Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassic Lab
I'm not really sure if a change would really be for the better. As it is developers typically pay for the initial infrastructure in both new single family neighborhoods and high sensity infill projects, so it isn't like the inner city is really subsidizing sprawl, which very much was the case twenty years ago. As is can you imagine the effects of a lot size tax on older working class and lower class communities. People in Forest Lawn would never be able to pay a rate comparable to Mount Royal, especially if the rate increased to cover reduced taxes on multifamily developments. Property values would crumble in Forest Lawn and we'd end up with permanent ghettos in formerly working class communities. A tax on property value on the other hand is atleast fair on an ability to pay basis.
On the other hand I could agree with some form of lifestyle tax to influence people away from larger lots and towards a more sustainable manner of living. It just would have to be done in a manner that doesn't hammer the poor.
|
i live in albert park/raddison which many of you hear consider it forest lawn
city asssed my home at 550,000 i get a downtow view, skyline view and mountain view, how is that ghetto? my home and view is just as good or if not better then crescent hill, i even was accepte at western canada high school not becasue of my marks, because where i lived, i like everythign about forest lawn but that high school they really neglect it by putting in bozo teachers, no IB program nothing.
just like the public library in forest lawn, its the busiest per capita in calgary but yet it was pretty much neglected last to get "renovated" and still pretty small considering theres tons of land the goverment could of purchased. go ot the nw communities even the older ones and they huge librarys with everything in them.