads,
doesn't build sidewalks, then complains they don't even have them,
has too a low density of residents that HSR is not possible/viable, then complains they don't have HSR (they wouldn't use it anyway)
the homeowners cover 2 of their 3 acres with useless lush green lawns then complains about the water bill and water restrictions in drought imposed by the City

they're completely ignorant of the facts, I'm not sure why the City is so afraid of educating them?

Actually you're both right. The above idea was one proposal, and also Flamborough, Ancaster, and Dundas proposed becoming one city (or town). It was Spec cartoonist Graeme MacKay that came up with City of Flambasterdas. Like you said, anything but Hamilton.

fastcarsfreedom Apr 25, 2008 11:05 PM

This entire thread has disgusted and disappointed me. Bitterness and provincial thinking as thick here as it is among the vocal few in Flamborough and other locales that are "anti-Hamilton." The generalizations about "idiots" are rich--it's certainly justifiable to brand thousands of people based upon someone's complaints about watering restrictions. If there are prostitues at Main & Emerald does that mean everyone in the Lower City is prostitute?

There are so many complete and utter inaccuricies in this thread it's almost laughable.

Lastly, though I have no specific knowledge of the funding sources for the project--I can assure you that the Highway 5/6 reconstruction is an MTO project, and not a City one. And though I am "less concerned" about sprawl than others here--the vast majority of Waterdown's "sprawl" has occured post-amalgamation--in fact interim control by-laws limiting the scope of the "power center" development at 5/6 disappeared with the Town of Flamborough--prior to that there were measures in place designed to protect the village businesses in Waterdown.

I'm even disappointed in myself for participating in this thread.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.